tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post116657957611827065..comments2024-03-15T11:42:21.265-04:00Comments on The Patry Copyright Blog: Bambi's Twin Copyright HorrorsWilliam Patryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1166753732397320002006-12-21T21:15:00.000-05:002006-12-21T21:15:00.000-05:00Yes, Nick that is my view precisely and I also thi...Yes, Nick that is my view precisely and I also think it is the Copyright Office's view.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1166649561762461312006-12-20T16:19:00.000-05:002006-12-20T16:19:00.000-05:00Steve:You may be right that the court was being cl...Steve:<BR/><BR/>You may be right that the court was being cleverly oblique. For my two cents I think that if true it would be too clever by more than half because I can't imagine a state court finding the work to be unpublished.<BR/><BR/>Here's why: The courts (federal and state) developed binary concepts of investitive and divestitive publication under the 1909,meaning you were invested with federal protection by publishing with the proper notice, and that was also the exact point at which you were divested with your common law rights.<BR/><BR/>Equally, if you published without notice, you never got federal rights and you lost (were divested of) state common law, which is what I think happened to poor Bambi.<BR/><BR/>Since it didn't matter if the publication without notice occurred in a different state in which common law rights arose (say you wrote the book in NY but published it in California), I don't see why it would matter if you published without notice in Germany, but then I think Heim was wrongly decided too. But Heim is, as I noted inconsistent with Twin Books although Twin Books didn't realize the inconsistency: Heim vested federal copyright by publication overseas without notice, whereas Twin Books said publication overseas did not begin "U.S." copyright.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1166645249477420992006-12-20T15:07:00.000-05:002006-12-20T15:07:00.000-05:00Professor Patry,The Twin Books opinion states that...Professor Patry,<BR/><BR/>The Twin Books opinion states that "United States copyright" was not secured by the unnoticed publication of Bambi in Germany in 1923. As a result anyone could have sold or otherwise used the book in the United States during 1923-1925 and "the author Salten would have had no recourse under United States copyright law."<BR/><BR/>By use of the phrase "United States copyright law" could the court have meant that Bambi had no protection under the federal copyright law (since it was unpublished for federal copyright purposes during 1923-25) but could be protected as an unpublished work by state common law copyright during those years?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com