steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (01/18/86)
In article <1073@ecsvax.UUCP>, dgary@ecsvax.UUCP writes: > 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. You are apparently confusing trade secrets with copyrights. According to "Legal Care for Your Software", by Danial Remer, Nolo Press, p. 25 "A copyright, theorietically, is automatically born the instant the program is transfered from your mind to paper or floppy disk or other fixed form." There is no reason you cannot copyright something and give it away. > > 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*! It is not even necessary to register a copyright. The more steps you take to protect yourself the easier it is to collect money if your copyright is infringed. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (01/19/86)
** There have been several articles that are very confused. The term "public domain" is unrelated to copyrights. Copyrights are a means of protecting published material. The only time it makes a difference if something is public domain or not is if it is a trade secret, still another means of protecting something. If something is in the public domain it is not a trade secret, though it may still be copyrighted. This information is in "Legal Care for your Software" Nolo Press, by Daniel Remer. The most reveling line about copyright is on p. 25. It says: "A copyright, theoretically, is automatically born the instant the program is transfered from your mind to paper or floppy disk or other fixed form." The other steps, putting a copyright notice in your work and filing with the Copyright office, are taken to prove that you have copyrighted the work. One takes these steps iff they plan to enforce the copyright. In practice, simply putting the copyright notice in a work is sufficent to copyright a work and you have up to a year to register with the copyright office if you feel that the extra protection in necessary because of a pending court action. If you donate something to the net, it is unlikely that you will want to spend the money on legal fees to enforce your copyright, but legally, if you say it is copyrighted then it is copyrighted. If you specify restrictions on the use of the material that are allowable under copyright laws the legally, these restrictions apply. However, these are CIVIL laws, not criminal, so if you want to enforce a copyright, then it is up to you to take the person(s) you feel violated the copyright to court. Personally, I respect others copyrights. I am an author of articles, a book in progress, and one software system that is on the market. The stuff about giving a copy to the Library of Congress or some other library is nonsense. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (01/19/86)
In article <8422@amdcad.UUCP>, phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > 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." > There may be such a requirement, but it has nothing to do with copyrighting a document. According to "Legal Care For Your Software," p. 36: "The Copyright offices requests only the first twenty-five pages and the last twenty-five pages of the program." On p. 37 it says: "If you forget to send the code you may, theoretically, be liable for a fine. . . . the fine is rarely (if ever) imposed . . . > (C) 1986 Joe Random is not a valid copyright. > Copyright 1986 Joe Random is. > According to the same book, p. 29: The internationally recognized copyright symbox, [circle with a C in it], should always be the first part of the notice. Since CRT screens and most dot matrix printers don't have a [circle with a C in it], you can substitute and use a (C). The second part of the notice is the word "Copyright." Technically this is unnecessary as long as you have a [circle with a C in it], . . . -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382
eli@cvl.UUCP (Eli Liang) (01/19/86)
In article <605@scc.UUCP> steiny@scc.UUCP writes: >In article <8422@amdcad.UUCP>, phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >> 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." >> > There may be such a requirement, but it has nothing >to do with copyrighting a document. According to "Legal Care >For Your Software," p. 36: "The Copyright offices requests >only the first twenty-five pages and the last twenty-five >pages of the program." > > On p. 37 it says: "If you forget to send the code you >may, theoretically, be liable for a fine. . . . the fine >is rarely (if ever) imposed . . . > >> (C) 1986 Joe Random is not a valid copyright. >> Copyright 1986 Joe Random is. >> > According to the same book, p. 29: > > The internationally recognized copyright symbox, [circle >with a C in it], should always be the first part of the notice. >Since CRT screens and most dot matrix printers don't have a [circle >with a C in it], you can substitute and use a (C). The >second part of the notice is the word "Copyright." Technically >this is unnecessary as long as you have a [circle with a C in it], . . . > >-- >scc!steiny >Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software >109 Torrey Pine Terrace >Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 >(408) 425-0382 So many people have quoted the book, "Legal Care for Your Software", that I think we should take a look at this book. A lot of the things quoted are opposite of what I learned in school too. Not to say that the author is in error, but who is he anyways? Is he a lawyer? I think that if I had a stake in the matter, I wouldn't trust anyone short of a patent lawyer to give me the answer.... -eli -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eli Liang --- University of Maryland Computer Vision Lab, (301) 454-4526 ARPA: eli@cvl, eli@lemuria, eli@asgard, eli@mit-mc, eli@mit-prep CSNET: eli@cvl UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!cvl!eli
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (01/20/86)
In article <3316@glacier.ARPA>, reid@glacier.ARPA (Brian Reid) writes: > > 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. I have posted several quotes from "Legal Care For Your Software." It is copyright 1984 so the information is current. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (01/20/86)
In article <1096@ecsvax.UUCP>, dgary@ecsvax.UUCP writes: > 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. Right. It is a little confusing. If you put a source out on the net and say that anyone can use it any way they want, it is public domain and there is no copyright. The reference I have assumes that you want to protect your software and does not go into great detail about how to give it away. If you put it on the net and say that it is copyrighted (you might even have registered it with the copyright office) is it still copyrighted? From the way the book reads it is, though I cannot figure out what restrictions would apply (the book is "Legal Care For Your Software, Nolo Press - 1984). -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (01/22/86)
In article <605@scc.UUCP> steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: > >> (C) 1986 Joe Random is not a valid copyright. >> Copyright 1986 Joe Random is. >> > According to the same book, p. 29: > > The internationally recognized copyright symbox, [circle >with a C in it], should always be the first part of the notice. >Since CRT screens and most dot matrix printers don't have a [circle >with a C in it], you can substitute and use a (C). The >second part of the notice is the word "Copyright." Technically >this is unnecessary as long as you have a [circle with a C in it], . . . > (C) is NOT a valid substitute for [circle with a C in it], according to the software law book I read. This book is copyright 1984, so unless they changed things since then, the stuff marked ">>" is correct. The only thing that will work on all printers and CRTs is "Copyright 1986 by Put Your Name Here". It is also a good idea to follow this with "all rights reserved". [ The book I read was "A Software Law Primer" ( or something like that... see the posting in net.legal with the subject "Software Law ( and copyright )", where I give the name, author and ISBN number of the book ] -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (01/23/86)
In article <1123@cvl.UUCP> eli@cvl.UUCP (Eli Liang) writes: > . . . > So many people have quoted the book, "Legal Care for Your Software", that > I think we should take a look at this book. A lot of the things quoted are > opposite of what I learned in school too. Not to say that the author is > in error, but who is he anyways? Is he a lawyer? I think that if I had a > stake in the matter, I wouldn't trust anyone short of a patent lawyer to > give me the answer.... > > -eli LEGAL CARE FOR YOUR SOFTWARE is by Daniel Remer, an attorney in the SF Bay Area. He is a recognized expert on computer law and copyright matters. I met him when he conducted a panel discussion on Computer Software Law at the American Bar Association Annual Meeting in San Francisco in 1982. Though software copyright law remains in a state of flux, LEGAL CARE is authentic and trustworthy, and I used it as a sourcebook/formbook when I practiced law in that area. Dan Remer has also worked as a software developer and his knowledge of the field is significant. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (01/23/86)
Having read the following on the net. > > > >> (C) 1986 Joe Random is not a valid copyright. > >> Copyright 1986 Joe Random is. I replied > > According to the same book, p. 29: > > > > The internationally recognized copyright symbox, [circle > >with a C in it], should always be the first part of the notice. > >Since CRT screens and most dot matrix printers don't have a [circle > >with a C in it], you can substitute and use a (C). The > >second part of the notice is the word "Copyright." Technically > >this is unnecessary as long as you have a [circle with a C in it], . . . > > To which Tim Smith said: > (C) is NOT a valid substitute for [circle with a C in it], according > to the software law book I read. > > [ The book I read was "A Software Law Primer" ( or something like > that... see the posting in net.legal with the subject "Software Law ( > and copyright )", where I give the name, author and ISBN number of the > book ] It appears the experts disagree. The stuff I typed in above came from "Legal Care For Your Software", by Daniel Remer, Nolo Press (C) 1984. My lawyer and the lawyers for the company I am currently writing software for (Hewlett-Packard) insist on BOTH the (C) and the word "Copyright." The (C) is an international symbol, recognized in countries that do not use English. One reason to put a copyright notice in source you post to the net is to establish that you have a legitimate right to give it away. I recently sold some software and a good portion of the license was a warantee that I owned it and had the right to sell it. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (01/23/86)
In article <602@scc.UUCP> steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: [in response to an earlier posting by me] >. . . There is no reason you >cannot copyright something and give it away. I never said you couldn't! The problem is in the proposed wording of the posted copyright notice. "Public domain" legally means the copyright is owned by the public. And while you do indeed automatically own copyright while the work is unpublished, if you publish the software (or anything else) without copyright notice, you have just donated it to the public domain. -- 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 <604@scc.UUCP> steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: > The term "public domain" is unrelated to copyrights. Absolutely not true. >Copyrights are a means of protecting published material. Also unpublished material. If you write a novel or a program, you automatically own copyright until it is published (as you yourself quote from the book you cite!). A copyright notice is required in published material if you wish to retain copyright. Publishing a work without copyright notice effectively surrenders ownership to the public domain. >The only time it makes a difference if something is public >domain or not is if it is a trade secret, still another means >of protecting something. If something is in the public >domain it is not a trade secret, though it may still be >copyrighted. You seem to misinterpret "public domain" to mean "publicly available." Public domain is a legal expression meaning the public owns the copyright (or, to put it differently, that there is no copyright). > This information is in "Legal Care for your Software" >Nolo Press, by Daniel Remer. I have the book (along with a number of others on the subject), and you seem to be misreading it. > The other steps, putting a copyright notice in your >work and filing with the Copyright office, are taken to prove >that you have copyrighted the work. One takes these >steps iff they plan to enforce the copyright. In practice, No argument there. If you register you are entitled to greater recovery in any legal action you may take, but registration costs money. If you publish a work you are legally required to send copies to the Library of Congress *whether or not you elect to register*. I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble for failing to do so, however. I had even forgotten this requirement existed until a friend of mine who does research in the Library of Congress reminded me. > The stuff about giving a copy to the Library of Congress >or some other library is nonsense. The Library of Congress disagrees with you. -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (01/25/86)
In article <1113@ecsvax.UUCP>, dgary@ecsvax.UUCP writes: > In article <604@scc.UUCP> steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: > > The term "public domain" is unrelated to copyrights. > > Absolutely not true. > He is right, I am wrong. The book I was getting the info from actually says: "For a work to be in the public domain and therefor not copyrightable, it must be published in such a way that it looses its copyright protection. Suppose that Tom published an object code listing (in hex, assembly language, or binary) of JunkMail in *Gulp* magazine along with the suggestion than anyone wishing to use it could do so. By doing this Tom has put JunkMail in the public domain. Another way of allowing a work to fall into the public domain is to publish it without a copyright notice and fail to rectify this within the next five years." [p. 28] > > Publishing a work without > copyright notice effectively surrenders ownership to the public domain. If you fail to rectify it in the next five years. > > > This information is in "Legal Care for your Software" > >Nolo Press, by Daniel Remer. > > > The stuff about giving a copy to the Library of Congress > >or some other library is nonsense. > > The Library of Congress disagrees with you. Perhaps this is so. It is a requirement that has nothing to do with copyrights though. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382
rudy@wang.UUCP (Rudy Bazelmans x72609 ms 1989) (01/26/86)
> (C) is NOT a valid substitute for [circle with a C in it], according > to the software law book I read. This book is copyright 1984, so > unless they changed things since then, the stuff marked ">>" is > correct. The only thing that will work on all printers and CRTs is > "Copyright 1986 by Put Your Name Here". It is also a good idea to > follow this with "all rights reserved". > Correct, but if everyone uses the (C) symbol, it will be common practice and will become a valid substitute. I'd suggest using both the copyright notice you used with a (C).