Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!stealth.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions
Subject: Re: Copyrights & Will this work.
Message-ID: <925@stealth.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 6 Jan 90 01:46:36 GMT
References: <6902@tank.uchicago.edu> <1685@uwm.edu>
Reply-To: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Distribution: usa
Organization: IR
Lines: 61

I'm not a lawyer, though I play one on USENET. :-)

In article <1685@uwm.edu> datta@vacs.uwp.wisc.edu (David Datta) writes:
> This article is Copyright (c) 19xx by David Datta.

That's a perfectly fine statement of copyright ownership. The (c) is
useless; a truly circled c is the correct legal symbol, though I don't
know of any country that requires it if the word Copyright is present.
In some countries you need to state All Rights Reserved.

> You are granted
> distribution rights for this article via electronic means.  If you wish
> to distribute this article as part of a print publication [such as a
> book, newsletter, or magazine] you must obtain written authorization.

This is a copyright limitation. It's not expressed in the most precise
legal terms, so it may not cover every situation you want it to. Still,
you've successfully managed to limit the exclusivity of your right to
copy the article. Limitations are perfectly valid.

To answer the implicit question: With that copyright limitation, you
would win a suit for copyright infringement if GENIE sold a billion
copies of your article electronically. You would probably win a suit
for infringement if I sold one thousand printed copies of your article
as part of a magazine I publish. You might win if I gave away one
thousand printed copies as part of a free magazine; as in the rest of
civil law, money is usually the most important issue.

You could win if someone modified your article and distributed the
result electronically; because your limitation is not stated in precise
legal terms, a court might rule that you had not given away your right
to publish modified versions. On the other hand, the court might rule
against you, on the grounds that the defendant's interpretation of your
ambiguous notice was reasonable. (If you'd like a free rewrite of your
copyright notice in more customary terms, write me.)

> The way I understand it, the article is not placed "in the public
> domain" as I am only allowing electronic re-print access.

``Public domain'' is a legal term meaning ``not copyrighted.'' Anything
with a copyright notice is not public domain. (Even if a work is placed
into the public domain, someone can still copy it and place a valid
copyright upon their copy. However, all uses of the copyrighted work
would automatically pass the fair use test on their face and hence would
not be infringing. Ain't law fun?)

Distribution of a copyrighted work never places it into the public domain.
Those who believe otherwise should read 17 USC. It *does* affect what a
court might consider fair use.

> It does not
> prevent the average Netreader from printing a copy to read.

Fair use. The printed copy does is not for profit, does not affect the
distribution of the original, etc.

> So folks, what is the "opinion of the world", am I being pretentious?

Perhaps, but the lawyers don't care.

---Dan