Xref: utzoo misc.legal:13327 news.admin:8090 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!yale!cmcl2!stealth.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd From: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu Newsgroups: misc.legal,news.admin Subject: Re: Copyrights on Usenet Articles Message-ID: <7686@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> Date: 8 Jan 90 22:54:57 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> <1990Jan7.205850.814@world.std.com> Reply-To: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) Distribution: usa Organization: IR Lines: 129 Most of what Barry says is at least technically correct, but some of it is a bit misleading. Everyone should know the informal legal principles of Covering Your Ass and Making It Clear To The Other Guy. If you use Copr. or a circled c instead of Copyright, then your notice will still be valid here; but there are countries where neither Copr nor a circled c is sufficient. So always use Copyright. To my knowledge, every country that respects a circled c also respects Copyright. Does that mean that ``Copyright 1990'' is better than ``Copyright [circled-c] 1990''? Of course not! There *could* be countries where the second form is valid but the first isn't. Playing it safe never hurts. (On the other hand, United States case law has established that (c) is not a valid substitute for a circled c. Be aware of this.) Similarly, you can leave out the copyright notice in most countries, but it's stupid to do so if you care about the work. Non-Berne countries require a notice. Much more importantly, someone who infringes the copyright can (often successfully) argue that he was not aware of his infringement. You can spout ``ignorance of the law is not an excuse'' all you want; by failing to warn the infringing party, you effectively cede some of your rights. Winning $1 in damages is useless. There's an even more important reason to declare your rights: There are a lot of idiots out there, and everybody makes mistakes. If you declare your copyright, there's a good chance that nobody will infringe in the first place. This is a practical issue rather than a legal one. Case law has established that it *is* possible to collect damages for infringement of an unregistered copyright---particularly contributory infringement. Also, registration is almost irrelevant to stopping further infringement. Still, it's wise to shell out the pocket change for registration if you care enough about the work to want someone to really pay for ignoring your rights. (This is rarely important.) All Rights Reserved is necessary in a few countries. Otherwise your copyright won't grant full protection. In article <1990Jan7.205850.814@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: > In the first place if you want good copyright advice seek good legal > counsel. Even better, seek good *paid* legal counsel. Lunchtime discussions with lawyers aren't as accurate when the clock isn't ticking. > If your problem is not worth a couple of hundred dollars to get that > advice then it's probably not worth protecting anyhow That's a counterproductive attitude. An ounce of protection is worth a pound of cure. [ Laws ] Whether or not you've talked to a lawyer, it's always worth ten minutes at a library to look up the applicable code and regulations. Copyright law is Title (i.e., volume) 17 of the United States Code: 17 USC. It's also important to look up the associated regulations clarifying the code. [ Berne Convention ] Apparently we joined the Berne Convention last year, so everything I've said in other articles about author rights in Berne Convention countries also applies to the United States. (To find out about recent changes, talk to a lawyer in the field, or use Lexis.) > 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. [ fifty lines of quotes ] > Note: I consider these quotes "Fair Use" and advise you to purchase > this or some equivalent book for a more complete picture. Three hundred words, distributed to perhaps a million people, probably hurting the profits from the book because it summarizes a third of it, perhaps helping the book's publicity but I doubt it: you call that fair use? At least you're not making a profit; that should swing a court to your side. > 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. That's facetious. I have the exclusive right to use a certain item, but I let other people use it all the time. Does that mean that I've lost my right, that I can't take the item back and say ``Sorry, no more''? Of course not. Original distribution *does* make a difference in determining fair use. The fair use criteria include the effect upon the original work, profit, etc.; so if someone takes a USENET article and redistributes it for free over a different network, he's safe. > Affixing various other conditions to your copyright is probably a > questionable practice, particularly when they begin to stray from the > original intention; limiting copying. Wrong. Copyright limitations, like all other limitations of exclusive rights, are legally valid, easy to understand, simple to use, and safe. I'll explain this in another article. > 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. Case law so far points towards this being true. Electronic mail is like speech; a USENET article is like a public speech; a copy of a USENET article is a tape of that speech. Copyrights do apply to tapes... > 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. I doubt it. > You do have a fair chance of stopping > someone from re-publishing your words, at your own legal expense. You have an excellent chance of this at the expense of a letter. ---Dan