TR - Ennerdale 3-day backpack



Paul Saunders wrote on Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:33:50 +0100....
> So on my Snowdon Horseshoe TR page I could put "(c) 1992,
> 1999" for example, the first date referring to the
> photographs, the second to the year I wrote and
> "published" the web page.
>
> But what if the TR had been written years before, would I
> still need to add a date for the first publication?

You don't *need* to do anything. And it's not a big deal
if you do it wrong, as I've said. (See my previous post
for why it might be *desirable* to do it right, so you
can claim damages in USA, but I suspect this isn't top of
your agenda?)

However, if you do want to do a copyright notice in the
correct manner, then the date (or dates) of first
publication is what you should use, not the date(s) of
creation.

If you want to give the date(s) of creation as well, why
not say something like "Photo taken 23/3/1999. Copyright ©
2004 Paul Saunders" or "Written 14/12/2002. Copyright ©
2004 Paul Saunders"

--
Tim Jackson [email protected] (Change
'.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct) Absurd patents:
visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk
 
Tim Jackson wrote:

> You don't *need* to do anything. And it's not a big deal
> if you do it wrong, as I've said. (See my previous post
> for why it might be *desirable* to do it right, so you can
> claim damages in USA, but I suspect this isn't top of your
> agenda?)

No.

> However, if you do want to do a copyright notice in the
> correct manner, then the date (or dates) of first
> publication is what you should use, not the date(s) of
> creation.
>
> If you want to give the date(s) of creation as well, why
> not say something like "Photo taken 23/3/1999. Copyright ©
> 2004 Paul Saunders" or "Written 14/12/2002. Copyright ©
> 2004 Paul Saunders"

For photos I'd prefer to simply put the year the photo was
taken, since that's when the work was created, but for text
I suppose the published date would be more appropriate.

But I don't see how the date would make any difference in a
court of law. If I created it then I have the copyright, no
matter what the date, yes?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
Paul Saunders wrote on Wed, 31 Mar 2004 20:57:31 +0100....
> But I don't see how the date would make any difference in
> a court of law. If I created it then I have the copyright,
> no matter what the date, yes?

Yes.

Under UK copyright law, there's a possibility that an
infringer *might* be able to escape paying you damages, if
he can satisfy the court that "he did not know, and had no
reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work".
See Copyright etc Act 1988, section
97(1). <http://www.jenkins-
ip.com/patlaw/cdpa1.htm#s97> - 396kb

Marking your work with *some* kind of copyright notice is
therefore a good idea. It gives the infringer a "reason to
believe", so it should prevent that kind of defence.

But I don't see how getting the date wrong (or leaving it
out altogether) would affect things - unlike the position
under US law as I understand it.

Even if you can't claim damages, you'll still own the
copyright, and you should be able to get other remedies,
such as an injunction to make the infringer stop his
infringing activity. (I'm not sure, but I think you might
also be able to claim any profit that the infringer had made
from your photo - a subtle legal distinction from the damage
that you yourself have suffered.)

--
Tim Jackson [email protected] (Change
'.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct) Absurd patents:
visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk
 
In message <[email protected]>,
Tim Jackson <[email protected]> writes
>Paul Saunders wrote on Wed, 31 Mar 2004 20:57:31 +0100....
>> But I don't see how the date would make any difference in
>> a court of law. If I created it then I have the
>> copyright, no matter what the date, yes?
>
>Yes.
>
>Under UK copyright law, there's a possibility that an
>infringer *might* be able to escape paying you damages, if
>he can satisfy the court that "he did not know, and had no
>reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work".
>See Copyright etc Act 1988, section
>97(1). <http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/cdpa1.htm#s97> -
> 396kb
>
>Marking your work with *some* kind of copyright notice is
>therefore a good idea. It gives the infringer a "reason to
>believe", so it should prevent that kind of defence.
>
>But I don't see how getting the date wrong (or leaving it
>out altogether) would affect things - unlike the position
>under US law as I understand it.

Well lets suppose you mistakenly claim copyright 1999
instead of 1996 and an infinger runs a defence that he can
prove publication of exactly the same material in 1997? Not
only has he apparently not infinged your copyright but he
has a prima facie case surely that you have infringed his?
Of course, it is only prima facie because other evidence
could probably be produced to prove your authorship - but it
would be a ruddy nuisance to say the least!

--
Michael Farthing cyclades Software House
 
Michael Farthing wrote:

> Well lets suppose you mistakenly claim copyright 1999
> instead of 1996 and an infinger runs a defence that he
> can prove publication of exactly the same material in
> 1997? Not only has he apparently not infinged your
> copyright but he has a prima facie case surely that you
> have infringed his? Of course, it is only prima facie
> because other evidence could probably be produced to
> prove your authorship - but it would be a ruddy nuisance
> to say the least!

That's why I'd prefer to use the date I took the photo
rather than the date first published. The above situation
could then not possibly arise.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
Tim Jackson wrote:

> Marking your work with *some* kind of copyright notice is
> therefore a good idea. It gives the infringer a "reason to
> believe", so it should prevent that kind of defence.
>
> But I don't see how getting the date wrong (or leaving it
> out altogether) would affect things - unlike the position
> under US law as I understand it.
>
> Even if you can't claim damages, you'll still own the
> copyright, and you should be able to get other remedies,
> such as an injunction to make the infringer stop his
> infringing activity. (I'm not sure, but I think you might
> also be able to claim any profit that the infringer had
> made from your photo - a subtle legal distinction from the
> damage that you yourself have suffered.)

Thanks for the info Tim.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
Michael Farthing wrote on Fri, 2 Apr 2004 09:21:55 +0100....
>
> Well lets suppose you mistakenly claim copyright 1999
> instead of 1996 and an infinger runs a defence that he
> can prove publication of exactly the same material in
> 1997? Not only has he apparently not infinged your
> copyright but he has a prima facie case surely that you
> have infringed his? Of course, it is only prima facie
> because other evidence could probably be produced to
> prove your authorship - but it would be a ruddy nuisance
> to say the least!

If you'd got the date right, in accordance with the
Universal Copyright Convention, then it would be the date of
first publication, not the date you actually produced the
work. So it's entirely consistent that you could have
authored the work in question in 1996 and not published it
until 1999. Happens all the time, in fact.

So I doubt if the courts would look on the date in the
*copyright notice* as evidence of when you authored the
work. That "other evidence" you mention is going to be more
important.

As part of that other evidence, dating your work **at the
time when you produce it** is nevertheless good practice. It
could help your case if you have to go to court, and is to
be recommended. It can be done separately from the copyright
notice (if any).

Note that you would add such a date to the *original* copy
at the time you did the work, and then you would keep that
original copy in a safe place in case you ever need it.
Whereas you'd often only put a copyright notice on
*subsequent* copies at the time you publish them, which
could be many years later.

Incidentally, just putting your name on your work as being
the author is excellent evidence in your favour. E.g.
writing "by Michael Farthing" on the front page of your
novel or "photographer: Paul Saunders" on a photo. The
courts will believe this unless unless the alleged infringer
can come up with evidence to the contrary. You wouldn't have
to prove that you were the author; the infringer would have
to prove that you weren't. This results from section 104(2)
of the Copyright etc Act:

<quote>
(2) Where a name purporting to be that of the author
appeared on copies of the work as published or on the
work when it was made, the person whose name appeared
shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved—
(a) to be the author of the work; [....] <end quote>

--
Tim Jackson [email protected] (Change
'.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct) Absurd patents:
visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back