Copyrights and Dynamic Content

[ncracraf]

Has anybody here ever copyrighted a dynamic website? I'm an internet publisher and my website stores small business ideas and related information in a mySQL database. We add content (our own) to the database almost daily.

I'm not asking for legal advice, just seeing if anyone has done this and how they went about it (i.e., worked with a lawyer, filled out the forms through US Copyright office, used a copyright service, etc).

The closest guidance I could find from the US Copyright Office is contained in Circular #65 - Copyright Registration for Automated Databases (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ65.html). However, their definition of an automated database is the compilation of pre-exisisting materials or data into an original form. Not sure where original content fits in?

If anybody does have experience with this, the follow-on question is, how frequently must follow-up copyright submissions be filed to accomodate the expanding database.

Thanks.

[BobLennon]

Has anybody here ever copyrighted a dynamic website? ....
Thanks.

Ugly thought. The freedom of expression on the internet should not be restricted to legal transformations.

[Weedpacket]

legal transformations.That's kind of the point, isn't it? What's a "legal transformation"?

Original content is by default copyrighted by its originator. If the work was carried out for someone else, then the copyright belongs to them, if there was a statement to that effect in the contract. The copyright holder may grant various permissions to others for things like publishing, distributing, etc. (for example, you've granted Jupitermedia permission to distribute your post).

If anybody does have experience with this, the follow-on question is, how frequently must follow-up copyright submissions be filed to accomodate the expanding database.Only if you're planning to file for damages in the case of infringement, but copyright registration only has a resolution of one year, so there's no point registering more often than that.

[vaaaska]

Creative Commons...

[ncracraf]

Thanks all for the input.

To Bob's point, I wholeheartedly disagree when the site content is proprietary. How else will you protect your or your company's intellectual work from being claimed by others? I doubt very much the Wall Street Journal online would think kindly of me taking their online news articles and claiming them as my own. The freedom of the internet gives people the freedom to access information, not rip it off.

Our intent to register copyrights is for preventative reasons. We'd love to know that our information will never be claimed as someone else's own. We'd also love to stay as far as possible away from a courtroom. Unfortunately, that's not real life.

Thanks for the feedback-et, WeedPacket. I've heard of the default-copyright argument before. To give any potential claims "legs", I think you're also right in the fact that a formal copyright registration is needed. I believe I need to talk to a lawyer ($$$ :glare: ) on this one.

I'll update the post with additional information if I find it.

Thanks.

[dream.scape]

The freedom of expression on the internet should not be restricted to legal transformations.

How can it be a legal transformation?

Copyright philosophy has varied over the years, but many countries view copyright as a natural right, and the copyright laws exist to protect this natural right, not to create a new legal right.

In the United States, copyright is a Constitutional right given to us in the Constitution; same as all other Constitutional rights [you know freedom of expression is a Constitutional right as well]. It could be argued that the Constitutional Convention saw it as a natural right, and thus why they included as a Constitutional right, but we cannot know for certain. Either way, US copyright law exists to protect a Constitutional right, not to create a new legal right.

PS. Freedom of expression is not unrestricted, nor has it ever been. It doesn't give you the right to squash someone else's rights.

[Doug G]

I found this page from the US Govt Copyright Office helpful when doing some work for a client

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

[Weedpacket]

I believe I need to talk to a lawyer ($$$ :glare: ) on this one.

I'll update the post with additional information if I find it.Please do; I am a bit curious now about how copyright on continually-updated information is registered - common sense would suggest that since registration applys to the work as a whole, it covers content added during the year of registration.

(The registration itself doesn't cost much, last time I looked in the US it was $20/year). It then becomes a legal requirement to include a copyright notice (like the one at the bottom of this page!) but that's no difficulty.

[MarkR]

Copyrights don't need to be registered. Anybody who charges you to register a copyright for something, is taking your money for no reason.

Everything and anything is implicitly copyrighted automatically, from the moment it was created. This almost certainly includes dynamic content (unless someone else has prior copyright on some of the content).

There are obviously a lot of grey areas - especially content syndication (e.g. by Google) - but as far as I'm concerned, publishing media in a format which allows content syndication is pretty much inviting people to do so.

As long as they don't claim copyright (and respect all other restrictions) over your content, then it's fine.

Tricky with, for example Google, who collect information automatically without a human reading the copyright statement on the site. You can of course, forbid Google to do so, and they will respect your request.

Mark

[Elizabeth]

Everything and anything is implicitly copyrighted automatically, from the moment it was created. This almost certainly includes dynamic content (unless someone else has prior copyright on some of the content).That's what I was thinking also. As long as you can prove you were the original author (and the date of creation/posting to the Internet) then it should hold up in court. IANAL, of course, so I could be wrong, but that's my understanding.

[dream.scape]

no, if you plan on going to court, you have to have registered the work. It is a pre-requisite for an infringement case. And to be eligible for an award of statutory damages and attorney's fees, the registration must have been made within 3 months of the first date of publication. Registration after that, you are only entitled to actual damages.

Plus also there is a mandatory deposit requirement for published works. All published works, with some exceptions, must have 2 copies deposited to the Library of Congress, even if you are not registering the work, within 3 months of publication. Though I'm not sure exactly how the mandatory deposit applies to the web.

[Elizabeth]

From the US Copyright Office Website: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork


When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

So dream.scape's right- if you want to sue for copyright infringement then you have to register. But it's considered to be copyright protected from the moment you create it. Doesn't sound like much protection if you can't do anything with it! Thanks, d.s.!

[dream.scape]

Yeah, but to win an infringement case, the first thing you have to do is prove is ownership. The only real standard way of doing this is with registration, which serves a prima facea evidence of ownership. And that's just the way it worked out, that no court is going to consider your case if you haven't registered the work.

There are a few exceptions where registration isn't required to bring suit, but the legalese of those times is so confusing that I'm really not sure what they are, but I think have something to do with live television.