On Mon, 04 May 2009 20:34:42 PDT, "Paul E. McKenney" said: > I am more than happy to let you search the case law on this one. Ya know, it's that same "I'll let your lawyers rediscover the stuff that mine already found" issue that's making this thread a pain. Case saying (C) *possibly* sufficient (ruling 'c-in-hexagon' was sufficient): Videotronics v. Bend Electronics, 586 F.Supp. 478, 481 (D. Nev. 1984) Case saying it might not be: Forry v. Neundorfer, 837 F.2d 259, 266 (6th Cir., 1988) Neundorfer says: "Videotronics, Inc. v. Bend Electronics, 586 F.Supp. 478 (D.Nev.1984) held that a letter "C" enclosed within a hexagon met the statutory requirements, but suggested in dicta that the symbol "(C)" might not be sufficient because parentheses, unlike a hexagon or a circle, would not completely enclose the "C". Id. at 481. However, if a "C" in a hexagon is sufficient, an argument exists that a "C" in parentheses is sufficient. Defendants here had actual notice of copyright. The trial of this action may provide a better record on which to finally decide whether the symbol "(C)" is sufficiently similar to a "C" in a circle to serve as notice of a copyright. Plaintiff is apparently now using the "C" in a circle. It may therefore be entitled to rely on 405(a)(2) even if the earlier symbol was not sufficient." Clear as mud, unless you have a more recent cite. :)
Attachment:
pgpBYtNuOywUg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
