Re: Re: copyrghts in famous painting

From: Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:15:30 -0500

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Webb, Jere wrote:

[re: example under the 1909 Act]

> There must be something I am missing here. Is there an argument that
> taking a photograph of the work and distributing it is not a publication
> of painting? If widely published without notice, the copyrights went
> out the window.

Under pre-1989 law, courts were hesitant to use an infringer's distribution of a work as a divesting publication; unless the copyright owner knew of that distribution and tacitly apprived it by not objecting. Received on Thu Jan 19 2006 - 21:15:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:56 GMT