Re: Pre-1976 ownership (Was: Art Work Photos on the Library Homepage)

From: Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu>
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 13:54:43 -0700

On 6/5/98, Christine L. Sundt <csundt[_at_]oregon.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
> Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
> >
> > Prior to the 1976 Act, there were several judicial holdings that
> > transfer of the only existing copy of the work did transfer the
> > copyright as well, but those cases have clearly been superseded
> > by the 1976 Act. See, in particular, 17 U.S.C. 202.
>
> So my question is this: Are the works that a museum received or
> purchased (transfer of ownership) prior to 1976 covered under the old
> "understanding" of the law, namely that copyright transferred with
> them or was this understanding overturned with the 1976 ruling?

When Terry first posted his message, I didn't pay much attention to this particular paragraph. For one thing I don't know much about the 1909 Act, and for another Terry is so rarely wrong I didn't question it. I will now cautiously interpose a little research I have done based on Christine's question.

Unless I'm missing something, the law for pre-1978 works is the same as post.

First a statement from Nimmer:

"Insofar as a work was protected by statutory copyright prior to 1978, the current Act merely restates what was recognized under the 1909 Act, and prior copyright laws. That is, it has long been recognized that the sale or other transfer of a material object embodying a work protected by statutory copyright does not in itself constitute an assignment or license of such copyright."

2 Nimmer sec. 10.09[A] p. 1072 (footnotes and cases omitted).

I got that quote from Knickerbocker Toy Co. v. Winterbrook Corp., 554 F. Supp. 1309 (D.N.H. 1982).

Knickerbocker referred me back to the applicable 1909 statute, which was then codified as 17 U.S.C. section 27, which reads, in relevant part:

"The copyright is distinct from the property in the material object copyrighted, and the sale or conveyance, by gift or otherwise, of the material object shall not of itself constitute a transfer of the copyright."

My query to Terry is what cases in particular are you referring to? Is my research incomplete?

---

Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu>
UCLA School of Law '98
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1206/

---

Received on Sat Jun 06 1998 - 20:53:28 GMT