free sco unix

[Chad Perrin]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:57:20AM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2011, at 9:28 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >> Where i live no need to register, you get copyright if the stuff
> >> fulfills certain criteria, originality is one.
> > 
> > Registration aids enforcement.  Of course, there's always the "poor
> > man's copyright registration" approach, where the moment you have
> > something you would like to protect by copyright, you can seal it up
> > in an envelope and mail it to yourself.  Keep it sealed.  If you ever
> > need proof of copyright, including date of copyright, you can then
> > take the sealed envelope with you to court to show the postmark date,
> > unseal the envelope, and show the full text of the document inside.
> 
> Sigh.  If you'd ever actually filed a copyright registration or
> transfer form, you would discover that one needs to get them notarized.
> (Documenting that a certain document was available and signed at a
> specific date is what a notary public is for.)
> 
> There is no case law in the US to support this "poor man's copyright."
> 
>   http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what

That page does not say anything about case law.  It refers to copyright
law, which is law on the books -- not case law.

The "poor man's copyright" approach is, I believe, less certain and
effective than registration, but if there is a dispute over proper claim
of copyright, anything you can do to add evidenciary support for your
claim will help.

In my previous explanation, of course, I neglected to mention that the
way to ensure some kind of strength of evidence is to use metered mail,
specifically so that nobody will be able to (as) convincingly claim you
just mailed yourself an empty envelope and stuffed it later.


> >>
> >> Only the monetary. The creator can sell the right to make copys of the
> >> work but the creator still retains the copyright.
> > 
> > That depends on jurisdiction.  In the US, you can negate copyright
> > entirely by assigning something you have created to the public domain.
> 
> You assert this claim as well, but it's not at all clear whether
> anything but works created by government employees can be placed in the
> public domain.
> 
>   http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/no-rights-reserved.html
> 
> "There is no specific provision in the copyright law for disclaiming
> rights in copyrighted works, and of course, no obligation to do so.
> However, the Copyright Office will record a statement of your intention
> to relinquish rights in our official records because the document
> pertains to a copyright within the meaning of the statute.  A statement
> of abandonment should identify the works involved by title and/or
> registration number.  The office does not provide forms for this
> purpose.
> 
> The legal effect of recording a statement of abandonment is not clear.
> Moreover, its acceptance for recordation in this office should not be
> construed as approval of the legal sufficiency of its content or its
> effect on the status or ownership of any copyright."

The effect has been, in any cases I have noticed, that waiving copyright
makes it essentially impossible to assert copyright.  Keep in mind that,
if nothing else, such a waiver serves to demonstrate to the receiver an
intent to let the receiver of the waiver to do whatever he or she likes
with a copyrighted work similarly to an explicit license enumerating all
the specific effects of such a waiver, and (unlike as in jurisdictions
such as France) there does not appear to be any provision in law that
disallows it.  While it is always possible that someone with a better
lawyer than you can turn these circumstances on their collective head in
court, the implications are obvious, even to a lawyer.

Don't take my word for it, though.  My policy is to never just make bare
public domain dedications.  I much prefer detailed waiver licenses such
as the CC0 waiver rather than dedication to the public domain, not only
for local jurisdictions but for worldwide applicability as well.


> 
> Let me repeat: unless you are a lawyer, you are not qualified to
> provide legal advice.

Let me be clear:

I didn't give legal advice.  I didn't say "You should do this."  I said,
in effect, "This is what I have observed."  In fact, nothing I said is
any more advisory than what you said.

For someone intent on giving the impression of precision, your precision
sucks.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20110617/e6bd85d2/attachment.pgp