4 ms·
Does the copyright string have any legal significance at all? I always thought copyright emerged from the act of creating a work, not the act of writing a "©" s
by xg15 4y ago
Does the copyright string have any legal significance at all? I always thought copyright emerged from the act of creating a work, not the act of writing a "©" somewhere.
I thought the attribution line was basically a public reminder or declaration that you own the copyright the thing it's written on, but not the source of the copyright itself.
- Oxidation 4y agoNot any more. It used to be true in the US that the copyright declaration has to include the claimant and the year, and that not inducing one or both forfeited your copyright. This hasn't been true for decades and since then copyright is automatic and implicit. Now it's basically just a textual version of Big Brother eyes warning you that someone cares about this thing and reminding you that copyright still exists before your Ctrl-C into your own website.
- Bjartr 4y agoIANAL, but some quick research leads me to believe one possible significance is in determining damages in a copyright case. "Willful" infringement has more severe penalties. One criteria for determining if an infringement is willful is it it was done with knowledge that the action violated copyright. I suppose then, the presence of a copyright symbol on a work makes quick work of any argument the copying was done without knowing the copyright existed. Which, if the accused could successfully make an argument for, could result in reduced penalties. It's not that there's an explicit piece of legislation that gives © power, but rather that it's presence makes for a stronger deterrent in practice.
- dboreham 4y agoIt also makes audits easier. If a lawyer asks "who owns the copyright to your code?", these pieces of text provide an answer vs random hand-waving. This can be important, for example if said lawyer works for someone about to pay you $$$$$ for your code.
- wongarsu 4y agoIs "I didn't know this was copyrighted" still a reasonable argument, now that the US joined the rest of the world in automatic copyright over three decades ago?
- Bjartr 4y agoWorks can be in the public domain, it's possible to mistake a copyrighted work for one in the public domain. A visible ©<currentyear> makes that a less viable defense. And remember, it doesn't let you infringe freely if it's missing, just could make seeking the highest penalty from the infringer harder, weakening the deterrent power.
- JohnFen 4y agoAs I understand it, there is no such thing as a work being in the public domain at the moment of creation in the US. Everything put into a tangible form is automatically copyrighted, and there is no legal mechanism to renounce that. For something to actually be in the public domain, the copyright term must expire.
- Bjartr 4y agoThat's correct
- JohnFen 4y agoYes, in the sense that if you unknowingly violated copyright, your liability is less than if you knowingly violated it. But in neither case is your liability zero.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pwg 4y ago> Does the copyright string have any legal significance at all? It does. At least in the US, if the work contains an explicit copyright announcement then an infringer loses the ability to defend via an "innocent infringement" defense. They become a "deliberate infringer" and this can ultimately change (increase) the size of any damage awards from a lawsuit against the infringer.