Copyright Notification February 2, 2003 2:34 AM   Subscribe

© 1999-2002 The MetaFilter Network

Time for an update?
posted by Orange Goblin to MetaFilter-Related at 2:34 AM (34 comments total)

Oh, and MeTa is even worse - © 2000-2001 The MetaFilter Network
posted by Orange Goblin at 2:35 AM on February 2, 2003


It's to late now, I'm afraid, I've registered the servicemark, trademark and copyright of metafilter as of 2/1/03.

All your meta are belong to us.

 
posted by jdaura at 2:47 AM on February 2, 2003


Actually, this touches on one of the nits I've always wanted to pick...

Why is it © 2000-2001 The MetaFilter Network, rather than The MetaFilter Network?
posted by dash_slot- at 3:02 AM on February 2, 2003


or "The MetaFilter Network The"?
posted by zerofoks at 3:38 AM on February 2, 2003


Properly protect my posts' copyright for the many generations of my heirs, please.
posted by mischief at 3:49 AM on February 2, 2003



posted by quonsar at 5:20 AM on February 2, 2003


peeps, there are many such erroneous copyright statements among MeFi and MeTa, it might be beneficial to Matt to note where you find these.

links from the front page

© 1999-2002 The MetaFilter Network -- most MeFi links including: MeFi Home, About, Archived, Post a link, Customize, New User, Search, Login

© 1996-2002 Amazon.com, Inc or its affiliates -- Donate link

From the MeFi search link:

© 1999-2002 The MetaFilter Network -- All [MeFi] comments by user

© 2000-2001 The MetaFilter Network -- All MetaTalk comments by user

links from MeTa:

© 2000-2001 The MetaFilter Network - Most links including Post a new thread, Category List, and Search Metatalk

heh, gotta love Amazon their site is mostly current (© 1996-2003) I guess the donation page isn't all that important to them.

any others?
posted by DBAPaul at 5:26 AM on February 2, 2003


and the MeTa Category List page needs content updating as several categories no longer exist.
posted by DBAPaul at 5:32 AM on February 2, 2003


Does this really make a difference anyway? Isn't material copyright regardless of whether you put the little © or not?
posted by dg at 5:44 AM on February 2, 2003


er....why is matt standin over adolf hitler konse?
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:02 AM on February 2, 2003


quonsar, that's you in the Argyle sweater, right?
posted by Vidiot at 6:08 AM on February 2, 2003


No, I don't think the © is needed, but if its going to be there, it should at least be correct.
posted by Orange Goblin at 6:13 AM on February 2, 2003


Maybe Metafilter needs a new way of dealing with all of this copyright issue.
posted by crunchland at 6:52 AM on February 2, 2003


Or maybe...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:55 AM on February 2, 2003


The © symbol is not required since the US entered into the Berne Convention in 1989. You may add the © symbol regardless of whether the work is registered. Actual registration is necessary if you want to bring suit under the Copyright Act. As long as a work satisfies the elements of copyrightablity, all one has to do is fix the expression in a tangible medium. Adding the © symbol is always a good idea, it can be used for evidentiary purposes if need be. Believe it or not, in some instances, removal of a © notice symbol is a criminal offense with a fine up to $2,500 if the infringement is for commercial purposes.

The only problem with the Creative Commons license in the context of a community weblog like Metafilter is that each poster has an independent copyright in his/her posts. I can't find Matt's comments about this but I know he has said this a few times. Regardless of what he has said, each poster retains copyright in his/her own work. Each MeFite would have to agree to the Creative Commons license before Matt could do that. I suppose a one-time click-wrap (sorry quonsar) license could be added once for each member before they could post a link or comment that would state the terms of the CC license and from now on all comments are subject to said CC license. Sounds like a pain in the ass.
posted by anathema at 7:41 AM on February 2, 2003


there are many such erroneous copyright statements among MeFi and MeTa

A server-side include could fix that right up.

