Founder's Copyright?

[drndrw]

Hey guys. I just came across this at Creating Commons (http://creativecommons.org/projects/founderscopyright/) and I think it looks pretty interesting. Is it pretty much the same thing as a regular copyright, only that it's cheaper and doesn't last as long? Thanks.

[happysmileman]

Is it pretty much the same thing as a regular copyright, only that it's cheaper and doesn't last as long? Thanks.

Copyright's are free, and you don't need to register them, it's just automatically copyright when you make it, registering it doesn't affect it's status, just insures that it can be proven who made it first if someone rips you off

[drndrw]

I see. Well what I mean then I guess is that this Founder's Copyright thing is the same as a Registered Copyright only cheaper and lasts for a shorter period of time?

[~LoKe]

Why would I want a copyright that doesn't last as long?

[drndrw]

It's only a dollar. A regular copyright costs forty-five for the application I think.

[drndrw]

Sorry for the double post, but I do not really understand this. Is this an alternative to the U.S copyright, or something that can be done to a U.S copyright?

[SSTwinrova]

It's using the existing system of copyright in the US but voluntarily allowing it to expire before it otherwise would. The $1 is not a formal registration with the Copyright Office; that's basically just so that you can legally sell the copyright of your work to CC.

[drndrw]

So then you do need to register a copyright with the copyright office to do this Creative Commons thing?

[saulgoode]

This is certainly interesting and I appreciate the original post. Personally, I don't think that it is legally possible for anyone but the federal government to declare something to be "in the Public Domain". Not saying that's the way I want it to be, just that is how interpret current copyright law. It is good that the CC people are (hopefully) forcing the issue.

[Kvark]

So then you do need to register a copyright with the copyright office to do this Creative Commons thing?
You never have to register copyright. You automatically have copyright on everything you "publish". If you post for example a photo you took on the net you have copyright on that picture from the second you put it online to 70 years after you die. And, unless you attach a license that grants people permission to use the image it is assumed that it's "all rights reserved".

If someone else later uses the same photo without your permission and you decide to sue them then you must be able to prove that it really is your photo and you published it before they did. If you registered the photo before they put it on their site then you have proof that you where first. If you didn't register you'll just have to find some other proof.

The link you mentioned seems to be a way to sign a contract between you and Creative Commons that binds you to grant everyone a license to use a specific work you have copyright on after 14 or 28 years.

This could be useful to remove legal doubt about abandonware. Usually it is assumed the copyright holder is no longer interested in suing people for using old abandoned software without permission but nothing would stop them from suing if they actually wanted to. This contract looks like a binding time bomb to self destruct your ability to sue so people can use your work entirely without risk when it becomes so old you don't care anymore.

But most of all I think it is a stunt to show that it doesn't take a lifetime plus 70 years to regain the cost of producing a copyrighted work. They think 14 years of copyright as the original duration was is enough time to earn a profit.

[drndrw]

I see. So I understand this whole copyright thing now, and this Creative Commons thing is just that it will dismiss any doubt for a dollar for 14 years? I still don't know if you need to register with the U.S copyright office to use this though.