On 1/22/99, Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]attymail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/21/99, Mark Lemley <mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >
> > But I assume the text Bob cites is in an author's dagger note, and
> > therefore immediately follows (or perhaps precedes) the author's
> > name. Arguably that is sufficient to "give reasonable notice of
> > the claim of copyright." 401(c). Why isn't that ample?
>
> As I noted, I looked at this on Lexis, not in hard copy.
First mistake -- looking at things in Lexis. (If you buy the logic of Tasini, it doesn't matter what order things show up in a database...)
> Here's the first page down to Dan's name (I've left-justified it):
>
> Copyright (c) 1998 University of South Carolina
> South Carolina Law Review
Which is wrong, since I did not assign them a copyright -- just a nonexclusive license to publish. I've never been clear on when this gets added in the law review process, but I think it's actually added by LEXIS.
Say, I wonder if this is an unauthorized alteration of my CMI?
> Summer, 1998
>
> 49 S.C. L. Rev. 695
>
> LENGTH: 25214 words
>
> ARTICLE:
> Trademark Doctrines for Global Electronic Commerce *
>
> * Copyright 1997.
> All Rights Reserved. The author wishes to thank Judith
> Ricci for research assistance in the preparation of
> this Article.
Note that the date here is carried by the law review directly from the manuscript, which was completed in 1997, but published in 1998. If it had been loaded by LEXIS in 1999, they would have added that date, too.
> Dan L. Burk **
>
> I've never heard the phrase "author's dagger note" before, but I'm
> assuming you mean the small footnoted paragraph that explains who
> the author is. In other words, the two asterisks next to Dan's name
> point the reader to another set of two asterisks and a note. If
> that's so, it is not in the dagger note
Mark's point is that notice in the dagger note (in this case, double asterisk note) follows the name.
(Actually, my custom has been to put the name in the footnote notice as well as below the title -- the students at U.S.C. probably removed it from the footnote. One of the hazards of the profession where the prof grade the exams and the students edit the journals.)
> (which is pretty skimpy and just says his title and where he works)
> but above his name
That is LEXIS's formatting -- I'm not really seeing how it is relevant.
> (and precedes Judith's name).
Which doesn't seem relevant at all.
> As to the part of the code that you quote, that is as to *position*
> of notice, not as to *form* of notice. I don't see how this
> particular notice complies with the form.
Unless I've misunderstood Mark, see my comment above.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:34 GMT