Do I need to keep paper copyright registration certificates? Every time I register a copyright with the US Copyright Office, they eventually send me a fancy &quot;Certificate of Registration&quot; printed on heavy, patterned stock. I scan it and then file it away in a box. I have a lot of these certificates, and they take up substantial room in my small office. I've never had cause to use one in any way. When I've had to prove ownership I've always relied on either scans of the certificate or just going directly to the copyright office website. Is there any realistic situation where a court decision might hinge on producing the original physical paper certificate? Or are they just souvenirs that I can safely shred?
Short Answer Is there any realistic situation where a court decision might hinge on producing the original physical paper certificate? Yes. But there are alternative options to prove the same thing, even then. A copyright registration certificate is not like a dollar bill or an original promissory note, where a copy isn't as good as the original, even though it can be slightly convenient to have the original in hand. Or are they just souvenirs that I can safely shred? If you scan them and then shred them, nothing horrible will happen. In the rare worst case scenario where the fact of your registration is disputed by a stubborn defendant in a copyright infringement lawsuit all of the way up to trial, you could get a replacement certified copy from the Copyright Registrar, or you could prove your registration with other evidence. Long Answer Registration is not required for a copyright to come into being in U.S. law. 17 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 408(a). But it is a condition precedent (i.e. a requirement that must be met prior to taking action) to certain legal remedies. 17 U.S.C. § 412. So, proving your registration is usually one element of your infringement claim in a typical copyright infringement lawsuit. In that lawsuit, if you actually go to trial, you need to prove that the copyright was registered in a timely fashion, if the other side won't stipulate to that fact. But it would be rare for a defendant who had been presented with a copy to insist that the fact of registration be proven at trial because being that stubborn is likely to piss off the judge unless they can successfully prove that you have faked your claim to have a registered copyright, which is something that almost no intelligent lawyer in a copyright infringement lawsuit wants to do, since judges have broad discretion on so many issues, even in a jury trial. The easiest way to prove the fact that your copyright was registered on a particular date is to offer up a certified government document like the ones that you have in your office into evidence as an exhibit (typically, one of your very first exhibits in your infringement case). This is because an official government certificate is exempt from the hearsay rule, is &quot;self-authenticating&quot; ,and its contents are admissible if not barred by another rule of evidence (which it almost never would be). The legal reason for keeping these paper documents is to get that evidentiary benefit at trial. See Federal Rules of Evidence 803(8) (exceptions to the hearsay rule), 902 (self-authentication) and 1005 (admissibility of public records). Of course, mostly, these fancy certificates are issued as a matter of pride and ego and customer satisfaction. Prior to an actual trial or evidentiary hearing in a copyright infringement lawsuit, a copy, supported by your declaration under penalty of perjury that the copy isn't a fake, would be the usual way to establish your registration in documents that are e-filed through the federal electronic e-filing service called CM/ECF rather than presented in person on paper anyway. Typically, pretrial document disclosure is done via an electronic transmission of scanned copies as well. In practice, it would be quite rare for a defendant in a copyright infringement lawsuit to insist that you prove up your registration at trial, rather than just stipulating to it. Indeed, it is you who might not want to stipulate in a jury trial, just so you can flash an important looking document in front of the jurors right at the start of the trial for dramatic effect. But you don't have to do that. Ultimately, if the defendant really did insist on proof of your registration, you could get a new certified copy from the Copyright Registrar (which wouldn't be quite as pretty, but would have the same legal effect) for a small fee without too much advanced notice, or you could introduce your scanned copy into evidence and authenticate it through, for example, your testimony on the stand under oath that you scanned the original and that it is a true and correct copy of the original. You also might want to keep a paper copy because it will still be around if all of the relevant electronic records are destroyed or inaccessible for some reason. But if that happens, copyright infringement may be the least of your worries.
You seem to assume that copyrights require paperwork such as registration. This is wrong, copyright is automatic. And it prevents the downloader from making the sort of change that you suggest. In fact, it prevents the downloader from using your template at all. The only reason the downloader can use that template is because you've granted him a specific license to ignore some copyright rules, but the default remains. And you did not grant the right to alter the template to free users.
Trademark symbols Such symbols and notices were never required. Many company lawyers thought that they helped make a stronger case for infringement actions if someone did infringe. And perhaps also that they would deter people from using the trademarks without approval, perhaps even in ways that were legal but that the company did not like. (Companies routinely claim more trademark protection than the law allows.) Added, legal and source citations [15 U.S. Code § 1111] provides](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1111): Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1072 of this title, a registrant of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, may give notice that his mark is registered by displaying with the mark the words “Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office” or “Reg. U.S. Pat. &amp; Tm. Off.” or the letter R enclosed within a circle, thus ®; and in any suit for infringement under this chapter by such a registrant failing to give such notice of registration, no profits and no damages shall be recovered under the provisions of this chapter unless the defendant had actual notice of the registration. emphasis added This section was last revised in 1988, and dates originally from 1946 The US patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) publication Basic Facts About Trademarks (PDF) says (on page 9): Each time you use your mark, it is best to use a designation with it. If registered, use an ® after the mark. If not yet registered, use TM for goods or SM for services, to indicate that you have adopted this as a trademark or service mark, respectively, regardless of whether you have filed an application with the USPTO. You may only use the registration symbol with the mark on or in connection with the goods/services listed in the federal trademark registration. However, no specific requirements exist as to the precise use of the “®” symbol as to placement, e.g., whether used in a subscript or superscript manner. emphasis added Added Analysis I cannot find any provision of US law requiring use of the ® symbol or any of its equivalents. However failure to use it may reduce the damages available in the case of infringement. I cannot find any provision of US law authorizing or requiring the use of the tm symbol. It appears to be a matter of common law, that is judge-made law, and a reference to court cases would be needed. There have been significant developments in US trademark law in recent years, but mostly in the degree to which First Amendment concerns are being held to limit tr4ademark protections. I found no change in regard to the symbols, their use, meaning or effect. Many countries, unlike the US, do not grant protection to trademarks unless they are registered, so the tm symbol is largely a US usage. What Changed? To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in US law on this issue in recent years. I see lots of tm and ® symbols on everyday products. I just looked at the power supply for my laptop and it has a tm after the maker's name. I just looked at a candy bar wrapper and it carries an ®. If there WAS a recent court case that changed the practice or influenced a change I haven't heard of it, and I've done some reading in recent major trademark cases. But I am not a lawyer, much less an IP lawyer, so I can't be sure. Another possibility is that the comparatively large symbol adjacent to the large logo on the front of the package was removed, and a smaller logo, with symbol, was placed on the back of the package. That would probably give legal notice to any would-be infringer.
First, &quot;I've seen some people say it is legal to do so but I want a second opinion.&quot; This is not a legal opinion. This is only in response to the question &quot;Can you use (TM) on a product that is not Trademarked&quot;? Second, you did not specify a jurisdiction. Since you mentioned Apple, I will assume USA. tl/dr: Yes, you can used the TM mark and no, it is not fraudulent. In the USA, there are three &quot;trademark&quot; symbols, (R), (TM), and (SM). (R) - (Registered) The federal registration symbol. This may be used only once the mark is actually registered in the USPTO. It my not be used while the application is pending. (TM) - (Trademark) / (SM) - (Service Mark) - According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office: If you claim rights to use a mark, you may use the &quot;TM&quot; (trademark) or &quot;SM&quot; (service mark) designation to alert the public to your claim of a &quot;common-law&quot; mark. No registration is necessary to use a &quot;TM&quot; or &quot;SM&quot; symbol and you may continue to use these symbols even if the USPTO refuses to register your mark. Those symbols put people on notice that you claim rights in the mark, although common law doesn't give you all the rights and benefits of federal registration.
Court filings are, in general, matters of public record. This does not automatically put them into the public domain. This will mean that, absent a special order of the court, anyone will be able to read this filing as pert of the court records. Many courts now make all or parts of their records available on the web. But the copyright holders will possibly retain their rights to authorize the making of further copies, and surely retain the right to authorize the making of derivative works, and their other rights that are part of the copyright bundle, such as the rights of public performance. These rights would not be retained if the work had been placed in the public domain.
You might be able to use a site like the Internet Archive to preserve the TOC even after the site is shut down. The real liability trap here is if the site does not have the authority to give you this license. If a user uploads a photo that they do not own, and you use it, you are infringing the copyright of the original owner. Innocent infringement is not a defense to liability (although it may reduce damages in some cases.)
