I've moved this out of the 'dumber than' thread because I was getting confused.
Just a couple more quick points on the subject then I'll shut up about it.

There doesn't need to be a copyright symbol for something to be copyright. Every intellectual property you produce, be it a novel, a strip cartoon, a photograph or a page of html code is automatically your copyright from the moment that it exists in a physical form. The novel you are thinking of writing becomes your copyright the moment you write it down - with or without a little letter 'c' to say so.
The difficulty comes in proving it.
In the case of linking to someone else's previously written, drawn or photographed work it's quite straightforward - they own the copyright. In the case of copying chunks of html and amending them it's a bit more ambiguous and could certainly keep a gaggle of lawyers fed and watered for a long time.

What complicates it slightly is something called 'fair use'. You are allowed, without prior permission, to quote or reference sections of someone's work for purposes of review or example providing there is no commercial gain.
What constitues fair use is again something that makes the lawyers richer and is the area where an awful lot of copyright cases are fought.

The safest course is to ask first. Most individuals are happy to let you quote their work with an appropriate copyright reference just for the extra publicity they get.

si hoc legere scis nimium eruditiones habes

Read all about my travels around the world here.

Well, Bob, I think we non-lawyers may be treading on thin ice with this one. I believe Shufitz had the right idea in the other thread.

When publishing, I have been told that we do in fact need to get our articles copyrighted (the publishers do that for you). That is why something just posted on the web someplace really isn't under copyright law--at least according to the lawyers in my university. So--I don't think there is agreement here. BTW, don't you think it is funny that Pam brings this up but hasn't enjoyed the rest of the site? Just a thought.

I can't speak about US Law (or for that matter, Scottish or Northern Irish Law) but I do know that in English Law copyright exists automatically in all newly created "intellectual" property.

There is not need to "register" a copyright - indeed, there is no machinery that exists for so doing. This is different from the situation in the case of "devices" which can be patented.

Proving copyright is the difficult issue and there are ways in which authors, composers and other creators of intellectual material seek to do this. For example, it is possible to lodge a copy of a new book with organisations such as the British Library. Proof of lodgement at a specific time will help in establishing copyright should the suspicion of plagiarism arise.

Richard English

It is the matter of proof which is the problem. I'm about 90% sure that the law is the same in the US. Anything you create is your copyright from the moment you actually set it down in a physical format (which includes patterns of binary information on a computer). There is no need (and, as Richard says, in England no mechanism) to 'register' your work. The problem comes if someone plagiarises your work later and claims it as their own. How do you then prove that it is your work?
The organisations that exist where you can register your work are there for this reason. If you have dated registered work filed away in a legally recognised place then you have a good legal case should the need arise.
You can of course simply place it in a sealed envelope, date it, send it to yourself by registered mail (or whatever the US equivalent is) and then file it. This is a method that lots of people use. Another is to lodge a dated copy with a solictor.
They all help if you have to go to court but none of them are legally necessary for the copyright to be yours, just as aids if proof is required.

Of course I could now go off on a long digression about assigned rights but that's for another day !

(In case your wondering I'm not a lawyer but I do occasionally write and I've looked into copyright in the past. I also have a good friend who is patents and coypright lawyer.)

si hoc legere scis nimium eruditiones habes

Read all about my travels around the world here.

[This message was edited by BobHale on Thu Sep 26th, 2002 at 3:45.]

edit to remove accidental multiple post

edit to remove accidental multiple post

Not to suggest I'm lampooning copyright law, but this from Reuters (edited):

Copyright Dispute Over Silence Settled: LONDON - A copyright dispute over two pieces of silence has been settled.

John Cage's ground-breaking silent composition, "4'33," was first performed half a century ago. [It] consists entirely of silent notes and takes four minutes 33 seconds to perform. Mike Batt was accused of plagiarism by Edition Peters, publishers of the late Cage's work, after he put a track called "A Minute's Silence" on his latest album, performed by The Planets.

Nicholas Riddle, managing director of Peters, said Batt had paid an "adequate sum" by way of settlement. "I'm sure John Cage would have loved the spectacle of The Planets being all over the press protesting that their (my) silence was original silence and not a quotation from his silence," he added.

Earlier this year, the parties attempted to prove their points by each staging a performance of their piece. The result was inconclusive.

I think it was Sir Malcom Sergeant who, when he heard John Cage's silent work, said that he hoped that his future works would be of "full concert length".

I assume that he had had occasion to hear some of John Cage's non-silent work as well - which would possibly have had a bearing on his comment.

Richard English

I raised the issue of this particular piece of plagiarism over on the snopes board ages ago.

You can find the resulting discussion here.

For those who don't know my name over there (where noms de plume are de rigeur) is currently 'An Englishman Reflecting Elephants'.


si hoc legere scis nimium eruditiones habes

Read all about my travels around the world here.

MY original complaint was to direct linking to an image on someone's web site and causing the webmaster to pay for bandwidth charges for that image being displayed on another web site.

Shufitz, there does not have to be a copyright symbol on the individual pages for them to be copyrighted. There is a statement at the bottom of the page stating "Photographs on this page, © Copyright 1998-2002 Bill Cooper.
Information, photographs and backgrounds on this site, unless otherwise indicated,
Copyright © 1998-2002 Pam Spragins, www.squirrel-rehab.org All Rights Reserved"

According to MY copyright attorney, this is all that is required.

The copyright is given as soon as the work is created and as long as the person has proof of when it was created, it will stand up in court. Most webmasters will set up the site and print it out and mail it to themselves snail mail and never open it. That way the post office cancellation on the outside will serve as the date it was created and this has held up in court.

Pam

Ahh, now it is clear, Pam, why you brought this up on our board. This was your work, and I can understand your annoyance. Though, now you have been able to publicize it to everyone on our board, so perhaps that makes up for it. We do have a private message system on this site, and it might have been quicker had you used that system to register your complaint. From my perspective, I cannot see any difference between a link and copying to a board, though in both cases I do agree that the author should be given credit.

About plagiarism: a colleague received a paper from a student, and that paper looked familiar to him. He put some of the words into "plagiarism.com", and it was a flyer marketed by the American Cancer Society. The unknowing student flunked out!

Pam, we administrators of this forum want to thank you for bringing the subject of copyright concerns to the attention of all of us. Thinking about it cannot help but make each user more sensitive to the matter, and helps each to do his or her level best. We've closed this topic, to avoid any hint that this board is giving legal advice, but we are most pleased to have had this discussion, and we will be adding to our "Privacy Notice" a reminder on the subject to all registrants, current and future.

Signed, Wordcrafter and Sarah, Administrators