Re: Religious Exemption

On 4/28/97, Robert Cumbow <cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> wrote:
>
> Clearly since this involves only works created under the 1909 Act it
> arguably has ever-diminishing importance; I brought it up in the
> context of this thread largely because it seems to represent the
> philosophically preposterous notion that you can publish a recording
> of a song and still consider the underlying song "unpublished." I
> understand--and agree--that the recording and the song are two
> different works for copyright and authorship purposes, as Mr. Noble
> points out; but it seems like eating your cake and having it too, to
> say that a musical work can be recorded and remain unpublished.
> That's sorta like Tom Clancy claiming that a publisher's printing and
> distribution of his latest book was not a publication of the underlying
> novel. It's a real head-scratcher for me.

I'm not wedded to the theory, but the distinction between the recording of a song and the publication of Tom Clancy's novel is that the recorded song is a derivative of the song, one with new elements of voice, sound, etc. -- by definition a "new" work; the publication of Mr. Clancy's novel is only, and completely, a publication of his text -- it is not a separately copyrightable work. I wonder whether under the 1909 Act, they would have treated the publication of a derivative as a publication of the underlying work.

John Noble
<jnoble[_at_]dgs.dgsys.com> Received on Tue Apr 29 1997 - 20:08:22 GMT