Theos-Talk Archives (July 1999 Message tt00034)

This message was sitting in my out box unsent for a few days. Someone else 
has already made some of the same comments, but I'll send it anyway.

John wrote:
>The issue of "is the matter published" becomes somewhat of a moot point the
>moment that copies of the material are made and distributed. As long as the
>author has not made one copy of his material, he cannot copyright it. For
>example, you cannot copyright your diary, because you have not published it.
 
Nicholas wrote:
>This is very complicated.  However I do know that a single copy of a MS can
>be copyrighted, because it was done for one MS I know of.  So distribution
>or publication is not needed; in that example anyway.

I'm guessing in this case, that perhaps the MS was finished and copied, and 
that the MS was then given or sent to someone else, while one copy remained 
with the author. I know of a case where someone tried to copyright her diary 
and was told that she could not copyright her diary unless she first made at 
least one complete copy of that diary.

Most authors that I know make a copy of their MS for at least two reasons, 1) 
for their protection because they have a copy while the original leaves their 
possession or vice-versa, and 2) that the copy allows them the legal right to 
have the copyright notice, whether they pay for the copy or not.

When I produce mazes to give away, I produce two copies. The original is an 
electronic image on my hard drive, the copy is what I print to give to the 
child or that I do whatever with. In some cases, I later destroy the original 
because I don't need the originals to prove that I created the puzzle in the 
first place.

When I produce the mazes to send to a publisher, I usually end up creating at 
least three copies, the electronic original, the printed original, and a 
printed copy.

My understanding is that the duplicate copy, whether one duplicate and one 
original, or many duplicates and one original is what makes the item 
copyrightable.

If your friend wrote a manuscript and NEVER made a copy of that manuscript, 
and affixed a copyright notice, he might have trouble later if he goes to 
court to enforce the copyright. A judge could then ask him to prove that he 
did everything that was required by the various laws.

The issue of "ownership" however has no similarity. Even if you can't 
register a copyright, you can still own something. 

Plus, there's a simple method of establishing the date of ownership of 
something that can be printed. I've used it with a few documents. I print the 
document, affix a stamp OVER part of the text, then ask the postmaster to 
postmark where I put the stamp, and a few other places.

It's nice that the law is now applying to things that can be considered to by 
"copyrightable" and not just to stuff that actually got copyrighted. That 
makes things easier to prove it court, because the copier can no longer use 
the excuse that he didn't see the copyright notice. The owner can still use 
the angle that the material was copyrightable, whether or not the copyright 
was ever used. THis is a vast improvement over the days where the only 
copyright was paying $20 to the government.

John

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.