On 1/18/99, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
>
> Maybe. Notice that mine is somewhat older than Mark's -- I adopted
> the extra language in the late 80's/early 90's based on my
> understanding at the time of the utility of such language under some
> Latin American conventions. I confess that I haven't updated the
> research recently.
Here's a newer one:
Copyright 1997. All Rights Reserved. The author wishes to thank Judith Ricci for research assistance in the preparation of this Article.
Under US law the above notice would be invalid as it doesn't identify the copyright owner in the notice. 17 U.S.C. 401(b)(3). Judith no doubt provided assistance in the research as to the necessity of the phrase "all rights reserved." :-)
I hasten to add that there is *another* copyright notice on this article (this is in Lexis) where the South Carolina Law Review claims a copyright. Different year. No reservation of rights. Makes total sense to me. :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:34 GMT