Use of other calendars in copyright notice and contracts Year If I look at a copyright notice, I see Copyright (c) &lt;YEAR&gt; &lt;OWNER&gt;. The part this question is about is the definition on &lt;YEAR&gt;. The number represented in &lt;YEAR&gt; is based on the Gregorian calendar and shows the number of years passed since Anno Domini (or Common era). As there exist various different calendars around the world, I was wondering how this could affect the legal side, when using another calendar for copyright notice, or in contracts. Context I came across the Holocene calendar which counts years since the Holocene epoch instead of Anno Domini (or Common era) as the Gregorian calendar does. As the Gregorian calendar date can be defined with &lt;YEAR&gt; AD or &lt;YEAR&gt; CE the Holocene calendar year can be defined with &lt;YEAR&gt; HE. So I was wondering if such a year definition format could be used in a contract and especially a copyright notice (for example Copyright (c) 12021 HE &lt;OWNER&gt;). As there exist a variety of other calendars, I guess this question also regards those. As a programmer I know that you should not touch a running system. So using another calendar in the current already well established system makes things more complicated and confusing. But sadly I have not found any resources defining a restriction on which calendar year to use.
Overview There seems no reason why a year in a copyright notice could not be specified with a calendar other than the Gregorian Calander, provided it is made clear what system of dates is being used. US Law In united-states law the provision for a copyright notice is in 17 USC 401 which provides that: (a) General Provisions.—Whenever a work protected under this title is published in the United States or elsewhere by authority of the copyright owner, a notice of copyright as provided by this section may be placed on publicly distributed copies from which the work can be visually perceived, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. (b) Form of Notice.—If a notice appears on the copies, it shall consist of the following three elements: (1) the symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word “Copyright”, or the abbreviation “Copr.”; and (2) the year of first publication of the work; in the case of compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. ...; and (3) the name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation ... ... (d) Evidentiary Weight of Notice.—If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant’s interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in the last sentence of section 504(2). Note that subsection (a) says that the notice &quot;may be placed&quot; -- it is not required. Its only legal effect is that in subsection (d) where it defeats any claim of &quot;innocent infringement&quot;. Note also that while a year is part of the standard form of the notice, no calendar is specified by the law, and presumably any calendar could be used, provided that it was made clear which calendar was meant. Berne Convention Under the Berne Copyright Convention, to which almost all countries now adhere, no notice is required, and the term of copyright is not based on the date of publication except for anonymous works and works published under a pseudonym. History, BA and UCC conventions Under US law prior to the copyright act of 1976, a copyright notice was mandatory -- omitting the notice on a published work would cause loss of all copyright protection. Under that law the period of copyright was always computed from the date of publication, so the year of publication was essential to determine if a work was currently protected or not, and an incorrect year could also cause loss of protection. Under the Buenos Aires Convention, and the Universal Copyright Convention countreis were permitted to require a copyright notice, and many did, who were not then adherent to the Berne Convention. Article III paragraphs 1 of the UCC provided that: Any Contracting State which, under its domestic law, requires as a condition of copyright, compliance with formalities such as deposit, registration, notice, notarial certificates, payment of fees or manufacture or publication in that Contracting State, shall regard these requirements as satisfied with respect to all works protected in accordance with this Convention and first published outside its territory and the author of which is not one of its nationals, if from the time of the first publication all the copies of the work published with the authority of the author or other copyright proprietor bear the symbol © acompanied by the name of the copyright proprietor and the year of first publication placed in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of claim of copyright. Notice that a year is required as part of the notice under the UCC, but as in US law, no particular calendar is specified, and presumably alternate calendars could be sued if this is made clear.
For works released after 1989, Copyright notices don't have any legal consequences in the United States. They are just a friendly reminder of who created the work and that they take their copyrights seriously. But those notices are not required anymore to enforce your copyrights on the works you created. If you have proof that you own the copyright on something and when it was created, and if it's still within the term limits, then you can take legal actions against people who violate your copyright. Disney has a history of repeated worldwide lobbying for extending the expiration durations in copyright laws in order to avoid any of their classic cartoons from falling out of copyright protection. So it could be that they try to intentionally muddy the waters and make it harder to find out which of their works expire when. That way people are less sure about what Disney works are and are not in the public domain, making it more risky to use them. But that's just my theory.
