How to copyright a site

what? how? where? :)

[robotsdobetter]

where would I go to get a ™ or sm and how much will it cost to get a site copyrighted? I have one site that is copyrighted, but it was copyrighted before I got it, so how would I renew it at (Price to please) or do I have to.

What is a web site consider, see below.

Literary Works?
Visual Arts?
Performing Arts?
Sound Recordings?
Serials/Periodicals?

[jdMorgan]

Under U.S. law:

To copyright a site, write the pages and upload them to a Web-accessible server. You're done. (Sites are copyrighted by default.)

To obtain a registered copyright, which entitles you to wider awards if your copyright is violated, see [loc.gov...]

According to that page, sites would be treated like computer programs, and would fall under the literary works heading. However, if your site is periodically updated with large amounts of new content (like a periodical magazine), then you might want to copright it as a serial/periodical. You might want to copyright images, sound, and other multimedia separately, too.

For a small site, keep it simple. For a large corporate site, it might be more appropriate to carefully categorize each piece (and to hire a specialist or attorney to handle it).

The laws of other countries are different, but many are working to implement laws based on the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties.

Jim

[robotsdobetter]

Thanks JD for the help.

[Leosghost]

You can also try in case of future litigation...

Burn site to cd ..
place in jewel box .
get jewel box sealed by notary ....
place jewel box in envelope ..
send by registered mail to your bank manager with instructions to place in vault ..

..ask him to sign and date envelope first

( do this to with two different banks if your area has high bank heist rate! ).....

This is proof for most legal systems ....

Maybe the wayback machine is or will be taken as proof one day ...?

[mgream]

Your copyright protection is worldwide, initially through the Berne Convention, but now as a result of WTO TRIPS Agreement (which requires countries to confirm to Berne). You can be confident that despite copyright being implemented in individual countries by national laws that do differ, the protection is largely equivalent for most common circumstances, notably your cases. The major problem is enforcement: however you can effectively use DMCA take down notices to explunge infringing content from search engines, which substantially reduces the effectiveness of the infringers use of your content anyway.

Your protection of trade and service marks is a little different: you can use TM or SM to denote aspects that you considered trademarks as a warning, and in countries that have unfair competition (UK passing off) laws, you can take action against misrepresentation of your unregistered trade marks and trade dress (in such case before a court the use of the TM or SM helps prove that the infringer wasn't acting innocently), but this is highly variable in different countries of the world. What is not highly variable is registered trademark protection (and you can use a circle-R/circle-S): you need to file a registration, at least with the USPTO and then additional processes (e.g. Madrid System) if you want worldwide protection. Once you get to these steps, you really do need professional representation, and it is costly (world wide trademark protection easily costs 20-50K; US only trademark protection likely no more than 2-5K -- rough estimates).

You should read some of the FAQ's at the US Copyright Office and USPTO and produced elsewhere (e.g. EU IPR help desk). These will give you basic guidance. If you need something more specialised and/or you have serious value to protect: then you do need to seek professional advice. I think this is the general rule with any material on the internet: it usually works for the basic orientation and simple cases, but to really ensure there are no problems, loopholes or issues, professional advice is required.

[rogerd]

RDB, in your original post you mention using TM or SM. The use of trademarks and servicemarks is limited to items like brand names, slogans, logos, etc. These may be applicable to your site in addition to copyrights, which apply to your content. If you have a unique name, brand, logo, etc. associated with your site, you can begin by marking it with the "TM" or "SM" (the latter is used for services rather than tangible products, although it seems like even service providers often use TM). There's no fee or registration at that point. For the most secure protection, though, you can register your mark with the USPTO. You can do the forms yourself, but because they must define specific categories in which you use the mark, professional help makes things go more smoothly. The filing fee is about $350, and a lawyer will cost from a few hundred dollars (low-end, web-based) on up.

If your budget is limited but you are interested in protecting your name, start by putting the TM on it; also, do a dated screen print to establish first commercial use. Then, if things go well, you can take the next step of registering it.

[bruhaha]

. . . send by registered mail to your bank manager. . . .

This sounds a lot like the long-heard recommendation that you send yourself a copy of your creation (song, etc) by registered mail, but leave it unopened.

Unfortunately, the claims about this "poor man's copyright" are a myth: it is not recognized by courts as providing legal protection analogous to registering the work.

Thus I doubt the CD-burning method listed would do one very much good.

But that does raise a question. If registering a copyright to a song includes sending a copy of the song (to the Copyright Office), how exactly does one go about registering the contents of a web site, esp. if it changes with some regularity? What I've seen of copyright law and registration forms does not seem to fit such a pattern of writing very well.

[mgream]

bruhaha: I can't answer your question, but just a note of interest that in 2003 the UK passed a new Legal Deposit regulations regarding publications published in the UK (effectively this is so that the major libraries have at least one copy of all works). The new law applies to electronic publications and web sites (I have had direct communication with the British Library over this who were in the process of appointing someone to "figure out how it should work", and in the person I spoke to gave a cursory glance at my website and say that it looks like it comes without the scope of the regulations).

[rogerd]

copyright law and registration forms does not seem to fit such a pattern of writing very well

I agree, bruhaha. A good example are articles at sites like MSNBC - these stories are under almost constant revision, it seems. The article title may not change, but on breaking or evolving stories the content is updated often. I'm sure there are versioning schemes that could keep a complete record of the various iterations, but it certainly makes the copyright issue kind of messy.

[Leosghost]

mgream

...we have had a law like this law in France since Napoleon ..since the internet it was made to apply to websites and even emails and comments posted on forums ..

( BTW I'm sure the plural of forums is ...Forii.... ) ....just remembered that one ..

( Sorry about the nav' bar Brett...)...

Returning to subject ..

this particular law is meant to make sure that should you post /publish something that the "powers that be" don't like

....they can either stop you cold ....

..by denying permission to print /publish etc....
or they let you go ahead and then prosecute for non compliance with the notification proceedure ....

Or just knock on yer door in the middle of the night cos they dont like what yer sed....

But it's certainly not there to protect your copyright .

Bruhaha.....

I know what your saying is totally true ..but it has been known to work if the copier has not similar proof .....depends on the judge's attitude ...

And it's better than having to talk to a copyright lawyer ...( bit like paying to be s*d*mised against your will ) ....

[robotsdobetter]

It seems like more work then it's worth, but I got to do it now before someone take my articles or other content. Thanks for all the help, all one more thing that copyright site really isn't much help.

[georgeek]

( BTW I'm sure the plural of forums is ...Forii.... ) ....just remembered that one ..

Sounds good :) but fora is correct. Like datum - data, stadium - stadia etc., etc.

[Leosghost]

Yeah I know for "fora" ...Came back when I realised what I'd said and the damn owner edit button was out to lunch ....just trying to make me look dumb I suppose ..as If I needed the help...!