3 ms·
Copyright notices are useful the same way written contracts are: you legally do not need a notice (written contract) to establish copyright protection (enter in
by smallnamespace 5y ago
Copyright notices are useful the same way written contracts are: you legally do not need a notice (written contract) to establish copyright protection (enter into a contract), but if a dispute arises it helps establish the fact that the user was notified (the other party agreed to this contract).
A question of 'law' vs 'facts'
- paulddraper 5y agoThose aren't at all analogous. The automatic state for content is "protected by copyright," unless a different arrangement is made. The automatic state for contract terms is "not agreed to," unless a different arrangement is made. tl;dr You need proof (written or otherwise) that a contact happened; not so with copyright protection.
- smallnamespace 5y agoOral contracts are legal and valid, yet most people write down their contracts for good, practical reasons outside of strict legality. Same goes for copyright notices. For example, the notice makes it hard for a violator to use a negligence defense, effectively increasing the penalty for violations.
- paulddraper 5y agoPeople write down contracts for proof. Without that, it's dubious if the contract even existed. But proof is not relevant for a copyright. Even without writing, the existence of the copyright is not in doubt.
- kbutler 5y agoBut the owner of the copyright is.
- Sebb767 5y agoNegligence is not applicable in this case, as, like the comment above pointed out, the default state is copyrighted. It's a bit like putting a "stealing this car is illegal"-sticker on your car - sure, you made that clear, but "I didn't know stealing this car was illegal" is not going to fly as a defense either way.