Re: Now for something completely different:

From: Oliver, Derric <doliver[_at_]jazz.fantasyjazz.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 97 08:34:27 PST

On June 18, 1997, Stephen J. Hyland wrote:
>
> Furthermore, since fixation and not publication is the trigger for
> copyright in the U.S., if I create a work of art that no one besides me
> ever sees, and I toss it into the fire a mere moment after it is "fixed"
> and it is utterly destroyed, I still have copyright in that work. The
> copyright "tree" does make a sound when it falls, even if no one is
> there to hear it.

Here's my take on this topic (despite the various case citings):      

First of all, back to one of the questions from the original message:

"Is 'Mr. Wilson' an infringer?"

I'd say yes. Prior to the whether or not a copyright is abandoned, if 'Mr. Wilson' takes 'Aunt Matilda's' work out of the trash and represents it as his own, he's committing fraud/misrepresentation, false origin, a-la Lanham Act/Trademark Law?      

Secondly, isn't one of the 'magic rights' afforded to copyright owners the right to display (or as in this case, the right *not* to display) their copyrighted work? By throwing the work away and/or destroying it they've chosen not to display/publish it.      

As I see it, anyone other than the copyright owner who does so infringes on the copyright owner's exclusive rights.      

I'd certainly like to hear more on this.      

Thanks.      

Derric Oliver
<doliver[_at_]jazz.fantasyjazz.com>

---

Once again, the above is not necessarily the viewpoints or opinions of my employer. Received on Wed Jun 18 1997 - 15:43:11 GMT