Re: substantial similarity (Was: Some Thoughts on Copyright Term)

On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Carol Shepherd <shepherd[_at_]arborlaw.com> wrote:
>
> I think the use of "public domain" with regard to Shakespeare is
> misleading, unless you consider everything in, eg, the year 1594 to be
> "public domain," by virtue of the fact that there was no protection.
>
> The non-history plays of Shakespeare were lifted from plays that were
> not only well-known, but many were still playing as contemporary work
> in the theaters at the time. Shakespeare's genius was substantially
> aided by not having to reinvent the wheel structurally; he could simply
> incrementally improve what was already there with his superior talents.
> Under the US Copyright Act of 1976, as amended, it is clear that we
> would have no modern-day Shakespeare. And indeed, we don't. And,
> further, we won't, because the law absolutely precludes it.

Actually, strengthening the copyright law should encourage genius equal to Shakespeare to invest their talent in copyrightable properties rather than investment banking and other creative ways of making a living. Few playwrights and poets can quit their day jobs.

The argument that the Copyright Act precludes a "modern-day Shakespeare" fails to recognize that the public domain, ever more abundant, includes all the works that inspired the Bard. Anyone wishing to incrementally improve what's there is welcome.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Mon Jan 18 1999 - 13:30:22 GMT