[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] Dastar v 20th Century Fox

Now this is a wierd quotation

"In sum, reading the phrase .origin of goods. in the Lanham Act in accordance with the Act.s common-law foundations (which were not designed to protect originality or creativity), and in light of the copyright and patent laws (which were), we conclude that the phrase refers to the producer of the tangible goods that are offered for sale, and not to the author of any idea, concept, or communication embodied in those goods. Cf. 17 U. S. C. 202 (distin-guishing between a copyrighted work and .any material object in which the work is embodied.). To hold otherwise would be akin to finding that 43(a) created a species of perpetual patent and copyright, which Congress may not do. See Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U. S. 186, 208 (2003). "

COngress cannot create perpetual patent and copyright yet that's exactly what they have effectively done by increasing the term to arrogant lengths and if allowed to continue become perpetual in practice.

Jeremy Erwin <jerwin@ponymail.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

06/03/2003 05:43 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

        To:        dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        Subject:        [dvd-discuss] Dastar v 20th Century Fox

Good news... The Supremes have recently struck a blow against large
media groups who might have been planning to use trademarks to thwart
the exploitaion of newly public domain material. The case Dastar Corp.
v. 20th Century Fox Film Corp., 02-428, concerned the lifting of
material from a WWII documentary that had lapsed into the Public
Domain, and reincorporation into a new video which did not cite the
original film.