The MetaFilter Network The

It's German for "The Bart, The."
posted by kirkaracha at 7:47 AM on February 2, 2003


anathema covered a lot of it. Not sure if there's differences for digital print media, but for regular print media (columns, cartoons, etc.) you have a copyright by inference of the work simply existing, C symbol or not. From a lot of cartoonist I've talked to, only in really extreme circumstances does one need to register with the copyright office, because if anyone tried to copy (or even register in their own name) your work, in a lot of cases the posession of the original and the ability to recognize your own work in court suffices. I'm sure countless websites out there have sued to have stolen content removed without needing to actually file a form down at the copyright office. But yeah, the lack of "originals" does make it a riskier thing. There's been conversations about site content theft before here, I think.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:33 AM on February 2, 2003


I'm sure countless websites out there have sued to have stolen content removed without needing to actually file a form down at the copyright office.

Like I said, in order to bring suit under the Copyright Act, you must register the work. This can be done after the first infringement occurs but damages will be limited to actual damages and injunctions.
posted by anathema at 8:41 AM on February 2, 2003


Actually, there are a few minor exceptions. Under the Visual Artists Rights Act (which is incorporated into the Copyright Act at 17 USC §106A) a suit may be brought without registration. This only applies to a work of visual art and has to do with the rights of attribution and integrity of the work. This came into being thanks to the moral rights requirements of the Berne Convention (6bis), but it only applies to visual art in the US.



§ 411. Registration and infringement actions



(a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b), no action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. In any case, however, where the deposit, application, and fee required for registration have been delivered to the Copyright Office in proper form and registration has been refused, the applicant is entitled to institute an action for infringement if notice thereof, with a copy of the complaint, is served on the Register of Copyrights. The Register may, at his or her option, become a party to the action with respect to the issue of registrability of the copyright claim by entering an appearance within sixty days after such service, but the Register's failure to become a party shall not deprive the court of jurisdiction to determine that issue.
posted by anathema at 8:52 AM on February 2, 2003


Just to be clear, the Visual Artists Rights Act (§106), does not address copying per se, but only with paternity (attribution) and integrity of the work.
posted by anathema at 8:59 AM on February 2, 2003


Zerofoks and kirkaracha:

Why are stealing my name?!?!?!! Stop that!!!!
posted by The Michael The at 9:53 AM on February 2, 2003


Never mind all this copyright stuff. I want names assigned to that MetaFilter Network 1978 picture Quonsar posted.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:17 AM on February 2, 2003


that's you, front row left.
posted by quonsar at 1:13 PM on February 2, 2003


i'm right next to jujube--bottom middle ; >
posted by amberglow at 1:26 PM on February 2, 2003


Finnish National Organization for Sexual Equality, circa 1980. Sadly, except for the current president of Finland, everyone has dropped into depressing anonymity.
posted by PrinceValium at 1:46 PM on February 2, 2003


oh, and i'm the guy in the back behind argyle-boy.
posted by PrinceValium at 2:23 PM on February 2, 2003


How the hell did you find that, PrinceValium?
posted by languagehat at 2:55 PM on February 2, 2003


Quonsar, you made Matt look like a freakish giant.
posted by crunchland at 3:54 PM on February 2, 2003


he's not???
posted by quonsar at 4:44 PM on February 2, 2003


Sorry suckers, but all my comments are copyrighted, and if you so much as quote them, I will sue your ass until... until... until the loneliness goes away. [sobs]
posted by Hildago at 4:54 PM on February 2, 2003


Someone posted it to #mefi. I am extremely inconsiderate for forgetting who it was.
posted by PrinceValium at 4:56 PM on February 2, 2003


Benedict and website copyright.
posted by holloway at 5:00 PM on February 2, 2003


Sometimes MeTa is fun...quonsor, you made my day with the pic and the posts.
posted by davidmsc at 8:38 PM on February 2, 2003


Like I said, in order to bring suit under the Copyright Act, you must register the work.

This applies in the US, certainly.

In the UK, we don't need to register copyright: it subsists in any original work from the moment such work is transferred to a tangible medium. One may establish it by placing documents with ones legal representative under witness, or by mailing the items to oneself by registered post, and submitting the unopened envelope as evidence.

Of course, since the US has signed up to the Berne convention, I may bring a suit under my local laws, as the copyright owner, even if the breach has occurred in the US, or indeed any other country which has signed up to the convention.

In short, it's worth checking your local laws if you want to establish copyright over your original work.
posted by walrus at 7:43 AM on February 3, 2003


« Older The RSS Feed appears to have been fried by a rogue...   |   Login errors Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments