Re: Wrong Year in Notice

On Mon, 23 Oct 1995, John Katzman wrote:
>
> What if the publication is being altered every year (as the liturgical
> text mentioned probably was, if only marginally)? Should the copyright
> notice read (c) 1981-95, or can it just read (c) 1995, secure that the
> text common to all editions is already protected by earlier notices?

Again, I think it's academic. You don't need a notice to protect your work. My purist tendencies would be toward the 1981-95, or a list of years, but a lone 1995 would, at most lead a court to rule 1) it's not a valid notice, so the defendant can plead innocent infringement, and 2) there's no way that a defendant can succeedon an innocent infringement defense where the article had this copyright notice, even if it did turn out to be wrong.

> In fact, imagine you publish something in 1990, and put a proper notice
> on it. Then you publish the identical book in 1995, and put a 1995
> copyright notice on it. Sure, the second notice is invalid, but
> wouldn't the first publication still be protected by its proper notice?

Once again, protection is not affected by notice or lack thereof. Someone copying from the first copy would be copying from a copy with notice, and would not be able to plead innocent infringement. Someone copying from the second copy would be copying from a copy with no notice, but with an indication that the work was copyrighted. That defendant could plead innocent infingement, but would lose.

--
Terry Carroll       |            Go Cleveland Indians:
Santa Clara, CA     |         American League Champions &
carrollt[_at_]netcom.com |      Best Finishing Record in 1995 MLB
carroll[_at_]aimnet.com  |                   100-44