I'm *still* not taking sides, but since the list has decided to invest this much attention on this topic, it is probably worth doing our collective best to get the facts right for the record. Several otherwise interesting posts have contained statements that I believe to be inaccurate [I feel like factcheck.org :-) ]. I am not trying to nitpick, but as I will point out, the mistakes are directly relevant to our topic: On Oct 15, 2004, at 10:31 AM, John Hicks wrote: > To copyright a document, > you merely add "Copyright yyyy by (your name, organization etc...) This was true before 1978, but as I said in a previous post, current law grants copyright automatically upon creation with or without a copyright notice. You can read about this here: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc This is relevant to the present discussion, since (at least on my copy) the DeLorean Workshop Manuals don't seem to carry copyright statements. > and your material is protected for 99 years. Not nearly that simple. As I said, it depends on when the work was created as well as whether the author is an individual or a corporation (among other things). Details may be found here: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hlc > Copyrights are non- > renewable. Laws against plagerism protect copyrighted materials > from being "re-written" and re-copyrighted. I have never heard of a law against plagiarism. This is not a legal concept, it is a moral/ethical one. It refers to using someone else's ideas without proper credit. Read about it here: http://www.bobbyelliott.com/plagiarism.htm#illegal This, too, is more than just hairsplitting: It would be perfectly legal for someone on this list to take the DeLorean workshop manuals (or any other book), rewrite them in their own words, redraw the illustrations, and publish the resulting book as a new publication with a fresh and perfectly valid copyright. You just can't use the same words as the original. It would be polite to cite the original source, but not legally required. Again: copyright protects the *expression* of ideas, not the ideas themselves. > Logos require a "Registered" Trademark issued by the US Patent and > Trademark Office (www.uspto.com). This statement, too, is incorrect. You get trademark protection by *using* a mark, not by registering it. It is just much easier to defend if it is registered. Here's what the Trademark Office has to say about it: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm#Basic001 Looking up registrations at the Trademark Office is relevant, but doesn't in itself prove anything. As people keep emphasizing, it is litigation that decides intellectual property disputes. Period. [Please note that I don't mean to pick on John: most of his message was useful and informative. His comments on the realities of actually facing the prospect of defending your own work was especially important. You get a whole new perspective when your kid's college education depends on being able to defend your intellectual property.] While I am offending people, here's one more nit: On Oct 15, 2004, at 2:04 PM, Marc Levy wrote: > It is > difficult if not impossible to enforce a trademark > registration when the logo use predates the > registration. This isn't correct. As documented above, registration isn't required at all, much less prior to use. Indeed, proof of prior use is necessary for a full registration. It is true that if somebody *else* is actively using a mark at the time you attempt to register, you will likely not succeed. --Pete Lucas VIN #06703 To address comments privately to the moderating team, please address: moderators@xxxxxxxxxxx For more info on the list, tech articles, cars for sale see www.dmcnews.com To search the archives or view files, log in at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dmcnews Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dmcnews/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: dmcnews-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/