Semi-OT: Congress about to limit artists' copyright rights

[Leo Mauler]

--- On Sat, 5/31/08, Hal Duston <hald at kc.rr.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 09:02:43PM -0700, Leo Mauler wrote:
> > --- On Sat, 5/31/08, Hal Duston <hald at kc.rr.com>
> wrote:
> > > If I create a work that is found to be similar to a 
> > > pre-existing copyrighted work, my ignorance of that 
> > > work is a perfect defense, as I am not violating the 
> > > other creator's copyright even if my created work is 
> > > found to be identical.
> > 
> > I suspect that your hypothesis here isn't
> > accurate.  If "my ignorance of that other work is a 
> > perfect defense...even if my created work is found to 
> > be identical", then there is nothing illegal with taking 
> > an existing work, erasing all traces of the previous 
> > author, making some superficial changes, and then passing 
> > off the entire work as my own.   Moreover, if there was 
> > no penalty for this behavior, I would also be allowed to 
> > make money off "my own song single 'Imagine (This)', 
> > hauntingly identical to John Lennon's 'Imagine', though 
> > mine has the background tuba", despite current copyright 
> > law not permitting this behavior.
>
> That is not my hypothesis, but rather the actual law as it
> currently stands.  The examples you provide above are all
> of a party reproducing a second party's copyrighted works.
> The example I provided did not involve any actual 
> reproduction of a copyrighted work, but rather an 
> independently created work that is not derived from another 
> party's work.  That is not and infringing act under copyright 
> law.

The exact phrase you used (emphasis added by me) was "I am not violating the other creator's copyright even if my created work is found to be *identical*."  I would then ask how one could prove that *any* copy near enough to be "identical" wasn't "an independently produced work", if being "identical" isn't enough to prove that copyright infringement occurred.

By your reasoning if I made an *identical* reproduction of a current artist's work, with my own signature on it instead, then I am not violating the other creator's copyright even though my created work is found to be 
*identical*, because I claim that my work is an independently-created work and also claim that I never saw the other work I allegedly copied.