Talk:Copyright

This page is for discussion of the particular contents of the Copyright article, or for straightforward questions about copyright. This article is not the place for:

1. debates about the merits of copyright (See Talk:Copyright/is copyright worthwhile?.)
2. discussion of Wikipedia's copyright policies (See Wikipedia:Copyrights, or, for more informal discussion, see Wikipedia:Copyright issues.)

Non-encyclopedic content

I am removing this link "(For discussion, see http://bfp.sp.unipi.it/~pievatolo/lm/kantbraz.html.)" from the "Limits and Exceptions to Copyright" section. Can you imagine picking up an encyclopedia in a library and reading, in the middle of an article, "If you want to debate this, please send a letter to this address.."? Exemplar sententia 13:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would love to see that. Coulda been a footnote. Might still become a footnote. ~ Otterpops 20:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Start of "History" section looks familiar

I wrote this on slashdot.org in January 2002. The bold text is what caused me pause. I don't mind it being here, but someone might think it was not sanctioned. Of course others may differ and feel it's only a coincidence. Either way by posting it here I give permission for anything below to be used in Wikipedia.

---

They may not have had legal copyrights, but they had methods to protect their music.

Before copyright there were other ways to protect work. Mozart had a patron, Baroness von Waldstätten, who underwrote his needs so that he could spend the day doing whatever he wanted.

Because Mozart's patron allowed his music to be freely performed does not mean that it was always that way. Kings and princes always had court composers and they jealously guarded their music.

Handel's patron (George I, the first of the Hanoverian kings) jealously guarded "water music."'

Please remember at the time you couldn't "copy" music unless you could sit in the audience with a quill pen and follow along! Actually Mozart could do this, but not many others.

It was easy to protect music back then and hard to steal it. Don't think people wouldn't have if they could. The technology didn't exist.

Jump ahead to the 1890's where the rampant bootleging of sheet music was a huge business (please refer to http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/09/mann.htm )

From the above article a reference to Sullivan of Gilbert and Sullivan fame:

"The irate Sullivan filed lawsuit after lawsuit in U.S. courts, but only dented the trade. To prevent the pirating of The Pirates of Penzance, he long refused to publish the score; bouncers prowled every show to stop music thieves from writing down the melodies."

Let's face it, in U.S. society you are not going to do much with out being paid for it. So change the law, but until then buy what you use, or move to Canada where it is apparently legal now. (Yes, I know the original author lives there, I'm speaking to everyone else.)

Society values artistic works and society (Through the govenment) grants the creators a limited license to profit from their works in order to better society. That's the theory anyway. Maybe it's gotten out of hand, but the "music and information want to be free" approach doesn't really motivate humans to create great things.

Even throughout history people like Mozart have been motivated by "compensation" to produce new creative works.

...

While IP has always been created through time it has always been protected by rule, religion, or force. People didn't share fire - they stole it from each other. The Egyptians didn't give their knowledge of mummification away to anyone that asked. The Library of Alexandria (aka "The Kings Library") wasn't a place you or I could lend a book from. Knowledge really was power. Ptolemy III paid the sum of fifteen talents of silver (a vast amount) to be allowed to copy the works of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides.

So while the ancient scholars and composers may not have had our modern day protection of copyright, please don't confuse that with no protection at all.

---

The original page is not available, but I reposted it in June of 2002 and it is located on this page: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/05/2037201&mode=thread&tid=97 I don't believe this is any longer searchable in google unless you do a site specific search on slashdot.org AKAJack 19:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

(Should have copyrighted it. Exemplar sententia 13:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

History - nothing about Durer and Titian cases to protect their prints

I came here hoping to find something to link to for my article Marcantonio Raimondi, b1480, who provoked one of the earliest cases on copyright in Venice. There is nothing about this here, nor about the rather latwer case involving Titian. I'm no expert, but printmaking, because making plates was expensive, but not so much so that they could not profitably be copied, was a notable area for early copyright law, & not just in Rome & Venice. "priviledge" systems, which combined censorship & copyright in shifting combinations, came in earlier for prints than most other types of material in most parts of Europe, or so I understand.

someone who knows more than i do should get this into the section.

btw, I thought curses & imprecations,rabbinical & other, were common in manuscript books against those who MIScopied. i mean this doesn't reduce the point, but reinforces it.

Get to it, lawyers!

Johnbod 03:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I now see I should have done this on History of copyright law so will copy it there, but it seems to have gone quiet since January, unlike here. Johnbod 03:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about copywrite

Would it be possible to copyright an unique name and if so, how much cost/effort would it take? --Eiyuu Kou 18:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What meaning does the following phrase have? "Includes Copyrighted Material of <name here>"

Does this imbue the document with copyright protection? or is it just an FYI?

does it mean anything different when it goes on to say "..., With its permission. Copyright, <name here>, 2002, 2003"

-User: lara78660 3:36 March 13, 2007

Papal Copyright

I was looking up something else and came across the following on Benedict and copyright: [[1]]

- and can someone archive part of this talk page please - it is long (and the remaining library session is short) Jackiespeel 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright symbol

• • • can someone remove the disgusting picture in under the "copyright symbol". Please!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.46.203.100 (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2006

I first thought this unsigned message (tag added) was about the ugliness of the thick ultra-black copyright symbol that was there, but no such luck – there was vandalism around that date. I still went ahead and replaced Image:Copyright.svg with Image:Copyright-serif.svg which I just made and uploaded. I hope that's allright with everyone. – McDutchie 05:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Very US centric

This article seems focused on US copyright. It mentions other copyright legislations but the main part seems top be talking about US specific laws.64.149.244.94! Hicham Vanborm

We are interested in changing this so that it is more international. What parts still need cleanup? --71.161.219.152 22:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There should be some notice that the word "copyright" is US (UK?) based, we for example call it "autorská práva" (author's rights) in Czech Republic. Very important part of those rights is the nontransferable right to claim authorship, I don't know if it is emphasized in copyright. Ottodostal (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to do this by moving US-centric material to United States copyright law, but my edits are getting reverted. --71.169.150.172 02:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I was guilty of one of the reversions, but I self-reverted once I was notified that the edits were helpful and I reviewed them more thoroughly. I agree that your edits are improving the article, and will try to watch for anyone that might revert you. Editors might be less likely to revert if you edited under a registered username, though nothing forces you to log in, of course. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

btw... The whole of Wikipedia tends to be US or English centric --24.2.108.32 05:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)-Nick

Requesting to edd a link

This article talks about why copyright and patent laws are obsolete and should be abolished for the sake of modern day information society. It is writen by Prof. Blondheim ( who resides as an Associate Professor in Communication and American Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem). The article is published at omedia, which is a non commercial articles site. THE ARTICLE

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yuval a (talk • contribs) 12:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Other Aspects

The "Other Aspects" section is poorly written. I tagged it. E.g. "It can be argued that, rather than criminalize millions of file sharers around the world who now routinely use the Internet to commit acts which can be argued breach copyright in this or that jurisdiction." is not even a sentence, and there are several instances of this.

Copy-edit complete

I copy edited this article (if that's the right verb, I'm new). The spelling and grammar of the article should be okay now.

Stevob2007 18:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Archived nicely

I've archived this page properly. Hooray! --Goyston (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Global average for default copyright length?

Someone, please explain this: "In most of the world the default length of copyright for many works is either life of the author plus 50 or 70 years." --83.109.63.6 07:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It means that the duration of copyright is usually the life of the author, plus either 50 or 70 years. Good critique. I've clarified it. Terry Carroll 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

anonymous authors

What is the copyright status of works posted anonymously? In particular, of Wikipedia articles written anonymously?

When do those works go into the public domain (the "life of the author + 70 years" doesn't work, since I don't know who the author is, much less what year she died). --68.0.120.35 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, works posted anonymously do *not* immediately go into the public domain.

