On 1/24/99, Mark Lemley <mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> Well, all the required elements are there; the only question is the
> position in which they are placed, and whether it gives reasonable
> notice to the reader.
Unfortunately, the statute doesn't say that the elements have to be next to each other. Funnily enough, almost every notice *does* have them next to each other. In addition, my suspicion is that the position provision relates to where the entire notice appears on the work, not where each element appears. An extreme example would be where the symbol appears on line 2, Dan's name appears on line 3,042, and the year is at line 6,155. I realize that you could then say that such an extreme example does not give reasonable notice, etc., but I still maintain that the position part of the statute does not relate to a separation of the elements.
Next time I use examples I'm gonna use them of authors other than Burk and Lemley. It's exhausting enough arguing with one professor, but when they double-team you...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:34 GMT