Re: Abolish Reproduction Right

Robert Cumbow <cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> writes:
>
> The fact that reproductions "are no longer tangible" should make no
> difference. One of the requirements for copyright protection is that
> the ORIGINAL COPYRIGHTED WORK be "fixed in a tangible medium." I don't
> recall any requirement that an unauthorized reproduction has to be
> tangible in order to be an infringement.
>

Actually, section 106(1) gives the copyright owner the right to control the reproduction of a work "in copies." This means that the same fixation requirement applies to reproductions as to original copyrighted works (because of the definition of a "copy" in section 101).

There is some dispute as to whether the creation of derivative works requires such fixation; for an unusual attempt to resolve this issue, see Lewis Galoob Toys v. Nintendo, 964 F.2d 965 (9th Cir. 1992).

Mark Lemley
Assistant Professor, University of Texas School of Law Of Counsel, Fish & Richardson, P.C.
mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu

For information on the Intellectual Property program at UT, see http://www.utexas.edu/law/intelprop/ Received on Tue Apr 01 1997 - 17:43:54 GMT