Re: A Little Linguistic Playground

On 3/20/99, Lance Purple <lpurple[_at_]netcom.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Thomas Workman <tworkman[_at_]erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > That statement is true. But you still miss the point. The law
> > specifies how a work obtains a copyright. When those conditions
> > are met, the copyright attaches. Anything you do or say does not
> > "override" the law, unless the law provides a specific mechanism
> > for undoing what it has done. The statutes provide no mechanism
> > for destroying the copyright, except for the passage of the
> > requisite time, or of course a subsequent law.
>
> IIRC, the original poster wanted to invent a catchy new phrase for use
> by the -copyright owner-, to indicate the deliberate release of their
> own work into the public domain. They can legally do that, yes?

Yes. It's called a license. Also, remember that if the copyright owner cares not, then neither does the law of copyright. Infringement may occur automatically, but it's not self-executing.

Rod Dixon
<rod[_at_]cyberspaces.org> Received on Tue Mar 23 1999 - 03:06:52 GMT