brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (01/06/90)
The news.misc article quoted below illustrates several common beliefs about copyright law; I address the legal issues. Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not familiar with any state laws outside New York. In article <4198@convex.UUCP> hamrick@convex.COM (Ed Hamrick) writes: > In article <45061@bu-cs.BU.EDU> ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) writes: > >This article, excluding quoted text, is Copyright 1989 Chris Davis. > >Redistribution for profit is prohibited. This copyright statement shall > >not be construed to limit non-profit distribution, including but not > >limited to UUNET's news forwarding services. This article may not be > >gatewayed to GEnie without a license fee paid to the author. > > I've been noticing similar "Copyright" notices in numerous usenet articles [ ... ] > There appears to be a consensus that the only legal mechanism that can be > used to control the use of usenet articles is the Copyright laws. I've > never seen any assertions that any other law or regulation applies to > these articles. Copyright law is the most obvious protection for a published work. Trade secret law cannot apply. Patent law doesn't apply to the *expression* of inventions, only their production. Trademark law is never a major issue. Copyrights are designed to preserve distribution rights, and that's what they do. > There appears to be a commonly held belief that an author of a usenet > article can control the "right to copy an article" by asserting that > an article is "Copyright 1989 John Doe", Yes. ``All rights reserved'' is necessary for some countries. A circled c is customary, though I don't know any countries that require it if the word Copyright is present. Anyway, the owner of a copyright most certainly does control the legal right to copy an article. > and that the article may be > copied/redistributed under certain limited circumstances. Yes. This addition is a copyright limitation; in general, someone can limit or completely give up his right to X by declaring the limitation. Sometimes limitations are restricted by further laws: for example, a minor might not be able to refuse medical treatment just on religious grounds. Copyrights are not life-and-death issues where the government sees a need to butt in, so you can limit copyrights any way you want. Unpublished works are automatically copyrighted. Published works enter the public domain (i.e., lose their copyright) if they do not carry a copyright notice. In countries subscribing to the Berne Convention, even published works are automatically subject to copyright, so that the author must explicitly declare a work as public domain (and then distribute it!) if he wants to give up his rights. For the moment, those countries respect United States copyrights, so there's little immediate pressure for us to switch. Note that even in the United States, any indication of authorship (a signature, for example, or even my typed ``---Dan'') is usually construed as a declaration of copyright. However, damages for infringement will be higher if an explicit copyright notice appears. > On the > surface, this seems to be a perfectly acceptable practice, and is used > in many computer journals (see ACM journals as an example). Yes. It works quite well and is easy to deal with in court. > There are several problems I see in trying to extend this practice to > articles deliberately transmitted to usenet: > > 1) Anything printed with copyrighted materials is generally sold, > not given away. It seems doubtful that a judge would award damages > under the Copyright laws to someone who gives away tens of thousands > of copies of their works to the public (and then claims economic > damage from someone making a few hundred more copies and selling them). You are correct in bringing up enforcement as a separate issue. 17 USC 105 (I think), the Copyright Act of 1976, classifies certain copying as ``fair use,'' so that it does not constitute infringement. It doesn't give explicit rules to decide what constitutes fair use. However, it does say that such a decision must consider several issues: the nature of the work (you can't make any money by copyrighting a document consisting of the word ``the''), the amount copied, the effect of copying upon the original work and its distribution, the use of the copies (profit versus nonprofit), etc. By now there's enough case law that it's easy to tell when you're safe; the government publishes a booklet with certain magic numbers below which you couldn't possibly be taken to court. I doubt that any judge would consider Genie's distribution of a copyrighted Usenet article to be fair use, because Genie is making a large number of copies for profit. On the other hand, the damages would probably be limited to a small multiple of the money Genie makes from those articles directly. (If they take in X dollars from each of M subscribers each year, and there are N articles each year, then I wouldn't be surprised at damages of XM/N.) In copyright infringement, as in the rest of civil law, the most important issue is almost always money. > 2) Someone who transmits an article to usenet knows that everything > they send is automatically sent to any site connected to usenet. > It seems doubtful that damages would be awarded to someone who > claims economic damage from something they themselves caused (the > transmission of their copyrighted materials to all connected > usenet sites). Nobody's claiming damages for USENET distribution, which is intentional. It's the GENIE distribution that's infringing. Here's a parody of that argument: 2) Someone who publishes a book with A-W knows that everything he writes is automatically sent to any bookstore serving A-W. It seems doubtful that damages would be awarded to someone who claims economic damage from something he himself had caused. True, but what about the bookstore that makes money behind the author's back by making more copies and selling them in its town? > The following is an example of why I believe that copyright notices > embedded within usenet articles aren't worth the paper they're printed on: > > This article, excluding quoted text, is Copyright 1989 Ed Hamrick. > Permission to copy and redistribute this article is granted provided > it is printed on yellow paper, stored on 160 KByte floppy diskettes, > or displayed on DEC VT102 terminals. Fine. (You don't need the ``excluding quoted text'' part.) You're asserting your copyright, and giving a rather ridiculous limitation that amounts to no limitation at all. > I believe that this somewhat absurd paragraph (apologies to Christopher Davis) > illustrates that there is not an unlimited right to assert rights under > the Copyright laws for automatically distributed usenet messages. Of course there is. Your absurd copyright notice is perfectly legal and possibly enforceable. If GENIE makes money by selling copies of your article, and you can prove that GENIE did so (which is easy), then you could be awarded damages. (In practice, as a mere distribution medium, they'd only be liable for contributory infringment; they'd still have to pay.) Unauthorized profit from a copyrighted article is very dangerous. ---Dan
aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (a.e.mossberg) (01/07/90)
In article <600@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu writes: >Yes. ``All rights reserved'' is necessary for some countries. A circled >c is customary, though I don't know any countries that require it if >the word Copyright is present. Anyway, the owner of a copyright most >certainly does control the legal right to copy an article. The last time I read a simple version of copyright laws, it said that either the circled c or the word Copyright was valid under international copyright convention. The sequence '(c)' is not valid, though in common use. The year nad copyright holder must also be stated, of course. Valid examples: (pretend that *C* is a circled c) *C* 1990 By Andrew Mossberg, All Rights Reserved. Copyright 1990 by Andrew Mossberg *C* 1990 Georges Discount Used Hosiery Emporium This article Copyright 1990 by the USENET Community Trust, and may be redistributed without charge on rainy days of this century. [heh heh. The above would practically mean no restriction] Invalid examples: (c) 1990 Melvin the Discount Haberdasher Copywrite 1990 Sara's Head Shop and Deli All Rights Reserved by Margie Mesozoic Please Note: I'm not a lawyer. The forms exampled above are not meant to be nor should be construed as all inclusive. When in doubt, see a doctor. aem Copyright 1990 By Andrew Mossberg, may be freely reproduced in any form, electronic or otherwise, except by persons with the first name 'Cragmire'. -- a.e.mossberg / aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu / aem@umiami.BITNET / Pahayokee Bioregion All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. - George Orwell
magik@sorinc.UUCP (Darrin A. Hyrup) (01/07/90)
In article <600@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu writes: >The news.misc article quoted below illustrates several common beliefs >about copyright law; I address the legal issues. Disclaimer: I'm not a >lawyer, and I'm not familiar with any state laws outside New York. > >> There appears to be a commonly held belief that an author of a usenet >> article can control the "right to copy an article" by asserting that >> an article is "Copyright 1989 John Doe", > >Yes. ``All rights reserved'' is necessary for some countries. A circled >c is customary, though I don't know any countries that require it if >the word Copyright is present. Anyway, the owner of a copyright most >certainly does control the legal right to copy an article. To begin with, as of last year, much of this is moot, since the U.S.A. is now a member of the Berne convention, so all works now carry a copyright regardless of this is stated or not. But, for formal declarations of copyright, the C in a circle is a synonym for the word Copyright. The use of (C) or (c) does not qualify as () is not a circle. In any case there must be either one or the other, and in many cases, both. It is also proper to use the phrase "All rights reserved" in order to afford full protection in many countries, (including some in Latin America/South America). >> and that the article may be >> copied/redistributed under certain limited circumstances. > >Unpublished works are automatically copyrighted. Published works enter >the public domain (i.e., lose their copyright) if they do not carry a >copyright notice. In countries subscribing to the Berne Convention, >even published works are automatically subject to copyright, so that >the author must explicitly declare a work as public domain (and then >distribute it!) if he wants to give up his rights. For the moment, >those countries respect United States copyrights, so there's little >immediate pressure for us to switch. We are now members of the Berne Convention, and so the formal declaration of copyright is no longer neccessary. However, that only applies to those countries that are also members of the Berne Convention, so you are always better off using "Copyright 1990 by Joe Smith. All Rights Reserved." in anything that may have international access. (Like, say, Usenet). >> On the >> surface, this seems to be a perfectly acceptable practice, and is used >> in many computer journals (see ACM journals as an example). > >Yes. It works quite well and is easy to deal with in court. Correct under most conditions. >> There are several problems I see in trying to extend this practice to >> articles deliberately transmitted to usenet: >> >> 1) Anything printed with copyrighted materials is generally sold, >> not given away. It seems doubtful that a judge would award damages >> under the Copyright laws to someone who gives away tens of thousands >> of copies of their works to the public (and then claims economic >> damage from someone making a few hundred more copies and selling them). He is right here. Or at least in part. It is commonly known that the entity known as "Usenet" is a public-domain, albiet loosly connected organization of "subscribers" much like a bulletin board. It is also known (or should be) by everyone on the net that any article you submit may be read by [hundreds of] thousands of people all over the world, and that you are not expecting compensation for anything submitted to this network. Knowing that, and also knowing that it is not feasible, as a manpower or economics issue for every site to screen every message for possible distribution restrictions in this public-access system, it would follow (and likely be held in court) that your act of submitting the article places it in the public domain at least as far as distribution goes, as you are purposefully making the article available for unrestricted public access all over the world. Any distribution restrictions could not be justified in that case, and so you would not be able to enforce any claims of misuse by usenet sites recieving your article(s). Of course, if an individual were to take your message and sell it verbatim to a magazine or such for a profit to him/herself, then you may have a case, although it still would be hard to win, especially if they changed the text in any form, and you still have to prove it. Remember, you cannot copyright an idea, only a particular implementation of an idea. >I doubt that any judge would consider Genie's distribution of a >copyrighted Usenet article to be fair use, because Genie is making >a large number of copies for profit. On the other hand, the damages >would probably be limited to a small multiple of the money Genie >makes from those articles directly. (If they take in X dollars from >each of M subscribers each year, and there are N articles each year, >then I wouldn't be surprised at damages of XM/N.) I believe you are in error here. Assuming that GEnie eventually becomes a real usenet site (allowing both sending and recieving of messages, although there is no law or rule that requires or even assumes that all usenet sites must allow 2-way traffic), it would then become nothing more than one of many usenet sites that charge their users access to their network, and use of facilities. They are not specifically charging their clients a surcharge to read your article over and above that what they would pay to access the network itself, nor are they attempting to sell the rights to your articles. They would be doing what many other usenet sites do, providing a service to the public, from which they are recieving compensation. There is nothing unfair about that. And, they are in no way making unfair use of the articles submitted to the network, more than are any other usenet site. It would also follow that even an explicit distribution statement (such as referred to at the beginning of this article) would not be legally binding, considering the fact that it would be impossible for every message in every newsgroup to be scanned by every usenet site in the world for possible distribution restrictions. That goes for GEnie and every other usenet site out there. A judge would likely suggest that if you do not want users of for-profit sites to have access to your message, that you should not submit it to the network at all. >In copyright infringement, as in the rest of civil law, the most >important issue is almost always money. > >> 2) Someone who transmits an article to usenet knows that everything >> they send is automatically sent to any site connected to usenet. >> It seems doubtful that damages would be awarded to someone who >> claims economic damage from something they themselves caused (the >> transmission of their copyrighted materials to all connected >> usenet sites). He's right in theory. But thats not a good explanation. >Nobody's claiming damages for USENET distribution, which is intentional. >It's the GENIE distribution that's infringing. That is not at all the case. Usenet is a loose term. It refers to any site that recieves or submits usenet messages. GEnie wouldn't be excluded from that label if they carried news in some way. Even via gateway. >> The following is an example of why I believe that copyright notices >> embedded within usenet articles aren't worth the paper they're printed on: >> >> This article, excluding quoted text, is Copyright 1989 Ed Hamrick. >> Permission to copy and redistribute this article is granted provided >> it is printed on yellow paper, stored on 160 KByte floppy diskettes, >> or displayed on DEC VT102 terminals. > >Fine. (You don't need the ``excluding quoted text'' part.) You're >asserting your copyright, and giving a rather ridiculous limitation that >amounts to no limitation at all. As does any restrictions on articles submitted to the network. They would not be binding. >> I believe that this somewhat absurd paragraph (apologies to Christopher Davis) >> illustrates that there is not an unlimited right to assert rights under >> the Copyright laws for automatically distributed usenet messages. > >Of course there is. Your absurd copyright notice is perfectly legal and >possibly enforceable. If GENIE makes money by selling copies of your >article, and you can prove that GENIE did so (which is easy), then you >could be awarded damages. (In practice, as a mere distribution medium, >they'd only be liable for contributory infringment; they'd still have to >pay.) Unauthorized profit from a copyrighted article is very dangerous. This is not a normal medium. It is not reasonable to suggest that any distribution restrictions could ever apply in usenet. Even with specific copyright and distribution notices, due to the nature of the net and how it operates. There is no way that sites could "censor" the news on a global basis, and so it could not be enforced. If you can prove that GEnie (or any other usenet site or individual for that matter -- lets not pick on GEnie constantly) is making money specifically from your article(s), and not for providing their clients with desired services, (only one of which may be access to usenet messages), then you may have a case. You do have a copyright and do indeed own your works, but by submitting them to the net, you have basically made them public-domain; at least in a distribution sense. If an entity or company sells your works in verbatim, and in a form in which they were not originally intended to be distributed (global access through the many usenet sites, BBSs and other news-gatewaying services out there), and makes money specifically off of the sale, and without your consent or knowledge, then you may have a case. But still, it would be tough to prove misuse. >---Dan I am not an attorney (yet), but I am a law major and am fairly familiar with the subject of computer law and how it applies to copyright law. I also have a few friends who are practicing attorneys with whom I have had discussions with regarding this subject over the last few months, and the ideas I submit are our general consensus (in my own words of course). The truth is, that usenet (or any large scale information sharing networks or large scale BBSs) are as yet mostly untouched in as far as copyright law decisions go, and any statements regarding how the courts would look upon all this is yet to be seen, but I base much of my discussion on current law and on decisions that I am aware of that apply in some way. Until such time as a precident is made, the subject will undoubtedly continue to rage. Note: My site doesn't recieve misc.legal, so I will be unable to see any followups made there (which is why I followed up here and suggest others to do so as well since this group probably has a larger subscription base anyway). -- Darrin A. Hyrup // AMIGA Enthusiast rencon!esfenn!dah magik@sorinc.PacBell.COM \X/ & Software Developer pacbell!sorinc!magik ========================================================================== "Speak little and well, if you wish to be considered as possessing merit."
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (01/08/90)
It is astounding the bad advice and myths heard in the lunchroom that are pushed forth as copyright advice. In the first place if you want good copyright advice seek good legal counsel. If your problem is not worth a couple of hundred dollars to get that advice then it's probably not worth protecting anyhow and just putting something like "Copyright 1990 Joe Blow" and whatever else you dream up will serve as a suitable 3-foot cyclone fence to protect your property, at least it counter-balances the value it represents to you (i.e. nothing, since you won't invest the cost of a nice night out for legal advice.) The copyright laws in the US were re-written in the "Copyright Revision Act of 1976" (CRA76). One constant source of bad information that shows up on these groups is from people who perhaps had some knowledge of the copyright laws before this act was passed (often passed second-hand from others), many provisions have changed. Another event which affected the Copyright Laws was the acceptance by the U.S. and many other countries of the Berne Treaty which dealt with international laws regarding copyrights (among other things.) Some provisions of the CRA76 were specifically designed to bring the US's laws more in line with international agreements. That said, here's some comments from: Foster, Frank H. and Shook, Robert L., "Patents, Copyrights & Trademarks", John Wiley & Sons, 1989, ISBN 0-471-50849-7. [Note: I'll use "[circle-c]" to indicate the c in a circle in the text] "When a work is published under copyright law in the United States, a notice of copyright should be placed on all publicly distributed copies. While this is no longer a mandatory requirement because of U.S. adherence to the Berne Treaty, it is still desirable." (p.156) "There are three elements that should be present in a copyright notice: 1. The symbol [circle-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....(etc.) 3. The name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner. Example [circle-c] John Smith 1980. Although sometimes the word copyright is spelled out, it is not necessary. The symbol [circle-c] is an internationally recognized symbol... In the event that a published work does not have a copyright notice, the omission will not invalidate the copyright in the work... A copyright notice is still desirable in the United States even though your work has not been registered...If you publish without notice after March 1989, the work may still be protectable but to be safe and gain addtional rights, the notice should always be used... ...keep in mind that the purpose of a copyright notice is to prevent somebody else from copying your work. However, it is not proof that the work is actually yours... Although your work receives legal protection when you fix it in a tangible form, it is still desirable to register your work with the Copyright Office. First, registering it serves as something in the public records. Second, once it is registered, you have the right to file suit against an infringer and *collect* statutory damages. In most situations you cannot collect statutory damages or attorney's fees for infringements that began prior to the registration of your work..." Note: I consider these quotes "Fair Use" and advise you to purchase this or some equivalent book for a more complete picture. Now, my reading of all this... I think the intention is clear, if you make some reasonable effort to indicate clearly that you consider that you have a copyright on a work and mark it in an easy to find place then I doubt any court would throw out your claim merely because the typography was not ideal. Being as you don't have to put a copyright notice on at all to be protected any clear notice (such as "Copyright 1990 Barry Shein") should be sufficient. If your work is not registered with the U.S. Copyright office before publication then, in the U.S., you cannot collect any monetary damages, you can only go to court (at your own expense) to stop someone from publishing your work further. Registering involves filling out some form, submitting some copies of your work, and paying a $10 fee. I suspect this is far too much trouble for most people regarding their USENET postings, so forget any dreams of suing anyone. Most attorneys would require something like $10K up front just to consider pursuing your copyright infringement case to court although a few sternly worded letters would cost substantially less and often do the trick to just stop unauthorized publication if that's what you're after. I have no idea what fixing "All Rights Reserved" means when you've already floated a work out with the express intent of having it copied for no fee to thousands of computers around the world. What rights have you reserved? Certainly not limiting its copying. Affixing various other conditions to your copyright is probably a questionable practice, particularly when they begin to stray from the original intention; limiting copying. The copyright laws are quite specific about fixing your work in a tangible form, I have no idea if publishing electronically on a news network satisfies this. They specifically exclude speeches and other intangible works. So, it's not that they are your words which is sufficient, there is definitely an intent that you have published these in tangible form and intend to limit copying of that publication. My suspicion is that the realization that you have basically no chance of ever collecting one nickel in damages or attorney's fees for unauthorized use of your USENET article (unless you go through the steps to register it with the US Copyright office PRIOR TO ITS PUBLICATION) takes 99% of the wind out of the legal sails which prompts these discussions. You do have a fair chance of stopping someone from re-publishing your words, at your own legal expense. I am not a lawyer but I suspect reading this article is about all the legal advice most of you intend to pursue. Good luck and remember, if it's not worth anything to you don't be surprised when it's not worth anything to anyone else either. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs
brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (01/09/90)
Most of what Barry says is at least technically correct, but some of it is a bit misleading. Everyone should know the informal legal principles of Covering Your Ass and Making It Clear To The Other Guy. If you use Copr. or a circled c instead of Copyright, then your notice will still be valid here; but there are countries where neither Copr nor a circled c is sufficient. So always use Copyright. To my knowledge, every country that respects a circled c also respects Copyright. Does that mean that ``Copyright 1990'' is better than ``Copyright [circled-c] 1990''? Of course not! There *could* be countries where the second form is valid but the first isn't. Playing it safe never hurts. (On the other hand, United States case law has established that (c) is not a valid substitute for a circled c. Be aware of this.) Similarly, you can leave out the copyright notice in most countries, but it's stupid to do so if you care about the work. Non-Berne countries require a notice. Much more importantly, someone who infringes the copyright can (often successfully) argue that he was not aware of his infringement. You can spout ``ignorance of the law is not an excuse'' all you want; by failing to warn the infringing party, you effectively cede some of your rights. Winning $1 in damages is useless. There's an even more important reason to declare your rights: There are a lot of idiots out there, and everybody makes mistakes. If you declare your copyright, there's a good chance that nobody will infringe in the first place. This is a practical issue rather than a legal one. Case law has established that it *is* possible to collect damages for infringement of an unregistered copyright---particularly contributory infringement. Also, registration is almost irrelevant to stopping further infringement. Still, it's wise to shell out the pocket change for registration if you care enough about the work to want someone to really pay for ignoring your rights. (This is rarely important.) All Rights Reserved is necessary in a few countries. Otherwise your copyright won't grant full protection. In article <1990Jan7.205850.814@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: > In the first place if you want good copyright advice seek good legal > counsel. Even better, seek good *paid* legal counsel. Lunchtime discussions with lawyers aren't as accurate when the clock isn't ticking. > If your problem is not worth a couple of hundred dollars to get that > advice then it's probably not worth protecting anyhow That's a counterproductive attitude. An ounce of protection is worth a pound of cure. [ Laws ] Whether or not you've talked to a lawyer, it's always worth ten minutes at a library to look up the applicable code and regulations. Copyright law is Title (i.e., volume) 17 of the United States Code: 17 USC. It's also important to look up the associated regulations clarifying the code. [ Berne Convention ] Apparently we joined the Berne Convention last year, so everything I've said in other articles about author rights in Berne Convention countries also applies to the United States. (To find out about recent changes, talk to a lawyer in the field, or use Lexis.) > That said, here's some comments from: > Foster, Frank H. and Shook, Robert L., "Patents, Copyrights & > Trademarks", John Wiley & Sons, 1989, ISBN 0-471-50849-7. [ fifty lines of quotes ] > Note: I consider these quotes "Fair Use" and advise you to purchase > this or some equivalent book for a more complete picture. Three hundred words, distributed to perhaps a million people, probably hurting the profits from the book because it summarizes a third of it, perhaps helping the book's publicity but I doubt it: you call that fair use? At least you're not making a profit; that should swing a court to your side. > I have no idea what fixing "All Rights Reserved" means when you've > already floated a work out with the express intent of having it copied > for no fee to thousands of computers around the world. What rights > have you reserved? Certainly not limiting its copying. That's facetious. I have the exclusive right to use a certain item, but I let other people use it all the time. Does that mean that I've lost my right, that I can't take the item back and say ``Sorry, no more''? Of course not. Original distribution *does* make a difference in determining fair use. The fair use criteria include the effect upon the original work, profit, etc.; so if someone takes a USENET article and redistributes it for free over a different network, he's safe. > Affixing various other conditions to your copyright is probably a > questionable practice, particularly when they begin to stray from the > original intention; limiting copying. Wrong. Copyright limitations, like all other limitations of exclusive rights, are legally valid, easy to understand, simple to use, and safe. I'll explain this in another article. > The copyright laws are quite specific about fixing your work in a > tangible form, I have no idea if publishing electronically on a news > network satisfies this. Case law so far points towards this being true. Electronic mail is like speech; a USENET article is like a public speech; a copy of a USENET article is a tape of that speech. Copyrights do apply to tapes... > My suspicion is that the realization that you have basically no chance > of ever collecting one nickel in damages or attorney's fees for > unauthorized use of your USENET article (unless you go through the > steps to register it with the US Copyright office PRIOR TO ITS > PUBLICATION) takes 99% of the wind out of the legal sails which > prompts these discussions. I doubt it. > You do have a fair chance of stopping > someone from re-publishing your words, at your own legal expense. You have an excellent chance of this at the expense of a letter. ---Dan
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/09/90)
In article <9001070301.AA10109@sorinc.UUCP> pacbell.PacBell.COM!sorinc!magik writes: >To begin with, as of last year, much of this is moot, since the U.S.A. is >now a member of the Berne convention, so all works now carry a copyright >regardless of this is stated or not. Not necessarily, remember the US only adopted part of the Berne Convention rules, not the entire package. To be safe, writers et al need to continue copyrighting everything they produce. >held in court) that your act of submitting the article places it in the >public domain at least as far as distribution goes, as you are purposefully >making the article available for unrestricted public access all over the >world. The act of posting an article to a public network or BBS is what puts it the public domain, not the distribution of the article. >out there. A judge would likely suggest that if you do not want users of >for-profit sites to have access to your message, that you should not submit >it to the network at all. Indeed. And if you're at all concerned about keeping the rights to something in particular that you have written, then don't post it.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/09/90)
> That's facetious. I have the exclusive right to use a certain item, but > I let other people use it all the time. Does that mean that I've lost my > right, that I can't take the item back and say ``Sorry, no more''? Of > course not. In English common law, the basis of the law in most states of the U.S., there is a concept known as "right of way". By not protecting your property (such as by putting up a gate) you may lose the right to keep other people from using it. Is this concept relevent to U.S. law? I think so: consider what happens if you fail to protect a trademark. Is it relevent to this discussion? I don't know. Again, talk to a lawyer. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org> \_.--._/ v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (01/11/90)
Followups to misc.legal and news.MISC, not ADMIN. In article <7686@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >Most of what Barry says is at least technically correct, but some of it >is a bit misleading. Everyone should know the informal legal principles >of Covering Your Ass and Making It Clear To The Other Guy. > >If you use Copr. or a circled c instead of Copyright, then your notice >will still be valid here; but there are countries where neither Copr nor >a circled c is sufficient. So always use Copyright. If you remembered this, your memory is faulty. If a lawyer told you this, get a new lawyer. You got it backwards. The ``circle with a c in it'' is internationally recognized. The english word ``Copyright'' is not recognized in all countries, as is ``Copr.'' And stop crashing phoenix. In article <10907@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >In article <9001070301.AA10109@sorinc.UUCP> pacbell.PacBell.COM!sorinc!magik writes: > >>held in court) that your act of submitting the article places it in the >>public domain at least as far as distribution goes, as you are purposefully >>making the article available for unrestricted public access all over the >>world. > >The act of posting an article to a public network or BBS is what >puts it the public domain, not the distribution of the article. I was rather shocked when I read this, so I called Trish. Yes, she did talk to a lawyer specializing in computer law, and yes, anything you post to a BBS or to USENET, IRREGARDLESS OF ANY COPYRIGHT NOTICES YOU HAVE, is now in the public domain. If you want to maintain a copyright, don't post it. You have to make a reasonable effort as controlling the distribution of your copyrighted material. Letting 30,000 machines all over the world copy and forward your copyrighted material can hardly be construed as a good faith effort at controlling distribution. Ther ramifications of this on things like OtherRealms are left as an exercise for the reader. Somebody might want to point this out to Chuq. It was the opinion of this (computer) lawyer that the following things were invalid: 1) The compilatin copyright on Brads Jokebook. 2) Compuserves compilation copyright. 3) GEnie's compilaiton copyright. Merely collecting material does not give you a compilation copyright. You need to add to it or change it in a not insignificant manner (usually taken to be 30%)
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (01/11/90)
In article <24551@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: [...] >It was the opinion of this (computer) lawyer that the following >things were invalid: > >1) The compilatin copyright on Brads Jokebook. >2) Compuserves compilation copyright. >3) GEnie's compilaiton copyright. > >Merely collecting material does not give you a compilation copyright. >You need to add to it or change it in a not insignificant manner >(usually taken to be 30%) The last sentence is FALSE. Compilations don't involver "additions" or "changes" of any proportion, but "methods and logic of organization": "DEPOSIT REQUIREMENTS FOR DATABASES and OTHER COMPILATIONS A database is a collection of preexisting information arranged in a particular way. [...] Computer databases qualify as an original work of authorship for copyright purposes when the METHOD and LOGIC used to organize them is original. The particular compilation need not be sophisticated to be copyrightable. An alphabetical list of all professional skiers under the age of 35 would qualify." Attorney M.J. Salone -- How to Copyright Software, Nolo Press If the lawyer himself told you that "You need to add to it or change it in a not insignificant manner (usually taken to be 30%)" to a compilation to make it to qualify for copyright, he doesn't know his business at all. Better look for another lawyer :-) -- Marco P.S.: It is widely known that Compuserve successfully won a case against a BBS that reproduced its entire file database (in structure and logic). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
subbarao@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kartik Saligrama Subbarao) (01/11/90)
Wait a minute -- WHERE does phoenix come in to this??? -Kartik -- subbarao@{phoenix,bogey or gauguin}.princeton.edu "A penny saved is a penny earned -- so a dollar saved is a dollar earned. But what's the use of earning a dollar? 25 cents goes to the IRS! I say SPEND IT!" -original
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (01/12/90)
[there really ought to be a something.copyrights, huh ?] In article <22225@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >In article <24551@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >> >>Merely collecting material does not give you a compilation copyright. >>You need to add to it or change it in a not insignificant manner >>(usually taken to be 30%) > >The last sentence is FALSE. Compilations don't involver "additions" or >"changes" of any proportion, but "methods and logic of organization": It's hard to make any true appraisel of what I recalled from talking to trish; what she recalled talking to the lawyer etc. One could correlate my statement: ``Merely collecting material does not give you a compilation copyright'' with Marco's statement about ``methods of logic or organization''. At any rate, it's just one lawyers opinion, and of course no precendent exists. No of course there is no right answer. This is why I liked math. When you got an answer you could actually *check it*, wheras with any other classes it were all shades of grey. >It is widely known that Compuserve successfully won a case against a >BBS that reproduced its entire file database (in structure and logic). I though that never actually went to trial and was settled out of court. ??
gbc@cahaba.med.unc.edu (Geoff Crooks) (01/12/90)
In article <24551@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >...anything you post to a BBS or to USENET, IRREGARDLESS OF ANY COPYRIGHT >NOTICES YOU HAVE, is now in the public domain. If you want to >maintain a copyright, don't post it. Hmmm... does this mean that the software posted to comp.binaries is placed automatically in the public domaine? I don't think so. If you post an article to the net, you *are* controlling distribution... to all those computers which are on the net. If you copyright an article, you are in effect saying "this is mine" - read it, but DON'T go publishing it elsewhere NOT on the net (ie a newspaper or print magazine). Disclaimer: no, I'm not a lawyer. In fact, since what I said is logical, it probably has nothing to do with the law at all. Geoff. gbc@med.unc.edu
dougm@unix386.Convergent.COM (The Manic Tinker) (01/12/90)
In article <24551@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > In article <10907@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > >The act of posting an article to a public network or BBS is what > >puts it the public domain, not the distribution of the article. > > I was rather shocked when I read this, so I called Trish. Yes, she > did talk to a lawyer specializing in computer law, and yes, anything > you post to a BBS or to USENET, IRREGARDLESS OF ANY COPYRIGHT > NOTICES YOU HAVE, is now in the public domain. If you want to > maintain a copyright, don't post it. This is definitely something that is good to know. When something goes into the "public domain," does that mean that *all* of the author's rights with regard to the publication lapse? S/He know longer controls the item in *any* way? This seems extreme. An example: Joe Blow writes a story that he sells to OutThere Magazine for first NA serial rights. It gets published in Analog, and after that Joe gets a request to have the article posted to the net. Joe says, "Go ahead." The article is posted. Later, Monumental wants to buy the movie rights. Some sharp researcher at Monumental finds out that the story has been posted to Usenet, is therefore in "the public domain," and doesn't buy the rights, just runs with it. From your information above, Monumental would be within their rights, and ol' Joe would be out of luck. Right? -- Doug Moran | I have often felt like a resident of Pompeii pyramid!ctnews!unix386!dougm | who has been asked for some humorous comments dougm@unix386.Convergent.com | on lava.
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (01/13/90)
>This is definitely something that is good to know. When something goes >into the "public domain," does that mean that *all* of the author's >rights with regard to the publication lapse? S/He know longer controls >the item in *any* way? This seems extreme. An example: Yes, that is the definition of public domain. I think what everyone is really struggling with is whether or not it is really PD. But if it is PD there's basically no restrictions on its use (the only hedge there might be some possibility of it being used in a way which you can argue was libelous or damaging to your reputation etc., that's independent of all this and is probably always open if you can still be identified with the work etc.) >Joe Blow writes a story that he sells to OutThere Magazine for first NA >serial rights. It gets published in Analog, and after that Joe gets a >request to have the article posted to the net. Joe says, "Go ahead." >The article is posted. Later, Monumental wants to buy the movie rights. >Some sharp researcher at Monumental finds out that the story has been posted >to Usenet, is therefore in "the public domain," and doesn't buy the rights, >just runs with it. From your information above, Monumental would be within >their rights, and ol' Joe would be out of luck. Right? That's a rather complicated example. But then again I'm not as certain that putting something on USENET automatically protects everyone as you describe it did the movie maker. Look, this is law, not mathematics. It can be reinvented by a court almost every morning by just deciding some new case. At best you have "strong grounds" and "good arguments" and "worthwhile cases", not proofs that you're right or wrong. My gut feeling on your question is that if it was pretty clearly your work and someone else made a bunch of money on it under some fairly fuzzy pretense that since it had appeared on a network it was no longer yours that most any Judge and Jury would side with you. The matter is quite clear, you did the work, they made money off it, common practice says you deserve something. In fact, any lawyer worth 2c would be able to settle a case like that for something, probably less than you hoped, but more than nothing, out of court. But that's not the answer you were looking for. There's a fine and confusing line between business and law. Any movie maker who tried to defend based on your example would probably be deemed irresponsible to their shareholders to even invest the $15-$20K it takes to begin a defense when you'd probably settle for about that. You do understand that litigation is an investment for a corporation, just like anything else, and a return on investment argument has to be constructed based on various scenarios? I do understand the inner longing for a law which is abstract and rational, but it doesn't exist in this world. It's not even obvious that it should. "Justice has nothing to do with what goes on in a courtroom, Justice is what comes out of a courtroom." -Clarence Darrow -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs