3 ms·
> In fact, it is their duty to enforce their copyright claims, or they risk their ability to protect their IP in the future. That's true of trademark, but why
by darkarmani 7y ago
> In fact, it is their duty to enforce their copyright claims, or they risk their ability to protect their IP in the future.
That's true of trademark, but why do you think that is true of copyright?
- j-c-hewitt 7y agoUnlike trademark, you do not lose your copyright registration for failure to enforce it. However, it makes it a lot easier for prospective defendants if you have a track record of ignoring infringements. Your registration is not in danger, but your ability to win as much as possible might be. Even works with no identifiable copyright owner are not necessarily considered 'abandoned,' which creates a lot of interesting issues, such as in the case of Google Books: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1214&context=dltr https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... The main thing with copyright is not like the risk of trademark dilution: it's just that not enforcing it makes it easier for defendants to bargain and argue for lighter penalties.