Re: A Little Linguistic Playground

On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Edward Barrow <edward[_at_]plato32.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Thomas Workman <tworkman[_at_]erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Joseph P. Riolo <riolo[_at_]voicenet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Thomas Workman <tworkman[_at_]erols.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Folks are missing the point. The law does not permit a copyright
> > > > to be "vacated" or revoked. There is no statutory provision for
> > > > doing so.
> > >
> > > That is not what the law says. Nowhere in the law says that I cannot
> > > put my work in the public domain.
> >
> > That statement is true. But you still miss the point. The law
> > specifies how a work obtains a copyright. When those conditions are
> > met, the copyright attaches. Anything you do or say does not "override"
> > the law, unless the law provides a specific mechanism for undoing what
> > it has done. The statutes provide no mechanism for destroying the
> > copyright, except for the passage of the requisite time, or of course
> > a subsequent law.
> >
> > I know of no cases on point, but I would not advise any client to use a
> > work without a license from the copyright owner.
>
> It seems to me that the objective of this thread is to devise a new word
> which could be universally understood to imply or convey an appropriate
> licence - in the case of "decopyright", a universal, unconditional and
> irrevocable licence in respect of all acts restricted by copyright for
> the duration of the copyright. The Free Software Foundation have
> promoted the word "copyleft" to convey a slightly more restricted
> licence, one that prohibits the imposition of restrictions on modified
> versions of the work and requires the imposition of the same "copyleft"
> licence on subsequent licensees.
>
> (I dislike "decopyright" because, besides being ugly, it implies a verb
> "to copyright")
>
> A further thought - is it intended that the 'vacation of rights' should
> extend to moral rights? Or is there a requirement for another simple
> expression to convey a universal, irrevocable licence in respect of all
> acts restricted by copyright provided that the author is identified and
> the work is not subject to modifications prejudicial to the honour and
> reputation of the author?

     The concept of "abandonment" is one that is recognized by copyright law. There are cases in which courts have applied the doctrine.

     Although the Copyright Act greants copyright owners a set of exclusive rights, the Act does not requre the owner to enforce those rights. The author can "abandon" the copyright, thereby placing the work in the public domain (so that others can freely use the work). This is different from a license.

     Abandonmen can be done explicitly or implicitly. The test is whether the copyright owner has shown by some overt act his or her intention to surrender the copyright rights. A statement such as "I abandon my copyright in this work" should suffice.

     Regards,
          Bob Kreiss

*************************************************************
* Robert A. Kreiss                          Ph. 937-229-2256 
* Professor of Law and                                       
* Director, Program in Law and Technology                    
* University of Dayton School of Law                         
* Dayton, OH  454469-2772                                             
  
* For more information about the Program in Law and          
* Technology, please visit our web site at                   
*    http://www.udayton.edu/~lawtech/                               
**************************************************************