According to Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>:
applies. Similarly surely the UK copyright laws apply in the UK, not
the US copyright law?
It does, but since the US federal government does not claim copyright
on its work, it is in practice in the public domain everywhere.
of registration. UK is a bit odd because it doesn't require specific >>registration (unlike Trademarks).
It's not odd, it's required by the Berne convention, no formalities
are needed for a work to be copyrighted. In the US if you register the >copyright you have more legal recourse agaisnt infringers, dunno how
that works in the UK.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 02:00:37 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
<johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>:Often by either or both of ensuring that a legal deposit copy of a
applies. Similarly surely the UK copyright laws apply in the UK, not >>>>the US copyright law?
It does, but since the US federal government does not claim copyright
on its work, it is in practice in the public domain everywhere.
of registration. UK is a bit odd because it doesn't require specific >>>registration (unlike Trademarks).
It's not odd, it's required by the Berne convention, no formalities
are needed for a work to be copyrighted. In the US if you register the >>copyright you have more legal recourse agaisnt infringers, dunno how
that works in the UK.
relevant work is sent to the British Library and/or causing some other >evidence of the date of creation. You can do the latter by things like >sending a copy by registered post for storage unopened by your
solicitor or other party accepted (as a matter of fact not
registration) by a court as trustworthy.
Registered Post hasn't existed for over a decade. It's also very poor evidence, because you can send an unsealed envelope, and put something inside later.
On 24/02/2026 08:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Registered Post hasn't existed for over a decade. It's also very
poor evidence, because you can send an unsealed envelope, and put >>something inside later.
Will this do?
Royal Mail Special Delivery Guaranteed: This is the most secure--
option, offering full tracking, signature on delivery, and higher >compensation for valuables, money, or important documents.
Royal Mail Signed For (1st or 2nd Class): Provides confirmation of
delivery and a signature, but with lower compensation (up to u20)
compared to special delivery.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 14:54:23 +0000, ColinR
<rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 13:14, Roland Perry wrote:If it was published as free of copyright in the USA then that would in
In message <10neuse$24dsq$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:04:12 on Sun, 22 FebYou may be right but I suspect not. After all the US "right to bear
2026, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
On 22/02/2026 10:30, Roland Perry wrote:
aThat's right. The philosophy is that taxpayers have already paid for >>>>> thea production of the material, and therefore deserve to be able to >>>>> get aa copy free-of-any_extra-charge.
But as I pointed out, the files are often printed out cheaply and
sold. They are theoretically only free of copyright in the USA.
They are probably free of copyright to all US citizens, wherever they live. >>
arms" does not apply in the UK, the UK laws relating to firearms
applies. Similarly surely the UK copyright laws apply in the UK, not the >>US copyright law?
Just saying!
the UK presumably kick it into "fair dealing" territory in the UK but
not if the USA wished to limit the public domain status to its own
territory.
Anything that the author explicitly places into the public domain is in the >public domain in any territory which is a signatory to the Berne Convention. >That's fundamental to the convention requirement that any work published in >any member territory has the same copyright status at publication in every >other territory (via the "country of origin" rule).
According to Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>:
Anything that the author explicitly places into the public domain is in the >>public domain in any territory which is a signatory to the Berne Convention. >>That's fundamental to the convention requirement that any work published in >>any member territory has the same copyright status at publication in every >>other territory (via the "country of origin" rule).
Not quite. It says "Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which
they are protected under this Convention, in countries of the Union
other than the country of origin, the rights which their respective
laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals, as well as the
rights specially granted by this Convention."
That is, it has the same status as something written by a local
author. What makes this complicated is that some countries let an
author abandon a copyright, some don't. The Intertubes tell me that in >Australia the law on abandoned property is unclear and it's not out of
the question that "finders keepers" on abandoned copyright applies,
absurd though that sounds. In the Netherlands, you can decline moral
rights but not other parts of copyright.
In practice, if someone says "I renounce the copyright on this work
and I do not care what anyone does with it", the risk of trouble if
you use it is pretty small, but it's not zero.
In message <10noa22$sei$1@gal.iecc.com>, at 02:10:10 on Thu, 26 Feb
2026, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> remarked:
According to Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>:
Anything that the author explicitly places into the public domain is in the >>>public domain in any territory which is a signatory to the Berne Convention. >>>That's fundamental to the convention requirement that any work published in >>>any member territory has the same copyright status at publication in every >>>other territory (via the "country of origin" rule).
Not quite. It says "Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which
they are protected under this Convention, in countries of the Union
other than the country of origin, the rights which their respective
laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals, as well as the >>rights specially granted by this Convention."
That is, it has the same status as something written by a local
author. What makes this complicated is that some countries let an
author abandon a copyright, some don't. The Intertubes tell me that in >>Australia the law on abandoned property is unclear and it's not out of
the question that "finders keepers" on abandoned copyright applies,
There's a big problem with the copyright on abandoned 1980's/90's
computer software (many of which are video games, much in demand at the >moment).
An exercise for the reader: who owns the copyright on the Sinclair
Spectrum BASIC, Clive didn't when he sold it to Amstrad!
