[8886] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: JURIS - DOJ rejects TAP FOIA Request
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Sugarman)
Thu Dec 9 16:47:13 1993
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 16:40:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Sugarman <sugarman@panix.com>
To: "Selden E. Ball, Jr." <SEB@lns62.lns.cornell.edu>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <01H6A0CSV7PU8WWSPM@LNS62.LNS.CORNELL.EDU>
Absent a contract, the printer may have a claim. But, what I meant to say
is that in most contracts, the publishers keeps the rights to the
electronic files. They did not use to in the early 80's, but I cannot
imagine any publihser knolingly doing this.
Similarly, when a company contract to have its data processed by outside
companies, the companies now make sure that the contract makes 100% clear
that the data files belong to the company. In the 70s and 80s, a lot or
companies got stung. Most have learned today.
On Thu, 9 Dec 1993, Selden E. Ball, Jr. wrote:
> Alan,
>
> In a recent posting to com-priv you mentioned
>
> >Now, I ask the readers here how many private sector publishers hire a
> >typesetting or printing firm and permitt the typesetter to own the
> >database created. None. So, what is going on here.
>
> Don't be too sure about that. My understanding is that the copyright
> office recently ruled that, unless the contract explicitly states otherwise,
> printers, not the original artists, own the copyrights to art that they
> have printed. Artwork may be a special case, I suppose, since
> printers frequently have to make corrections to their production
> methods to get good color reproduction. Nevertheless, this is a very
> scary precedent.
>
> Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and have not seen a copy of this ruling.
> The topic was discussed as nauseam on one of the Usenet newsgroups
> to which I subscribe.
>
> Selden
