Copyright for YOUR content ??

[Eyenovation]

http://www.2advanced.com/legal/index-privacypolicy.htm

In order to legally have copyright of your material, is it required to have all this legal mumbo jumbo???

[Gloomycus]

I don't think so. I think its more of a reassurance than anything.

[mmarkin]

Here's what I know:

In the US, you have to take your work, go to some government office and register (with a fee) your work to get a "copyright certificate" for that particular piece of work.

In Canada (I use this), everthing you do is copyrighted automatically. You don't have to register (unless you want the fancy piece of paper or you foresee a possiblity of actually going to court and fighting for your rights). You don't even have to put the little copyright notice on your work. All those things are just to warn the user and to make sure whoever steals your work will not be able to say "I didn't know it was copyrighted."

Hope this helps. Whereever you live, go to your library and look up a copyright-related book for your country. I certainly did so.

Mikhail

[zorrosrk]

Yap... I agree with the Canadian copyright law.
Why should you go to a Gov. Office to get a certificate???
Whatever you "create" automatically becomes copyrighted.
I save money and time with this. Just like most of the Canadian designers.

J

[jkinstle]

In the US, you have to take your work, go to some government office and register (with a fee) your work to get a "copyright certificate" for that particular piece of work.

Not exactly true. In the US, you immediately have a copyright on anything you produce as soon as you produce it. The only exceptions to that are when you produce something as an employee or under a contract that specifies otherwise.

The copyright registration in the US, though, allows for a much greater range of options should you choose to sue for copyright infringement. Without registration, I don't believe that punitive damages or the recovery of lawyers fees are available to you through the courts. You can still sue for actual damages and seek injunctions against continued or further infringement, though.

The remark about being sure to contact a local expert is dead-on. Even with international copyright treaties, regional implementations vary, as can jurisdictional practices. Always seek the advice of a qualified legal professional (one of which I am not, by the way) if it's truly important to you.

[tpnovak]

Originally posted by Eyenovation
http://www.2advanced.com/legal/index-privacypolicy.htm

In order to legally have copyright of your material, is it required to have all this legal mumbo jumbo???

Let's clarify for a minute. This is not a notice of copyright that you have linked here, but rather our Privacy Policy. That being said, most of the reputable Merchant Card services companies (credit card services) now require the inclusion of a complete Privacy Policy prior to approving a Merchant Account. Moreover, as consumers are increasingly becoming concerned over their online information, the Privacy Policy serves as a vehicle for their protection. This is particularly noticable with the recent introduction of the Hollings bill to the Senate Commerce Committee. Essentially, this bill is intended to make it a Law that notice (Privacy Policies) be made public by website operators. Moreover, it will provide for a person's private remedy should an infringement of privacy occur.

So in short, it would definitely be advisable not to casually dismis the importance of the Privacy Policy.

[tpnovak]

Originally posted by jkinstle

In the US, you have to take your work, go to some government office and register (with a fee) your work to get a "copyright certificate" for that particular piece of work.

Not exactly true. In the US, you immediately have a copyright on anything you produce as soon as you produce it. The only exceptions to that are when you produce something as an employee or under a contract that specifies otherwise.

Correct, however, there are MANY exceptions to whether an assertion over copyright really exists. Not just in the event of being an employee or under a contract.

The copyright registration in the US, though, allows for a much greater range of options should you choose to sue for copyright infringement. Without registration, I don't believe that punitive damages or the recovery of lawyers fees are available to you through the courts. You can still sue for actual damages and seek injunctions against continued or further infringement, though.

Traditional Tort Law allows for Punitive Damages, however, with respect to Copyright Infringement the proper term is Statutory Damages which are somewhat different in meaning. Under the Copyright Act, Statutory Damages are an option that the Copyright Holder (the Plaintiff to an action) may elect in lieu of actual damages and profits.

However, registration needs to be done within 3 months of publication or prior to the infringement.

In practice, "Actual Damages and Profits" are not all that they might be cracked up to be. At first, you may think this is good enough, but imagine an exhaustive and costly court battle for determining "Actual Damages and Profits". Whereas, Statutory Damages (depending upon whether or not the infringement is willful) can yield awards up to $150,000 per infringement - At the courts discretion of course. You'll spend $30 making the application fee for Copyright Registration, thus giving you access to Statutory Damages...

The remark about being sure to contact a local expert is dead-on. Even with international copyright treaties, regional implementations vary, as can jurisdictional practices. Always seek the advice of a qualified legal professional (one of which I am not, by the way) if it's truly important to you.

I absolutely concur...International protection is a nightmare unto itself. But it does exist!

[kallok]

i wish i lived in canada to get free copyrights.....

[Eyenovation]

So, when someone rips 2A, how do you seek damages?
I mean, with something like art, is it more of a grey area? Techincally, if they took something off http://www.2advanced.com, lets say and changed certain things about it: would this be a violation? (Perhaps they changed a color, and font or something..)

With something like creative design, what exactly is considered 'your property' and what is not? I am told we cannot copyright a style - so what if someone's retort to a 2A rip accusation was - the styles are similar but our content (ie, being he has a different portfolio, about us section, etc) are different?

I mean - here you have an example of an accusation of copyright infringement by someone: http://www.geocities.com/advance2this/
(which I dont believe to be true)

And here you have more blatant attempts to steal your specific looks and feels:

http://www.chez.com/drcsss/ - blatant
http://www.world-premiere.net/ - subtle

What do you go after - and what do you leave alone ??

[tpnovak]

Originally posted by Eyenovation
So, when someone rips 2A, how do you seek damages?
I mean, with something like art, is it more of a grey area? Techincally, if they took something off http://www.2advanced.com, lets say and changed certain things about it: would this be a violation? (Perhaps they changed a color, and font or something..)

Typically, this type of change would not eliminate the digital watermark embedded into the image... (Refer to http://www.digimarc.com for more info). Every case is different. There are grey areas with respect to Copyright Infringement and IP Law, however, if the Copyright Laws don't cover the scenario, we also have the "Conditions of Use" posted on our site which covers the rest of the situtuations.

With something like creative design, what exactly is considered 'your property' and what is not? I am told we cannot copyright a style - so what if someone's retort to a 2A rip accusation was - the styles are similar but our content (ie, being he has a different portfolio, about us section, etc) are different?

A "copyright infringement" is an obvious event. Just because someone has a similiar style, this does not constitute an infringement. Take for example the Macromedia vs. Adobe case going on in the media right now regarding a tabbed dialog box. This was NOT a copyright infringement...This was an issue surrounding a PATENT violation. http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/...macromedia.php When we make a claim for a copyright infringement, it is obvious. Someone has clearly decompiled a SWF file, stole an image, stole a sound, stole some Actionscript... Whatever. It is still obvious enough. Remember, if it comes to pass that this point needs to be demonstrated in a court of law, there is no room for ambiguity in the matter.

I mean - here you have an example of an accusation of copyright infringement by someone: http://www.geocities.com/advance2this/
(which I dont believe to be true)

Look at the two. Similar styles and techniques. So what?Are any two elements identical from left to right? Can you find a single instance of a duplicated image or duplicated sound? (Is it even technically possible to decompile a Quicktime MOV and remove assets in the same way that you can an SWF file?) I leave you to decide.

And here you have more blatant attempts to steal your specific looks and feels:

http://www.chez.com/drcsss/ - blatant

Obvious infringement... There's no question. However, that picture is originally a Getty Image, so we don't really have to do the policing there. I believe Getty is hot on the trail of this bozo.

http://www.world-premiere.net/ - subtle

What do you go after - and what do you leave alone ??

Inspired - Yes. Infringement - Not that I can see.