Re: (c) does not equal "copyright"

[Hans Aberg]

On 18 Jul 2009, at 22:07, Graham Percival wrote:

> > > > The
> > > > copyright symbol “©” can be included if you wish (and your  
> > > > character set
> > > > supports it), but it's not necessary. There is no legal  
> > > > significance to
> > > > using the three-character sequence “(C)”, although it does no harm.
> > >
> > > There is nowadays no legal significance of any the above, as
> > > copyrightable material becomes automatically copyrighted
> > > without any indication thereof or registration (though local
> > > legislation may vary).
> >
> > I thought I heard that, but can you prove that this is the case
> > internationally, and/or can you cite your source for this?
>
> Berne convention, general principal 1b.
> http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/summary_berne.html
>
> Easy-to-understand explanation (and incidently, one of my favorite
> sites):  #1 on "10 Big Myths about copyright explained"
> http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

In addition to that, one should note the WIPO copyright treaty, which  
deals with computer software:
  http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/trtdocs_wo033.html
  http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/index.html
It is easy to read. For example, Article 4 says computer programs are  
prtiected as literary works under the Berne convention.

In the US, it is implemented as the "Millenium" something. And  
treaties are a part of US law the way they are passed by Congress  
despite a mentioning in the Constitution that "treaties are the law of  
the land".

> That said, in some jurisdictions you can get higher damages if
> you've included a "Copyright 20xx by blah".

So these are treaties, meaning that countries promise implement them.  
But it is still the local law that is valid in each country.

  Hans