From: Joe.Bethancourt@f72.n114.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.music.filk
Subject: re:copyrights
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov  5 1992
Date: 04 Nov 92  14:51:00

On the matter of copyrights, here's something from the WRITERS echo that
should be appropriate:

 Area: Nat'lWRITI 
  Msg#: 326                                          Date: 11-02-92  17:40
  From: J. Alec West                                 Read: Yes    Replied: No
    To: All                                          Mark:
  Subj: to (c) or not to (c)


I received copies of 3 pages from "Compendium II of Copyright Office
Practices" yesterday.  Interesting reading.  Seeing it in print has given me
a new insight over having it read to me on the phone.  In fact, if one is a
stickler for semantics, I was wrong in stating that a letter "C" enclosed in
parentheses is a "legal copyright notice"...and yet, I'm still safe in using
it.  Confused?  OK...here's a recap straight from the book:

The following three things are "legal copyright notices":

(1) a letter "C" enclosed in a circle
(2) the word "Copyright"
(3) the abbreviation "Copr."

H O W E V E R...the following fifteen (15) things are legally valid
"variants" to "legal copyright notices" (even if they are misspellings):

(1) the word "Copyrighted"
(2) the word "Copywrite"
(3) the word "Copywritten"
(4) the words "Copyright Pending"
(5) the words "Copyright Applied For"
(6) the words "Copyrighted and Registered"
(7) the words "Registered U.S. Copyright Office"
(8) the abbreviation "Copy."
(9) the abbreviation "Copyr."
(10) the letter "C" with a horizontal parenthesis above it
(11) the letter "C" with a horizontal parenthesis below it
(12) (C ...or... (c
(13) C) ...or... c)
(14) a lower-case letter "c" enclosed in an upper-case letter "C"
(15) (C) ...or... (c)

So...semantically speaking, example 15 above is not a "legal copyright
notice", but is a _variant_ to legal copyright notice...yet still having the
full force of the three REAL legal copyright notices.  Strictly speaking
(semantic correctness applied), I suppose that means I lost this debate.

Further info.  The "compendiums" appear to be office policy statements issued
by the Copyright Office to clarify their positions on the law...and have the
legal force of law.  If my reading of the text is correct, Compendium I deals
with copyright law for works published prior to January 1, 1978.  Compendium
II became effective January 1, 1978.  It was last printed in 1984 (indicating
no amendments have been made to it for quite a while) and deals with
copyright law for works published from 1/1/78 on.  Compendium II, however,
indicates that there were legal "variants" to copyright notices prior to
1978...but does not indicate what they were.  I imagine to find out, I'd have
to get Compendium I.  Certainly, I used the parentheses on the title pages of
the six short stories I had published between 1968-1970.  Never thought
anything was wrong in using that method until recently.  Whether or not these
parentheses were legally OK prior to 1978, however, is something I don't
know.

Other info.  I'm certain there have been cases where people put what they
thought were copyright notices (or thought were valid "variants") on
manuscripts...and later, they turned out to be ruled invalid.  Compendium
Two also has a list of INVALID variants which were most likely the culprits
in these cases.

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING ARE _INVALID_ VARIANTS.   D O N ' T   U S E   T H E M !


--- WM v2.04/92-0475