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!deesean@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.BITNETjimb@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
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
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
dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (01/24/86)
In article <> tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: >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. ... 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. > Nope. If there is some $500 piece of copy-protected software and you know how to unprotect it, you have a much higher profit margin selling your program rather than laying out loads of money for copies of the protected software (even at wholesale) and re-selling them after modification. Besides, that may run into problems with shrink-wrap contracts, legal or other harassment from the original manufacturer of the protected software, etc. And what if under some circumstances, the fomerly protected software screws up due to the modifications? Do you want to be in the middle of such hassles? So much easier just to sell your zap program which is a common and accepted thing to do these days. An in any case, the un-copy-protecting software will probably work on multiple things (or at least will with a table of parameters in it) so you have a wider market selling it directly. Of course you can't modify it so as to put the resulting modified work into the public domain. (I.E., it would be a good idea to retain the original copyright notice as well as possibly adding one of your own.) -- +1 617-492-8860 Donald E. Eastlake, III ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!dee
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
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (01/26/86)
> 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? Obviously, permission to use copyright material is required. PLEASE KEEP THIS DISCUSSION OUT OF net.sources!
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
dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (01/29/86)
In article <> gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) 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? > >Obviously, permission to use copyright material is required. No. In the absence of some other agreement, permission is only needed to COPY the copyrighted material, not to "use" it. However, you should be careful not to put it into the public domain to the damage of the copyright holder. Making a collage which has the artists copyright should be no problem. -- +1 617-492-8860 Donald E. Eastlake, III ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!dee