On 10/26/99, Don Roemer <droe2[_at_]earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> The lawyer drafts the contract -- let's say he has an undisputed
> copyright in the aforementioned document (at that moment in time (even
> if it is merely a jumble of facts)). His client tenders it to my
> client. My client and I mark it all up, make revisions, make changes,
> make substitutions to clauses, etal. It goes back to the orig. client
> and lawyer drafter. They make their changes and re-type. Many of my
> revisions are now part and parcel of the final contract draft. Who
> holds copyright?
All my comments should be thought of as technical and abstract. As you imply, such technicalities and abstractions in the real world are mostly forgotten. The reality is that almost no one sues for copyright infringement because a contract was copied.
Assuming that the "original" contract was copyrightable, Author-Lawyer would have all rights, including the right to make derivative works. By giving it to you (and your client) to make changes, he arguably consented to your making changes to it. Therefore, to the extent that your changes transformed the original into a derivative work and that derivative work is copyrightable, either you would be the owner of that copyright, or you and your client would be the owners as joint authors. If there are subsequent derivative works, the analysis goes on.
> A short time later my client sues for breach. It is widely reported
> in the news. Because of the publicity, 14 dozen folks descend on the
> courthouse to get a copy of the case file from the clerk. The file
> contains the contract (with a claim of copyright by the original lawyer
> posted in it) can the author (whomever that may turn out to be) sue the
> clerk of court?
Yeah, but we all know that states and their agencies are immune from such suit. :-) And I certainly hope that all you authors have registered your copyrights before the infringement occurs.
> In my state ANYTHING filed in the public record is not only open to
> view but can lawfully be copied per the law and state constitution.
> Let's assume that a recently written and formally registered manuscript
> was made part of the court record. How does the law reconcile making
> copies of court files that contains material under copyright protection?
> And how does it deal with folks republishing all the data found within
> the file (public record) on Web sites and in other media?
It doesn't. We've had these discussions before. No one sues.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:37 GMT