"Copy Right + CC" on a book! What does it mean?

[SidebySide]

I've a book which has released under:

Copyright © 2000-2010
All rights reserved.
This book is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Computer instructions may be extracted from the book under the MIT License.
1. Here, Copy Right & Creative Commons License are gathered both on one book! what does it means?
2. I'm gonna to translate the book. Can I do it without publisher/author permission?
3. What does [2000-2010] mean In this phrase: Copyright © 2000-2010? After 2010, does the book get rid of the "copy right"?
4. When CC comes alone, without any suffix as in cc-by or cc-sa, like above book which hints "The book is licensed under a Creative Commons License", what does it means?

[SidebySide]

Nobody knows?


http://andrewharvey4.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/versioncontralwithsubversioncopyrightpage-edit.png

[SidebySide]

And here(see below pic) is another book with odd licenes:

http://myup.ir/images/53684515187001317941.png


The book is under Copy-Righths & it's permitted for distributing, translating and other activity!

how these vice versa licenses can come together?

[Dry Lips]

As far as I can see from the book page you scanned in, this would be a
"Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)" license. See the url in the red box
at the bottom of the page.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/


You are free:




to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to Remix — to adapt the work
to make commercial use of the work


3. What does [2000-2010] mean In this phrase: Copyright © 2000-2010? After 2010, does the book get rid of the "copy right"?
No. The copyright holders still retain the rights to their book. However, they have
chosen to publish it under a liberal CC license, which is good news for you.


2. I'm gonna to translate the book. Can I do it without publisher/author permission?I think so... But letting the authors know your intention doesn't hurt.
I'm quoting from the legal code of the license this was published under:


3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:


to reproduce the Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more Collective Works, and to reproduce the Work as incorporated in the Collective Works;
to create and reproduce Derivative Works;

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode

However, If I were you I would read the fine print in detail before doing this!
Good luck!

[bash]

CC is just a way to license your copyright to others and/or state how others may reuse works you holds the rights to.

So who ever holds the copyrights of these books, presumably the author(s), first claim and state their copyright and then explain, by stating the CC license, how their works can be used and reused by others.

Edit: Oh and copyright is not a license per-se. It just states that you holds the rights to a work and can decide how to make it reusable, among others things. So even though GPL is a copyleft license, because of the ideals it was founded on and that it tries to spread, the person(s) licensing the work as GPL are still it's copyright holders.

[forrestcupp]

As for your first example, you'll have to look in Appendix E of the book at their copy of the license to see which version they're using.


CC is just a way to license your copyright to others and/or state how others may reuse works you holds the rights to.

So who ever holds the copyrights of these books, presumably the author(s), first claim and state their copyright and then explain, by stating the CC license, how their works can be used and reused by others.

Edit: Oh and copyright is not a license per-se. It just states that you holds the rights to a work and can decide how to make it reusable, among others things. So even though GPL is a copyleft license, because of the ideals it was founded on and that tries to spread, the person(s) licensing the work as GPL are still it's copyright holders.
That's a good way to put it. When you write something, you automatically hold the copyright. CC is not a copyright, but a license for how others are allowed to use it. Copyright and license are two different things.

[SidebySide]

GPL is a copyleft license, because of the ideals it was founded on and that it tries to spread, the person(s) licensing the work as GPL are still it's copyright holders.
I didn't get this phrase!


No. (after 2000-2010) The copyright holders still retain the rights to their book.
so, why do they denote it for a special period as in "Copyright 2000-2010".


When you write something, you automatically hold the copyright.Really?

[forrestcupp]

Really?

It's true in the U.S.


It wasn't always like that, but I think it was sometime in the 90's that it changed. Your written works are automatically copyrighted; you just have to figure out ways to be able to prove that you hold the copyright. Registering your copyright is the most fail-proof way, but there are other creative things you can do to prove you own the copyright.

[thatguruguy]

Really?

Really. As soon as something is put into a "tangible medium". Linky (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000102----000-.html).

[thatguruguy]

so, why do they denote it for a special period as in "Copyright 2000-2010".


The dates indicate when then start date of the copyright begins. Presumably, since the book you're referring to is a second edition, the original came out in 2000, and the second edition came out in 2010. The copyright goes to all of the published materials generated from 2000 through 2010, and the clock starts ticking in 2010.

Incidentally, "copyright" is one word.

[F.G.]

i just thought that i would chuck in my two cents.

so, my understanding is that copyright typically belongs automatically to the creator (although i think in some situations if someone is part of a team, or works for a company prior the copyright can belong to someone else, although even then usually is still belongs to the creator). this extends into all creative media, including books, paintings and program code (NB copyright and patents are completely different).

internationally most countries have agreed to the Berne convention (first time in about 1882, i think, and only angola and a couple of others have still not signed it (incidentally the US signed pretty late, sometime in the 1980's)), where by they agree to uphold the copyright of the artists belonging to member countries, but in accordance with their own, local, copyright laws.

the creative commons licence requires copyright laws to be in place in order to take effect, as it is a copyright licence. IP law similarly protects, and enables FOSS with GNU licences, because without it control of FOSS projects would be lost, and therefore the benefit of code sharing would be lost.

so, all in all copyright always exists if your in a member state of the berne convention. but it is in accordance with local laws. meaning that there is stuff that is still in copyright in the UK, which is not in copyright in the US, regardless of the provenance of the piece of work in question.

Which bring up a whole other question, why does this make sense, if a piece of work made in france, by a dutch guy can be in copyright in the UK and not in the US? (which, with the internet is becoming more important particularly re: data mining).

anyway, i know i've reiterated what other people have said and probably bored anyone who is still reading, but I understand that the Creative Commons licence is put in place to coherently and legally address this.

ps. this is my understanding, and may be (probably is) wrong. sorry again, for the lengthy and boring post.

[ssam]

all books, software and various other things a copyrighted. nobody can duplicate them without either explicit permission of the copyright holder, or because they have a license that says that can under certain conditions.

the "Copyright © 2000-2010" is to make it clear when the work was made and who ones it. even if you don't put that on something you create you are still the copyright holder, and no one can reproduce it.

CC, or GPL is a license that allows people to make further copies, as long as they abide by some conditions, with out them having to contact the copyright holder for permission.

have a look at
https://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=COPYING
for another example.

There is quite a lot of software that does not have a clear copyright statement or license. for example scripts people put on forums. even though the author made have intended that anyone can use them a distro would not legally be able to distribute them.