Re: "Publication" of Web Pages

On 7/30/97, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
>
> On 7/29/97, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Robert Cumbow <cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > (to my surprise) the Copyright Office does not regard web sites
> > > as "published works."
> >
> > That's consistent with the definition of "publication." The gist of
> > publication is distribution of copies, and specifically excludes
> > mere public display or public performance.
>
> Copyright Office practice is inconsistent with the proposition that
> mounting material on the web is a distribution of copies? Oh dear.
> Commissioner Lehman is going to *soooo* disappointed.

My first reaction is that the proposition that putting material on a web site is not publication does not seem a reasonable position. (forgive the double negative, expressed otherwise - placing material on a web sight strikes me as publication) I am inclined to think of "publication" as making something available for public review, which a web site clearly does. The idea that the act, unknown to the author/owner, of printing screen shots is necessary to achieve publication seems strained.

Then I started to think about the consequences of not having the work defined as published, and it makes a sort of strained reason, particularly from the Copyright Office perspective:

• This avoids making authors routinely print out and send in screen shots because there is no deposit requirement for unpublished works.

Viewed from the author/owner's perspective:

• the term of copyright is increased 25 years (75 yrs from first publication or 100 from creation)
• third parties are afforded fewer fair use rights for unpublished works.
• on the flip side, registration must precede infringement for an unpublished work in order to recover statutory awards and attorneyıs fees.

Brian E. Lewis
Associate General Counsel
Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
<lawman[_at_]wizards.com> Received on Thu Jul 31 1997 - 22:24:02 GMT