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
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!bzsbrnstnd@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
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%)