 |
 |
At 02:22 PM 1/19/2003 -0800, Paul T. Jackson wrote: >It's possible (if enough pressure is brought to bear) that congress can >update the copyright law to indicate that a work would be open to copying >for certain purposes if it was not being commercially exploited, and that >the companies involved would have to file with the copyright office that >indeed they were pursuing commercial exploitation of their products -- >otherwise they would be open to P. D. -- sort of a mandatory licensing >like music, but for reproduction of the original. DMCA initially had this >type of necessary burden on the producer, but apparently it didn't make >the final cut. There is some of this in DMCA. As I understand it, a library or archive may jump the gun and reproduce a protected work after 'only' seventy-five years if the copyright holder does not state an intent to reissue it themselves. I have not seen definitions of "library" or "archive", a mechanism for informing those who might have rights, or a means for declaring intent. But then, I am not an attorney. Mike [log in to unmask] http://www.mrichter.com/