h a l f b a k e r y0.5 and holding.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
(c) (c)
Our best shot at "doing a Reddit" | |
My understanding is if you just put (c) with a name and date
on anything you produce, it is covered by copyright law.
Why not get HB to automatically add this to all ideas?
(c) me, now
(Look at that, I failed at the first attempt. I blame my dad
for giving me these recidivist lurker genes)
first to file
http://en.wikipedia...America_Invents_Act
not first to invent [Voice, May 25 2012]
U.S. Copyright Office
http://www.copyrigh...general.html#mywork
FAQ on copyright in general [ytk, May 25 2012]
[link]
|
| |
I just saw what that looks like in the recent list. This is not
intended to be an ascii art homage to non-discriminatory
whatchamicallits. Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing
against whatchamicallits, actually I'm quite a fan. But this
has nothing to do with them. |
|
| |
Actually, in the United States at least, it's unnecessary.
You automatically own the copyright to any creative
work you produce (with a few exceptions), unless you
specifically disclaim the copyright and place the work
into the public domain. |
|
| |
Every idea and every annotation should be mailed special delivery to yourself and left unopened. Just in case. |
|
| |
First, [mitxela], that's patents. A whole different ball of
wax from copyright. Second, that will no longer work in
the US and hasn't ever worked in the rest of the world.
Since last year the US is a first-to-patent country. linky. |
|
| |
Prior art is still an obstacle. |
|
| |
Native copyright is widely recognised around the
world. Patents are a little different. |
|
| |
// My understanding is if you just put (c) with a name and
date on anything you produce, it is covered by copyright
law. // |
|
| |
Your undertstanding is incorrect. One must file for
copyrights exactly as one does for patents. Even the much-
vaunted 'poor man's copyright', which does not work, is
more complicated than simply slapping a (c) on something. |
|
| |
//Every idea and every annotation should be mailed
special delivery to yourself and left unopened.// |
|
| |
This is the "poor man's copyright" mentioned by
[Alter],
which indeed does not work. The reason it doesn't
work is it's actually inconclusive. Who's to say you
didn't mail yourself an empty, unsealed envelope
several years ago, and have just now placed a copy
of
the work you're claiming copyright to and sealed it
up? |
|
| |
//One must file for copyrights exactly as one does for
patents.// |
|
| |
You don't /have/ to file to get a copyright, but it's a
very good idea to /register/ your copyright because
generally, the first person to register the copyright
has
the strongest claim. But if you can prove somehow
that you produced the work, you get the copyright
regardless of whether you registered it or not. |
|
| |
This is one of the differences between a copyright
and a patent. You must file for a patent in order to
receive it. Copyright is automatic. |
|
| |
Yes, I was simplifying the explanation, so I shouldn't have
used the word 'exactly'. I hold a copyright for my writing,
which I obtained by registering with the bureau and
sending a check for $55 along with a few dozen of my
unpublished works. I can now
put my '(c) A. Benson 2012' on anything I write, whether or
not that specific piece of writing is in the bureau's
archives. I need to keep renewing it every year, however,
and it costs me no more to send them the bulk of my
writing from the previous year than it does to send a single
piece, and doing so theoretically provides me greater
protection. |
|
| |
By the way, I just copyrighted this anno (although it's
legally grey because of [jutta]'s public domain disclaimer
pertaining to all content appearing on the site).
Once you fill out
the forms and send the money, you _can_ just slap it on
any original work and make it stick. |
|
| |
Respectfully, [Alterother], I don't think you quite
understand copyright law. Copyright registration
applies to a specific work, not an author. And it's not
necessary to register at all to obtain a copyright. By
international convention, anybody who produces any
work automatically and immediately receives the
copyright to that work. Registration of a copyright is
only an additional means to protect yourself legally
from copyright infringement, but it's not necessary to
do so (although having your copyright registered will
make it far easier to prove your claim in court, and
may entitle you to additional damages). |
|
| |
And contrary to what you seem to believe, just
because you've registered the copyright on a single
work, does NOT mean that subsequent works you
produce are considered registered as well. In fact,
even if you make substantial modifications to an
existing work that has been registered, the new work
would not be considered registered (although the old
one would still be, of course). You would still
retain the copyright to anything you produced, of
course, but that would be true whether or not you
registered any work previously, and whether or not
you placed an explicit copyright notice on the work. |
|
| |
The general rule is that for your work to be
registered, you must send an actual copy of the work
(along with the application and fee) to the U.S.
Copyright Office. If they don't have an actual copy of
the work in question, I assure you with 100%
certainty that it is not considered registered, and you
will receive nothing more than the standard copyright
protection afforded to anybody else who produces a
work, whether or not they've ever sent anything to
the Copyright Office previously. |
|
| |
(See the link to the Copyright Office FAQ that may be
helpful for you) |
|
| |
Respectfully, you are correct. I signed the forms and my
wife handled the rest. What I wrote above was a clumsy
version of what she explained to me, and in review it
comes across as condescending ignorant blather. |
|
| |
This is probably because I've been drunk for most of the
afternoon (am less so now) and reacted improperly to what
others were saying. I have it on pretty good authority that
drunks do so such things. Anyhow, I can only throw myself
upon the mercy of the 'bakery and ask that I be forgiven,
and may others undo what damage I have done. |
|
| |
I shall, for the remainder of my intoxication, restrict my
commentary to topics I actually know something about, or
to those which require no knowledge whatsoever. |
|
| |
//This is probably because I've been drunk for most of
the afternoon (am less so now)// |
|
| |
Shame on you. Rectify this new development
immediately. I recommend a gin and tonic, stat. |
|
| |
I hate gin. Will Patron serve as an acceptable substitute? |
|
| |
All I really know is that whatever we paid for protects my
work. I really should have left it at that instead of being a
blowhard. |
|
| |
Well, it's a tad uncouth, but I suppose it's all the same
once it's in the bloodstream. Carry on. |
|
| |
I also have some 12-year-old Redbreast, but I try not to
drink the good whiskey when I'm already plastered, and it
seems I'm fresh out of Jameson's. |
|
| |
Bloody hell, I really should have quit after my first anno.
What a fool. |
|
| |
I'll drink to that. Cheers, mate. |
|
| |
And I'll second that - Homebrew IPA for me. Come on over, I've some fresh. |
|
| |