www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Smith, McCoy" <mccoy.sm...@intel.com>
Subject RE: "All rights reserved"
Date Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:55:51 GMT
I think the example below may be wrong, if Wikipedia is to be believed:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buenos_Aires_Convention
 Namely, Honduras is the only country that's a party to Buenos Aires, and Berne, but not UCC
(and Nicaragua looks to be a party to all three treaties as of 2000), so is the only country
around that fits the criteria of one where a work "first published in countries that are only
party to the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention and one of the other two treaties" and there
may not be any other country where "protection is desired in a country that is only party
to the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention and the other of the other two treaties".
Nevertheless, the corner cases seem to be extremely small if not no-existent and perhaps limited
to a single country in Central America, in which case you'd not want to say "All Rights Reserved"
you'd want to say "Todos los derechos reservados"....

From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 9:21 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: RE: "All rights reserved"

Jennifer O'Neill wrote:
> Again, it's not that the exclusion of this phrase is a sweeping risk,
> but it is a simple thing to include it and in so doing, worldwide
> software distributors eliminate one more legal problem to worry about.

Thanks for the edge cases, Jennifer.

ASF software is published first (by us) in the United States. I don't know of any of our works
that are first published in Nicaragua and then distributed specifically to Honduras. As for
the protection of moral rights, those rights will be preserved where local law protects them
even without our reserving rights.

My advice for ASF software is to omit "All Rights Reserved". If you are still concerned, you
are certainly free to put the statement in your own software.

Best regards,

/Larry



From: Jennifer O'Neill [mailto:jennifer626@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 10:24 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: "All rights reserved"

The article referenced by McCoy names a few examples:
Where "All rights reserved." is still necessary.

The only cases where the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention has any remaining applicability,
and thus where "All rights reserved." actually performs any useful function at all, are corner
cases: the cases of works first published in countries that are only party to the Buenos Aires
Copyright Convention and one of the other two treaties, and where protection is desired in
a country that is only party to the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention and the other of the
other two treaties.

For example: Nicaragua and Honduras are both parties to the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention,
but don't share a better treaty in common. A copyrighted work first published in Nicaragua
(party to the Universal Copyright Convention but not the Berne Copyright Convention) is only
afforded protection in Honduras (party to the Berne Copyright Convention but not the Universal
Copyright Convention) under the terms of the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention, and so requires
an "All rights reserved." assertion.
Again, it's not that the exclusion of this phrase is a sweeping risk, but it is a simple thing
to include it and in so doing, worldwide software distributors eliminate one more legal problem
to worry about.  I also respectfully disagree with the author of this article that "All rights
reserved" doesn't otherwise perform a useful function.  In countries that recognize the concept
of "moral rights," the phrase helps preserve those rights (including, for example, the right
of attribution as creator of the work).  The signatories to the Berne Convention have extremely
disparate views and precedent regarding moral rights.  While it is likely not even an issue
for works developed in the United States, the question of whether moral rights are waived
or enforced is a key one in many other countries (including the EU and China), and the inclusion
of the phrase helps the creator maintain an argument that those rights have not been waived.

Cheers,

Jennifer


On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>>
wrote:

Jennifer,

Which countries that are not party to the Bern Convention/Buenos Aires Convention are you
worried about?

/Larry



From: Jennifer O'Neill [mailto:jennifer626@gmail.com<mailto:jennifer626@gmail.com>]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 5:40 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>
Subject: Re: "All rights reserved"

No data points have changed since this was last discussed in 2005.  The meaning does not have
significance for members of the Berne Convention/Buenos Aires Convention, but it does in countries
who are not party.  Thus, the continued use of the phrase by worldwide distributors of software.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>>
wrote:
Hi McCoy,

Glad to see you still lurking here! :-)

I completely agree with the article: "All rights reserved" has no legal significance anymore.

Best regards, /Larry



From: Smith, McCoy [mailto:mccoy.smith@intel.com<mailto:mccoy.smith@intel.com>]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 11:11 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>
Subject: RE: "All rights reserved"

Here is an article on this phrase (by a European lawyer who often writes on open source legal
issues);  it is pretty much sursplusage (aka "chaff"):  http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/allrightsreserved/
I'm sure Larry Rosen might have thoughts on this.


From: Jennifer O'Neill [mailto:jennifer626@gmail.com<mailto:jennifer626@gmail.com>]
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 5:33 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>
Subject: Re: "All rights reserved"

I thought this issue rang a bell: http://www.mail-archive.com/derby-dev@db.apache.org/msg00510.html
Bill is right that a copyright owner that has granted a license to use its IP still reserves
the rights inherent in ownership, as compared against a party that has assigned its intellectual
property rights in their entirety to someone else.  The phrase "all rights reserved" represents
that concept, without changing those license rights.  As noted previously, it's generally
not necessary to repeat this phrase in the U.S. and most of North America and South America,
but it still has legal meaning in other countries.  Any owners making worldwide distribution
of their works are better off retaining it, for the avoidance of doubt.

Cheers,

Jennifer

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 7:44 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe@apache.org<mailto:wrowe@apache.org>>
wrote:
On 3/28/2010 6:32 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> It's common to see:
>
> *****
> Copyright <Year> <Blah>. All Rights Reserved.
>
> <Licensing of rights to recipient of package>
> ******
>
>
> When including the copyright header in a NOTICE file, what thoughts
> are there on whether we should include the "All Rights Reserved"
> statement? It seems misleading/confusing to be saying that and putting
> the license in LICENSE.
>
> If we have a license to redistribute something - the rights aren't
> reserved. Can we delete it as a piece of bad text?
Yes they are reserved.

The LICENSE offers specific rights, under specific terms.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss-help@apache.org>




Mime
View raw message