Re: Settlements

[David Kastrup]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:

> On 2/27/2010 10:53 AM, John Hasler wrote:
>> "innocent infringement"
>
> Innocent infringement occurs when you have reason to believe that
> a work you are copying is not under copyright.

Or reason to believe you are in compliance with licensing conditions
(like when licensing conditions are ambiguous).

> Having a copyright notice attached to the work defeats such a claim.

No, that has nothing to do with it.  _Any_ copyrightable material _is_
copyrighted by default according to the Berne condition.  Copyright
notices are not necessary.  You need something substantial to be able to
assume "not under copyright".

> In fact, in a just-decided case
> <http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/maverick_harper_100225FifthCirDecis.pdf>
> the Fifth Circuit decided that the mere fact that songs were available
> on CDs which carried copyright notices was sufficient to defeat such a
> defense, whether or not the defendant ever actually saw them.

Because copyright is the default even in absence of copyright notices.
If copyright notices are merely absent, that does not make for an
assumption of "must be public domain".

There has been some deadline in the 70s or so when things were the other
way round, so if you get hold of material definitely published before
that time by an _authorized_ publisher and without copyright notices,
you might be successful with that defense.

Other than that: slim chance.

-- 
David Kastrup