Re: Asimov Site

["Frank Townsend" <ftownsen@iamdigex.net>]

"Kelli Halliburton" <kelli217@crosswinds.not> wrote in message
news:8orpm1$2rp2$1@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...

> Interesting, this paragraph seems to indicate that the use of a copyright
> NOTICE is no longer required under US law. This would tend to leave open
the
> question of when copyright actually takes effect.


Copyright attaches when the work is fixed in a tangible medium of
expression, as you say below.


> This also deals with the question as to whether notice is required in
order
> for protection to ensue.


No, notice is not required for copyright protection, but still is important.


> Again, none of the quoted information is relevant to the question of when
a
> copyright actually takes effect.
>
> Basically, all this post quotes is a section of a pamphlet by the US
> Copyright Office that deals with whether or not you can claim copyright
> protection without a notice such as "Copyright (c) 2000 Kelli Halliburton.
> All rights reserved." being included with the work in question. What this
> quotation says, basically, is 'yes.'


Right.  Except all you need is (c), Copyright or Copr. plus the date of
first publication plus the name of the owner.  Although notice is not
required any longer for copyright to be effective, it is useful to rebut a
defendant's claim of innocent infringement.


> The process of "filing for copyright" is actually only a matter of
> *registering* a copyright that already exists, for the purpose of better
> establishing documentation in the event of infringement.


Yes, but for a few other important purposes.  Until the work is registered,
no "action for infringement . . . shall be instituted until registration . .
.has been made."  See Sect. 411.  This right to sue can be regained by
registration of the work.

Also, a claim for statutory damages and/or attorney's fees can't be made
unless the work has been registered (or unless a published work is
registered within 3 months of publication).   See Sect. 412.