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 07:31:42 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10noa22$sei$1@gal.iecc.com>, at 02:10:10 on Thu, 26 Feb
2026, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> remarked:
According to Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>:
Anything that the author explicitly places into the public domain is in the
public domain in any territory which is a signatory to the Berne Convention.
That's fundamental to the convention requirement that any work published in
any member territory has the same copyright status at publication in every >>>> other territory (via the "country of origin" rule).
Not quite. It says "Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which
they are protected under this Convention, in countries of the Union
other than the country of origin, the rights which their respective
laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals, as well as the
rights specially granted by this Convention."
That is, it has the same status as something written by a local
author. What makes this complicated is that some countries let an
author abandon a copyright, some don't. The Intertubes tell me that in
Australia the law on abandoned property is unclear and it's not out of
the question that "finders keepers" on abandoned copyright applies,
There's a big problem with the copyright on abandoned 1980's/90's
computer software (many of which are video games, much in demand at the
moment).
An exercise for the reader: who owns the copyright on the Sinclair
Spectrum BASIC, Clive didn't when he sold it to Amstrad!
Nine Tiles Networks?
That is, it has the same status as something written by a local
author. What makes this complicated is that some countries let an
author abandon a copyright, some don't. The Intertubes tell me that in >>Australia the law on abandoned property is unclear and it's not out of
the question that "finders keepers" on abandoned copyright applies,
There's a big problem with the copyright on abandoned 1980's/90's
computer software (many of which are video games, much in demand at the >moment).
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 07:31:42 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10noa22$sei$1@gal.iecc.com>, at 02:10:10 on Thu, 26 Feb
2026, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> remarked:
According to Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>:
Anything that the author explicitly places into the public domain is in the >>>>public domain in any territory which is a signatory to the Berne Convention.
That's fundamental to the convention requirement that any work published in >>>>any member territory has the same copyright status at publication in every >>>>other territory (via the "country of origin" rule).
Not quite. It says "Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which >>>they are protected under this Convention, in countries of the Union
other than the country of origin, the rights which their respective
laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals, as well as the >>>rights specially granted by this Convention."
That is, it has the same status as something written by a local
author. What makes this complicated is that some countries let an
author abandon a copyright, some don't. The Intertubes tell me that in >>>Australia the law on abandoned property is unclear and it's not out of >>>the question that "finders keepers" on abandoned copyright applies,
There's a big problem with the copyright on abandoned 1980's/90's
computer software (many of which are video games, much in demand at the >>moment).
An exercise for the reader: who owns the copyright on the Sinclair
Spectrum BASIC, Clive didn't when he sold it to Amstrad!
Nine Tiles Networks?
Compounding the problem, under US law it is not a defence that you
made a good faith search for the copyright owner. If you look, don't
find anyone, reuse the material, then the owner comes out of the
woodwork, you lose and may have to pay potentially enormous damages.
On 26/02/2026 18:19, John Levine wrote:
Compounding the problem, under US law it is not a defence that you
made a good faith search for the copyright owner. If you look, don't
find anyone, reuse the material, then the owner comes out of the
woodwork, you lose and may have to pay potentially enormous damages.
I am involved in a project that adds records to an online register.
They have many images with unknown source so they are classed as 'Orphan >Works'. There is a statement that if the owner contacts them then the
images will be taken offline.
According to JMB99 <mb@nospam.net>:
On 26/02/2026 18:19, John Levine wrote:
Compounding the problem, under US law it is not a defence that you
made a good faith search for the copyright owner. If you look, don't
find anyone, reuse the material, then the owner comes out of the
woodwork, you lose and may have to pay potentially enormous damages.
I am involved in a project that adds records to an online register.
They have many images with unknown source so they are classed as 'Orphan >>Works'. There is a statement that if the owner contacts them then the >>images will be taken offline.
Straying ever farther for British railways, if the site is in the US,
there is the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act,
better known as DMCA section 512 after another act which it was part of, >which makes special rules for web sites. Under OCILLA if the
copyright owner sends a takedown notice and you take it down, the
web site operator has no liability, although the person who provided
the material still does.
It's not clear to me how much protection the UK orphan rights law
provides in a similar situation.
According to JMB99 <mb@nospam.net>:
On 26/02/2026 18:19, John Levine wrote:
Compounding the problem, under US law it is not a defence that you
made a good faith search for the copyright owner. If you look, don't
find anyone, reuse the material, then the owner comes out of the
woodwork, you lose and may have to pay potentially enormous damages.
I am involved in a project that adds records to an online register.
They have many images with unknown source so they are classed as 'Orphan >>Works'. There is a statement that if the owner contacts them then the >>images will be taken offline.
Straying ever farther for British railways, if the site is in the US,
there is the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act,
better known as DMCA section 512 after another act which it was part of, >which makes special rules for web sites. Under OCILLA if the
copyright owner sends a takedown notice and you take it down, the
web site operator has no liability, although the person who provided
the material still does.
It's not clear to me how much protection the UK orphan rights law
provides in a similar situation.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 24:33:06 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| Messages: | 195,978 |