Re: Copyright - Copy and Paste of Copyrighted Material in Posts
Feel free to consult an attorney specializing in copyright law. I'm not cherry picking cases here; I was unable to find a single case where 37 CFR 202.1(c) was not upheld at appeal, regardless of words or phrases which may have been unique to the document. Design, of course, is NOT copyrightable, but in some instances design may be trademarked, but I'm sure you were aware that the effort involved in designing or formatting a document has no bearing on its ability to be copyrighted - a song lyric dashed off in two minutes enjoys the same copyright protection over a book an author may have taken a lifetime to write. Conversely, the design of even a telephone directory (which is certainly NOT blank) does not qualify for protection because its factual content of names, addresses, and phone numbers is not copyrightable (that's why some homeowners often get telephone directories delivered from two or three different sources.) A table of mortgage payments, however derived, is not copyrightable because it is primarily mathematical calculations, not creative or innovative work.
This part of your statement (One other thing is that the ability to protect copyright (and trademark) status is often determined by the copyright holder's efforts in that regard.) is absolutely true. The burden is ALWAYS on the copyright holder to notice and protest incursions on copyrighted material.
This part ( If a copyright holder's work is plastered all over the Internet and no effort is made to put a stop to it, an assumption may be made that the copying has been so extensive as to render the benefits of protection moot. That's one reason for Take Down notices, which at times can become bothersome and frivolous.) is not true. Widespread incursions are not a defense against a claim by the true copyright holder, regardless of how many. It is a defense, however, against trademark assertion, which you may be thinking of, as in the cases of
Feel free to consult an attorney specializing in copyright law. I'm not cherry picking cases here; I was unable to find a single case where 37 CFR 202.1(c) was not upheld at appeal, regardless of words or phrases which may have been unique to the document. Design, of course, is NOT copyrightable, but in some instances design may be trademarked, but I'm sure you were aware that the effort involved in designing or formatting a document has no bearing on its ability to be copyrighted - a song lyric dashed off in two minutes enjoys the same copyright protection over a book an author may have taken a lifetime to write. Conversely, the design of even a telephone directory (which is certainly NOT blank) does not qualify for protection because its factual content of names, addresses, and phone numbers is not copyrightable (that's why some homeowners often get telephone directories delivered from two or three different sources.) A table of mortgage payments, however derived, is not copyrightable because it is primarily mathematical calculations, not creative or innovative work.
This part of your statement (One other thing is that the ability to protect copyright (and trademark) status is often determined by the copyright holder's efforts in that regard.) is absolutely true. The burden is ALWAYS on the copyright holder to notice and protest incursions on copyrighted material.
This part ( If a copyright holder's work is plastered all over the Internet and no effort is made to put a stop to it, an assumption may be made that the copying has been so extensive as to render the benefits of protection moot. That's one reason for Take Down notices, which at times can become bothersome and frivolous.) is not true. Widespread incursions are not a defense against a claim by the true copyright holder, regardless of how many. It is a defense, however, against trademark assertion, which you may be thinking of, as in the cases of
