Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
clip some interesting discussion of various kinds of property.
Otherwise, one would find themselves in the position of trying to argue that Harry Potter is only a license held by JK Rowling, and not her creation or her property. He is patently her creation, and she owns him, certainly for the term of her legally-entitled copyright, before he falls into the public domain.
And so thus, back to the thorny issue of the unpublished manuscript in my hypothetical desk: at what point, exactly, does anyone think that this falls into the public domain? To prove (or find fatal flaws in) arguments and theories, you need to extend them out to their possible limits. So, let's start with this one: what's the answer?
Hitch
|
The manuscript and the right to copy it are not the same thing. The story, characters and other unique features of it are not the same as the right to copy them. Her stories are Rowling's property, which is not the same as the right to copy them.
As for your unpublished manuscript, if you leave it lying around after copyright expires, then whoever finds it can copy the hell out of it. If that prospect bothers you, destroy the manuscript while the right to copy it is still yours.
rjb