The Copyright line is not what confers copyright to you – it is the fact that you wrote the thing down.
The fact that you wrote down "Copyright 2011 by YOUR NAME"? Yes, that's right.
Also, there's no such thing as a common law copyright
Actually, there is -- it is the act of writing down "Copyright 2011 by YOUR NAME", which is your (universal "your") intent to copyright, and serves as fair warning that the work so copyrighted is not Free Candy. No, the act of placing a copyright notice on one's work is not Formally Named "common law copyright".
Also, it's not just professors talking about orphan works.
You're right. A fair number of people talking about "orphan works" are people who think I don't have a right to make a living from my work, and who refuse to inform themselves of the facts of the matter before expressing an (usually loud, often overlong, and nearly always condescending) opinion. The foregoing is not aimed at present company, but at the number of Loudmouths who flock to online discussions about Teh Evil Copyright.
It was a major argument in Eric Flint's copyright columns some years ago
I'd be surprised to learn that Eric was claiming that there were Uncounted! Numbers! of "orphaned" works that had to be saved by any means, up to and including theft. Which is what the professors and their hangers-ons offer up as an argument: Their ends justify their means, since their hearts are pure.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mmmag
Re: Not that hard!
Date: 2011-09-26 07:48 pm (UTC)The fact that you wrote down "Copyright 2011 by YOUR NAME"? Yes, that's right.
Also, there's no such thing as a common law copyright
Actually, there is -- it is the act of writing down "Copyright 2011 by YOUR NAME", which is your (universal "your") intent to copyright, and serves as fair warning that the work so copyrighted is not Free Candy. No, the act of placing a copyright notice on one's work is not Formally Named "common law copyright".
Also, it's not just professors talking about orphan works.
You're right. A fair number of people talking about "orphan works" are people who think I don't have a right to make a living from my work, and who refuse to inform themselves of the facts of the matter before expressing an (usually loud, often overlong, and nearly always condescending) opinion. The foregoing is not aimed at present company, but at the number of Loudmouths who flock to online discussions about Teh Evil Copyright.
It was a major argument in Eric Flint's copyright columns some years ago
I'd be surprised to learn that Eric was claiming that there were Uncounted! Numbers! of "orphaned" works that had to be saved by any means, up to and including theft. Which is what the professors and their hangers-ons offer up as an argument: Their ends justify their means, since their hearts are pure.