The different between GPL and non-license

[Rod Dixon]

The continued vitality of the defense of abandonment is in serious doubt
except for, perhaps, copyright disputes occurring under the
pre-1976 Copyright Act 
(the Copyright Act of 1909).

Of course, even if one were to believe that copyright ownership could
still be abandoned under the current law, how would you raise the defense
in a copyright infringement action today, where the formailities of
publication and notice are no longer required? If a copyright owner were
to bring a copyright infringement suit, the filing of the lawsuit would
tend to diminish the plausibility or persuasiveness of the defense that
the plaintiff intended to abandon her copyright (abandoment required
intent). Under U.S. law, this seems to be a losing argument. Of course,
one could *abandon* copyright interests by never suing, but this is not
the same as public domain.
Rod


On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, John Cowan wrote:

> Rod Dixon wrote:
> 
> > The copyright owner does not have a *choice*
> > as to whether to put/transfer/cede a work to the public domain.
> 
> However, the U.S. Copyright office accepts and registers affidavits
> by the author of a work that the author has abandoned copyright.
> That suggests that the defense of abandonment is still possible.
> 
> See http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1994-01/0204.html ,
> by Mary Brandt Jensen (professor at the U. of S. Dak. School of Law).
> 
> -- 
> 
> Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
> Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
>