Re: Oral History (Was: Re: broadcast speech)

On 4/29/98, Tyler T. Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
>
> My instinct resists that conclusion, however. I think that a U.S.
> court would be inclined to hold that there are two works: the literary
> work (the words spoken) AND the audio-visual work. A "literary work" is
> an intangible creation that becomes copyrightable when it is fixed. The
> speech is still a work "expressed in words," and the speech itself is
> not an "audio-visual work" even though it has been fixed in an
> audio-visual medium. That's pretty weak, though, since it would render
> the exclusion "other than audio-visual works" in the definition of
> literary works surplusage.
>
> Does anyone have any insight as to why the exclusion exists?

If the exclusion didn't exist, literary works would encompass audiovisual works. Despite the term audiovisual, an audiovisual work need not have any audio component, and the definitions of audiovisual work and literary work have a large overlap.

Therefore a silent audiovisual work (seems like an oxymoron, doesn't it?) might otherwise fit the definition of a literary work. The importance of exclusion comes into play in the definition of work for hire under the second proviso: if the category of audiovisual works were not restricted, a whole slew of literary works might be included, drastically expanding the scope of works eligible for work for hire treatment.

S. Martin Keleti
COHEN AND COHEN
740 North La Brea Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90038-3339
(213) 938-5000 (tel)
(213) 936-6354 (fax)
keleti[_at_]manifesto.com Received on Thu Apr 30 1998 - 18:44:16 GMT