Re: Copyright Infringement Happening at Conference Group - Help!

On Fri, 17 Jul 1998, Bill Scanlon <wscanlon[_at_]execpc.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

[Snipped a lot of lines to keep the post short but this in no way means any disrespect for Terry Carroll and Bill Scanlon. -jpr]

But, if a work that is published between Jan. 1, 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice and it can not be cured with any of the above three methods, does it mean that the published work falls into the public domain?

I am going to say yes but after seeing that I was wrong twice, I began to doubt my understanding on the subject.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com> Received on Mon Jul 20 1998 - 23:18:36 GMT