Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:28:56AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > The "(c)" version does *not* count as a C-in-a-circle, > > so it's just meaningless extra stuff. > > Precedent and jurisdiction, please.
A trivial web search brought up: http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?copyright That's a nonofficial source. But a brief web search will show you that the same thing is repeated a gillion times. The US Copyright office reports (at http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html) that the notice should contain: the symbol C-in-a-circle, or the word "Copyright", or the abbreviation "Copr.". C-in-parens is not C-in-circle. There is no exception granted for "doing the closest thing you can". Indeed, it used to be that the word "Copyright" was not sufficient; you *had* to use c-in-a-circle. One reason that was changed was the increasing use of publishing systems that couldn't do c-in-a-circle. At http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.html you can see more rules, for example, that there is such a thing as an "omission of notice" and that certain kinds of errors are automatically considered the same as outright omitting the notice entirely. If there isn't the required c-in-a-circle or the word Copyright, then it's not just a mere error, it counts as an omission of the notice entirely. So more to the point: there are many many references which say "c-in-parens doesn't count", 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. Thomas
