Re: RFS: Thousand Parsec packages.
Tristan Seligmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Copyright notices are only valid if they contain all three of: * The word Copyright and/or the copyright symbol © * The year(s) the copyright began in the work * The name of the legal entity that holds the copyright Valid in what sense? Recognised legally. Since copyright is automatic under the Berne Convention (so far as I understand), the copyright holder would still retain their rights even if no copyright notice existed This is true as far as it goes, but: so is a strict formal copyright notice still required by anything? My understanding is that a copyright declaration on the work makes it easier to prove to a court that the recipient knows that the work *is* copyrighted to the specified entity, and that the copyright is current. In that sense, while the copyright holder retains that copyright irrespective of notices, the notices make life legally simpler for both the copyright holder *and* recipient, provided such notices are in a standard legally-recognised form. -- \ Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering? I think so, | `\ Brain, but I find scratching just makes it worse. -- _Pinky | _o__) and The Brain_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: Thousand Parsec packages.
Ben Finney wrote: My understanding is that a copyright declaration on the work makes it easier to prove to a court that the recipient knows that the work *is* copyrighted to the specified entity, and that the copyright is current. Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if the work carries a proper notice, the court will not give any weight to a defendant's interposition of an innocent infringement defense.that is, that he or she did not realize that the work was protected. An innocent infringement defense may result in a reduction in damages that the copyright owner would otherwise receive. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.html This innocent infringement defense is section 504(c)(2) of the Copyright Act (17 USC). ... In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. ... http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/504.html Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: Thousand Parsec packages.
* Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-30 15:57:06 +0100]: Ben Finney wrote: My understanding is that a copyright declaration on the work makes it easier to prove to a court that the recipient knows that the work *is* copyrighted to the specified entity, and that the copyright is current. Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if the work carries a proper notice, the court will not give any weight to a defendant's interposition of an innocent infringement defense.that is, that he or she did not realize that the work was protected. An innocent infringement defense may result in a reduction in damages that the copyright owner would otherwise receive. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.html Hmm. This is frustrating, because on the one hand, it's probably worth avoiding an innocent infringement defense; on the other hand, updating copyright notices every year seems like a rather tedious task that people typically don't ever get around to (at least, judging by all the out of date copyright notices out there). Oh well... -- mithrandi, i Ainil en-Balandor, a faer Ambar signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: Thousand Parsec packages.
Tristan Seligmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hmm. This is frustrating, because on the one hand, it's probably worth avoiding an innocent infringement defense; on the other hand, updating copyright notices every year seems like a rather tedious task that people typically don't ever get around to (at least, judging by all the out of date copyright notices out there). Oh well... It's surely one of the most minor irritations that the current copyright regime imposes upon us. Also, I recall that tools already exist to (at least partially) automate this task. -- \ Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish | `\ the rest. —Mark Twain | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: Thousand Parsec packages.
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 04:33:19 pm Tristan Seligmann wrote: Hmm. This is frustrating, because on the one hand, it's probably worth avoiding an innocent infringement defense; on the other hand, updating copyright notices every year seems like a rather tedious task that people typically don't ever get around to (at least, judging by all the out of date copyright notices out there). Oh well... Well, the idea is that unless you make true authorship-worthy contributions to a work, the notice dates should not be incremented. Companies who automate the copyright notice on their websites to go to the current year are providing improper notices unless they are actually doing something to their site. So, yeah, if whatever you change is actually worthy of the title authorship, then the a few extra seconds to bump the date shouldn't kill ya. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
