Precisely.
For instance, British copyrights include a notice of "asserting moral
authority" and also that a book "cannot be sold or lent out in any
other form of binding" -- the latter apparently to prevent libraries
from buying the cheaper paperback edition and putting it in a hard
cover for circulation.
On Apr 30, 3:39*am, Peter Jamieson
wrote:
It depends on how you see it. I assume the point Peter is making is that
/if/ you add a notice, it has to be in a certain format (AFAICR that is
also true of UK Copyright law), and if you use a symbol rather than the
word "Copyright" then it has to be the circle-C. Although the rules do
not say that you have to add a notice in order to establish copyright,
they do mention the evidentiary weight of including a copyright notice.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html
Peter Jamieson
http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk
On 30/04/2010 06:25, Graham Mayor wrote:
If that is indeed true for US law, then it is ridiculous. A writer always
owns the copyright to the material he/she creates, unless it is ceded to
someone else. The copyright notice merely draws attention to the fact. The
copyright notice on a document alone is insufficient to prove copyright, and
its omission does not negate the writer's copyright.-