On Sat, 3 Dec 1994, Israel Stein wrote:
> >
> > Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in
> > fixed form; that is, it is an incident of the process of
> > authorship. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately
> > becomes the property of the author who created it. Only the author
> > or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully
> > claim copyright.
> >
> > Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created,
> > and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord
> > for the first time. "Copies" are material objects from which a
> > work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the
> > aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet
> > music, film, videotape, or microfilm. "Phonorecords" are material
> > objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory
> > definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes,
> > CD's, or LP's. Thus, for example, a song (the "work") can be fixed
> > in sheet music ("copies") or in phonograph disks ("phonorecords"),
> > or both.
> >
> (cut)
>
> That is all essentially correct, under the copyright act that went into
> effect on January 1, 1978. (I don't believe there were revisions since
> then - this was a major revamping of the law of 1909 or so.)
>
> We are, however, dealing with retention of copyright protection after
> publication of copies of the work. In order to retain copyright
> protection upon publication of copies one must:
> 1) Register the copyright.
> 2) Explicitly state on the copy of the work what rights one wishes to
> retain (thus the phrase "All Rights Reserved" which you see on books,
> records, magazine articles, photos, etc.)
>
> Publication means "dissemination of copies". Posting here can probably
> qualify as publication.
>
> The principle involved is that by publishing a work without explicitly
> retaining rights (via registration and appropriate notices) one is deemed
> to have "contributed" the work to the public domain.
>
> In other words, even though copyright protection is secured
> automatically upon creation of the work, (i.e. article) it can be lost if
> work is published without explicitly secuiring the copyright by
> registration and appropriate notices. My source is a legal handbook for
> professional photographers. If this sounds like a whole lot of hair
> splitting - hey that's what lawyers do for a living.
> ^^^^^^^
> Israel Stein
>
OH DRAT!!!! NOW YOU WENT AND USED "THE 'L 'WORD"!!!! ; )
THERE WAS A SLIGHT CHANGE SINCE 1977. THE BERNE COPYRIGHT CONVENTION, 1988
ASSURES COPYRIGHT PROTECTION EVEN WITHOUT REGISTERING...READ ON FOR
DETAILS.
_____________
brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 09:00:10 GMT
Newsgroups: news.misc,news.admin.policy,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Changes to "DRAFT FAQ: 10 myths about copyright explained"
Original-author: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Archive-name: usenet/copyright/diff1
Last-change: 19 Jul 1994 by brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Changes-posted-to: news.misc
The following are the differences between two versions.
- indicates lines that were deleted in the new version,
+ indicates lines that were added in the new version.
...
+From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
+Subject: DRAFT FAQ: 10 myths about copyright explained
+Newsgroups: news.announce.newusers,news.admin.policy,misc.legal.computing
+Reply-to: brad@clarinet.com
+Followup-to: news.newusers.questions
+Approved: netannounce@deshaw.com (Mark Moraes)
+
+Original-author: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
+Archive-name: usenet/copyright/part1
+Last-change: 19 Jul 1994 by brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
+Changes-posted-to: news.misc
+
+[This is a draft FAQ, proposed for inclusion in news.announce.newusers. It
+has not yet been sent to news.answers for approval, so the Archive-name
+above is just a proposal. After a few rounds of posting this as a draft,
+it'll be added to news.answers. - netannounce@deshaw.com]
+
+ 10 Big Myths about copyright explained
+ By Brad Templeton
+
+
+ 1) If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not
+ copyrighted.
+
+ This was true in the past, but today almost all major
+ nations follow the Berne copyright convention. After April
+ 1, 1989, everything created in the USA, for example, is
+ copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not.
+ The default you must assume for other people's works is that
+ they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you *know*
+ otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection
+ without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless
+ you know for sure.
+
+ It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by
+ warning people, and by allowing one to get more and
+ different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks
+ copyrighted, you must assume it is.
+
+ 2) If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation.
+
+ False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in
+ court, but that's the only difference. It's still a
+ violation if you give it away -- and there can still be
+ heavy damages if you hurt the commercial value of the
+ property.
+
+ 3) If it's posted to USENET it's in the public domain.
+
+ False. Nothing is in the public domain anymore unless the
+ owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly,
+ as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant
+ this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very
+ much like them.
+
+ Some argue that posting to USENET implicitly grants
+ permission to everybody to copy the posting as much as they
+ like. This is very probably wrong. First, the whole
+ purpose of copyright is to provide protection to people
+ *after* they freely distribute it. For example, George
+ Lucas still owns Star Wars after broadcasting it on free TV
+ or giving copies to lots of people. Secondly, that argument
+ breaks down when one considers what it would mean for you to
+ post an MPEG of Star Wars to the net (other than some really
+ annoyed people with v.32bis modem feeds.) All the copying
+ would still go on, but clearly without permission since you
+ -- unless you are George Lucas -- didn't have the right to
+ give permission to copy in the first place.
+
+ (*) It's also in the public domain if the creator has been
+ dead for 50 years. If anybody dead for 50 years is posting
+ to the net, let me know.
+
+ 4) My posting was just fair use!
+
+ See the notes on fair use for a detailed answer, but bear
+ the following in mind:
+
+ The "fair use" exemption to copyright law was created to
+ allow commentary, news reporting and education *on*
+ copyrighted works without the permission of the author. In
+ this case, the "on" is important. You must be commenting on
+ or reporting about the *work*, not the subject matter of the
+ work. If you could have reported the facts in your own
+ words, but didn't to save typing, it's probably not fair
+ use. If you needed to demonstrate something about the
+ actual work or writing, then it might be fair use.
+
+ Fair use is almost always a short excerpt and almost always
+ attributed. It should not ruin the commercial value of the
+ work (which is why reproduction of the entire work is
+ generally verboten.)
+
+ 5) If you don't defend your copyright you lose it.
+
+ False. Copyright is *never* lost now, unless explicitly
+ given away. You may be thinking of trade marks, which can
+ be weakened or lost if not defended.
+
+ 6) Somebody has that name copyrighted!
+
+ You can't copyright a name, or anything short like that.
+ Titles usually don't qualify, but I doubt you could write a
+ song entitled "Everybody's got something to hide except for
+ me and my monkey."
+
+ However, you can trademark an adjective, when applied to a
+ generic type of product or service. Like an "Apple"
+ computer. Apple Computer owns that word applied to
+ computers, even though it is also an ordinary word. Apple
+ records owns it when applied to music. Neither owns the
+ word on its own, only in context.
+
+ You can't use somebody else's trademark in a way that would
+ unfairly hurt the value of the mark, or in a way that might
+ make people confuse you with the real owner of the mark, or
+ which might allow you to profit from the mark's good name.
+ For example, if I were giving advice on music videos, I
+ would be very wary of trying to label my works with a name
+ like "mtv." :-)
+
+ 7) They can't get me, I'm innocent until proven guilty.
+
+ Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright
+ you would usually get sued, not charged with a crime.
+ "Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of criminal
+ law, as is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Sorry, but in
+ copyright suits, these don't apply. It's mostly which side
+ the judge or jury believes more.
+
+ 8) Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?
+
+ Actually, recently in the USA commercial copyright
+ violations involving more than 10 copies and/or value over
+ $2500 was made a felony. So watch out. (At least you get
+ the protections of criminal law.)
+
+ 9) It doesn't hurt anybody, in fact it's free advertising.
+
+ It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or
+ not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you.
+ Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, *ask*
+ them. Usually that's not too hard to do. Time past,
+ ClariNet published the very funny Dave Barry column to a
+ large and appreciative USENET audience for a fee, but some
+ jerk didn't ask, and forwarded it to a mailing list, got
+ caught, and the newspaper chain that employs Dave Barry
+ pulled the column from the net, pissing off everybody who
+ enjoyed it. Even if you can't think of how the author or
+ owner gets hurt, think about the fact that piracy on the net
+ hurts everybody who wants a chance to use this wonderful new
+ technology to do more than read other people's flamewars.
+
+ 10) They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it.
+
+ To have a copy is not to have the copyright. All the E-mail
+ you write is copyrighted. However, E-mail is not, unless
+ previously agreed, secret. So you can certainly *report* on
+ what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says. You can
+ even quote parts of it to demonstrate. Frankly, somebody
+ who sues over an ordinary message might well lose, because
+ the message has no commercial value, but if you want to stay
+ strictly in the law, you should ask first.
+
+ Permission is granted to freely copy this
+ document in electronic form, or to print for
+ personal use. If you had not seen a notice
+ like this on the document, you would have to
+ assume you did not have permission to copy it.
+ This document is still protected by you know
+ what even though it has no copyright notice.
+--
--
JOHN MINOR
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
JMINOR@UIUC.EDU
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC