On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 09:13 +0200, Patryk Cisek wrote: > > The list of publication years is essential (since copyright is > > theoretically not held forever). In a copyright notice, the word > > "Copyright", the abbreviation "Copr.", and the "©" copyright symbol > > are all interchangeable; but the sequence '(C)' is legally null, so > > use the proper symbol instead. This isn't so at all. The author of the text has copyright over it automatically, whether or not it is annotated with a copyright notice. The provision of the notice is simply a way of making it explicit that the licence *releasing* the constraints of copyright are being made by the actual holders of the copyright: such notices have no legal standing, however: at best they might help a plaintiff being sued for breach of copyright to say that it appeared they had permission via what appeared to be a unilateral grant of release by the legitimate holder of the copyright. In such a contest, the complainant would need to establish that they hold the copyright, and the defendant would need to establish the legitimate copyright holder provided them a licence. The complainant would lose if they could not demonstrate ownership. If they did so demonstrate, they'd probably also be able to debunk any claim of the defendant that a license was granted *by them* and therefore the defendant would at best be able to plea for leniency on the basis they acted in good faith (someone else stole the text and added a permission not granted by the legitimate owner, fooling the defendant). None of this has anything to do with (c) or any other symbol or words appearing in copyright notices; such notices are NOT required for copyright to hold, nor for it to be released. This is just information to aid a potential copier, as to whether they're breaching copyright, or whether perhaps they might have permission to copy by grant of licence. Even if they think they do .. the onus is still on them to establish who the actual copyright holder is, and to verify this permission, in such a way that they believe they could convince a Court of Law, if they think they're likely to be prosecuted. Actually the real problem is not convincing a Court, since you're not going to be prosecuted! The problem is convincing your *clients* that *they* will not be prosecuted. For example .. if someone is sued it is likely to be Debian, or the Debian ftp-master. So you have to do what they want .. even if it isn't necessary, correct, or sensible.. :) -- John Skaller <skaller at users dot sourceforge dot net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part