Re: Abandoning property (Was: Copyright Extension Bill Passes Congress)

On 11/05/98, Moritz Roettinger <moritz.roettinger[_at_]dg23.cec.be> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Lance Purple <lpurple[_at_]netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > Should a published but out-of-print work be considered "abandoned"
> > after x years and become public-domain?
>
> Certainly not. Copyright is the intellectual property right of the
> author. The decision about a reprint is typically taken by the
> publisher who has different interests. (Please also don't forget
> that publication is no prerequisite for copyright protection.) If
> the publisher refuses a reprint, why should the author's copyright
> protection be put into question?

In practice, the author usually (but not always) is required to assign his or her copyright to the publisher, so the person making the decision IS the same. In other cases, the author can protect himself or herself by providing that if the work is out of print for X number of years, the rights revert to the author.

I agree that we a strict abandonment-after-X-years might be problematic, because people might start making decisions based on the assumption that if we all decline to buy it now, it may go out of print sooner, and then I can copy it for free. In addition, it does seem unfair to punish the author simply because he or she can't find a publisher willing to take the risk. But I would favor the proposal in cases where the publisher also owns the copyright. And in the future, when self-publication in digital form is likely to eventually become the norm, it might make a lot of sense.

Tyler T. Ochoa
Associate Professor
Whittier Law School
<tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> Received on Mon Nov 09 1998 - 23:54:28 GMT