Re: Copyright Infringement Happening at Conference Group - Help!

Bill Scanlon <wscanlon[_at_]execpc.com> writes:
>
> No, Joseph did not "have it pretty much right." Joseph indicated that
> until March 1, 1989 a work needed a copyright notice or there would be
> no US copyright. That is not correct. The important date is January 1,
> 1978 - since that date the existence of US copyright in a work has not
> required publication with notice.
>
> Yes, it is a true that notice requirements were further liberalized as
> of March 1, 1989.
>
> Section 405(a) of the present Act, which has been substantively
> unchanged since January 1, 1978 except that it now applies only to
> "copies and phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the
> copyright owner before [March 1, 1989]" provides three methods of
> curing the absence of notice, to the extent such notice was
> required from January 1, 1978 to February 28, 1989:
>
> [The absence of notice] does not invalidate the copyright
> in a work if -
> (1) the notice has been omitted from no more than a
> relatively small number of copies or phonorecords
> distributed to the public; or
> (2) registration for the work has been made before or
> is made within five years after the publication without
> notice, and a reasonable effort is made to add notice
> to all copies or phonorecords that are distributed to
> the public in the United States after the omission has
> been discovered; or
> (3) the notice has been omitted in violation of an
> express requirement in writing that, as a condition of
> the copyright owner's authorization of the public
> distribution of copies or phonorecords, they bear the
> prescribed notice.
>
> Plainly, then, since January 1, 1978, copyright notice on publicly
> distributed copies or phonorecords of a work was not required for an US
> copyright in the work to come into existence.
>

While strictly accurate, I fear this is somewhat misleading.

Between 1978 and 1989, including a copyright notice was a requirement for protection in the US courts. Under the section Bill cites, someone who failed to place such a copyright notice could in limited circumstances cure an inadvertent or uncontrollable failure to do so. But notice was still required.

In 1989, the requirement was entirely abolished. One could call this a "further liberalization," but that seems a bit jaundiced.

Mark Lemley
<mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> Received on Mon Jul 20 1998 - 17:33:03 GMT