} > I note that any FAQ without a copyright notice prohibiting inclusion of
} > the FAQ in another compilation has already defacto granted permission
} > for re-use the moment it was posted. The prospective compilation authors
} > have at least had the courtesy of asking FAQ maintainers for permission
} > to use their work, even though in most cases it wasn't necessary to do so.
}
} This is flat out simply not true, as I'm sure dozens of other people who
} know anything about copyright will tell you. Copyright is not dependent
} on an explicit statement of copyright in the work.
Thank you for the correction. I apologize for any misinformation,
but do suggest that further information would be useful.
Another individual has kindly advised via private email that in most
countries, the Berne Convention establishes that a document is
copywritten automatically as it is written by an author. And the
copyrights established prevent one from using more than fair use
portion of the document in any other document.
I wonder then exactly how "fair use" is defined.
I further wonder why one would then bother to put a copyright notice
into one's document if it defacto already exists, with the exception
where one wishes to modify the generally implicit copyright.
Could someone please post the appropriate specifics from the
Berne Convention document? (if permitted by copyright :))
-- Ed. A. Hew, <edhew@xenitec.on.ca> ....!uunet.ca!xenitec!eah XeniTec Consulting Services, Kitchener ON, Canada +1 519 570 9848
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved