cwc@mhuxd.UUCP (Chip Christ) (03/19/84)
-
...qubix!steven would do better to read the Copyright Law than to
wax inelegant with such a load of pap. I don't know about other
countries, but in the U.S., reproduction of copyrighted material
without payment of royalty is allowed only for very specific purposes
(e.g. research), and only in limited quantities (usually a single,
personal copy). This certainly does not include making copies for
all of your friends because you think it's great stuff.
Chip
p.s. I am not a lawyer, but I have had the responsibility of
keeping my employer in compliance with the Copyright Act
(as interpreted by our legal staff) for 7 years now, so
I am more familiar with the law than I really care to be.hennessy@nmtvax.UUCP (04/21/84)
The following is a reply to a message sent out on net.legal.
/***** net.legal / nmtvax!hennessy / 6:49 pm Apr 1, 1984*/
What do I have to do if I wish to copyright something. For a few
years I have taken to putting a "(c) copyright 198X by Greg
Hennessy all rights reserved" on anything that seemed like I
might use for more than ten minutes. The reasons were half
comical but there were some (potentially) serious considerations
for my actions. The local managers have given me three differing
opinions on who owns the copyrights and other some stuff. Is what
I do sufficient? If not what more do I have to do? Do I HAVE to
pay a fee to legally copyright something?
Sincerely; Greg Hennessy.
/* ---------- */
You don't have to do anything at all, unless you publish it. I quote at
length from Circular R1, available from the Information and Publications
Section, LM-455, Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Washington,
D.C. 20559 (without permission, of course, but it's not illegal):
------------------------------------------
WHO CAN CLAIM COPYRIGHT
Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created
in fixed form; that is, it is an incident of the process of
authorship. The copyright in the work of authorship *immediately*
becomes the property of the author who created it. Only the author
or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully
claim copyright.
In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee
is presumptively considered the author. Section 101 of the copyright
statute defines a "work made for hire" as:
(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her
employment; or
(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution
to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other
audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work,
as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer
material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties agree in
a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be
considered a work made for hire...
The authors of a joint work are co-owners of the copyright in the work,
unless there is an agreement to the contrary.
Copyright in each separate contribution to a periodical or other
collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a
whole and vests initially with the author of the contribution.
[sections relating to minors, national origin of work omitted]
WHAT WORKS ARE PROTECTED
Copyright protection exists for "original works of authorship" when
they become fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation
does not need to be directly perceptible, so long as it may be
communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable
works include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; and
(7) sound recordings.
This list is illustrative and is not meant to exhaust the categories of
copyrightable works. These categories should be viewed quite broadly
so that, for example, computer programs and most "compilations" are
registrable as "literary works"; maps and architectural blueprints are
registrable as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works."
WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
Several categories of material are generally not eligible for statutory
copyright protection. These include among others:
o Works that have *not* been fixed in a tangible form of expression.
For example: choreographic works which have not been notated or
recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not
been written or recorded.
o Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or
designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or
coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents.
o Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles,
discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description,
explanation, or illustration.
o Works consisting *entirely* of information that is common property
and containing no original authorship. For example: standard
calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rules, and
list or tables taken from public documents or other common sources.
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 (see NOTE below). There are, however, certain definite
advantages to registration. (See COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION below.)
Under the present law, copyright is secured *automatically* when the
work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or
phonorecord for the first time. In general, "copies" are material
objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either
directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books,
manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. [Definition
of "phonorecords" omitted.]
If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work
existing in fixed form on a particular date constitutes the created work
as of that date.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| NOTE: Before 1978, statutory copyright was generally secured by the act |
| of publication with notice of copyright, assuming compliance with all |
| other relevant statutory conditions. Works in the public domain on |
| January 1, 1978 (for example, works published without satisfying all |
| conditions for securing statutory copyright under the Copyright Act of |
| 1909) remain in the public domain under the current Act. |
| ... |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
PUBLICATION
Publication is no longer the key to obtaining statutory copyright as it
was under the Copyright Act of 1909. However, publication remains
important to copyright owners.
The Copyright Act defines publication as follows:
"Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work
to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental,
lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords
to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public
performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public
performance or display of a work does not itself constitute
publication.
...The [legislative] reports also state that it is clear that any form
of dissemination in which the material object does not change hands, for
example, performances or displays on television [Usenet traffic?], is
*not* a publication no matter how many people are exposed to the work.
However, when copies or phonorecords are offered for sale or lease to a
group of wholesalers, broadcasters, or motion picture theaters,
publication does take place if the purpose is further distribution,
public performance, or public display.
Publication is an important concept in the copyright law because upon
publication, several significant consequences follow. Among these are:
o When a work is published, all published copies should bear a notice of
copyright. (See discussion below of "notice of copyright.")
o Works that are published with notice of copyright in the United States
are subject to mandatory deposit with the Library of Congress.
o Publication of a work can affect the limitations on the exclusive
rights of the copyright owner that are set forth in sections 107-118 of
the law.
o The year of publication is used in determining the duration of
copyright protection for anonymous and pseudonymous works (when the
author's identity is not revealed in the records of the Copyright
Office) and for works made for hire.
o Deposit requirements for registration or published works differ from
those of unpublished works.
NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT
When a work is published under the authority of the copyright owner,
a notice of copyright should be placed on all publicly distributed copies
or phonorecords of sound recordings. This notice is required even on
works published outside of the United States. Failure to comply with the
notice requirement can result in the loss of certain additional rights
otherwise available to the copyright owner.
The use of the copyright notice is the responsibility of the copyright
owner and does not require advance permission from, or registration with,
the Copyright Office.
Form of Notice for Visually Perceptible Copies
The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all of the
following three elements:
1. The symbol (c) (the letter C in a circle), or the word
"Copyright," or the abbreviation "Copr."
2. The year of first publication of the work. In the case of
compilations or derivative works incorporating previously
published material, the year date of first publication of the work
is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial,
graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if
any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery,
jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful articles.
3. The name of the owner of the copyright in the work, or an
abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally
known alternative designation of the owner.
Example: (c) 1982 John Doe [creative, aren't they?]
["Form of Notice for Phonorecords of Sound Recordings" omitted.]
Position of Notice
The notice should be affixed to copies or phonorecords of the work in
such a manner and location as to "give reasonable notice of the claim
of copyright." [placement on phonorecords omitted] The three
elements of the notice should ordinarily appear together on the copies
or phonorecords. The Copyright Office has issued regulations
concerning the form and position of the copyright notice in the \Code
of Federal Regulations/ (37 C.F.R. Part 201); copies of these
regulations are available from the Copyright Office as Circular R96
201.20.
Publications Incorporating United States Government Works
Whenever a work is published in copies or phonorecords consisting
preponderantly of one or more works of the United States Government,
the notice of copyright shall also include a statement identifying,
either affirmatively or negatively, those portions of the copies or
phonorecords embodying any work or works protected by title 17 of the
United States Code.
Unpublished Works
The copyright notice is not required on unpublished works. To
avoid an inadvertent publication without notice, however, it may be
advisable to affix notices, or a statement such as Unpublished Work
(c) 1982 John Doe, to any copies or phonorecords which leave his
or her control.
[several sections omitted]
COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION
In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to
make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright.
However, except in two specific conditions (errors in copyright notice
or works published with the copyright notice before 1978), registration
is not a condition of copyright protection.
Even though registration is not generally a requirement for protection,
the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to
encourage copyright owners to make registration.
Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright.
Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has been registered in unpublished
form, it is not necessary to make another registration when the work
becomes published (although the copyright owner may register the published
edition, if desired).
------------------------------------
Whew! I hope this clears some of the haze. Although the information
contained in this article has been checked for mechanical accuracy against
the original, I disclaim any liability incurred from its use by anyone
except myself.
Dave Decot ucbvax!hpda!hpdsd!decot
stansferjvb@duke.UUCP (Jack V. Briner, Jr.) (05/15/85)
I have written a program for a company which carries their
copyright for which I am entitled royalties. Unfortunately, the company
is almost a year behind in payments. It now appears that the company is
going broke, and the services of a lawyer appear to be worthless.
(1) Copyright. When the company declares bankruptcy who gets the copyright?
(2) Settlement of claims. I assume that all tangible equipment that
I have in my possession will be part of the settlement of all persons having
disputes with the company. Or will I be lucky enough to say that possession
is mine?
(3) Incomplete work. I am currently working on another project for the
company (how stupid could I have been?). Part of the work was done by
salaried members of the company. I, on the other hand, am paid only royalties
once the company accepts the program at which time the program's copyright
transfers to the company. If the company goes broke before it accepts
the copyright, I assume I can sell the program to someone else. Am I right?
Responses and comments greatly accepted by mail. I will post a
summary if there is sufficient response.
Jack Briner
decvax!mcnc!duke!jvbwasser@viking.DEC (John A. Wasser) (01/23/86)
> I occasionally get music that is blatently marked 'Copying Prohibited' all > over it and yet is a xeroxed copy. The question is is can I as a choir member > get into trouble or the group as a whole or what? The person who made the copies can get into trouble. > > Using an authors copyright work without paying the author is stealing. Copyright only covers copying (publishing) the copyrighted work. Royalty agreements are something else... Sheet music is usualy copyrighted by the publisher but that doesn't mean that the tune itself isn't in the public domain. > No, you don't have to pay the author unless you yourself are receiving money > for performing the work. The author gets a share of the money you receive > for performing the work (which is called a royalty). I thought royalties were generally based on audience size. > In reference to the original question, enforcement of copyright is almost > impossible, But the copying is still illegal. In order to retain the copyright, the publisher MUST persue all cases of infringement that come to their attention. If they don't they may loose the copyright. > if I already own a copy > and I photocopy it to make page-turning easier or some other reason, do you > think it's proper to prosecute me for it? To making a copy to make page turning easier is probably legal under the Fair Use doctrine. Copying for "some other reason" may not be legal. -John A. Wasser Not a Lawyer!
ron@brl-smoke.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (01/28/86)
> Copyright only covers copying (publishing) the copyrighted work. > Royalty agreements are something else... Sheet music is usualy > copyrighted by the publisher but that doesn't mean that the > tune itself isn't in the public domain. > But be careful, some obviously public domain classical music pieces that are published today are copyrighted arrangements. Performing these can get you into trouble as well. > I thought royalties were generally based on audience size. Royalties are based on all kinds of wierd computations usually negotiated for music through licensing organizations such as ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. For instance, we were able to negotiate a blanket coverage for everything at our University, rather than dealing with each performance seperately.
chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/20/86)
>In article <21@paladin.UUCP> bobg@paladin.UUCP (Bob Goldberg) writes: >> In todays world, almost anything worth discussing is >>copyrighted. If we were to gather in an informal group and discussed the >>matter, that would be no violation of copyright (right?). In article <2927@ism780c.UUCP> tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: >Right. ... presumably because this is not considered copying. It is clear that if I read a book and write something about it, even including a few paraphrases from it, that this is not a violation of copyright laws. I have often wondered, however, where the line is really drawn. In particular, must those with eidetic memories take special care? I quote here from a standard copyright notice (is this a violation of the copyright itself? I do not think so): No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any informatoin storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing .... However, when I read something, I am committing it to a chemical information storage and retrieval system. In some cases I may remember passages word for word. I appear to be in violation of the copyright! ---But this is of course silly: and I suppose the restriction on me is that I not reproduce any memorised sections. Yet I may do this entirely by accident. Indeed, I am virtually certain that much of the phrasing I use is lifted word for word from various published works I have read: not with intent to copy, but because I thought the wording effective, and thus remembered and repeated it. Now it is clear to me (though it may also be wrong) that this too is fair use. I do not worry about being arrested for remembering things, nor for repeating them. Yet still I wonder. When should I become concerned? -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1516) UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@mimsy.umd.edu
ark@alice.UUCP (07/21/86)
> Now it is clear to me (though it may also be wrong) that this too > is fair use. I do not worry about being arrested for remembering > things, nor for repeating them. Yet still I wonder. When should > I become concerned? Surely reading something -- even memorizing it -- is not copying it. Repeating it may be, though. For instance, a performance of a play or a piece of music is a copy, as is a paraphrase or a translation into another language. When should you be worried? I dunno. I would start getting worried when I wrote something that had a significant chance of being proved to be some kind of a copy of something else.
shor@sphinx.UUCP (07/21/86)
In article <2518@umcp-cs.UUCP> chris@maryland.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes: > > No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted > in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, > including photocopying and recording, or by any informatoin > storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing .... > When we were taught about copyright law in library school, one of the first things that we were told is that saying it's so doesn't make it so. This claim by publishers doesn't have the force of law behind it, and can be ignored. Brief excerpts (with attribution) used for educational or illustrative purposes are perfectly legal, as long as they don't steal potential income from the publisher. In short, the above claim by publishers is both silly and unenforceable. -- Melinda Shore ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!shor University of Chicago Computation Center XASSHOR@UCHIMVS1.Bitnet
matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (07/22/86)
In article <2518@umcp-cs.UUCP> chris@maryland.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes: > >However, when I read something, I am committing it to a chemical >information storage and retrieval system. ... I appear to be in >violation of the copyright! You're safe until they repeal the fifth ammendment. I'd quote it here, but I read it in a copyrighted book, so I can't. :-) Matt Crawford "Sooner or later, generals will own you."
coller@utah-cs.UUCP (Lee D. Coller) (07/22/86)
In article <1420@oddjob.UUCP> matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) writes: >You're safe until they repeal the fifth ammendment. I'd quote it >here, but I read it in a copyrighted book, so I can't. :-) Actually you can. Under the 1978 US Copyright act the US Government cannot hold any copyrights. Thus anything put out by them or their agents (text of laws, opinions, etc.) is in the public domain. -- -Lee (coller@utah-cs.arpa, {ihnp4, seismo, hplabs, decvax}!utah-cs!coller) "They say the mark of a good team is that it wins when it plays poorly." -- Jim Fassel, Head Football Coach, University of Utah
chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) (07/23/86)
> When we were taught about copyright law in library school, one of the > first things that we were told is that saying it's so doesn't make it > so. This claim by publishers doesn't have the force of law behind it, > and can be ignored. Brief excerpts (with attribution) used for > educational or illustrative purposes are perfectly legal, as long as > they don't steal potential income from the publisher. In short, the > above claim by publishers is both silly and unenforceable. All you say is true (more or less) except the last. It is not both silly and unenforcable. If the copyright restriction was not there, then there would be no way they could enforce copyright. Even if the restrictions go too far (which they do) they give the publisher room to fight a violation in court if it comes to that. Since 'fair use' is such a grey area, the only real way to deal with it is to restrict all rights and let the court decide fair use on a case by case basis. chuq -- Chuq Von Rospach chuq%plaid@sun.COM CompuServe: 73317,635 {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!sun!plaid!chuq O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim Of Brahamana and recluse the honoured name! For, quarrelling, each to his view they claim, Such folk see only one side of a thing. -- Buddha -- The Elephant and the Blind Men
dave@rsch.wisc.edu (Dave Cohrs) (07/23/86)
In article <3860@utah-cs.UUCP> coller@utah-cs.UUCP (Lee D. Coller) writes: >Actually you can. Under the 1978 US Copyright act the US Government >cannot hold any copyrights. Thus anything put out by them or their >agents (text of laws, opinions, etc.) is in the public domain. Hmmm. BSD was written by Berkeley under a DARPA grant, wasn't it? Does that make them an agent of the US govt? Dave Cohrs (608) 262-1204 ..!{harvard,ihnp4,seismo,topaz}!uwvax!dave dave@rsch.wisc.edu
jordan@nike.UUCP (Jordan Hayes) (07/23/86)
dave@rsch.wisc.edu (Dave Cohrs) writes:
BSD was written by Berkeley under a DARPA grant, wasn't it?
Does that make them an agent of the US govt?
No, probably not ... in any case, the way that works out, the Regents
of the University of California hold the copyright ... for 4.3 we went
through a lot to get everything with a consistent copyright notice on
it, all the way down to the man pages.
/jordan