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

Re: Implied vs. explicit copyright

On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 04:12:28PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So more to the point: there are many many references which say
> "c-in-parens doesn't count"

None of which are legally significant.

> there is a reference which says what does
> count, and it doesn't include c-in-parens, and there is a reference
> which says that even trivial errors in certain parts of the notice
> count as no notice at all.

So in brief, there is no basis in law for the statement that "(c) is
not valid as a notice of copyright".

If your lawyer can't make a convincing argument in court that "(c)" is
an acceptable alternative to the specified symbol, in a medium which
cannot represent the official symbol, then find yourself a better

(Whether they would win or not varies per jurisdiction)

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: pgp7pUYws0ot8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: