Re: Religious Exemption

John Noble <jnoble[_at_]dgs.dgsys.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

I don't know the answer to the question in the last sentence; and I DO acknowledge that the differences between an underlying musical work and a recording of that work are arguably greater than the differences between an underlying novel and a specific printed edition of that novel. There are, nevertheless, differences, and they are arguably copyrightable differences; so it seems to me that the distinction is merely one of degree rather than kind. I confess to remaining baffled about how a sound recording of a musical work could be viewed as NOT a publication of the underlying work.

Bob Cumbow
<cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> Received on Wed Apr 30 1997 - 17:12:06 GMT