Under the 1909 Act, general publication of a work without notice of copyright injected the work into the public domain and stripped it of copyright protection. See Sanga Music, Inc. v. EMI Blackwood Music, Inc., 55 F.3d 756, 759 (2d Cir. 1995). Limited publication did not place the work in the public domain. {{u|See}] Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Rubinowitz, 217 U.S.P.Q. 48, 1981 WL 1396, at *3-*4 (E.D.N.Y. 1981). The distinction between a general and a limited publication has been set forth in a recent decision from this District:
A general publication "occurs when by the consent of the copyright owner, the original or tangible copies of a work are sold, leased, loaned, given away, or otherwise made available to the general public, or when an authorized offer is made to dispose of the work in any such manner even if a sale or other such disposition does not in fact occur." 1 Nimmer § 4.04, at 4-18 (3d ed. 1997) (footnotes omitted); see also American Visuals Corp. v. Holland, 239 F.2d 740, 744 (2d Cir. 1956) (where plaintiff disseminated over 200 copies of his book by placing them in hotel rooms, and distributed them in an effort to get business, such dissemination constituted a general publication, because even though the purpose of the distribution was limited, the "persons" to whom it might be given were unlimited). A "limited publication," in contrast, "communicates the contents of a [work] to a definitely selected group and for a limited purpose, and without the right of diffusion, reproduction, distribution or sale … [and therefore] does not result in the loss of the author's common law copyright to his [work]." White v. Kimmell, 193 F.2d 744, 746-47 (9th Cir. 1952).
Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., No. 96 Civ. 9123, 1998 WL 788802, at *38, (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 1998).
43