As long as none of the identities of any of the authors of a anonymous or pseudonymous work are revealed "for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first", then the copyright expires at the end of that term (in the U.S.). See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html

Does this apply to Wikipedia articles written anonymously by people in other countries, or does some other international rule apply? --68.0.120.35 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The answer to the part of 68.0.120.35's question regarding Wikipedia in particular is that Wikipedia contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, which, as its article explains, is a form of copyleft. In fact, when you make an edit, the frame outside the editing area, between that and the "Save page" button, expressly says "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL.". — Lumbercutter 14:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

History section gone from this article

It seems absurd to me that no summary of the history of copyright article is given on this page. It doesn't need to be a long essay, but we should have at least a couple of paragraphs. Otherwise, it's impossible to put copyright in context, and understand its implications. --jacobolus (t) 04:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The summary was deleted by vandalism here (2006-11-04). It's back now. Rl 07:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the legal basis of claiming "Copyright renewed"?

Sometimes I have seen, in books that have been reprinted decades after their original publication (by a different publisher), that the copyright page makes a claim such as, for example, "Original copyright 1942 John Doe. Copyright renewed 1971 by Mary Doe." How does anyone have a legal right to extend the time period of a copyright by "renewing" it? If the copyright on Mary's great-grandpappy's memoir is about to expire, can she really "renew" it for another 70 years? I hope that a lawyer or paralegal who has real knowledge of such things may contribute to this article a section on "copyright renewal". — Lumbercutter 14:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's probably a US specific thing that you are refering too. See the page on United States copyright law. Under previous law, copyright in the US lapsed 28 years after publication, but could be renewed for a further 28 years. Current US law and the laws of most (all?) other nations don't have such a provision. Numerous minor works are now in the public domain because their copyright was not renewed after 28 years, but proving non-renewal requires a lot of research. Zeimusu | Talk page 15:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Bingo! Thanks so much. — Lumbercutter 16:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Claiming Copyright in a Facsimile

Hello,

   The www.jewishencyclopedi.org" has placed the Jewish Encyclopedia which 

they acknowledge to be in the pubic domain (USA) online. One section contains a transcription of each article. The other section contains photographs of each page from each article - like an unaltered digitized photocopy. They have placed copyright notices on the bottom of the these photocopies. Since the text is in the public domain and since no new work was done to create a digitalized photocopy, how can they claim copyright on it.

Patrick —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.72.130 (talk) 11:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Oops

I think I made an error and deleted a chunk of the page somehow. Would somebody please fix that? :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.96.223.162 (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Pictures

The red copyright and no copyright symbols are allowed to be on the page. Stop deleting them. Replay7 18:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

They are redundant to images already in the article and the red one is much less commonly used than the black (not to mention that it's visually abrasive). Please adhere to the three revert rule. Thank you. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Link to inaccurate information

The page currently contains this link:

• A flowchart which helps to determine the copyright status of a particular work in the US.

This page misleads visitors in that it indicates that for works "Published before January 1, 1964", the question as to whether the copyright was timely renewed is answered with the question, "Was copyright registration renewed between December 31 of the year of the 27th anniversary of publication and December 31 of the year of the 28th anniversary of publication?" This is incorrect for works originally published and copyrighted prior to 1949. (The calendar-year rule implicit in the question is correct for works of 1951-1964. It also applies to 1950, but not exclusively so.) For works prior 1949 and earlier, the renewal window ran from the 27th anniversary of publication to the 28th anniversary of publication. (Exceptions apply when the copyright notice has an earlier date.) The linked page incorrectly suggests that a renewal is not valid if the renewal window is not adjusted to start and end with the December 31st following the 27th and 28th anniversaries. Such calendar-year renewal-windows did not become operable in U.S. copyright until 1978 (at which time 1950 works were eligible for renewal), with the coming into effect of the 1976 Copyright Act, wherein Section 305 revised the copyright term so that all copyright terms now ended on the December 31 of the year within which the copyright would otherwise expire on any date. BBCD 23:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Parody vs Satire

From the third paragraph:

In some jurisdictions, copyright law provides scope for satirical or interpretive works which themselves may be copyrighted.

I think this needs a footnote specifying which jurisdictions, or the mention of satire should be removed. This is because of the easy confusion between satire and parody (specifically in reference to US law). Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody

AThomas203 18:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Just another comment

"Content that violates any copyright will be deleted."

Given that the warning quoted above is not followed by something like "current copyright laws are insane", many people will have the right to assume the Wikipedia managers enjoy and/or approve the general insaneness of the whole copyright thing. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.1.33 22:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you will find much agreement on that point; it's most a matter of not getting in trouble for violating copyright law, which could endanger the whole project. Wikipedia generally tries to remain neutral on controversial issues, so I don't think it would be appropriate to criticize copyright law of any particular country in the input form. -- Beland 04:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

More historical background

While I don't suggest copying from http://www.answers.com/topic/licensing-of-the-press-act-1662 it does have more historical background. Someone with more drive should look for a more credible source. On that note, this article does not cite its sources WELL. It has number citation, but in the works cited section, it doesn't show the numbers! --24.2.108.32 05:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest copying from there either, as it's another wikipedia article (Licensing of the Press Act 1662) - Answers.com mirrors wikipedia. --Harris 07:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Who owns the copyright if the author is dead?

If an author has been dead for less than 50/70/95 years then who owns the copyright to their works. Who owns the copyright of George Orwell's 1984? 218.215.143.107 02:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

George-orwell.org claims that his works are now in the public domain and has posted the entire works. HTH // Brick Thrower 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's strange. The Wikipedia article for 1984 as well as many other sources on the internet say that the book is under copyright until 2044 in the United States. 218.215.143.107 06:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

George-orwell.org does not look like a particularly reliable source; I would not trust it. Regarding your other copyright questions, I recommend that you consult an intellectual property attorney with a particular fact situation, as the answer may vary based on location and the work in question. · jersyko talk 12:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In the United States, the provision that measures copyright terms based on the death of the author is only applicable to works that were created in 1978 or later. 1984 was published in 1949 (according to Nineteen Eighty-Four). It would have gotten an initial copyright term of 28 years, i.e., into 1977. If its copyright was renewed (and I'd be stunned if it was not), it would have gotten a second 67-year term (initially 28 years; then extended to 47 years; and extended again to where it now sits at 67 years). So, under current US law (again, unless it was not renewed), the copyright in 1984 will expire on December 31, 2044.

I have a somewhat dated Copyright FAQ that answers some of this stuff in more detail.

I have no clue why George-orwell.org would think that copyright has expired. Even if they think that the life+70 provision applies (it doesn't), that would have copyright expire 70 years after Orwell's death in 1950, i.e., December 31, 2020. My guess is that they're making two errors: first, thinking the lifetime-based term provisions apply to older works; and second, missing the fact that even if that provision applied, it was changed from life+50 to life+70 in 1998. If you make both of those errors, you would reach the conclusion that the copyright expired in 2000.

By the way, none of this addresses the question in the section header, "Who owns the copyright if the author is dead?" the answer to that is that a copyright is just like any other piece of property owned by someone who dies. It passes on according to the terms of the decedent's will, and absent any will, or a provision in the will covering the copyright, it passes on to whoever owns the residue of the estate.

Terry Carroll 18:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Would that mean that the work of an author without any children or other relatives who hasn't any will or anything will become public domain immediately when he or she dies? -- Algotr 22:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, a copyright is pretty much like any other piece of personal property. The copyright code (in the US) has no specific provisions on how it can be willed or otherwise change ownership upon the death of the copyright owner. It's left to the each individual state (we're still talking US here, right?) to regulate that, just as it regulates the passage of other property ownership. We're moving outside of copyright law now, and therefore outside my area of expertise, and into probate law. Most states have provisions that get the property to some family member somehow -- sometimes a pretty remote family member -- via some pretty arcane statutes. It's rare that there's no family member anywhere, although it might be something like a third or fourth cousin. However, it may be that no family member can be found, even if one exists, or maybe the copyright owner was an only child of an only child of an only child and there's no branches off his family tree to locate an heir. But even if that happens, the usual provision, as I understand it, in most states is for the state to take ownership through a process called "escheat". For example, California's escheat provision can be found in California Probate Code § 6804. Most, if not all, other states have comparable provisions. Terry Carroll 00:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Unavailable Material?

A lot of entertainment and software material is of limited availability around the world. For an example, Japanese anime is barely available at all in europe/america. If i should want to obtain an anime serie that is not released outside japan with apropriate subtitles or dub, do copyright laws still make it illegal to download the serie with apropriate subtitles or dub (by apropriate i mean a dub or subtitle i can understand)? Wether they are fanmade or professionally made subtitles/dubs? --195.134.57.233 13:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"do copyright laws still make it illegal..?" Yes, of course.--Svetovid 13:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

further reading and see also

The "further reading" and see also section is a mess and is very long. I'm going to set a goal of going through it all with the goal of removing 3/4 of the links and such so we have a core of very usefully and highly on topic issues. Discussion of the public domain should, for example, be on the public domain article and relevant links should be within the text of the article.

Just a heads up. I'll get to it eventually but feel free to take a stab at it yourself if you agree and feel the desire. mako (talk•contribs) 13:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright and Life

I think I see a pattern here -- the expiration of a copyright is just like a person's death due to a long lifespan. 68.227.221.61 22:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I make a photocopy of a recently printed book with Shakespears work?

According to the article: "In the United States, all books and other works published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain." Does that mean that I can make copies of a recently printed book where the text was originally written before 1923?

Algotr 10:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is a replication of the Shakespearean work then you can. If it included new works, such as illustrations, the issue becomes complicated. If the work is a verbatim copy of Shakespeare then the publisher didn't pay anyone to copy it, neither do you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.146.141 (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright and baseball stats

Hi. Any copyright counsel out there? The baseball people are having a raging debate about copyright and baseball statistics ... and the ability to use those stats on Wikipedia. Jailhouse lawyers have taken over. If someone with expertise is out there, perhaps they could clarify matters at [2]

using names

my friends and i wanted to make a vid to put on youtube and we wanted to call it teenage wasteland, but there's a documentary called teenage wasteland, this vid is gonna be a series n i just wasnt sure if we could get in trouble for usin their name, the vid isnt goin to b nething like the documentary if you know nething please tell me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoinNsane (talk • contribs).

so, you're putting a video series on youtube and you want to know if you can use the name of another video that is copyrighted? i heard somewhere that the title of books cannot be copyrighted, i am not sure if this is the same with movies though... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.23.148.191 (talk) 09:32:54, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

In New Zealand at least there is no copyright in a title because it is 'too insubstantial'. Green v Broadcasting Corp of New Zealand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.146.141 (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Name of article

I feel that the name of this article is POV. The term "copyright" is inherently POV as it implies that "copyright" is a right; there are no rights involved in the matter discussed in this article, except the human rights infringed by the abusers of so-called "copyright", like the Racketeering Industry Association of America RIAA.

So-called "copyright" is functionally a legal monopoly created by action of positive law, granted at the pleasure of the sovereign people, and continued under their sufferance, insofar as they feel that said monopoly benefits the public interest. There are no rights involved in it; it is a privilege, not a right, and to refer to legal privileges as rights diminishes the respect that is accorded to real rights like freedom of speech, the right to vote, etc.

I think a term that reflects the functional aspects of "copyright" should be used to name this article, such as "intellectual monopoly", "government-granted monopoly", or "legal monopoly" would be good names. Or we could just merge this article with "monopoly" and set up a redirect from "copyright" to "monopoly".

