On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Mike Richter wrote:
> At 11:25 AM 6/21/2005 -0500, Karl Miller wrote:
> >On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Mike Richter wrote:
> > > From my point of view, it would be sufficient to define as "abandoned" any
> > > copyright not exercised for a defined term.
> >I like that idea but...
> >I am reminded of the effort it took for Mad Magazine to determine that
> >whatever ownership might have existed for the image of Alfred E. Newman,
> >had been abandoned.
> I do not believe it was an issue of copyright but of trademark (or one of
> the related terms) - for which abandonment is defined.
Indeed it was trademark, yet the notion of abandonment required
substantial research. My point was that if a case could be made for
abandonment of copyright, presenting a strong case could likewise be