Re: Dissertation on "the Internet and Moral Rights"

On 10/3/97, Thomas Cotter <cotter[_at_]law.ufl.edu> wrote:
>
> My recollection is that the legislative history indicates the
> language was added to make sure that destruction of, say, a child's
> kindergarten drawing doesn't violate the act. You might want to
> check the House Report, reprinted in 1990 USCCAN 6915.

That was, indeed, the ostensible reason. Of course, even the most strongly-worded of the "art preservation" type state statutes wouldn't have reached that result, since it is always necessary, to come within the definition of "work of fine art" or whatever the local equivalent is, the work has to be shown to be of a serious nature or by a recognized artist.

Of course, under the first part of the standard, some of those late back-of-the-envelope pencil sketches by Picasso might not qualify. Maybe they shouldn't.

• Vance R. Koven phone: 617-482-3852 *
• attorney at law fax: 617-482-4972 *
• 20 Park Plaza, Ste. 520 net: vrkoven[_at_]world.std.com *
• Boston, MA 02116-4303 *

  ---