From: Don A. <don...@co...> - 2005-07-18 04:06:46
|
Since we are generating reports, the establishment of copyright becomes an issue. GRAMPS needs to produce the correct copyright information if desired. I was thinking that we should offer several copyright options. My current thoughts are: 1) Standard copyright ( copyright assigned to person who generated the document) 2) No copyright notice 3) Creative Commons Any other ideas? Don |
From: John S. <jo...@st...> - 2005-07-18 12:57:30
|
Don> 1) Standard copyright ( copyright assigned to person who Don> generated the document) Isn't this now implicit? At least here in the US it is... not so sure about other countries. Don> 2) No copyright notice Default I would think... except maybe for web reports? Don> 3) Creative Commons Fine by me. Maybe the key question is what should the format of the copyright tag line be? Just the standard format: Copyright 2005 by John Stoffel |
From: Don A. <don...@co...> - 2005-07-18 15:07:04
|
John Stoffel wrote: > Don> 1) Standard copyright ( copyright assigned to person who > Don> generated the document) > > Isn't this now implicit? At least here in the US it is... not so sure > about other countries. Well, that is part of the problem - I don't know what the rules are in other countries, and more than half of the GRAMPS users are not in the US. And my understanding is that the default in the US is "all rights reserved", which may not be what someone wants to do - especially if they want to share information. I'm not really a copyright expert :-) > Don> 2) No copyright notice > > Default I would think... except maybe for web reports? This is currently the case. I just don't know if this is the right thing to do. > Don> 3) Creative Commons > > Fine by me. Maybe the key question is what should the format of the > copyright tag line be? > > Just the standard format: > > Copyright 2005 by John Stoffel > I just looked up the U.S. standard, which is defined at http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#noc Looks like the word "Copyright" is not needed if the © symbol is used. So, it looks like the recommended format would be "© 2005 John Stoffel" However, do we need different formats for different locations? Thanks for the comments. Don |
From: Richard T. <rjt...@th...> - 2005-07-18 20:10:52
|
On Monday 18 Jul 2005 16:06, Don Allingham wrote: > John Stoffel wrote: > > Don> 1) Standard copyright ( copyright assigned to person who > > Don> generated the document) > > > > Isn't this now implicit? At least here in the US it is... not so sure > > about other countries. > > Well, that is part of the problem - I don't know what the rules are in > other countries, and more than half of the GRAMPS users are not in the US. > > And my understanding is that the default in the US is "all rights > reserved", which may not be what someone wants to do - especially if > they want to share information. I'm not really a copyright expert :-) The UK possition: Copyright is implicit and comes in to effect as soon as the work is created. There is no requirement to include a copyright statement, but the copyright statement obviously makes things clear. Copyright is effectively a statement of complete ownership and as such it imply "all rights reserved". > > > Don> 2) No copyright notice > > > > Default I would think... except maybe for web reports? > > This is currently the case. I just don't know if this is the right thing > to do. > I think that no copyright statement is the correct default. If people don't care to consider the issue (and for many it is well below their radar) they should not have to deal with it. The photo lab does not slap a copyright notice on your pictures when you get them developed even though you certainly own the copyright. > > Don> 3) Creative Commons > > I think this should be an option and should be encouraged. It should not be the default because it means that some rights are licensed to anyone and users should not find that they have given something away just because they forgot to turn off a default in GRAMPS. > > Fine by me. Maybe the key question is what should the format of the > > copyright tag line be? > > > > Just the standard format: > > > > Copyright 2005 by John Stoffel > > I just looked up the U.S. standard, which is defined at > http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#noc > > Looks like the word "Copyright" is not needed if the © symbol is used. > So, it looks like the recommended format would be "© 2005 John Stoffel" > As I said above, in the UK no copyright statement is required for the owner to retain copyright. However, "Copyright 2005 by John Stoffel" or "© 2005 John Stoffel" are both acceptable forms. I prefer the former myself. > However, do we need different formats for different locations? > No idea about the rest of the world. I guess that © is probably more universal than Copyright. For the Creative Commons licenses I believe there are particular forms of words and link-icons that can be used. Regards Richard -- You can normally find me on Jabber as Ric...@ja... |
From: Julio S. <jul...@gm...> - 2005-07-18 20:49:52
|
2005/7/18, Richard Taylor <rjt...@th...>: > No idea about the rest of the world. I guess that (c) is probably more un= iversal > than Copyright. I think so. In Spain "copyright" has no legal value, but the (c) symbol do= es. In any case I understand that, in large parts of the world, intellectual property has two faces: moral rights and economic (exploitation rights). Moral rights, like the right to be known as the author, are eternal and are unrenounceable: you cannot sell them.=20 Exploitation rights are those that you can negotiate. In Spain at least, the (c) symbols is bound to ownership of the explotiation rights, not the moral rights. And nearly everywhere, intellectual property protection begins as soon as the original work is created and is automatic. It is protected by default. Not registering the work only harms your chances of proving you are the author and may limit the damage compensation you can claim. This is the Berne Convention from the 19th century, later ammended by several other treaties, and that has been ratified by nearly all countries. The USA were latecomers to this legal framework that had been in place in most countries. Before that, "all rights reserved" was needed there because the default was mostly the opposite. But not anymore. Regards, Julio |