Re: A Little Linguistic Playground

On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Mark Lemley <mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> I think Jessica's point (correct, as always) is that if you infringe
> someone else's material in preparing your derivative work, you *do
> not own copyright* in your own original work intermingled with the
> infringing stuff. They don't need to sue you and win to cause this
> to happen; the infringement has prevented you from owning copyright
> in your own creations.

Hmm... This is a remarkable interpretation of section 103(a).

Following your lead, Mark, I suppose your position would be that the infringing derivative work is essentially automatically placed into the public domain? That is, this occurs without the necessity of a judgment that the underlying infringement occurred, and that this is the legal advice you would offer a client regarding whether she could use the derivative work (less, the duly protected subsisting work, of course)? And, if this is not the advice you would offer, what is the significance of your interpretation of section 103(a)?

-- 
Rod Dixon
rod[_at_]cyberspaces.org
http://www.cyberspaces.org/
202-270-9422