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

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" <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> 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/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: