www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jennifer O'Neill" <jennifer...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: "All rights reserved"
Date Fri, 02 Apr 2010 05:23:38 GMT
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> 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]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 01, 2010 5:40 PM
>   *To:* 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>
> 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]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 01, 2010 11:11 AM
>
> *To:* 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]
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 28, 2010 5:33 PM
> *To:* 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>
> 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
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message