On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 07:33:47PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:36:14PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote: > <snip> > > > The proper terms for what you describe here are "copyright does not > > subsist in this work", where the verb is "subsist" (alternatively > > "copyright protection does not subsist", but even lawyers don't > > usually go that far). > "This work is not covered by copyright"?
That could mean anything.
> >> It may, however, be
> >> copyrightable, i.e. if another entity had created it, this entity would
> >> have had the copyright w.r.t. the work.
> >
> > This one isn't a word either. I don't think there is a formal name for
> > this one, as it's not very interesting.
>
> Actually, I think it's extremely interesting.
>
> We need to refer to two different distinctions:
>
> 1. There is a valid copyright on the work. ("copyrighted")
> 2. The work is of a class or works for which copyright "protection" is
> potentially available. ("copyrightable")
>
> Nowadays, nearly everything in class 2 is also in class 1. However, it used
> to be that being in class 1 depended on many additional things beyond the
> nature of the work itself.
I don't see what's so interesting about the group of things in which
copyright would subsist if the world were different.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
