Xref: utzoo misc.legal:13310 news.admin:8088 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think!mintaka!bloom-beacon!bu.edu!bu-cs!xylogics!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: misc.legal,news.admin Subject: Re: Copyrights on Usenet Articles Message-ID: <1990Jan7.205850.814@world.std.com> Date: 7 Jan 90 20:58:50 GMT References: <946@crash.cts.com> <1989Dec21.000041.6034@ns.network.com> <45061@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <4198@convex.UUCP> <600@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> <1422@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> Distribution: na Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Lines: 144 In-Reply-To: aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu's message of 6 Jan 90 16:20:58 GMT It is astounding the bad advice and myths heard in the lunchroom that are pushed forth as copyright advice. In the first place if you want good copyright advice seek good legal counsel. If your problem is not worth a couple of hundred dollars to get that advice then it's probably not worth protecting anyhow and just putting something like "Copyright 1990 Joe Blow" and whatever else you dream up will serve as a suitable 3-foot cyclone fence to protect your property, at least it counter-balances the value it represents to you (i.e. nothing, since you won't invest the cost of a nice night out for legal advice.) The copyright laws in the US were re-written in the "Copyright Revision Act of 1976" (CRA76). One constant source of bad information that shows up on these groups is from people who perhaps had some knowledge of the copyright laws before this act was passed (often passed second-hand from others), many provisions have changed. Another event which affected the Copyright Laws was the acceptance by the U.S. and many other countries of the Berne Treaty which dealt with international laws regarding copyrights (among other things.) Some provisions of the CRA76 were specifically designed to bring the US's laws more in line with international agreements. That said, here's some comments from: Foster, Frank H. and Shook, Robert L., "Patents, Copyrights & Trademarks", John Wiley & Sons, 1989, ISBN 0-471-50849-7. [Note: I'll use "[circle-c]" to indicate the c in a circle in the text] "When a work is published under copyright law in the United States, a notice of copyright should be placed on all publicly distributed copies. While this is no longer a mandatory requirement because of U.S. adherence to the Berne Treaty, it is still desirable." (p.156) "There are three elements that should be present in a copyright notice: 1. The symbol [circle-c] (the letter C in a circle) or the word ``Copyright'' or the abbreviation ``Copr.'' 2. The year of first publication of the work; in the case of compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication....(etc.) 3. The name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner. Example [circle-c] John Smith 1980. Although sometimes the word copyright is spelled out, it is not necessary. The symbol [circle-c] is an internationally recognized symbol... In the event that a published work does not have a copyright notice, the omission will not invalidate the copyright in the work... A copyright notice is still desirable in the United States even though your work has not been registered...If you publish without notice after March 1989, the work may still be protectable but to be safe and gain addtional rights, the notice should always be used... ...keep in mind that the purpose of a copyright notice is to prevent somebody else from copying your work. However, it is not proof that the work is actually yours... Although your work receives legal protection when you fix it in a tangible form, it is still desirable to register your work with the Copyright Office. First, registering it serves as something in the public records. Second, once it is registered, you have the right to file suit against an infringer and *collect* statutory damages. In most situations you cannot collect statutory damages or attorney's fees for infringements that began prior to the registration of your work..." Note: I consider these quotes "Fair Use" and advise you to purchase this or some equivalent book for a more complete picture. Now, my reading of all this... I think the intention is clear, if you make some reasonable effort to indicate clearly that you consider that you have a copyright on a work and mark it in an easy to find place then I doubt any court would throw out your claim merely because the typography was not ideal. Being as you don't have to put a copyright notice on at all to be protected any clear notice (such as "Copyright 1990 Barry Shein") should be sufficient. If your work is not registered with the U.S. Copyright office before publication then, in the U.S., you cannot collect any monetary damages, you can only go to court (at your own expense) to stop someone from publishing your work further. Registering involves filling out some form, submitting some copies of your work, and paying a $10 fee. I suspect this is far too much trouble for most people regarding their USENET postings, so forget any dreams of suing anyone. Most attorneys would require something like $10K up front just to consider pursuing your copyright infringement case to court although a few sternly worded letters would cost substantially less and often do the trick to just stop unauthorized publication if that's what you're after. I have no idea what fixing "All Rights Reserved" means when you've already floated a work out with the express intent of having it copied for no fee to thousands of computers around the world. What rights have you reserved? Certainly not limiting its copying. Affixing various other conditions to your copyright is probably a questionable practice, particularly when they begin to stray from the original intention; limiting copying. The copyright laws are quite specific about fixing your work in a tangible form, I have no idea if publishing electronically on a news network satisfies this. They specifically exclude speeches and other intangible works. So, it's not that they are your words which is sufficient, there is definitely an intent that you have published these in tangible form and intend to limit copying of that publication. My suspicion is that the realization that you have basically no chance of ever collecting one nickel in damages or attorney's fees for unauthorized use of your USENET article (unless you go through the steps to register it with the US Copyright office PRIOR TO ITS PUBLICATION) takes 99% of the wind out of the legal sails which prompts these discussions. You do have a fair chance of stopping someone from re-publishing your words, at your own legal expense. I am not a lawyer but I suspect reading this article is about all the legal advice most of you intend to pursue. Good luck and remember, if it's not worth anything to you don't be surprised when it's not worth anything to anyone else either. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs