I'm NOT A LAWYER but I DO like to speculate on Legal issues and then see if legal issues in the news are solved in correct constitutional ways according to what I perceive.
With the John Edwards tape first several variables need to be established.
1. How the tape was discarded and by whom.....
Say a maid came in and threw the tape out when cleaning - then it was a stolen property issue and it goes back to the woman - end of issue.
2. Okay, now assume it was discarded by the woman, intentionally. now a new issue presents itself. what of the material on the media?
Copyright laws need to be applied in this situation. Under law, the second you create original material on a media say, paper, computer, etc. you OWN THE COPYRIGHT TO THAT MATERIAL UNTIL RELEASED IN WRITING. Of course proving who own's the copyright to this material is evident for the individuals on the tape can be recognized.
Unless somebody else received a written release of copyright (Say a written arrangement to perform etc.)the woman owns the copyright to the original material on the tape.
Disposal of a media DOES NOT CONSTITUTE TRANSFERAL OF COPYRIGHT OF ORIGINAL MATERIAL
Hey, I found an MP3 player chocked full of songs now I can copy and distribute them and sell them for a profit???.
Nope.
What that DOES MEAN is that I have a right to use the media because I now own it BUT NOT TO COPY, REPRODUCE, OR BROADCAST the material because it would violate the originator's copyright of the material.
In the case of the John Edwards tape this means because he now owns the media he could use it for private viewing without violating her copyright because the tape was discarded.
Without violating her copyright he could show private viewing to friends or reporters who could then describe what's on the tape - This would NOT be a violation of her copyright for the media had been discarded.
But the second he tries to sell access to the tape it is no longer private use of the material and it becomes a commercial use which WOULD VIOLATE HER COPYRIGHT ON THE MATERIAL.
Also to duplicate, distribute, or broadcast the material would be to violate her copyright.
remember - the media was discarded - BUT NOT THE COPYRIGHT to the material WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A WRITTEN RELEASE.
So the guy legally has the right to use the tape for private viewing with friends, reporters whoever as long as he doesn't copy, distribute or broadcast or sell the actual copyrighted material.
Okay that part is understood. now what about the release of sensitive material? say knowledge of what's on the tape?
A movie studio's preliminary end of season copy of a show was accidently tossed into the garbage and when the finding individual disclosed the ending ruining it for viewers before it was aired - who owes damages?
As long as the copyrighted material wasn't copied reproduced or the actual media wasn't broadcast the only claim may be made against the person who made the media available for disclosure - the errant employee who tossed it out would be liable NOT the individual who found it and who talked about what was on the tape.
So in John Edwards case he could sue HER if he was taped without his knowledge. But NOT the individual who found it.
She probably made the tape to have leverage for proving his being the father to her kid - or for blackmail?
She didn't try to blackmail him, so no crime committed except filming him possibly without his permission.
He has to take that up with HER though NOT the guy with the tape.
Final Decision? the John Edwards tape is now owned by the man who found it and he can use it for his own private viewing for he owns the media - the actual tape. But he CANNOT IN ANY FORM SELL, COPY, OR BROADCAST THE ORIGINAL COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL ON THE TAPE - TO DO SO VIOLATES HER COPYRIGHT IN CREATING THE MATERIAL.
So, Have the reporters over, tell them to bring the chips and the beer, but don't allow any copies to be made or accept any money, for you could THEN be charged with copyright infringement and sued for damages.
Have a laugh, let the media describe every position they used, how cute that mole is on her left butt cheek and what's on the tape but DON'T VIOLATE HER COPYRIGHT.
You could legally sell the actual tape, but any new owners would be bound by the same copyright rights on the original material. basicly useless except for private viewing Like a DVD for private use only. Any other use and she can sue for copyright violations and damages.
It IS legal to get hired on to talk shows for discussion etc. but get a life..........
Will we see it on ebay for some John Edward Fanatic to buy so they can see him naked?
or better yet hand it over to his wife.........
My Advice? - Erase the tape and use it to record the episode of "House" next week - the previews say it's going to be good...........
Now it's time to watch the news to see what the courts decide............and if they get it right...........
