Associated with the current basic concept of copyright as an intellectual property right might be the term territoriality which means, "the pattern of behavior associated with the defense of...territory." In this instance, a copyright holder defends his or her "exclusive right" to the created work or "intellectual property." As authority, the U.S. Constitution, art. 1, sec.8, states "The Congress shall have the Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

On the other hand, if the notion of making copies to read is viewed as an aspect of "freedom to speak" (and to be heard) as proposed by Professor L. Ray Patterson of the University of Georgia School of Law, then the U.S. Constitution, amend. 1, states "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

In the future, there may continue to be some conflict in interpretation of the notion of copyright. This is only an indication of the vagueness that one encounters when trying to comply with copyright laws. In the library and information field, all well-intentioned, honest practitioners would clearly like to know what they can and can't do. Oftentimes, one encounters people hesitant to make any copies at all for fear of breaking a law, as well as a few taking liberties beyond that of a reasonable interpretation of current law. Others make up their own version of the law and hope it indicates an attempt at compliance (i.e., a teacher making copies for only half of the class). Hopefully, there will be a clear description in the future.

In the meantime, one can see the territoriality in the hammering out of future copyright laws with lines clearly drawn, as illustrated in the headline "Copyright Fight: Creators vs. Consumers" (Legal Times, 6 October 1997, 4).

Examples of contested claims are somewhat more evident in the related intellectual property field of trademark. For example, Ohio University (OU) and Ohio State University are battling over who can have the word "Ohio" on their cheerleading uniforms. OU was granted a trademark for all athletic and entertainment uses of the word (Wall Street Journal, 19 December 1997, B1). Nonetheless, historically, both have been using it. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will have to make the decision.

Further, a Georgetown University spokesperson explained the process for obtaining sweatshirt logos. The vendor proposes an idea and prepares a prototype which is submitted to the Collegiate Licensing Company who then sends the sample to the Licensing Coordinator at the university for approval. With approval, production begins. Interestingly, there has not been any conflict or confusion between Georgetown University in Washington, DC, and Georgetown College in Kentucky.

In Canada, Walt Disney Co. Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of the U.S. parent, will handle marketing and product development for licensing merchandising for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's (RCMP) "distinctive look--red serge jacket, flat-brimmed Stetson hat, and blue riding breeches with a yellow stripe down each leg." (Advertising Age, 31 July 1995). Licensing fees for RCMP merchandise are 10 percent of an item's wholesale price. "Final approval of all RCMP licensing remains with the force, who wants to have all unlicensed merchandise out of Canadian and U.S. stores by the end of the year."

In conclusion, through these examples one can see the territoriality concept in intellectual property, although the actual "territory" is sometimes somewhat difficult to define.

by Lawrence Guthrie. Guthrie is interlibrary loan librarian, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC. For more information on "Copyright Corner," or to contribute to the column, please contact Guthrie at: 1-202-662-6158; fax: 1-202-778-8658; e-mail: lguthrie@cov.com.