I always bristle at the use of the word copyright as a verb (all of the dictionaries do support the verb form) and try never to use it that way myself, although it is easy to slip.
Historically, perhaps you could "copyright something," as John's Shakespeare perhaps did. Now, in the US and most nations (Berne convention) copyright is a noun that inures automatically to authors upon fixing the work in a tangible form. You can't copyright (verb) something. You either own the copyright (noun) or you do not. The work is copyright (adjective) or it is not. You can (optionally) REGISTER the copyright with the Library of Congress, but that's a different matter. Not to argue in the least with the substance of John's post ... Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Gilmore Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 7:17 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules Charles Mills has made the operative distinction very clear, but let me try another analogy. Think of yourself, briefly, as Shakespeare. You have written Sonnet XXX, When to the sessions of sweet silent thought I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought. Then can I . . . . . . You, Shakespeare, may copyright this sonnet, its specific content. You may not copyright the fourteen-line sonnet form and its rhyming scheme. Instances of a schema are copyrightable and protectable. The schema itself is not. You may, that is, protect yourself against the misappropriation of a sonnet that you write. You may not interdict the writing of [non-duplicative] sonnets by others. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