The validity of the execution of a contract is governed by the law of the place where it was signed. A location next to the date establishes that place and hence often, the governing law for the validity of that signature. If the contract does not expressly state what law governs, the contract itself is governed by the law of the place where the last signature that causes the contract to come into being, since that is where the contract was formed. The role this plays in allowing someone to prove or disprove forgery is secondary, but sometimes pertinent. The practice of noting a location as well as a date remains in place for notarized documents and court documents even in modern U.S. practice which has abandoned many of the conventions of Roman civil law and no longer routinely includes a locations next to a date line in ordinary contract executions. The location is also important in notarized documents in addition to the other reasons, because the location establishes whether the notary is acting within the notary's jurisdiction which historically involves very small geographical areas, although the modern trend has to expand the geographic range of a notary's jurisdiction. This is particularly important in a place like Switzerland, where there are relatively few good clues regarding where a contract was signed in the absence of a designation (since short distances can result in a change of jurisdiction and multiple countries share any likely language in which the contract is written) and where the substantive law that applies to the contract can vary from canton to canton even within the country. This practice proximately dates to the reception of Roman civil law in the late Middle Ages following a "lawless" period from the fall of the Roman empire through the early Middle Ages. This revived a practice that existed for most of the Roman Empire and predecessor Roman Republic in the middle Iron Age. A similar practice was used, however, in diplomatic and royal correspondence in the broad Eastern Mediterranean and Fertile Crescent region during the Bronze Age. This was done at that time partially for authentication, partially to provide context for a communication (at a time when messages wouldn't necessarily be delivered in sequence), and partially to create a historical record of a diplomat or aristocrat's travels.
It Depends If the person reusing the image (lets call that person R for reuser) is not complying with the terms of the Creative commons license, which include a requirement to provide attribution of the source work, then R cannot rely on the license, and the granting of the license ad the presence of a license declaration is legally irrelevant. R must have some other basis to reuse the image. This could be an exception to copyright, such as fair use or fair dealing. Or possibly the image is not protected by copyright, for example because its copyright has expired, or because it is a work of the US Federal Government being used in the US. In the absence of such a basis, R is infringing copyright. In much of the world copyright now lasts for 70 years after the death of the author (or of all co-authors). In some different terms apply, ranging from life+50 to life+100. Sound recordings and photos get shorter terms in some countries. In the US the term is life+70 for recent works, but for work created and published before 1978 more complex rules apply, depending on the date of publication, and whether laws on notice and renewal were complied with. See the well-known chart Copyright Term and the Public Domain for the various cases and when copyright expires in each case. The question asks about fair use. This is a US-specific legal concept. It is designed to be flexible, an is highly fact-dependent. As a result it is rarely possible to say if a use will qualify as a fair use with certainty until a court passes on it. See Is this copyright infringement? Is it fair use? What if I don&#39;t make any money off it? for more on fair use. Not providing attribution is itself often considered to weigh against fair use. The question does not give enough detail to make even a good guess as to whether such a use is likely to be held to be fair use. Identifying the kind of eagle has some educational value, which might favor fair use to some extent, but must be considered in light of the overall purpose of the use, which is not described. There is no indication as to whether the original work is creative or factual, or whether the reuse would be likely to harm the market for the original. Much use of images on social media does not stand up under a fair use analysis. Providing proper attribution might well help any fair use claim. See also Do you have to give attribution if an image falls under Creative Commons?
The copyright owner is whoever first put the material in fixed form. It is most likely that that is the note-taker (you). It is possible (and highly unlikely) that the lecturer read (had memorized) a prepared script and you copied that script mechanically, and if that were the case, he would hold copyright and you infringed by making a copy. Typically, a note-taker follows the logic of a lecture and expresses those ideas in his own words (the notes do not match a plausible verbatim class lecture). Since expression is protected and ideas are not, that makes it most likely that you would prevail in a suit. The equations are almost certainly not protected.
Ideas are not Subject to Copyright Copyright does not protect ideas. This is true in the US, in the UK, and under the copyright laws of every country that I know of. Article 2 paragraph 8 of the Berne Copyright Convention reads: The protection of this Convention shall not apply to news of the day or to miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information. If the ideas of a work have been so re-written or recast as not to constitute a derivative work, the original author has no rights over the new work, which becomes a separate work with its own copyright. In such case there is no legal requirement for any credit or acknowledgement, at least not under copyright law. Also the use of a work whose copyright has expired, or is for some other reason in the public domain and not protected by copyright, may be legally made without acknowledgement of the author, or even under a false designation of authorship. Plagiarism Passing someone else's work off as one's own is generally considered to be plagiarism. Some people consider that using significant parts of another's work without proper credit is also plagiarism. Plagiarism is not a legal matter. It is considered highly improper in the academic and journalistic worlds, and may carry serious consequences there. It is considered unethical by many in other situations as well. However, it does not constitute copyright infringement, and copyright law cannot be used to prevent or punish plagiarism that is not also infringement. Works Created by an Automated Process or Script Whether an automated process can (at the current state of the art) truly extract facts and re-express them to a degree that would constitute a new, non-infringing work, I tend to doubt. Whether even sufficient alteration could be made by an automated process to reliably constitute fair use, fair dealing, or have any similar exception apply I also doubt. The US Copyright Office Compendium of Copyright practice (an official publication of the US Copyright Office) states in item 307: The U.S. Copyright Office will register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being. The copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the mind.” Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 94 (1879). Because copyright law is limited to “original intellectual conceptions of the author,” the Office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 58 (1884) Similar legal limits on AI authorship apply in many other countries. Fair Use Fair use is a specifically US legal concept, and generally does not apply in any other country, although I understand that Israel has closely followed US law in this matter. Fair use is defined by 17 USC 107. That law specifies four factors which a court must consider in making a decision on whether a use is a fair use. particularly important is whether the new work will harm actual or potential markets for the original, and whether it will serve as a replacement for the original. US Courts also often consider whether a new work is &quot;transformative&quot;, that is whether it serves a significantly different purpose than the original does. For example, in a popular song, lyrics are often intended to have an emotional effect. In a textbook on verse, the same lyrics may be used to demonstrate poetic technique, rhyme, meter, etc. That would be a transformative use. The presence of proper attribution or credit is often a significant factor in the decision by a court as to whether a use is fair. Using another's work without proper credit is significantly less likely to be found to be a fair use, although credit is not an absolute requirement of fair use. See Is this copyright infringement? Is it fair use? What if I don&#39;t make any money off it? and the various questions on this site tagged fair-use for many more details on fair use. Fair dealing and Other Exceptions to Copyright In the UK and some commonwealth countries, there is a doctrine known as &quot;fair dealing&quot; It is somewhat similar to fair use, but is generally more limited. In other countries there are various &quot;exceptions to copyright&quot;. Some countries have a few broad exception, some have many narrower exceptions. India, for example, has more than 28 separate exceptions. What is covered varies from country to county. Exceptions for teaching, comment and analysis, and news reporting are common. Article 9, paragraph 2 of the Berne Copyright Convention (linked above) recognizes such exceptions, stating: It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author. The convention goes on to state, in article 10, that: (1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries. (2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union, and for special agreements existing or to be concluded between them, to permit the utilization, to the extent justified by the purpose, of literary or artistic works by way of illustration in publications, broadcasts or sound or visual recordings for teaching, provided such utilization is compatible with fair practice. (3) Where use is made of works in accordance with the preceding paragraphs of this Article, mention shall be made of the source, and of the name of the author if it appears thereon. Thus article 10 paragraph 3 of the Berne Copyright Convention establishes an international norm that works used under an exception to copyright, such as fair use or fair dealing, shall be properly credited. Web-Scraping The law on computer scraping is still under development, and varies from country to country. If a site operator makes it clear to users that scraping is unwelcome, it may be unlawful, depending on the rules of the country or countries involved. When a Terms of Service (TOS) document constitutes a binding contract or agreement that users must accept, and when such an agreement prohibits scraping or other automated access, that prohibition may be enforceable. in Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps Inc., 942 F.Supp.2d 962 (N.D. Cal. 2013) a US Federal district court held that sending a cease-and-desist letter and enacting an IP address block is sufficient notice of online trespassing, which a plaintiff can use to claim a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). However, that decision has been criticized by many, and was not a Circuit court or Supreme Court case. In the recent case of Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. ___ (2021) the US Supreme Court narrowed the application of the language in the CFAA making access that &quot;exceeds authorization&quot; criminal. In the case of HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp. The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether scraping a public website after a cease-and-desist letter has been sent constitutes a violation of the CFAA (this was the fact pattern in Craigslist v. 3Taps). The Court sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration. The Ninth Circuit Court reaffiremd its prior decision that when the website had been made publicly accessible, the CFAA did not apply, even in the face of a C&amp;D letter. This seems to overrule 3taps. Note that other means of prohibiting scraping may still be legally sound and enforceable. See &quot;hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn&quot; from the National Law Review. (This article and the decision it reports was brought to my attention via a comment by user Michael Seifert.) The article &quot;Web Scraping Watch: Cases Set to Clarify Application of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act&quot; discusses these cases in more detail, but does not incloude the latest ruling in the HiQ Labs case. Conclusion Unless the results of the &quot;rewrite&quot; done by the &quot;program&quot; are sufficiently original to be neither a quotation, a fair use, nor a derivative work, but a new work using the same ideas, they will need to qualify under fair use or some other exception to copyright (unless permission has been obtained). This may well require a proper attribution of the original article. In any case, such credit is considered to be ethically mandatory by many. The web-scraping done to obtain the initial data may or may not be lawful, depending on the contents of any TOS document, and whether the relevant laws make such a document enforceable, which is still not a fully settled point under the law, and which varies by country. Personally, I would think giving proepr credit much easier and safer than trying to justify not doing so, but that is not law, just my opnion.
In the EU, that's the general rule going forward, but there are two big exceptions I'm aware of. The general rule from Article 1(1) of the Copyright Term Directive: The rights of an author of a literary or artistic work within the meaning of Article 2 of the Berne Convention shall run for the life of the author and for 70 years after his death, irrespective of the date when the work is lawfully made available to the public. Note that this is in fact an extension on the Berne Convention, which requires minimum 50 years after death. Big exception #1: Moral rights. Article 9 specifically states the directive does not apply to moral rights. These vary by country, but in the EU, moral rights have the tendency of lasting forever, and most often includes the right to attribution and a right against action which to the author is "prejudicial to his honor or reputation" (see Berne Convention Article 6bis). Therefore, as a rule, you cannot do "whatever you want" with an image (though sale is generally OK &ndash; that's an economic right, not a moral right). Big exception #2: Pre-existing longer term. Article 10(1) leaves intact pre-existing longer term limits which Member States had: Where a term of protection which is longer than the corresponding term provided for by this Directive was already running in a Member State on 1 July 1995, this Directive shall not have the effect of shortening that term of protection in that Member State. This of course means, you can't actually 100% rely on this "70 years after death" rule in the EU until 1 July 20661. However, most EU countries did have 70 years anyways. That said there are some interesting exceptions. For example, France has mort pour la France which extends copyright an additional 30 years for those who died on active military service. This means for French citizens who died before 1 July 1995 on active military service, this directive does not apply, and they still have up to 100 years of post-mortem copyright protection. As an aside, Wikipedia has a fairly detailed list on country copyright lengths. Not 2065, because per Article 8, the rule is actually the January 1st after 70 years after death. Then you have to wait till July 1 to be sure the rule 100% applies, because for some reason, they made the Article 10(1) exception start in the middle of the year.
Provided you are in one of the 170+ countries signatory to the Berne Convention (the current 10 non-signatories are, exhaustively: Eritrea, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, San Marino, Iran, Iraq, Ethiopia, Somalia, and South Sudan), then copyright comes into existence at the moment a work is fixed in a tangible medium, not when it is published. The initial copyright owner is the author of the work. In cases of employment, the "author" might be the natural person who authored the work, or the corporate person who employed the natural author. To clarify your thinking about registration: copyright registration is a public record of authorship (or copyright ownership). Registration does not create a copyright, but is merely a recording of the copyright that was automatically created at the moment of original authorship. Depending on circumstances and jurisdiction, Alan might have a legitimate claim to copyright on his own work. However, he will be quite hard-pressed to find a convincing theory of law that allows him to publish the unpublished copyrighted work of other people without their permission. This leaves him either to admit defeat -- he cannot possibly own the copyright of his coworkers' code, so he cannot have legally reproduced it -- or else make the baldfaced lie that the code has no other authors other than Alan himself. For your company to disprove such a claim, you may employ sworn testimony of your coworkers, you may employ code analysis to show differing coding styles (suggestive of multiple authors), or you may show code backups or version control history showing the progressive authorship of the work over time by many people. (Sure, a Git history is possible to fake, but a realistic history with feature branches, "whoops, undid the typo in the last commit" messages, etc. would lend significant weight to your company being the original authors.)