RE: copyright of briefs

From: Joseph P. Riolo <riolo[_at_]scranton.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 20:56:47 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, Robert Cumbow wrote:
>
> Any work of original authorship is protected by copyright unless it
> consists entirely of uncopyrightable matter. The fact that someone's
> work has become part of a public record does not invalidate the author's
> copyright and right to exercise control over subsequent uses. See,
> e.g., Marvin Worth Prods. v. Superior Films Corp., 319 F. Supp. 1269
> (SDNY 1970) and Douglas Intl Corp. v. Baker, 335 F. Supp. 282 (SDNY
> 1971) [Lenny Bruce's monologues could not be subsequently used in films
> or plays about him, merely because they had become part of public court
> records].

I notice that the decisions were made in 1970 and 1971. At that time, if any writing that is published and does not have the copyright notice, it is in the public domain. I wonder if the briefs are considered "published". If not, I can understand the reasoning behind the decisions. But, without seeing the decisions (the law library at my hometown is open when I am at work and is closed when I am at home unless I take some time off from work), I am wondering about the status of copyright on the briefs before 1976.

......................... Joseph Pietro Riolo .........................

............... <riolo[_at_]scranton.com> <riolo[_at_]prolog.net> ............... .............. Moderator of <publicdomain[_at_]hunterdon.com> .............. Received on Thu Oct 17 1996 - 00:54:38 GMT