Quoting Greg Pomerantz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > How about this one: Hadady v. Dean Witter, 739 F. Supp. 1392 (C.D. Cal > > 1990). Plaintiff published a newsletter from 1985 to 1987 with a notice > > that said: "The information contained in this letter is protected by > > U.S. copyright laws through noon EST on the 2d day after its release . . > > ." The Court held that the notice was effective to cause an abandonment > > of plaintiff's copyright after two days despite the fact that the notice > > was not defective. > > Perhaps I haven't been paying adequate attention to posted details, but > I'm unclear on whether "abandonment" in this context means the original > owner ceasing to own title (what I suspect), or the original owner being > judged to have destroyed title to the property entirely. Only the > latter seems relevant to the foregoing discussion. Perhaps you could > clarify?
This page looks like a pretty good summary of abandonment in a copyright context, although it is more aggressive than I think is prudent -- http://www22.brinkster.com/paradio/pages1/abandon.htm Abandonment divests title to the work from the author, and I have no reason to think title would vest in somebody else. Did you have something in mind? Greg -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
