mckeeman@wanginst.UUCP (William McKeeman) (01/09/86)
For those who may choose to use it, I offer the following copyright notice. It serves two purposes. (1) The author owns the copyright which prevents anyone else from attempting to copyright it. (2) The software it protects can be freely used by anyone else for any purpose, except for the purpose of restricting its distribution. This is not the same as the gnu approach, where an attempt is made to coerce the user into a particular kind of sharing. User Beware: I am not a lawyer and do not pretend to know all the legal ramifications of the wording of my proposal. I am submitting this also to net.legal in case someone there would care to enlighten us free programmers. ************************************************************************** * ShareWare Copyright Notice * * Copyright I.M. Author. month day, year * * * * In recognition of the contributions of those who have gone before, and * * to encourage those who will follow, the attached software is placed in * * The Public Domain. /s/ I. M. Author month day, year * **************************************************************************-- W. M. McKeeman mckeeman@WangInst Wang Institute decvax!wanginst!mckeeman Tyngsboro MA 01879
campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) (01/10/86)
> For those who may choose to use it, I offer the following copyright notice. > ... > User Beware: I am not a lawyer and do not pretend to know all the legal > ramifications of the wording of my proposal. I am submitting this also to > net.legal in case someone there would care to enlighten us free programmers. > ************************************************************************** > * ShareWare Copyright Notice * > * Copyright I.M. Author. month day, year * > * In recognition of the contributions of those who have gone before, and * > * to encourage those who will follow, the attached software is placed in * > * The Public Domain. /s/ I. M. Author month day, year * > ************************************************************************** > W. M. McKeeman mckeeman@WangInst > Wang Institute decvax!wanginst!mckeeman > Tyngsboro MA 01879 Would people please just bother to consult a law book, or even a dictionary, before misinforming the entire net? I quote from the American Heritage Dictionary: public domain. ... 2. The status of publications, products, and processes that are not protected under patent or copyright. This copyright notice is a joke. "Copyright" and "public domain" are antonymous! If something is copyrighted, it cannot be in the public domain. I may do anything I like with a public domain work: copy it, modify it, sell it. If you want to prevent these things you must avoid like the plague the term "public domain". Here (paraphrased from memory) is a notice I have used in the past on some of my software: Copyright (C) 1986 by J. Q. Programmer. This software may be freely copied and distributed for noncommercial purposes provided that this notice remains intact. Commercial use of this software requires my prior written permission. Note the absence of the poisonous phrase "public domain". -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. ARPA: maynard.UUCP:campbell@harvard.ARPA 120 Fulton Street UUCP: {harvard,cbosgd}!wjh12!maynard!campbell Boston MA 02109
dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (01/13/86)
Sounds like nonsense to me. If something is in the public domain, I
can do more or less anything with it, including making copies of it
with my copyright notice. I can then stop anyone from copying my
copies, although they can, of course, still make copies of the public
domain copies, if they can find one.
Also, a copyright notice needs only the year, no need for the
day or month.
