COPYRIGHT-L Archives

Archiver > COPYRIGHT > 2002-11 > 1037809918


From: Pat Asher <>
Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] re: Very old letters
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 11:31:58 -0500
In-Reply-To: <d1.216488d7.2b0d08c2@aol.com>


At 10:48 AM 11/20/2002, you wrote:
> Is there some rule that requires that a person today claiming
>copyright on a letter written 150 years ago has to be related to its author?

Copyright Circular #1:

"Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy or
phonorecord does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides
that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected
work does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright."

"Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can
rightfully claim copyright."

In other words, the recipient of the letters is not eligible to claim
copyright, unless he also was given ownership of those letters through
legal transfer, i.e. probate or contract.

From Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

heir: "one who inherits or is entitled to inherit property"

It is not necessary to be related to be a legal heir. The owner/possessor
of the Civil war letters in the example could will them to a next door
neighbor who was interested in Civil War history. The neighbor would not
be related, but would be the legal heir. Whether the neighbor would be
entitled to claim copyright would depend on whether the person from whom
the neighbor inherited was entitled to claim copyright through legal
inheritance or assignment. And as Cliff as pointed out, tracking legal
transfer of personal property back through several generations would
probably be difficult, if not impossible.

Since the new law *does* provide for copyright of previously unpublished
works by someone other than the author, the inherited or assigned *right*
to copyright will probably be contested in court more than once over the
next few years. <g>


Pat

This thread: