Re: Implied vs. explicit copyright
tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes:
>
>> This is a plausible argument. You should know by now that plausible
>> arguments do not form a basis in law; rather, it is merely the
>> position put forth by the counsel for the defence. Kindly refrain from
>> treating it as anything else.
>
> Oh, puhleez. There is no more reason for taking '(c)' to mean
> anything in copyright law than taking 'Flobotzink" as meaning
> something. Or do you have case law for this? No, of course not. You
> have no official reference for anything suggesting that '(c)' has any
> meaning, and I have reference after reference giving an explicitly
> exhaustive list of what does have meaning, in which '(c)' is simply
> never listed.
It certainly is. That's a c in a circle. It's not a flawlessly
perfect circle, but I drew one as best I could. I can't draw a circle
well freehand either, and neither can I generate one on a modern
pixel-based printing device. So I guess that symbol is useless,
unless approximations to it are permitted.
>> It does not say this:
>>
>> - No alternate representations form an acceptable notice
>
> Yes, it does. Did you even to follow up the references I have from
> the United States Copyright office? I guess not.
> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.html says:
>
> "Omission of notice" is publishing without a notice. In addition,
> some errors are considered the same as omission of notice. These
> are:
> * A notice that does not contain the symbol [here they give the
> symbol] (the letter C in a circle), or the word "Copyright" or the
> abbreviation "Copr." or, if the work is a sound recording, the
> symbol [the other symbol] (the letter P in a circle);
> * A notice dated more than 1 year later than the date of first
> publication;
> * A notice without a name or date that could reasonably be
> considered part of the notice;
> * A notice that lacks the statement required for works consisting
> proponderantly of U.S. Government material; and
> * A notice located so that it does not give reasonable notice of
> the claim of copright."
>
> If you are going to insist that I provide official references, the
> least you could do is read them when I provide them.
Ah. So you were lying, or just didn't understand what you were
reading. The following are all valid copyright notices:
* Copyright 2003 Sample Author
* echo "Copyright \copyright 2003 Sample Author" | tex
* "Copyright 2003 Sample Author. Baboons are pretty"
* "This document was written in 2003 by S. Author. Baboons are
pretty. He retains Copyright coverage on all of this document."
And, despite what you've been arguing against,
* Copyright (c) 2003 Sample Author
That's all. There's no harm from putting a (c) in addition to the
word Copyright, and it might even make things more clear. It gives a
nice retro, typewriter feel to a document.
>> I stipulate, again, that there is no legislated decision one way or
>> the other. And I am aware of no precedent in this matter.
>
> There is a clear legislated decision. It says "you must do this".
> Then it says "if you don't do this, it's the same as no notice". And
> there is a common agreement among a bazillion people that if you
> don't do it in just those terms, it doesn't come up.
Yup. And despite your repeated rants about references, there's still
nothing that says "and adding an extraneous symbol voids your copyright."
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Reply to: