 |
 |
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 costly. Karl