[Vision2020] RE: Dale Courtney

[Dale Courtney]

Ron & Steven,
 
Thanks for the leads. This is completely contrary to what I have been told
and have read previously. 
 
I've pulled the pictures of concern until I have a decision from a copyright
attorney. 
 
Best,
Dale

  _____  

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Ron Force
Sent: Friday, 27 May 2005 14:33
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] RE: Dale Courtney


BZZZZZT! Change in law! From the US Copyright Office site:
 
 When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed
in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of
a machine or device...
 
...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.
 
Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was
eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective
March 1, 1989. Although works published without notice before that date
could have entered the public domain in the United States, the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (URAA) restores copyright in certain foreign works originally
published without notice. 

**********************************************
Ron Force          Moscow ID USA

 rforce@ <mailto:rforce at moscow.com> moscow.com
********************************************** 

. 
 
Second, just because a picture is taken by a photographer doesn't make it
copyrighted. Copyright law requires that the notice be given. No copyright
notice, not copyrighted. 


 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050527/7d1da709/attachment.htm