Re: All Rights Reserved

On 01/25/99, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On 1/22/99, Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]attymail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> I think that that's correct.
>
> Westlaw includes a copyright notice indicating Santa Clara Computer and
> High Technology Law Journal as a copyright owner one of my articles.
> The Journal has no rights to my article other than first publication
> rights and the right to authorize publication in Lexis and Westlaw.
> And I know that the Journal did not claim a copyright in my article
> when licensing Lexis and Westlaw, because I was the Editor-in-Chief of
> the Journal at the time of the license. The addition of SCC&HTLJ as a
> copyright owner appears to have been gratuitously added by West.

When the word "Rights" is in a statement, does not that mean the statement only relates to whatever legal rights the writer is entitled to are thus reserved to that person for whatever duration is given in the contract to give them those "Rights"? I am not a lawyer but that sounds logical to me, and the statement would then not be incorrect or misleading unless you are prone to interpret the whole message in a certain way... that word "Rights" then becomes a delimiter of the legal rights enjoyed by the writer. You lawyers out there tell me - am I right? (to make a bad pun)...

Earl Horsefield 303 Pine Cuba MO 65453 ehorsefield[_at_]cuba-mo-net.com and cc to ehorsefield[_at_]usgs.gov if you wish to answer privately... Received on Tue Jan 26 1999 - 16:53:41 GMT