You likely have no legal recourse Your copyright claim is irrelevant and your title claim is likely statute barred. It is a little unclear exactly what is going on here so I will state my understanding and answer on this basis. There is a historic artifact (the notebook) that contains words and possibly pictures made by someone, now deceased, who was a relation of yours. You believe that in the normal course of inheritance, that notebook should have become a possession of yours or others in your near family. At some point in the (distant?) past the notebook came into the possession of another family. The museum acquired the item from someone in this family; I will assume in good faith - that is, without knowing about your claim to it. Copyright You say you have &quot;copyright of a precious notebook&quot; - this is not true. Any copyright you might have is in the words and drawings in the notebook - they give you no claim to the notebook itself. The distinction here might be illustrated by considering the words of the Declaration of Independence (which are available for the Googling) and the actual engrossed copy held in the National Archives. Copyright is a bundle of exclusive rights that attach to literary and artistic expression once placed in a tangible form. The notebook is the tangible form but it is the words and pictures that the copyright subsists in. Assuming that you own the copyright that does not give you any right over the physical notebook; it only gives you rights to prevent or allow copies or derivative works to be made and only to the extent that those uses are not permitted by copyright law. Based solely on copyright, you could not prevent the museum from displaying the notebook (as an artifact without displaying the copyrighted words), including photographs of it in catalogues or on their website, or even reproducing small parts of it for educational purposes. In any event, copyright only lasts for a set period of time. The exact details depend on which nation's law the copyright was originally created and sometimes when. The US is particularly tricky here but other nations can also make things challenging. In addition, when suing for copyright infringement, the laws of the nation where the infringing copy is produced are also relevant. Title Title is the legal term for the bundle of rights that we commonly think of as ownership of property. For our purposes we are going to limit ourselves to just these: possession: who physically has the property whether they have a right to it or not. right of possession: who has the legal right to be in possession, whether they presently have it or not right or property: is the right which, if all relevant facts are known (and allowed), defeats all other claims These exist in a hierarchy - 3 beats everyone, 2 beats everyone but 3, and 1 beats everyone but 2 or 3. Often these rights are possessed by a single person - when I'm driving my car I have possession, I have the right of possession, and I have the right of property. When I take my car to the mechanic and it gets stolen - the thief has possession, the mechanic has the right of possession, and I have the right of property. Here the museum has possession of the notebook - which gives them the best claim so far. To defeat that, you would need to be able to prove that you either have a right of possession or a right of property. This is not as easy as it sounds. To do this thoroughly, you would need to prove that the original author had one of these rights in the notebook - that he didn't steal it, or buy it from somebody who stole it, or that it wasn't made with stolen paper, or stolen glue etc. This could be presumed unless someone had evidence to contest it. Then you would need to prove that the notebook should have come to you through gift or purchase. This is particularly troublesome. Let's assume that this notebook originally belonged to your great-grandfather (that is he had all three rights above) and, when he passed, he had three surviving children. Unless he specifically willed it to one of those children (or the cat's home) then the three children will inherit the right of property and the right of possession collectively. Of course, unless they share a house, only one of those children can actually possess it. Then each of those children has 3 surviving children; when all three pass on, those 9 will own it collectively - and so on. Now, because this becomes such a bloody mess, governments have passed statutes of limitations that draw a line in how far back people can go in pursuing these claims against the person in possession. These limits vary by jurisdiction but ranges of 2-10 years are typical; they may sometimes be extended in exceptional circumstances by the courts. So, when the other family took possession of the notebook, the clock started running for your family to file a claim to get it back. Unless this happened within say, the last half-decade, you basically have no legal recourse.
Choice 2 is what the writers of the license have in mind. You own the physical media on which the copy is delivered, such as a DVD or floppy disk (if there was physical media). But you do not own the copy of the software, you merely have purchased a license to use it, which may be revocable under specified circumstances. This is different from the law in the case of a book. Why you buy a book, you own a copy of the book, although you do not own the copyright to the book, and may not make additional copies. The license model was adopted by commercial software distributors for several reasons, but largely to avoid the "first sale doctrine". When you buy a copy of a copyrighted work, you have the right (under US law at least) to lend, rent, sell, or give-away that copy. You do not need the permission of the copyright holder to do any of these. Those in the commercial software business did not want customers to be able to do those things legally. By making the software subject to a license, which is a contract, they could write that license to restrict or prohibit those rights. Sellers also wanted to prohibit reverse engineering of the software, and to restrict use of the software. (For example, to limit the user to installing it on a single computer.) There was at first much dispute over the enforcability of such license agreements. But most US courts now accept them as valid and enforceable, and copyright law has been modified to take account of them. Specifically, 17 USC 109 (2)(b)(1)(A) seems to include a legislative acceptance of this rule.