W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Option 3

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:35:33 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=kKJizEUmmo0kpXVewkjAnWF5RAGfejs_QqoUq@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org, PSIG <member-psig@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>> The fact that W3C claims a copyright on the document does add a whole
>> lot of explicit restrictions though, right? Specifically, it adds
>> basically limits all forms of copying except the ones afforded by fair
>> use.
>
> Since when is the presence of a copyright notice the only proof needed that
> some aspects of a work are actually copyrightable or copyrighted?

Ah, I think I see what you are saying. Yes, putting a copyright notice
is not proof that a work is copyright*able* or copyright*ed*.

However I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion as I think
it is undisputed that the documents discussed here are in fact
copyrightable as well as copyrighted by W3C.

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2011 22:37:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:23 UTC