• Alix Pexton (18/18) Jul 15 2014 I've been researching what is necessary to transfer the copyright of the...
• Chris (3/23) Jul 15 2014 Does it make a difference a. where the author lives and b. where
• Alix Pexton (7/34) Jul 16 2014 As far as I can work out, its a no for both questions.
• =?UTF-8?B?U8O2bmtlIEx1ZHdpZw==?= (14/32) Jul 16 2014 As far as I know, this is the "Verwertungsrecht" (roughly the right to
• =?UTF-8?B?U8O2bmtlIEx1ZHdpZw==?= (5/43) Jul 16 2014 BTW, the shape of the logo itself isn't covered by either copyright, or
• Alix Pexton (8/12) Jul 16 2014 I don't think it would be safe to assume that, the logo didn't exist
• "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= (7/12) Jul 16 2014 The composed shape is covered by copyright if you don't arrive at
• Alix Pexton (20/33) Jul 16 2014 I haven't been able to find a licence that grants the appropriate
• Tofu Ninja (4/9) Jul 16 2014 This is probably one of those things that a lawyer should at lest
• Alix Pexton (16/16) Jul 18 2014 On a whim I did a bit of research into the copyright of derivative
• "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= (7/13) Jul 18 2014 WIPO has treaties, but they only affect local law on the
• Alix Pexton (6/11) Jul 19 2014 This is contrary to my understanding from what I have read (although my
• "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= (7/11) Jul 19 2014 Not sure why you want a citation. Fair use differs from country
• Alix Pexton (27/34) Jul 20 2014 I perhaps wasn't specific enough about what you had written that was
• "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= (6/8) Jul 20 2014 It doesn't matter. The Bern convention requires that you give
• Alix Pexton (10/15) Jul 19 2014 This is contrary to my understanding based on the reading I've done

Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:

I've been researching what is necessary to transfer the copyright of the 
D logo to Digital Mars, which is complicated by international issues.

It seems that the term "copyright" is often aliased to the German 
"Deutsches Urheberrecht" which is what we call the "moral rights of the 
author" in the UK.

This is something very different from copyright as it is inalienable 
from the originating creator and not something that can be transferred 
other that by inheritance.

This makes me wonder if previous attempts to negotiate a new copyright 
for the logo have gone unanswered because the terminology used has lost 
something in translation.

Do any of our native German D users know what the right terminology for 
the international concept of "copyright" is?

European copyright law is something that is currently being debated for 
unification and there is no actual legislation in place so any 
negotiations regarding the logo have to be conducted based on the common 
ground between German and U.S. laws.

A...

"Chris" <wendlec tcd.ie> writes:

On Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 11:12:57 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote:
 I've been researching what is necessary to transfer the 
 copyright of the D logo to Digital Mars, which is complicated 
 by international issues.

 It seems that the term "copyright" is often aliased to the 
 German "Deutsches Urheberrecht" which is what we call the 
 "moral rights of the author" in the UK.

 This is something very different from copyright as it is 
 inalienable from the originating creator and not something that 
 can be transferred other that by inheritance.

 This makes me wonder if previous attempts to negotiate a new 
 copyright for the logo have gone unanswered because the 
 terminology used has lost something in translation.

 Do any of our native German D users know what the right 
 terminology for the international concept of "copyright" is?

 European copyright law is something that is currently being 
 debated for unification and there is no actual legislation in 
 place so any negotiations regarding the logo have to be 
 conducted based on the common ground between German and U.S. 
 laws.

 A...

Does it make a difference a. where the author lives and b. where 
the logo is hosted?

Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:

On 15/07/2014 9:05 PM, Chris wrote:
 On Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 11:12:57 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote:
 I've been researching what is necessary to transfer the copyright of
 the D logo to Digital Mars, which is complicated by international issues.

 It seems that the term "copyright" is often aliased to the German
 "Deutsches Urheberrecht" which is what we call the "moral rights of
 the author" in the UK.

 This is something very different from copyright as it is inalienable
 from the originating creator and not something that can be transferred
 other that by inheritance.

 This makes me wonder if previous attempts to negotiate a new copyright
 for the logo have gone unanswered because the terminology used has
 lost something in translation.

 Do any of our native German D users know what the right terminology
 for the international concept of "copyright" is?

 European copyright law is something that is currently being debated
 for unification and there is no actual legislation in place so any
 negotiations regarding the logo have to be conducted based on the
 common ground between German and U.S. laws.

 A...

 Does it make a difference a. where the author lives and b. where the
 logo is hosted?

As far as I can work out, its a no for both questions.

My problem is that every time that I search for information on German 
copyright law I get information about Urheberrecht, often with a note 
saying that it should not be confused with copyright ><

This makes it hard to plan a polite approach.

A...

=?UTF-8?B?U8O2bmtlIEx1ZHdpZw==?= <sludwig rejectedsoftware.com> writes:

Am 15.07.2014 13:13, schrieb Alix Pexton:
 I've been researching what is necessary to transfer the copyright of the
 D logo to Digital Mars, which is complicated by international issues.

 It seems that the term "copyright" is often aliased to the German
 "Deutsches Urheberrecht" which is what we call the "moral rights of the
 author" in the UK.

 This is something very different from copyright as it is inalienable
 from the originating creator and not something that can be transferred
 other that by inheritance.

 This makes me wonder if previous attempts to negotiate a new copyright
 for the logo have gone unanswered because the terminology used has lost
 something in translation.

 Do any of our native German D users know what the right terminology for
 the international concept of "copyright" is?

 European copyright law is something that is currently being debated for
 unification and there is no actual legislation in place so any
 negotiations regarding the logo have to be conducted based on the common
 ground between German and U.S. laws.

 A...

As far as I know, this is the "Verwertungsrecht" (roughly the right to 
distribute) and the "Nutzungsrecht" (the right to use). Both can be 
granted to third parties using a proper license, or using a work contract.

I think what we need here isn't really a change of the ownership, but 
rather a proper license, either a liberal public license (e.g. some CC 
variant), or a personal license for Walter that grants him all rights to 
use, distribute and relicense the logo.

Having said that, I'm pretty sure that he can still transfer the 
"copyright" according to U.S. laws to another person. It's just that he 
could then possibly still sue the person according to German laws. So a 
license would probably be the best bet.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, so this is just my limited personal 
understanding of the matter.

=?UTF-8?B?U8O2bmtlIEx1ZHdpZw==?= <sludwig rejectedsoftware.com> writes:

Am 16.07.2014 10:12, schrieb Sönke Ludwig:
 Am 15.07.2014 13:13, schrieb Alix Pexton:
 I've been researching what is necessary to transfer the copyright of the
 D logo to Digital Mars, which is complicated by international issues.

 It seems that the term "copyright" is often aliased to the German
 "Deutsches Urheberrecht" which is what we call the "moral rights of the
 author" in the UK.

 This is something very different from copyright as it is inalienable
 from the originating creator and not something that can be transferred
 other that by inheritance.

 This makes me wonder if previous attempts to negotiate a new copyright
 for the logo have gone unanswered because the terminology used has lost
 something in translation.

 Do any of our native German D users know what the right terminology for
 the international concept of "copyright" is?

 European copyright law is something that is currently being debated for
 unification and there is no actual legislation in place so any
 negotiations regarding the logo have to be conducted based on the common
 ground between German and U.S. laws.

 A...

 As far as I know, this is the "Verwertungsrecht" (roughly the right to
 distribute) and the "Nutzungsrecht" (the right to use). Both can be
 granted to third parties using a proper license, or using a work contract.

 I think what we need here isn't really a change of the ownership, but
 rather a proper license, either a liberal public license (e.g. some CC
 variant), or a personal license for Walter that grants him all rights to
 use, distribute and relicense the logo.

 Having said that, I'm pretty sure that he can still transfer the
 "copyright" according to U.S. laws to another person. It's just that he
 could then possibly still sue the person according to German laws. So a
 license would probably be the best bet.

 Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, so this is just my limited personal
 understanding of the matter.

BTW, the shape of the logo itself isn't covered by either copyright, or 
"Urheberrecht", AFAIK. That's what trademarks are for. So a full redo of 
the logo should be unaffected by the original work. Of course it would 
still be fair to properly negotiate with the original author...

Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:

On 16/07/2014 9:17 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:

 BTW, the shape of the logo itself isn't covered by either copyright, or
 "Urheberrecht", AFAIK. That's what trademarks are for. So a full redo of
 the logo should be unaffected by the original work. Of course it would
 still be fair to properly negotiate with the original author...

I don't think it would be safe to assume that, the logo didn't exist 
before the graphic was created, so there was nothing to be used as a 
Trademark. By my reading of US Trademark law, the author would have 
grounds to appeal against any attempt to register it as long as they 
retained the copyright to the image on which the logo is based.

But Trademark protection is a few steps further along the path.

A...

"Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:

On Wednesday, 16 July 2014 at 08:16:56 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
 BTW, the shape of the logo itself isn't covered by either 
 copyright, or "Urheberrecht", AFAIK. That's what trademarks are 
 for. So a full redo of the logo should be unaffected by the 
 original work. Of course it would still be fair to properly 
 negotiate with the original author...

The composed shape is covered by copyright if you don't arrive at 
it independently... Which is unlikely for dlang.org. No different 
than a melody.

But all you need is to get written permission to modify it and 
use it for promoting commercial products related to D as covered 
by dlang.org without compensation. No reason to make it complex.

Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:

On 16/07/2014 9:12 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:

 As far as I know, this is the "Verwertungsrecht" (roughly the right to
 distribute) and the "Nutzungsrecht" (the right to use). Both can be
 granted to third parties using a proper license, or using a work contract.

Thanks, that could be useful ^^

 I think what we need here isn't really a change of the ownership, but
 rather a proper license, either a liberal public license (e.g. some CC
 variant), or a personal license for Walter that grants him all rights to
 use, distribute and relicense the logo.

I haven't been able to find a licence that grants the appropriate 
permissions because all the common public ones are about non-exclusive 
rights. If the graphic just had a CC license, other organisations would 
have just the same usage rights as Digital Mars. The graphic could have 
a more restrictive license and then Digital Mars could have additional 
rights granted separately, but that wouldn't really help. Crafting a new 
license is dangerous territory that I think is best avoided.

 Having said that, I'm pretty sure that he can still transfer the
 "copyright" according to U.S. laws to another person. It's just that he
 could then possibly still sue the person according to German laws. So a
 license would probably be the best bet.

That is my understanding too. There are no standard forms for this, it 
only requires a signed letter from the creator, and there isn't even a 
requirement for the transaction to be registered in any way (although it 
can). Because international law is so hand-wavy, such documents often 
include clauses that state what jurisdiction disputes are resolved under 
and even waivers for things like the right to sue, but to get things 
like that right, you need at least 2 lawyers.

 Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, so this is just my limited personal
 understanding of the matter.

I'm optimistic that this can all be resolved without having to get any 
lawyers involved, but it is a shame that the intersection of D-users and 
international-copyright-lawyers seems to have a cardinality of zero.

A...

"Tofu Ninja" <emmons0 purdue.edu> writes:

On Wednesday, 16 July 2014 at 14:54:26 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote:
 I'm optimistic that this can all be resolved without having to 
 get any lawyers involved, but it is a shame that the 
 intersection of D-users and international-copyright-lawyers 
 seems to have a cardinality of zero.

 A...

This is probably one of those things that a lawyer should at lest 
consulted on. Not saying people here are not capable, but this is 
one of those things that needs to be done right.

Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:

On a whim I did a bit of research into the copyright of derivative 
works, and to my surprise they are actually covered by an international 
treaty.

This may allow for the creation of a new graphic that is a derivative 
work of the current one but has a copyright held by Digital Mars.

There is no requirement for this new graphic to be used on dlang.org, 
but it would be possible to use and register it as a trademark and for 
images derived from it to be incorporated into other logos and 
emblazoned upon merchandise.

The only problem is that work required to produce the derivative must be 
non trivial and the changes copyrightable on their own (like drawing a 
moustache and goatee on the Mona Lisa (LHOOQ)).

I've produced dozens of derivative designs, but I'm not sure any of them 
meet this requirement. I think it is something to consider if the 
original designer remains un-contactable.

A...

"Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:

On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 07:43:32 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote:
 On a whim I did a bit of research into the copyright of 
 derivative works, and to my surprise they are actually covered 
 by an international treaty.

WIPO has treaties, but they only affect local law on the 
least-common-denominator principle. Countries are allowed to 
offer better copyright protection than the treaty imposes.

 This may allow for the creation of a new graphic that is a 
 derivative work of the current one but has a copyright held by 
 Digital Mars.

No. The copyright will be held by BOTH the original author and 
the author of the derivative work, it is joint ownership and you 
need the permission of two authors instead of one.

Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:

On 18/07/2014 4:03 PM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>" wrote:

 This may allow for the creation of a new graphic that is a derivative
 work of the current one but has a copyright held by Digital Mars.

 No. The copyright will be held by BOTH the original author and the
 author of the derivative work, it is joint ownership and you need the
 permission of two authors instead of one.

This is contrary to my understanding from what I have read (although my 
research has been biased towards the UK due to google knowing where I 
live), can you provide citations that support this?

A...

"Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:

On Saturday, 19 July 2014 at 11:43:54 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote:
 This is contrary to my understanding from what I have read 
 (although my research has been biased towards the UK due to 
 google knowing where I live), can you provide citations that 
 support this?

Not sure why you want a citation. Fair use differs from country 
to country. Mona Lisa is in the public domain, but photos of it 
that has been "enhanced" are not. Many novels and poems are in 
the public domain, but a book that contains a collection of 
novels is not, i.e. the selection of novels or poems constitutes 
a work protected by copyright.

Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:

On 19/07/2014 8:43 PM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>" wrote:
 Not sure why you want a citation. Fair use differs from country to
 country. Mona Lisa is in the public domain, but photos of it that has
 been "enhanced" are not. Many novels and poems are in the public domain,
 but a book that contains a collection of novels is not, i.e. the
 selection of novels or poems constitutes a work protected by copyright.

I perhaps wasn't specific enough about what you had written that was 
contrary to what I had read, specifically it was this...

 The copyright will be held by BOTH the original author and the author 
 of the derivative work

Fair use, public domain and collective works legislation have nothing to 
do with the case in hand.

I have found no cases where a derived work has copyright shared with the 
owner of the original. In the UK, US and France at least the protection 
follows the guidance of the Berne Convention whereby the derived work is 
the parts added to the original and its copyright belongs entirely to 
the deriving artist. By virtue of the fact that permission for the 
derivative to be made was granted by the original artist, the derived 
work can freely incorporate original but there is no sharing of 
copyright. The caveat to this is that the additions of the derived work 
have to be substantial and copyrightable on their own.

Many open licenses give permission to make derivatives with restrictions 
which may require attribution, transitive licensing or non-commercial 
use, but those are the terms of the license and are separate from the 
protection of copyright law.

As has been mentioned, the Berne convention is the minimum requirement 
of the signed up nations and it is entirely possible that some countries 
offer greater protection than others. I have not been able to discover 
if Germany is one of those countries or not.

As interesting as I found this investigation, it has turned out to be a 
dead end anyway. Almost entirely because of the definition of what a 
counts as a derivative work.

A...

"Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:

On Sunday, 20 July 2014 at 09:21:13 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote:
 others. I have not been able to discover if Germany is one of 
 those countries or not.

It doesn't matter. The Bern convention requires that you give 
foreign works the same protection as local works. So if you 
publish globally you have to follow ALL copyright legislation in 
all countries you are addressing. The origin does not matter, it 
is where you publish that matters.

Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:

On 18/07/2014 4:03 PM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>" wrote:
 This may allow for the creation of a new graphic that is a derivative
 work of the current one but has a copyright held by Digital Mars.

 No. The copyright will be held by BOTH the original author and the
 author of the derivative work, it is joint ownership and you need the
 permission of two authors instead of one.

This is contrary to my understanding based on the reading I've done 
(admittedly biased towards the UK as google knows where I live).

I think it is a moot point anyway. I don't think it is possible to 
produce a derivative work that would be recognisable as the logo and 
still original enough, and also the permission to make derivatives is 
probably worded too vaguely.

I'm not going to pursue the idea any further.

A...