Any thoughts? Katana0182 03:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly a framing issue with these terms. The term copyright, however, is much older and much better established than intellectual property. Also, copyright has a specific meaning or at least is not nearly as ambiguous as IP. – I assume the last suggestion is a joke. Merging copyright into monopoly would be inane. Rl 10:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The legal subject covered by this article is called a "Copyright." It would be absurd, highly-POV, and less useful for the article to use some other name to cater to the anti-copyright crowd.Terry Carroll 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Cuba

Hi! What about the copyright for Cuba? Any notice? Thank you. Alegreen 06:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuba is a member of both the Berne Convention and the WTO (which means it subscribes to TRIPS); see List of parties to international copyright treaties. Berne prohibits condition a copyright on formalities such as copyright notice or registration; and TRIPS incorporates this prohibition from Berne. Presumably, Cuba is complying with its requirements under Berne and TRIPS, and does not require notice; however, I've never actually looked at Cuban copyright law. Terry Carroll —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:13:53, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Number line / Number row

i dont know if this is reletive, but does any one know what the numbers on the copyright page of a book mean? ie: on one of my books, on the copyright page, about five paragraphs down there are the numbers:

12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1                         06 07 08 09 10 11

does anyone know what these mean??

oh, and also, below that, write after "Printed in the U.S.A." is the number 40.

does anyone know what that means too?

thanks.76.23.148.191 09:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, this is unrelated to copyright; it's a way of tracking the printing number.

I've sometimes seen this referred to as a "number line" or "number row." It comes from the old days of set type. When the book is first set up to print, it gets a line like this: "9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1". When you see a book printed with that sequence, you're looking at its first printing. If the book is successful and needs a second printing, the printer would scratch off the '1' but leave the rest of the print set up, so books printed from that second print run would have: "9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2". Note the absence of the '1'. So by looking at the sequence, you can tell what print run you have; the lowest number present is the number of the print run.

The practice would no longer be necessary today, with digital typesetting; it's really no more expensive to change text from "first printing" to "second printing" than it is to change "9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1" to "9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2", but it's an established practice.

On the '40" after the "Printed in the USA," I have no clue. Terry Carroll 17:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Information about copyright symbol

Copyright symbol redirects to this article, but there's no information about the symbol here. It would be great to know its history, how to generate it from a keyboard, etc. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The copyright symbol is a typographical symbol. I don't have the knowledge to write the article, though. --lquilter 14:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I do, so I did. --TJRC 02:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

(Indent reverted) How to generate Copyright symbol　is described in article by holding the ALT key while typing the numbers 0169 on the numeric keypad. History for C in circle or "(C)" (is valid instead of C in circle) mark set is told on 6 September 1952, though not clear statement found by myself in English web site(s).

Note: the symbol of a lower case "c" inside of a circle accompanied by the name of the copyright proprietor and the year of first publication placed in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of claim of copyright

The three element, Copyright＋issue year＋Writersname is used quite popular in general, such as "© 2008 Writers-name, All rights reserved. or "Copyright 2008 Writers-name, All rights reserved", however without showing this, Copyright is protected by "copyright law"of each country.

"Copyright 2008-2010 Writers-name, All rights reserved" is very ambiguity against Universal Copyright Convention, because moment of issue year timing is not specified exactly.

Search keywords is/are: the 1952 Convention Copyright (C)

The following web site and description may help you. My English en-2 may not help interpret and edit article correctly.

http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/copyright/html_eng/page1.shtml the 1952 Convention http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/UNTS13444.html 4th paragraph: Have resolved to revise the Universal Copyright Convention as signed at Geneva on 6 September 1952 (hereinafter called "the 1952 Convention"), and consequently, http://www.cni.org/docs/infopols/US.Universal.Copyright.Conv.html

http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/ocl.html [Ref.] International Conventions (Status as of August 2006)

http://www.unesco.org/culture/copyright/html_eng/ucc52ms.pdf

http://www.britannica.co.jp/azbrowse/u/u7.html Universal Copyright Convention

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9074354/Universal-Copyright-Convention --Namazu-tron (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated link

I am removing this link http://info4.juridicas.unam.mx/ijure/tcfed/133.htm?s= because it does not relate to the subject of copyright. This site is about the Mexican "Federal Law of Animal Sanity" ("Ley Federal de Sanidad Animal") Amoscare (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for removing unrelated links, but I just got to know: "Animal Sanity"? There's a Mexican law about crazy animals? (Maybe "Sanitation" is the better translation?)--TJRC (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)