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]
