[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Implied vs. explicit copyright



[NB: I'm subscribed... don't need to be CC'ed.]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> In general, such claims don't work, because of the whole point of the
> statement: to have a single, unambiguous, bright-line test for what
> is a valid copyright notice, so that no interpretation, guesswork, or
> the like is necessary.  

Definetly. If I was to give advice, it would be to use 'Copyright (c)'
etc. 

I was just playing devils advocate for a second and noting that there
has been no precedent saying that (c) is not equivalent to
c-in-a-circle (at least to my knowledge.) Because of that, it's not
possible to know if (c) 1997 Foo bar Baz is a valid copyright
statement, or an invalid one.

> >  ___
> > /   \
> > | C | 1997 Foo Bar Baz. No Rights Reserved.
> > \___/ 
> 
> Except that "No Rights Reserved" would, in
> Pan-American-Copyright-Treaty cases, void your copyright.

Yerp. But it's fun to say, no? ;-)


Don Armstrong

-- 
[Panama, 1989. The U.S. government called it "Operation Just Cause".]
I think they misspelled this. Shouldn't it be "Operation Just 'Cause"?
 -- TekPolitik http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=59669&cid=5664907

http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Attachment: pgpTyPUCvercv.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: