Talk:Stewart v. Abend

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Intellectual property

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Intellectual property, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Intellectual property on Wikipedia.Intellectual propertyWikipedia:WikiProject Intellectual propertyTemplate:WikiProject Intellectual propertyIntellectual property articles

Copyright?[edit]

I noticed this was copied from this page but there is no copyright sign on this page exept the "Copyright-UNT" in the title. Does that mean that page was copyrighed?

Michaelas10 08:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The irony.

Copyright violation[edit]

That site is copyrighed.

Michaelas10 14:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT a copyright violation[edit]

Supreme Court decisions are not copyrighted. They're in the public domain. The referenced webpage may assert copyright, but that is irrelevant. Just because a website slaps a copyright notice on uncopyrightable material does not mean they have a resulting copyright.

I could post The Bible on my website, slap a copyright notice on it, but that wouldn't make it copyrighted. The content is the test, not the inclusion of a copyright notice. If it's public domain material, as it is in this case, the copyright notice is irrelevant and void.

With that said, just slapping up the entire decision isn't an encyclopedia article. It's pointless. The article should summarize the case and point readers to the decision itself, which can be found on many websites.207.69.137.41 07:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect summation of case[edit]

The article prievously stated, "Stewart v. Abend was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the copyright owner's right to permit the creation of a derivative work passes to the heirs of the author of the work, who are not bound by the original author's agreement to permit such use."

This is not a correct statement of the case. The importance of this case has nothing to do with heirs. It has to do with the right of the copyright holder to control creation of and/or exploitation of derivative works. I have accordingly revised the summation of the case.207.69.138.10 22:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Abend?[edit]

This article never explains who or what "Abend" was. A company? A person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.71.69.2 (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear[edit]

Can someone please explain what this case is about? How did it relate to the long-term inability to publish Woolrich stories, if it did, and the fact that Rear Window was not shown for years? I believe it is related, but that just is not clear in any specific way. I hope someone out there is still monitoring this article.--Stetsonharry (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]