6 ms·
IANAL, but some quick research leads me to believe one possible significance is in determining damages in a copyright case. "Willful" infringement has more seve
by Bjartr 4y ago
IANAL, 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.
- bazoom42 4y agoBut when would you “unknowingly” violate copyright, when everything is under copyright by default?
- JohnFen 4y agoYou could be ignorant of copyright law, someone could have provided the material to you and you weren't aware that they didn't hold the copyright, etc. There are numerous ways you can violate copyright without knowing it.
- bazoom42 4y agoBut ignorance of the law is not a defence. Given everything can be assumed to be under copyright, I don’t see how it can be a valid denfense that you “didnt know” something was under copyright.
- Bjartr 4y agoYou violate the law when you infringe regardless, but intent matters for determining the penalty for doing so. The law basically says that, specifically for infringing a copyright, doing so out of ignorance is less punishable. Ignorance isn't a general defense, but some laws do account for it on a case by case basis.