Re: Abolish Reproduction Right

Mark Lemley <mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> 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).

There is no clear fixation requirement for copies in UK law. S.17 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says (S.17(6)) says that "copying in relation to any description of work includes the making of copies which are transient or are incidental to some other use of the work". At the WIPO conference, attempts to get a similar provision into the treaty failed.

Edward Barrow
<edward[_at_]plato32.demon.co.uk> Received on Thu Apr 03 1997 - 20:24:46 GMT