Donald
--
+1 617-492-8860 Donald E. Eastlake, III
ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!deedgary@ecsvax.UUCP (01/13/86)
In article <1536@wanginst.UUCP> mckeeman@wanginst.UUCP (William McKeeman) writes: >* ShareWare Copyright Notice * >* Copyright I.M. Author. month day, year * >* * >* In recognition of the contributions of those who have gone before, and * >* to encourage those who will follow, the attached software is placed in * >* The Public Domain. /s/ I. M. Author month day, year * William says this lets the author retain copyright while permitting the work to be freely copied. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. If you "place something in the public domain" you have just given up your copyright, by definition of "public domain." Far safer is to say "permission is hereby granted to copy and use this work except for profit" or words to that effect. Incidentally, Americans should note that if you put a copyright notice on something you are legally obligated to send a copy to the Library of Congress *whether or not you choose to register your copyright claim*! If you elect not to register, you need not send any fee, just the work itself. (This does wonders for the L of C acqusitions budget.) People choosing to assert copyright in other countries should check their domestic laws. Usual disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I have a long-standing interest in copyright law. -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) (01/13/86)
Webster's may say that "public domain" means that the author has no copyright,
but the courts may not see it that way, and what the courts say counts. I'd
be interested in hearing what the courts have to say about it. Personally,
I agree with Webster: If something is in the public domain (that is, it is
owned by the public and considered to be general knowledge), then anyone can
do what they want with it.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Casey UUCP: sean@ukma.UUCP or
915 Patterson Office Tower {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean
University of Kentucky ARPA: ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA
Lexington, Ky. 40506-0027 BITNET: sean@UKMA.BITNETdgary@ecsvax.UUCP (01/17/86)
In article <2464@ukma.UUCP> sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) writes: >Webster's may say that "public domain" means that the author has no copyright, >but the courts may not see it that way, and what the courts say counts. The law and the dictionary agree on this one. See ANY reference on copyright law. -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
marcum@sun.uucp (Alan Marcum) (01/17/86)
> Incidentally, Americans should note that if you put a copyright notice > on something you are legally obligated to send a copy to the Library of > Congress *whether or not you choose to register your copyright claim*! > -- > D Gary Grady From what I recall from oh-so-many moons ago in school, to copyright a work, you must place the appropriate notice on the work, and place a copy of the work in an at least semi-public library (i.e. publish it). This library need not be the Library of Congress. -- Alan M. Marcum Sun Microsystems, Technical Consulting ...!{dual,ihnp4}!sun!nescorna!marcum Mountain View, California
jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) (01/17/86)
In article <5600@cca.UUCP> dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) writes: > >Sounds like nonsense to me. If something is in the public domain, I >can do more or less anything with it, including making copies of it >with my copyright notice. I can then stop anyone from copying my >copies, although they can, of course, still make copies of the public Now that's nonsense. The copyright law, like the patent law does not allow one to copyright or patent anything in the public domain. The fact that you can physically insert your notice into something reflects the portion of the copyright law which allows you to copyright your changes to a public domain object. Thus assuming you have obtained a public domain object such as source code of a utility, and you are able to modify this and redistribute your modified source with your copyright notice in it. Now I come along and receive your distributed source. I am able to determine your modifications (perhaps I've always had a printed listing, but didn't want to type a lot) and remove them. I may then make my own modifications to the source code and redistribute it. And you can do nothing about it. An object, once in public domain, is always in public domain. Also, the other side of this is that if you modify a copyrighted object you may copyright your modifications, but you still cannot distribute the results without the approval of the original copyright holder. -- Jim Budler Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 749-5806 Usenet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb Compuserve: 72415,1200
chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) (01/17/86)
[I've redirected future followups to net.news, since this DOESN'T belong in net.sources] > >* ShareWare Copyright Notice * > >* Copyright I.M. Author. month day, year * > >* * > >* In recognition of the contributions of those who have gone before, and * > >* to encourage those who will follow, the attached software is placed in * > >* The Public Domain. /s/ I. M. Author month day, year * > > William says this lets the author retain copyright while permitting the > work to be freely copied. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. If you > "place something in the public domain" you have just given up your > copyright, by definition of "public domain." Far safer is to say > "permission is hereby granted to copy and use this work except for > profit" or words to that effect. Copyright and public domain are mutually exclusive terms. You can't do both.. You **SHOULD** be able to copyright and allow redistribution for non-commercial purposes but I haven't seen any case that set this precedent. Be VERY careful how you define your terms. "Public domain" is a well defined legal term, and if you call something that the lawyers will assume that you give up ALL rights regardless of what you meant. > Incidentally, Americans should note that if you put a copyright notice > on something you are legally obligated to send a copy to the Library of > Congress *whether or not you choose to register your copyright claim*! I've never seen that requirement, and I'd love to see where it came from (have they changed copyrights when I wasn't looking?) Last I looked, you didn't even have to publish something to copyright it, much less ship a copy anywhere. You only need to register a work if you think you are going to have to file a claim, otherwise you don't need to do anything to copyright. -- :From catacombs of Castle Tarot: Chuq Von Rospach sun!chuq@decwrl.DEC.COM {hplabs,ihnp4,nsc,pyramid}!sun!chuq It's not looking, it's heat seeking.
