Edmund writes : "One thing which leaps to mind -- and I'm possibly very wrong on this, since I'm not a lawyer by any means -- but doesn't copyright law require the entity holding the copyright to actively defend it? In other words, are the entities whose works are plagiarized required to go after QU or lose their copyright? If so, we should get cracking NOW." >From an attorney : In a word, no. While the law _does_ work that way in _trademark_ cases, it does not for copyright infringement cases. There is no vigorous defense requirement for copyright. However, a copyright defendant _can_ assert a defense known as "laches," which can let him/her off the hook the judge/jury are persuaded that plaintiff "sat on" his/her rights ; however, this does _not_ mean that the copyright holder forfeits his/her future rights against anyone, including the defendant who succeeds with a laches defense. A copyright notice was required in the past to have any rights at all, but that has been untrue since the United States joined the Berne Convention a few years back (Incidentally, the new post-Berne rules apply to work created before the Berne Convention rules adoption.) Beth is correct (at least with regards to US citizens or entities) when she says that the copyright holder must register their copyright before filing a lawsuit against an infringing party. -Tim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:43 AM EST EST