Re: Copyright Infringement Happening at Conference Group - Help!

On Thu, 16 Jul 1998, Bill Scanlon <wscanlon[_at_]execpc.com> wrote:
>
> Joseph P. Riolo <riolo[_at_]voicenet.com> wrote:
> >
> > The most [important] thing to remember is the date March 1, 1989.
> > Before that date, anyone in the U.S. has to put a copyright notice on
> > a fixed work in order to secure copyright in the work. After that
> > date, no one is required to do that. The copyright exists from the
> > moment a person puts his expression in a fixed material...
>
> The date is January 1, 1978 - not March 1, 1989.
>
> After January 1, 1978, copyright notice on a work when it is first
> published in the United States under authority of the copyright owner
> is not required to secure copyright in the work.

No, Joseph had it pretty much right (although the notice is applicable only to published works, not unpublished works). Copyright notice was still required on published copies and phonorecords even after the Copyright Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 104-553) became effective, although it was much more lenient and allowed for the copyright owner to cure the omission. The requirement was in sections 401 and 402; the cure provision is still in section 405.

Effective March 1, 1989, the Berne Convention Implementation Act (Pub. L. 100-568) amended sections 401 and 402 to make the notice optional, rather than required, on published copies and phonorecords.

--
Terry Carroll       |    "Dreamwerks clearly caters to the  
Santa Clara, CA     |    pocket-protector niche..."
carroll[_at_]tjc.com     |       - Dreamwerks Production Group v. SKG Studio,
Modell delendus est |         case no. 96-55595 (9th Cir. Apr. 21 1998)