Darren New schrieb:
> Sure, but then we're no longer talking about copyright. Indeed, having a 
> copyright on something can actually *reduce* the things you can sue 
> over. For example, if you copyright a picture, then have a contract that 
> someone signs before you let them see it saying they're not allowed to 
> do something with it that fair use allows, that part of the contract is 
> unenforcable. (Or at least was before DMCA - now I don't know.)

That appears to make no sense to me, as copyright /always/ exists on a 
copyrightable work.

Maybe the mechanism is as follows:

(1) You officialy /register/ your copyright, which requires you to 
publish the work (in the register).

(2) From that publication, anyone can freely exercise "fair use" rights.

Versus:

(1) You refrain from officially registering your claim to the copyright

(2) Instead of making the work /publicly/ available, you only present it 
to people willing to waive their rights to "fair use".

(3) If they nonetheless copy the work without your consent, they 
automatically make their access to the work illegitimate; and as "fair 
use" copying requires legitimate access to the work, they're screwed.

Post a reply to this message