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (01/18/86)
In article <3167@sun.uucp> marcum@sun.uucp (Alan Marcum) writes: >From what I recall from oh-so-many moons ago in school, to copyright a >work, you must place the appropriate notice on the work, and place a >copy of the work in an at least semi-public library (i.e. publish it). >This library need not be the Library of Congress. It irritates me when people who don't know what they are talking about post garbage to the net when they could so easily look it up. From "The World Almanac 1986", page 686: "... copies or phonorecords of works published in the U.S. with notice of copyright are required to be deposited for the collections of the Library of Congress. This deposit requirement is not a condition of protection, but does render the copyright owner subject to penalties for failure to deposit after a demand by the Register of Copyrights." -- (C) 1986 Joe Random is not a valid copyright. Copyright 1986 Joe Random is. Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
kadie@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (01/19/86)
> Incidentally, Americans should note that if you put a copyright notice > on something you are legally obligated to send a copy to the Library of > Congress *whether or not you choose to register your copyright claim*! > If you elect not to register, you need not send any fee, just the work > itself. (This does wonders for the L of C acqusitions budget.) People > choosing to assert copyright in other countries should check their > domestic laws. > > Usual disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I have a long-standing interest > in copyright law. I believe this is incorrect. The Copyright Office's R1 circular says on page 5: " HOW TO SECURE A COPYRIGHT Copyright Secured Automatically Upon Creation The way in which copyright protection is secured under the present law is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright under the present law, unlike the previous law, which required either publication with the copyright notice or registration in the Copyright Office.... Under the prsent law, copyright is secure automatically ------------- when the work is created, and a work is 'created' when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time." For more information write: Information & Publication Section LM-455 Copyright Office Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 20559 And ask for information about or regestration forms for computer software. Or call (202) 287-9100 and leave recorded request. Or call (202) 287-8700 during business hours for information. ----------------- Carl M. Kadie - U. of Illinois /* End of text from uiucdcs:net.sources */
reid@glacier.ARPA (Brian Reid) (01/19/86)
The Copyright Act was completely reworked in 1977-78, resulting in the Copyright Act of 1978. Anything you learned about copyright before 1978 is obsolete and should be deleted. Anything you hear about copyright from a friend is wrong and should be ignored. You can get all of the information, a copy of the Act, and rules for filing copyrights free for the asking from the Copyright Office in Washington DC. They are in the phone book. -- Brian Reid decwrl!glacier!reid Stanford reid@SU-Glacier.ARPA
dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (01/20/86)
In article <> jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) writes: >In article <5600@cca.UUCP> dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) writes: >> >>Sounds like nonsense to me. If something is in the public domain, I >>can do more or less anything with it, including making copies of it >>with my copyright notice. > >Now that's nonsense. The copyright law, like the patent law does not >allow one to copyright or patent anything in the public domain. Patent law is radically more stringent than copyright law. Lets limit ourselves to copyright. >The fact that >you can physically insert your notice into something reflects the >portion of the copyright law which allows you to copyright your >changes to a public domain object. I didn't say anything about inserting my notice into a public domain object. I said I could make a copy of the public domain object and add my copyright notice to said copy. >Thus assuming you have obtained a public domain object such as source code >of a utility, and you are able to modify this and redistribute your >modified source with your copyright notice in it. > >Now I come along and receive your distributed source. I am able to determine >your modifications (perhaps I've always had a printed listing, but didn't >want to type a lot) and remove them. I may then make my own modifications >to the source code and redistribute it. And you can do nothing about it. Even if you can provably exactly recover the original public domain "thing", which is more or less possible if the object is a simple bit pattern, and remove all modifications I have made, I would still, in general, have just grounds to object and could sue you. For example, what if I had gone to a lot of work to find and piece together the best working versions of a group of related public domain modules and also made some minor mods to one of them. Clearly I could copyright this assemblage. (I could do so even if there were no mods although if I was at all clever I would make some subtle ones (like maybe changing <tab> to <space><tab> where it would not matter) so I could nail you in court). Do you think that the copyright notices in books of quoatations are invalid because these books are assemblages of public domain utterances? But, you object, what about single works that are not compilations? Well, why do publishers normally put current copyright notices into photographic reprints of old books whose copyrights have expired? Don't they deserve some reward for locating a copy in resonably good condition and reprinting it? How can you tell if they just grabbed a copy from the local library or had to painstakingly piece together the good pages from the only five copies left in the world, each partly damanged. Yet this is all public domain stuff. Another example, lets look at photography and art. Photographers and artists have copyright in their works regardless of how closely they resemble some common real world "public domain" scene. Although theoretically based on their creativity, in reality its more like they have copyright because they claim it. Looking at these and other examples, the only conclusion I can come to is that, under modern copyright law, the amount of "originality" or "work" investment required to support a valid copyright claim is so small that if I took public domain software, added a copyright notice TO THE COPIES I DISTRIBUTED the law would uphold my right to restrict further copying of those particular copies in return for my work of distribution and my "creativity" in picking that particular material to distribute. [PS: I have not done this, don't plan to, and would not expect it to be popular if I tried.] >An object, once in public domain, is always in public domain. Even if the above sentence is true, I only spoke of doing things to copies of public domain objects. >Also, the other side of this is that if you modify a copyrighted object >you may copyright your modifications, but you still cannot distribute >the results without the approval of the original copyright holder. At last, somethig I can agree with. (Well, not quite. Actually you can distribute it if you don't copy it. That is, if you buy a fresh copy from the original copyrightholder each time, you can then modify and sell that copy, barring some contractual agreement to the contrary.) -- +1 617-492-8860 Donald E. Eastlake, III ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!dee
keld@diku.UUCP (Keld J|rn Simonsen) (01/21/86)
In article <8422@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP writes: >It irritates me when people who don't know what they are talking about >post garbage to the net when they could so easily look it up. > (C) 1986 Joe Random is not a valid copyright. > Copyright 1986 Joe Random is. This is only true in a country in North America, namely USA. Other countries like Canada and European countries have ratified a convention which does not demand these formal requirements to copyright-protect works. There (C) 1986 Joe Random is OK. And material published in USA and at the same time published in these other countries retain their copyrights in the other countries, although they do not get protection in USA.
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (01/23/86)
.......
Speaking of copyright, does anyone know what the impact of copyrights
are on artists who use collage in some form that may utilize pictures
from magazines or excerpts from films, video or records for materials?
Keith Doyle
# {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
# cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpatim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (01/23/86)
#include "/standards/disclaimer/not_a_lawyer" In article <5738@cca.UUCP> dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) writes: > >>Also, the other side of this is that if you modify a copyrighted object >>you may copyright your modifications, but you still cannot distribute >>the results without the approval of the original copyright holder. > >At last, somethig I can agree with. (Well, not quite. Actually you can >distribute it if you don't copy it. That is, if you buy a fresh copy >from the original copyrightholder each time, you can then modify and >sell that copy, barring some contractual agreement to the contrary.) I think you are wrong here. The copyright law ( at least, the part that deals with computer programs ), says you may modify stuff for you own personal use without violating the copyright. To distribute the modified version, you must have the copyright holders permission. If this were not the case, you would see people selling uncopy-protected versions of all the various copy-protected software. What you actually see are people selling programs that make the modifications. The end user then buys the original, and makes the modifications himself, and thus hopefully has not violated any copyright. -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (01/23/86)
In article <5738@cca.UUCP> dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) writes: >Do you think that the copyright notices in books of quoatations >are invalid because these books are assemblages of public domain >utterances? What's under copyright there is the compilation. You're quite free to quote the individual quotations from (say) The Great Thoughts without permission, but if you republish the whole book, or use it as the basis of another collection of quotations, you're violating copyright. >But, you object, what about single works that are not compilations? >Well, why do publishers normally put current copyright notices into >photographic reprints of old books whose copyrights have expired? A reprint of a copyright work contains a copyright notice for several reasons: (1) to protect new matter, such as notes or an introduction, (2) to protect the right to a photograph of a specific edition's pages (the case you cite), and (3) it doesn't hurt, so why not? >... if I took public domain software, added a copyright notice TO >THE COPIES I DISTRIBUTED the law would uphold my right to restrict >further copying of those particular copies in return for my work of >distribution and my "creativity" in picking that particular material to >distribute. I rather doubt that, but I suspect it would take a lawsuit to decide. -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (01/23/86)
In article <36@diku.UUCP> keld@diku.UUCP (Keld J|rn Simonsen) writes: >This is only true in a country in North America, namely USA. Other >countries like Canada and European countries have ratified a convention >which does not demand these formal requirements to copyright-protect >works. There (C) 1986 Joe Random is OK. I believe you're mistaken. The US *is* party to the Universal Copyright Convention (among others). It is precisely the UCC that requires the c-in-a-circle designation. US law permits, but does not require, that symbol. There are proposals to explicitly allow (C) as an alternative to c-in-a-circle, but at the moment (says the brand new book I just saw the other day and, dagnabbit, can't remember the name of) there is no way for works in ASCII to strictly conform to the UCC c-in-a-circle requirement. Please note that the word "copyright" (or the abbreviation "copr") is sufficient in the US. I'll add that there are a few countries that do not require any formal notice of copyright. -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
mykes@3comvax.UUCP (Mike Schwartz) (01/24/86)
A couple of points and questions. Is it sufficient to mail yourself a copy of the source (and leave it postmarked and unopened) to protect a "copyright" ? Is a header that says something like: (C)1986, ABC CORP. All rights reserved! Feel free to distribute this on a non-profit basis. enough to keep a program from being public domain, yet freely distributable?
suze@terak.UUCP (01/24/86)
> > Incidentally, Americans should note that if you put a copyright notice > > on something you are legally obligated to send a copy to the Library of > > Congress *whether or not you choose to register your copyright claim*! True > > From what I recall from oh-so-many moons ago in school, to copyright a > work, you must place the appropriate notice on the work, and place a > copy of the work in an at least semi-public library (i.e. publish it). > This library need not be the Library of Congress. > -- Not true, it MUST be the Library of Congress. For reference see _Circular_R1_Copyright_Basics_ published by the Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20559. Copyright law was revised in 1978. You do NOT have to put a notice on a work to protect its copyright, but it's a lot harder to prove that you own the copyright if you don't. If you do put the notice on, you are "subject to mandatory deposit with the Library of Congress. ..." (See Circular R1, described above). Two copies are required. If you don't use a copyright notice you aren't required to make a deposit. If required to make a deposit, you can be fined for not doing so. If you want further info call the Copyright Office's Information number: (202) 287-8700. They are open 9-5 EST. -- Suzanne Barnett-Scott uucp: ...{decvax,ihnp4,noao,savax,seismo}!terak!suze CalComp/Sanders Display Products Division 14151 N 76th Street, Scottsdale, AZ 85260 (602) 998-4800
suze@terak.UUCP (01/24/86)
> > > > Incidentally, Americans should note that if you put a copyright notice > > on something you are legally obligated to send a copy to the Library of > > Congress *whether or not you choose to register your copyright claim*! > > If you elect not to register, you need not send any fee, just the work > > itself. (This does wonders for the L of C acqusitions budget.) People > > choosing to assert copyright in other countries should check their > > domestic laws. > > > > Usual disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I have a long-standing interest > > in copyright law. > > I believe this is incorrect. > > The Copyright Office's R1 circular says on page 5: > > " HOW TO SECURE A COPYRIGHT > Copyright Secured Automatically Upon Creation > > The way in which copyright protection is secured under > the present law is frequently misunderstood. No publication > or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is > required to secure copyright under the present law, unlike > the previous law, which required either publication with the > copyright notice or registration in the Copyright Office.... > > Under the prsent law, copyright is secure automatically > ------------- > when the work is created, and a work is 'created' when it is > fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time." > > For more information write: > > Information & Publication Section > LM-455 > Copyright Office > Library of Congress > Washington, D.C. 20559 > > And ask for information about or regestration forms for computer software. > > Or call (202) 287-9100 and leave recorded request. > Or call (202) 287-8700 during business hours for information. > > ----------------- > Carl M. Kadie - U. of Illinois > > > > /* End of text from uiucdcs:net.sources */ You're both right! The first article was in reference to a work *with a copyright notice* placed on the work. The second says that even if the notice isn't there, the work is protected. However, in the second case, it may be harder to prove that the copyright belongs to you and not the "slimy person/entity" who is trying to steal your work and claim it as his/her own. -- Suzanne Barnett-Scott uucp: ...{decvax,ihnp4,noao,savax,seismo}!terak!suze CalComp/Sanders Display Products Division 14151 N 76th Street, Scottsdale, AZ 85260 (602) 998-4800
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (01/25/86)
> > Speaking of copyright, does anyone know what the impact of copyrights > are on artists who use collage in some form that may utilize pictures > from magazines or excerpts from films, video or records for materials? > > Keith Doyle A collage is a derivative work. In a derivative work, one has copyright on the part the one contributed. In a collage, the author has copyright on the selection and arrangement of the materials. This doesn't give the author copyright on the original materials. I believe an author would have the right to make, display, and sell collages of materials he or she rightfully obtained. For example, one could buy magazines, cut out the pictures and make a collage, and sell it without getting into trouble. But one couldn't get away with making collages from illegal copies of magazines. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (01/27/86)
In article <844@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: >> >> Speaking of copyright, does anyone know what the impact of copyrights >> are on artists who use collage in some form that may utilize pictures >> from magazines or excerpts from films, video or records for materials? >> >> Keith Doyle > >A collage is a derivative work. In a derivative work, one has copyright on >the part the one contributed. In a collage, the author has copyright on >the selection and arrangement of the materials. This doesn't give the author >copyright on the original materials. I believe an author would have the >right to make, display, and sell collages of materials he or she rightfully >obtained. For example, one could buy magazines, cut out the pictures and >makrda collage, and sell it without getting into trouble. But one couldn't >get away with making collages from illegal copies of magazines. >-- >Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) Then that would imply that for an artist to use excerpts from a video that is copyrighted, he would have to get a legal copy of the video, and then could 'splice' the tape into his composition, but couldn't re-record segments, or make copies of his finished work. Yet what about works like 'Frank Film', which was an animated collage of magazine images. Could Maybelline or Clarol or someone have a case against him because he re-photographed these images that he cut out of their ads? Could one go to old magazines for 'copyright free' material? (I would assume most ads over 26 years old would fit this description, as I would kinda doubt these copyrights are renewed) Or have the copyright laws changed such that any magazine that pre-dates a certain year is effectively public-domain since maybe the mags didn't use to publish their copyrights correctly (all rights reserved or improper format etc.)? Any ideas on some of these 'fringe' areas? Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd # cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (01/29/86)
In article <379@3comvax.UUCP> mykes@3comvax.UUCP (Mike Schwartz) writes: >Is it sufficient to mail yourself a copy of the source (and leave it >postmarked and unopened) to protect a "copyright" ? This has often been suggested as a means of protecting patentable ideas in development by helping establish prior invention to any competing claims. I've no idea whether it's a good idea in that context. (Couldn't someone claim you'd just opened and resealed the envelope?) It does occur to me that since the current copyright law allows registration of unpublished works in the copyright office, that would be a good idea for anyone really worried about having an idea swiped (nothing says you can't copyright the plans for an invention as a work of art or literature!). Under the law, you own copyright to any *unpublished* work even if you leave out copyright notice. (Actually, the term "published" applies to written works, but similar rules apply to music, films, etc.) >Is a header that says something like: > >(C)1986, ABC CORP. All rights reserved! >Feel free to distribute this on a non-profit basis. > >enough to keep a program from being public domain, yet freely >distributable? From what I've read, the answer is probably "yes," except that spelling out the word "Copyright" is a good idea. As it has already been noted, whether (C) will be accepted as an alternative to the international c-in-a-circle symbol is by no means certain. I repeat I'm a layperson with longstanding interest in copyright and publishing law. If you need legal advice for goodness sake talk to a real lawyer specializing in the appropriate field. -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary