ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik) (01/15/90)
Regarding copyrights I've heard something bizarre:
Suppose A writes a program which he does not intend to copyright
but instead makes it freely available.
Suppose B takes some or all of A's program, incorporates it in his
work and puts *his* copyright on the whole thing.
The (bizarre) claim is that A no longer has rights to his own program and
infringes on B's copyright if he either continues to distribute
his original work or (particularly) if he later decides to use the
ideas for a commercial product. Similarly any other party who uses A's
work must obey the condition's of B's copyright even though he got
the ideas from A rather than B.
I find this impossible to believe!!!
THE QUESTION
Do you in any way give up rights to the use of your own computer work by
allowing others to see it without your copyright notice on it?
P.S. My understanding had been that B would not have to pay A royalties
because he got A's ideas when they were free. It never seemed possible
that A's failure to copyright his own work would affect his ability to
use it. I also believed that others could continue to use A's work
because it had made it freely available.
Obviously the area of computer programs is complicated by the fact that
one person can use part of another person's program -- or that one
person's entire program can only be part of a second person's work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suspect there are several people in this newsgroup who have
gone to the point of contacting a lawyer about this kind of thing.
I'd like to know what they found out. Please no rumors or
speculation -- just the facts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John J Wavrik
jjwavrik@ucsd.edu Dept of Math C-012
Univ of Calif - San Diego
La Jolla, CA 92093 emmo@moncam.co.uk (Dave Emmerson) (01/16/90)
In article <6107@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>, ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik) writes: > > Regarding copyrights I've heard something bizarre: > > Suppose A writes a program which he does not intend to copyright > but instead makes it freely available. > > Suppose B takes some or all of A's program, incorporates it in his > work and puts *his* copyright on the whole thing. > A solicitor friend says : (assuming no copyright notice was included) In the UK, if not elsewhere, A would only be able to insist that no charge was made for the portion of his programme which was incorporated. If it were shown to be essentially A's programme, B would only be able to charge for distribution, but *how much* s/he can charge for that is not a matter for the court, sorry. B is also free to charge whatever s/he chooses for their own contribution if it is shown to be the significant portion. Unless A claimed copyright, s/he has effectively nothing to gain, but if A can prove his/her version preceded B's, A could probably distribute an enhanced freeware version of their own work with impunity........ (WITH a copyright notice this time) It is quite possible to both claim copyright, and allow free distribution upon condition that the conditions be transferred with the property - see the headers in many comp.sources postings. Unfortunately, the law cares little for morals or ethics, particularly if you're not in the megabuck income bracket (my comment this time). Dave.
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (01/16/90)
>Item 8132 (0 resps) by ir230 at sdcc6.ucsd.edu on Mon 15 Jan 90 11:28 >[john wavrik] Subject: Copyright >(45 lines) > > >Regarding copyrights I've heard something bizarre: > > Suppose A writes a program which he does not intend to copyright > but instead makes it freely available. > > Suppose B takes some or all of A's program, incorporates it in his > work and puts *his* copyright on the whole thing. > > The (bizarre) claim is that A no longer has rights to his own program and > infringes on B's copyright if he either continues to distribute > his original work or (particularly) if he later decides to use the > ideas for a commercial product. Similarly any other party who uses A's > work must obey the condition's of B's copyright even though he got > the ideas from A rather than B. Absolutely false. The fact that University Ingres and other products (freely available) exist side-by-side with the commercial versions of same bears this out. Where did you get this outrageous idea? The fact that someone has Copyrighted a work only extends protection to >his< version of that work. If the original was PD, then you can still use the origional (and make changes to it, and sell THAT version if you want). -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
shurr@cbnews.ATT.COM (Larry A. Shurr) (01/17/90)
In article <25b26116:8132.1comp.ibmpc;1@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >>Item 8132 (0 resps) by ir230 at sdcc6.ucsd.edu on Mon 15 Jan 90 11:28 >>[john wavrik] Subject: Copyright >>Regarding copyrights I've heard something bizarre: >> Suppose A writes a program which he does not intend to copyright >> but instead makes it freely available. >> Suppose B takes some or all of A's program, incorporates it in his >> work and puts *his* copyright on the whole thing. >> The (bizarre) claim is that A no longer has rights to his own program and >> infringes on B's copyright if he either continues to distribute >> his original work or (particularly) if he later decides to use the >> ideas for a commercial product. Similarly any other party who uses A's >> work must obey the condition's of B's copyright even though he got >> the ideas from A rather than B. >Absolutely false. The fact that University Ingres and other products >(freely available) exist side-by-side with the commercial versions of same >bears this out. (Another example is the X code, which is freely available, but there are copyrighted, commercial versions, as well). I believe that this absurd scenario is, indeed, false. B's work would be considered a derived work and he would be obligated to credit the original source - even if it is public domain or freely redistributable - at least in cases where the borrowings are a substantial part of the work (i.e., minor borrowings might be excepted). The status of the derived work does not change that of the original. Furthermore, if B fails to properly credit the source of the borrowing, he endangers the very validity of his own copyright claim. Also, if B's additions are not a substantive addition to the original work, he may have no copyright to begin with. Now, you may be tempted to flame me if I am wrong or have misstated, but please don't, it's still just a waste of time. regards, Larry -- Signed: Larry A. Shurr (cbema!las@att.ATT.COM or att!cbema!las) Clever signature, Wonderful wit, Outdo the others, Be a big hit! - Burma Shave (With apologies to the real thing. The above represents my views only.) (You may now R'eply. Forwarding from cbnews to my mail address now works!!!)
davies@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu (01/19/90)
The US Copyright law changed recently. As of March 1, 1989, it is no longer necessary to have a copyright notice on a work in order to be protected. This is for works "published" on or after this date. "Publication" means, in general, that the work was made generally available to the public, and is kind of fuzzy in situations like the one described. However, A could probably claim that his work was published when he distributed the source. If this first occurred after March 1, he still has the exclusive rights to the work, and thus could in fact force B to either pay royalties or stop distributing works derived from it. Of course, A might need to go to court to do so. In any case, B has no grounds for restricting A's rights - the original work is either owned by A, or is in the public domain (if it was published before March 1 without a copyright notice). The above is my interpretation based on reading various nontechnical copyright articles. If you'd like a more trustworthy reference, try "How to Copyright Computer Software", Nolo Press, 1989 ($34.95).