| From: | Jimmy Kaplowitz <jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Stefano Zacchiroli <leader(at)debian(dot)org>, spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: volunteer copyright assignment / licensing agreement |
| Date: | 2013-02-19 14:50:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20130219145034.GC2669@kaplowitz.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | spi-general |
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 02:11:57PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: volunteer copyright assignment / licensing agreement"):
> > You probably shouldn't list SPI as copyright holder when nobody's assigned
> > copyright to SPI.
>
> I think if the original author or copyright holder writes a copyright
> notice saying that SPI is the copyright holder, then that is a legally
> effective copyright assignment. At least in the UK[1].
In the US, "A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law,
is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the
transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such
owner's duly authorized agent." http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html
- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ian Jackson | 2013-02-19 18:36:59 | Re: volunteer copyright assignment / licensing agreement |
| Previous Message | Ian Jackson | 2013-02-19 14:14:13 | Re: volunteer copyright assignment / licensing agreement |