[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> This is a plausible argument. You should know by now that plausible >> arguments do not form a basis in law; rather, it is merely the >> position put forth by the counsel for the defence. Kindly refrain from >> treating it as anything else. > > Oh, puhleez. There is no more reason for taking '(c)' to mean > anything in copyright law than taking 'Flobotzink" as meaning > something. Or do you have case law for this? No, of course not. You > have no official reference for anything suggesting that '(c)' has any > meaning, and I have reference after reference giving an explicitly > exhaustive list of what does have meaning, in which '(c)' is simply > never listed.
It certainly is. That's a c in a circle. It's not a flawlessly perfect circle, but I drew one as best I could. I can't draw a circle well freehand either, and neither can I generate one on a modern pixel-based printing device. So I guess that symbol is useless, unless approximations to it are permitted. >> It does not say this: >> >> - No alternate representations form an acceptable notice > > Yes, it does. Did you even to follow up the references I have from > the United States Copyright office? I guess not. > http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.html says: > > "Omission of notice" is publishing without a notice. In addition, > some errors are considered the same as omission of notice. These > are: > * A notice that does not contain the symbol [here they give the > symbol] (the letter C in a circle), or the word "Copyright" or the > abbreviation "Copr." or, if the work is a sound recording, the > symbol [the other symbol] (the letter P in a circle); > * A notice dated more than 1 year later than the date of first > publication; > * A notice without a name or date that could reasonably be > considered part of the notice; > * A notice that lacks the statement required for works consisting > proponderantly of U.S. Government material; and > * A notice located so that it does not give reasonable notice of > the claim of copright." > > If you are going to insist that I provide official references, the > least you could do is read them when I provide them. Ah. So you were lying, or just didn't understand what you were reading. The following are all valid copyright notices: * Copyright 2003 Sample Author * echo "Copyright \copyright 2003 Sample Author" | tex * "Copyright 2003 Sample Author. Baboons are pretty" * "This document was written in 2003 by S. Author. Baboons are pretty. He retains Copyright coverage on all of this document." And, despite what you've been arguing against, * Copyright (c) 2003 Sample Author That's all. There's no harm from putting a (c) in addition to the word Copyright, and it might even make things more clear. It gives a nice retro, typewriter feel to a document. >> I stipulate, again, that there is no legislated decision one way or >> the other. And I am aware of no precedent in this matter. > > There is a clear legislated decision. It says "you must do this". > Then it says "if you don't do this, it's the same as no notice". And > there is a common agreement among a bazillion people that if you > don't do it in just those terms, it doesn't come up. Yup. And despite your repeated rants about references, there's still nothing that says "and adding an extraneous symbol voids your copyright." -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
