Subject: A note about copyright notices

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:19:01 -0600

One thing that is important to remember - and this is based on legal advice:

COPYRIGHT NOTICES DO NOT CHANGE THE EXISTENCE OF COPYRIGHTS.

Under US law and the Berne convention, copyright is created when some 
work is created (under certain conditions).

The role of a (pure) copyright notice is to *call attention to* specific 
copyrights that exist independent of the copyright notice, and to make 
sure nobody makes the mistake of assuming that no copyright exists.

One problem with copyright notices is that they tend to be commingled 
with licensing conditions, starting with the pervasive "all rights 
reserved" note.

And while copyright notices can probably be seen as OR (logical OR, not 
exclusive OR; copyrights in the work belong to holder1 OR holder2 OR 
both OR some combination of them with someone else), the presence of 
multiple sets of licensing conditions is an invitation to the kind of 
confusion that keeps copyright lawyers fully employed.

                        Harald

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:46:53 +0100

> work is created (under certain conditions).

Not all countries have signed the Berne convention.  The members are:

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15

As you can see, it is still growing.  Over 10 countries joined in the
last few years.

Countries that have signed earlier treaties, but not the Berne
convention, may still require copyright notices.

However, I suggest that we consciously decide to ignore these
countries until someone who cares about them raises this as a
practical rather than theoretical problem.  It is prudent to be aware
of this situation though.

> The role of a (pure) copyright notice is to *call attention to*
> specific copyrights that exist independent of the copyright notice,
> and to make sure nobody makes the mistake of assuming that no
> copyright exists.

The existence of a copyright notice may make it easier to claim
damages for infringement.

If a copyright notice on a piece of code in an RFC is not present, but
the IPR Trust copyright is present, I believe it would be difficult to
win a case where the owner of the piece of code tried to defend its
ownership.

> with licensing conditions, starting with the pervasive "all rights

For those interested in the history of that phrase: "All rights
reserved" was a phrase that, together with the copyright notice, was
practically _required_ to be present in order to claim a copyright
under the Buenos Aires convention.  All countries that signed the
Buenos Aires convention have also signed the Berne convention, so the
phrase is not necessary today.

Thanks,
Simon

PS. An introduction to some of these issues can be found at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright>.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:58:52 -0800

Simon - for some of the IETF's users the copyright statement's are not an
issue - and that is educational users under the TEACH Act. I would also
point out that by 'slamming the IETF into some school' somewhere in the US,
the whole issue of these copyrights may go away...

Check out the Amierican Libraries Association's site - they have a whole
page on libraries of online information and copyright issues -
http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=distanceed&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=25939#policymakers

Todd Glassey

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:59:37 -0800

Simon - in response, see below.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 2:46 AM
Subject: Re: A note about copyright notices

> of this situation though.

Then the IETF is neither open nor global. That's the problem when you claim
you are "the one" - which is what the IETF has always represented itself
as - that being 'the one and only place where anyone could participate on an
equal basis in the standards process'...

> > and to make sure nobody makes the mistake of assuming that no

This is an interesting 'interpretation' - and I dont think quite accurate.
The copyright statement is there to asset ownership over something and for
no other purpose