Copyrighting Source Code 1

[Stretchwickster]

Hi,

I would like to seek the advice of those of you who have some knowledge of copyrighting as related to source code. Is there a universal process by which to copyright software source code? If not, what is the process in the UK? Am I able to add a line such as:

Copyright © 2004 <insert name>. All rights reserved.

to my source code files?

I read somewhere that for creative works, you simply have to post your work to yourself and leave it sealed so that you have proof of your copyright, is this the way to copyright software?

Your advice would be much appreciated!

Clive

 

[SGTRawlins]

I know i copyright my music by posting it and leaving it un-oppened,

I dont think this establishes an official copyright though! just gives you the upper hand if you ever went to court.

 

[hilfy]

IANAL. However, besides adding the copyright message to your code, I would also add a copyright statement to something like a Help About screen that your users can physically see.

-D

 

[BabyJeffy]

I found some interesting background as regards UK copyright at this company (that had some paid advertising on google):

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/

The advice it gives includes keeping drafts, old copies etc to show progression of the work. This is good practice regardless I would imagine.

Jeff

 

[Jtodd]

On mailing music compositions to yourself, that only works if some one else DOESN'T go through the offical copyright process. In court, that's all that matters, who got to the copyright office first.

Justin T. Clausen
Physical Layer Implementation
California State University, Monterey Bay

 

[strongm]

Are you confusing copyright with patents?

 

[Jtodd]

If 'you' refers to me, no. When concerning music, copyright is the issue. Also, software falls also falls under copyright, but would source code? That I don't know.

I just know that in my Music Business class, the old wifes tale of mailing compositions to yourself, and not opening them basically was of no use.

Justin T. Clausen
Physical Layer Implementation
California State University, Monterey Bay

 

[Tarwn]

Err..I would want to see something official that said that. i have source code that was mailed to myself and locked away with a lawyer. No official copyrights, but it was my understanding that copyright, in and of itself, goes to the person that can prove they wrote (or had possesion) of the item first. So in this case the CD has progressive backups for 4 months that are all dated, on a CD in a post marked envelope.
Patents and trademarks have to be officially requested in order to be recognized, copyrights do not. Copyrights exist from the moment you create the literary/musical/etc work. Even the US Copyright office only "advises" that you register works with them for copyright.

I checked the us copyright site, here is what they say about the "Poor Mans Copyright":

There is no provision in the copyright law regarding any such type of protection, and it is not a substitute for registration.

In other words, no law explicitly says this will work, but we will make sure it sounds as negative as possible so you will mail us our $30 application fee.

It also costs $30 for registration application, $30 for a copy of your registration should you lose it, $75/hr to searh for the owner of a copyrighted work, etc.

I find it very funny that in their defintions page they have the following sections:
...
What is a copyright notice?
...
What is copyright infringement?
...
What is peer-to-peer (P2P) networking?
...
Where is the public domain?
...
etc

Anyways, from what I have found, even the copyright office won't say that the mail yourself an unopened copy trick won't work.

[sub]01000111 01101111 01110100 00100000 01000011 01101111 01100110 01100110 01100101 01100101 00111111[/sub]
The never-completed website:

http://www.tiernok.com/

 

[Stretchwickster]

Thanks for your replies people!

I just had a bit of free time to do some digging, and have come up with some interesting findings.

The UK Patent Office, who "are responsible for Intellectual Property (Copyright, Designs, Patents and Trade Marks) in the UK", have a number of comments to make regarding copyright:
- Copyright is an unregistered right so there is no official action to take.
- Copyright comes into effect immediately, as soon as something that can be protected is created and "fixed" in some way, eg on paper, on film, via sound recording, as an electronic record on the internet, etc.
- It is a good idea for you to mark your copyright work with the copyright symbol © followed by your name and the date, to warn others against copying it, but it is not legally necessary in the UK.
- The type of works that copyright protects include computer programs - which are protected on the same basis as literary works.
- Copyright does not protect ideas. It protects the way the idea is expressed in a piece of work, but it does not protect the idea itself.

In the Patent Office's section on "Claiming and Enforcing Copyright", the following question is asked and answered:

How can I prove originality in my work?
Ultimately this is a matter for the courts to decide. However, it may help copyright owners to deposit a copy of their work with a bank or solicitor or send a copy of their work to themselves by special delivery (which gives a clear date stamp on the envelope), leaving the envelope unopened on its return; this could establish that the work existed at this time.

Source:

http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/index.htm

So, to answer my earlier questions:
>>Is there a universal process by which to copyright software source code?
Not as such - different countries have different rules. However, the copyright © symbol is internationally recognised - so it is advised that your work is marked with this and your name and date.

>>If not, what is the process in the UK?
Copyright protection in the UK exists automatically if the work has been "fixed" in some manner - if it physically exists - in the form of a manuscript or computer program for example. There is no formal registration system for copyright in the UK.

>>Am I able to add a line such as: Copyright © 2004 <insert name>. All rights reserved. to my source code files?
Yes and it is advised to warn people that the work has copyright protection by marking it in this way.

>>I read somewhere that for creative works, you simply have to post your work to yourself and leave it sealed so that you have proof of your copyright, is this the way to copyright software?
This can help to prove you were the original author.

Hope this helps everyone on this issue - thanks for your posts!

Clive

 

[strongm]

>When concerning music, copyright is the issue

I appreciate that, but I think the last two posters have clarified the point I was trying to make

 

[lionelhill]

Incidentally, since copyright does not cover ideas, only the implementation of the idea, anybody got any idea exactly how much you need to modify an algorithm taken from a book before it becomes your own, rather than the book author's?

In the music world there was much argument a while back when someone produced a piece of music consisting of X seconds of total silence. Got very awkward about whether it could be copied. I can't remember what came of it, but it'd be sad if anyone wanted to.

 

[Tarwn]

Well, answer me this question and I will answer yours, how far do you have to modify any existing invention before you can patent it?
Some patents seem obvious compared to prior public domain items or patented items, where do you draw the line?

For instance:
The computer parts company Antec just recently got a patent on their version of the LED computer fan. When they first started producing it there were several similar fans being created by enthusiaists (at least several that posted tutorials, etc) but they had the LED's in differant spots, or used attached PCB's for power, or didn't bundle their wire behind a ribbon around the fan. Their is a pretty big uproar bout this in the computer modders forums because Antec has started mailing a lot of the large retailers to tell them to stop carrying products from such-and-such list of companies because they are copies of Antecs without patent permission.

I don't know the full details of the modifications they made, but they either clearly developed something that was being developed by others independantly (ie, obvious progression from fans in the modding arena is lighted fans, and this is the best way to do it) or they based their own innovations on the innovations already taking place in the public arena. Either way you look at it, it sounds like a pretty minimal differance which means that either the patent office overlooked prior art (what are the chances) or the changes were enough to qualify as a new invention.

-T

[sub]01000111 01101111 01110100 00100000 01000011 01101111 01100110 01100110 01100101 01100101 00111111[/sub]
The never-completed website:

http://www.tiernok.com/

 

[lionelhill]

OK, you've found me out. My own, highly personal opinion, is that patents are not doing their job very well. Reasons as follows:
(1) You're quite right, it seems to easy to get patents on the absolutely obvious. Patent examiners are supposed to be highly skilled technical experts, but sometimes it doesn't look like it. Many patents appear to me to be "everyone has used knives for cutting apples before, but we have heroically discovered that knives also cut potatoes, and we are therefore patenting the concept of cutting potatoes and all other vegetables with any sharp objects". (example: use of Bowden cables to move harpsichord registers. I mean, a Bowden cable is just one of many established techniques of getting movement from one place to another. The places don't really matter. It's as bad as patenting the idea of going from New York to Chicago by bus!)

(2) Patents are very cash-dependent. What's the point of being able to patent something if you don't have the resources to tackle a blatant copy from a well-heeled competitor?

(3) The whole idea of patents is to make something "patent", plain and clear to the public, with the proviso that they can't use it for commercial gain until the inventor has extracted his/her benefit. It's a grant of a monopoly in return for public disclosure. But searching patent databases is not exactly a uniformed, easy issue. See recent New Scientist for comment.

But I haven't a clue what to do about it, sadly. The only thing I can think of is much tougher vetting before acceptance, including perhaps criteria like "is this idea so obvious in the light of current technology that everyone is probably thinking similarly". But this is a subjective decision, open to argument. Is there any sort of legal aid scheme for tiny inventors whose ideas are nicked by international megacorporations. Who knows??

 

[Tarwn]

Maybe it would solve the issue if thre was a waiting period. Ie, if you intended on getting a patent and had applied for a patent, you would relinquish all rights to the patent if you started manufacturing the item before the patent was granted.

This would have the following effect: If the item had not been released first and was fairly obvious, then during the two or three year period between application and the patent being formalized any other products that came out that would be covered by the patent would show the patent as being obvious

It might cut down on obvious idea patents because there would eb a higher chance that someone would implement that same exact idea, giving you a loss of the application fee and a loss of profits from not going straight to production

Of course keeping the idea completely private is kind of the opposite of what patenting is trying to do, bnut a short term period of silence might allow a lot of the superfluos or obvious patents to either not be patented at all or be shown for how obvious they are.

The other benefit is that corporations would end up with less patent power. In order to receive the patent they would have to keep the employee who thought it up a job (or be very sure about the non-compete clause) otherwise the employee could leave and start producing the invention for someone else, rendering the patent application void. Even if they were then sued the invention would hav reached the public by then and it would be hard to tell whether the idea was obvious or not because other corporations could be copying it or producing their own independantly dveeloped invention that is remarkably similar.

Since prior art claims take a long time, I don't think it would affect that process much. Unfortunatly it doesn't solve the issue of the patent office not researching prior art well enough. Heck, last job posting I saw for patent office had lumped Computer Science, Computer Engineering, and Electrical Engineering into one position. I doubt they have the kind of money that would pay someone that was actually good at all three of those areas. That person probably has people beating their door down with offers, orthey are tenured.

-T

[sub]01000111 01101111 01110100 00100000 01000011 01101111 01100110 01100110 01100101 01100101 00111111[/sub]
The never-completed website:

http://www.tiernok.com/

 

[gbaughma]

I remember some time ago when I looked into copyrighting software, that because of the sheer size of source code, at the time they only wanted the first and last 15 pages of source code for filing.

The idea that you can 'mail something to yourself and just not open it' does not hold up in court. That is an urban legend.

There is a process for copyright; I haven't looked into it recently, but it included a filing fee and sending in part (or all?) of the source code.

Putting "Copyright (c) 2004 <name>" is an "implied" copyright; it doesn't actually give you any legal recourse, except *possibly* to dissuade someone from copying it, because they don't know if you've actually filed the paperwork or not. (Actually, just about everything that I put out has the copyright statement on it...)

Patents are a different thing (something else that I've been looking into, because I have a few ideas for inventions). You can actually patent an idea; you can make a drawing of, let's say, a widget, even before building a prototype. You can then send that into the patent office to register it (once again with some fees and such). However, to get something patented properly, you need to hire an attorney to do a "patent search", just to be SURE that someone hasn't already patented the same idea. This speeds up the process a little, and makes sure that when WidgetCo starts marketing their new widgets, that some other company doesn't come along and sue the shorts off of you for something that they've already designed, whether or not they've manufactured it.

--Greg
"Did you know the zoo can permanantly ban you if they catch you using a hibachi?"

 

[strongm]

>There is a process for copyright

In the US, there is a registration process for providing additional rights and evidentiary points of law. Nvertheless, it is my continued understanding that the mere creation of a work (perhaps more accurately: "fixing the work in a tangible medium of expression which will enable the work's embodiment in the resulting copy to be communicated") automatically bestows a number of exclusive rights on the creator (including the exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, display or make derivative works of the original work). No registration process or any other action needs to be taken by the work's creator to get these rights.

Moreover, the creator can gain additional benefits by including a copyright notice in publically distributed copies of the work (note that (c) is not good enough; you apparantly need the genuine copyright © symbol - at least you do if you want it to be held as valid by foreign countries). Again, no registration process is required.

 

[KornGeek]

This thread got me interested, so I did a little research. I found some information on

http://www.copyright.gov

about U.S. copyright rules. It contains the following info:

The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following Note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See "Copyright Registration."

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time.

and

The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U. S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works.

...

Use of the notice may be important because it informs the public that the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright owner, and shows the year of first publication. Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if a proper notice of copyright appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in section 504(c)(2) of the copyright law. Innocent infringement occurs when the infringer did not realize that the work was protected.

The use of the copyright notice is the responsibility of the copyright owner and does not require advance permission from, or registration with, the Copyright Office.

and finally

In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:

Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.

Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin.

If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.

If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.

Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies. For additional information, request Publication No. 563 "How to Protect Your Intellectual Property Right," from: U.S. Customs Service, P.O. Box 7404, Washington, D.C. 20044. See the U.S. Customs Service Website at

http://www.customs.gov

for online publications.

Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright. Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has been registered in unpublished form, it is not necessary to make another registration when the work becomes published, although the copyright owner may register the published edition, if desired.