Re: copyrightable vs. copyrighted (was Re: databases not copyrightable in the USA)
Andrew Suffield wrote: I don't see what's so interesting about the group of things in which copyright would subsist if the world were different. Perhaps you've missed the point. I'll try more detail: Whether there exists a valid copyright on a work depends on * aspects intrinsic to the work * aspects extrinsic to the work copyrightable is generally used to refer to a work such that all the aspects intrinsic to the work allow there to be a valid copyright on the work, without considering aspects extrinsic to it. One task is to determine whether the aspects intrinsic to the work prevent there from being a valid copyright on it; this can be done with just the work. Determining whether aspects extrinsic to the work prevent there from being a valid copyright on it is a rather different process requiring almost entirely different information. Often people will do the first task and not the second, so they want a word for what they've figured out.
Re: copyrightable vs. copyrighted (was Re: databases not copyrightable in the USA)
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
Re: copyrightable vs. copyrighted (was Re: databases not copyrightable in the USA)
On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 00:16 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:36:14PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote: Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In another topic, I prefer the term copyrighted. Copyrightable is an ugly, ugly term... and everything that is copyrightable is copyrighted by default... I see a fine distinction between the two terms. For example, a work created by the U.S. government is not copyrighted. This is shameless verbing of a noun and therefore doesn't *have* a definition. Copyright is a noun. Wrong. My 1991 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary lists a transitive verb with the meaning secure copyright for. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: copyrightable vs. copyrighted (was Re: databases not copyrightable in the USA)
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? 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. In the US, determining whether something is in class 2 depends on various tests (original work of authorship, not facts, etc.), and then determining whether it's in class 1 depends on further things (did the copyright expire, was it created by the US Government, etc.). -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Re: copyrightable vs. copyrighted (was Re: databases not copyrightable in the USA)
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:36:14PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote: Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In another topic, I prefer the term copyrighted. Copyrightable is an ugly, ugly term... and everything that is copyrightable is copyrighted by default... I see a fine distinction between the two terms. For example, a work created by the U.S. government is not copyrighted. This is shameless verbing of a noun and therefore doesn't *have* a definition. Copyright is a noun. 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). 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. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
copyrightable vs. copyrighted (was Re: databases not copyrightable in the USA)
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In another topic, I prefer the term copyrighted. Copyrightable is an ugly, ugly term... and everything that is copyrightable is copyrighted by default... I see a fine distinction between the two terms. For example, a work created by the U.S. government is not copyrighted. 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. (IANAL, IANADD) Martin
