--- Eric Sherrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, but in the _Salinger_ case, these were
> unpublished letters that
> Salinger wished to prevent from being published.
> Usenet posts and public
> mailing list posts are the very definition of
> published, widely disseminated
> works. Thus I would distinguish _Salinger_ from
> _Cohen_, which seems more
> applicable to the current discussion.
I agree. I'd also like to add that this presents a problematic
international comparative problem because in French and other
Jurisductions recognizing the right of retraction these posts (and some
much else...) is all subject to retraction, perhaps despite any
contractural waiver or other assignment of economic rights for copying
or adapatation..
Also the treatment of unpublished works is quirky through Berne and
across other jurisidictions. I don't think it's especially relevant in
the Debian context except for stuff maybe a developer authors but
intends not to distribute. If he inadvertantly distributes it or its
taken might be some interesting questions.
> Unfortunately I can't find a cite for _Cohen_,
> apparently the free 9th Cir.
> search site does not have it, and I don't want/can't
> afford to help prop up
> the West Publishing and Lexis/Nexis duopoly.
Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990), cert
denied, 498 US 1103 (1991).
Ninth circuit website only provides opinions beginning from 1995... ;<
Quick summary is b-grade horror movie company contracts with special
effects company to make special effects for the horror movie, doesn't
pay their bill, then the effects company attempts to block the company's
use of the footage... unsuccessfully.. Court holds the movie company had
a non-exclusive license. Interesting lead to discussions of whether the
GPL will be treated as a condition or covenant to a license. I address
this point briefly in a recent article, but seems quite messy in the
international context--especially the contract considerations...
Gotta love the ninth circuit anyway.. ;)
> (Offtopic ex-lawyer gripe: bah, it's impossible to
> do Harvard Bluebook
> format cites in ASCII email! I wonder if they've
> re-written the Bluebook to
> account for this since I graduated from law school,
> or if they just assume
> everybody in law just uses Word or Wordperfect....).
I guess I never get my stuff bolded/underlined property until several
edits later anyway so.. ;)
> --
> Eric R. Sherrill, WF Software Systems Engineer
> Texas Instruments HFAB1 Automation Systems
> Stafford, TX 77477-3006
> 281-274-4133
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam TH [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 5:39 PM
> To: James Miller
> Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Email Archive Request
>
>
> On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 03:58:29PM -0400, James
> Miller wrote:
> > Courts have construed the conveyance of
> coyprighted material and later
> > attempts to revoke rights to "use" as
> unenforceable. In a case
> > involving a company that did some special effects
> for a movie company
> > that then failed to pay their bills, the court
> held the deadbeat company
> > enjoyed a non-exclusive license to the copyrighted
> material.
> >
> > If people would like a cite I can supply it later.
> The parties were
> > something like Cohen v. ?? Special Effects. I
> think it was a 9th
> > circuit case.
>
> Another significant case, in the other direction, is
> the Salinger
> case, in the 2nd Circut I believe, in which Salinger
> successfuly
> prevented the publication of exceprts of letters he
> had written and
> sent to other people, on the grounds that he held
> the copyright.
>
> The cite is Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d
> 90 (2d Cir.),
> cert. denied 484 U.S. 890 (1987).
>
> The text is available at
> http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/salinger.html
>
>
>
> sam th --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
> http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
> OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC ---
> http://samth.dyndns.org/key
> DeCSS: http://samth.dynds.org/decss
>
