181
Lost Doctor Who episodes found – but owner is reluctant to hand them to BBC
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
181 points (98.9% liked)
Doctor Who
2397 readers
2 users here now
A good old fashioned Doctor Who Community
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes.
There is nothing in the law that makes that a relevant factor, and there are simple examples where you'd clearly not want it to be. If I was working on a novel, sent a copy to an editor, but then my hard drive crashed, it'd be more than a little annoying if that suddenly voided my copyright and my publisher then proceeded to publish my novel without giving me any money at all since it's suddenly become public domain.
I get the point you're trying to make, but this isn't the kind of thing you generally build into law because there are always edge cases that can cause problems. It's simpler to correctly assume that the copyright holder almost certainly won't object the existence of the copy while retaining the rights to them.
Yeah that makes sense. It's a curious situation though. How would you even be able to go about proving that you own the copyright to that novel unless your publisher cooperates. I know courts would use common sense etc but it could definitely result in some weird arguments.
Ultimately, this is the reason judges exist. At least under Common Law, statutes are not meant to explicitly outline every possible edge case, and judges are meant to be able to analyze the situation and apply some human sense to it.
Think more about a painting. You sell your painting once, but keep the copy rights.