2012/11/10 john knightley <john.knightley_at_gmail.com>:
> Whilst using the PUA is far from perfect at the end of the day it is
> better than the alternative of not using the PUA.
>
> Regards
> John
>
> On 10 Nov 2012 17:37, "William_J_G Overington" <wjgo_10009_at_btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday 8 November 2012, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p_at_wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>
>> > 2012/11/8 William_J_G Overington> <wjgo_10009_at_btinternet.com>:
>> > > However, an encoding using a Private Use Area encoding has great
>> > > problems in being implemented as a widespread system.
>>
>> > Wrong, this is what has been made during centuries if not millenium !
>>
>> Well, the point that I am trying to make is that a new glyph that is used
>> in an electronic communication system that uses the ISO/IEC 10646 character
>> encoding system with the new glyph being encoded using a Private Use Area
>> code point does, of necessity, have a code point associated with the glyph.
>> In a handwritten or printed document, communication uses the glyph alone, so
>> there is not the same problem existing.
>>
>>
>> > This is still true today: even if you define new glyphs, and as long as
>> > you do not explicitly give permission to others to reused those glyphs or
>> > variant of them, these glyphs remain private in terms of copyright
>> > restrictions on their designs.
>>
>> Yes, you are right. I do hope that that is not going to be a problem over
>> people trying out the glyphs that I have devised. I need to think about
>> that. Feedback from readers on this issue is invited please.
>>
>>
>> > Making your publication "public" by depositing to a national library is
>> > not a situation where you grant an open licence to others : the legal
>> > deposit made at a national library is instead used as a proof of your date
>> > of work to claim your copyright on this work.
>>
>> Well, in the United Kingdom, copyright in a work exists from when the work
>> is put into permanent form.
>>
>> The reason that I use the voluntary deposit facility of the British
>> Library is so that there is a permanent archived record of what I produce
>> for as long as the British Library exists.
>>
>> As I understand it, the deposit at the British Library is because the work
>> has been published, or is on the point of being published and actually
>> becomes published: the depositing at the British Library is not the
>> publishing action.
This is true, but anyway the act of publishing something is not by
itself a proof of authorship and owning of copyrights, you need a
formal registration, and this is the purpose of legal deposit (In UK
may be, but certainly in France too, where it is required before
someone can claim copyright on a published work).
The Internet has changed a bit the sotuation, but theorically in
France at least, websites must have an information info or link to a
page expliaining the rights and copyrights attached, with the legal
names and points of contact of the publisher which will act on behalf
of the authors to reply to legal requests. in some countries, web
hosting companies must also be able to legally act on behalf of
publishers of websites (and some laws require maintining legal logs to
help identifying the publishers of websites or any controbutor to a
website).
Web sites are usually not given a copy to a legal deposit library (but
in some countries website publishers can do that if they wish, using
electronic copies of their documents; this legal deposit is not
necessarily free, and not always performed at a national public
library, there may be legally approved trusted proxies, such as
notarial offices, or national IP agencies). The main purpose of such
deposit is to register a claim of copyright, at a proven date (to
protect the work from competitive claims that would come later).
The mere act of publishing something is generally not enough when
copyright claims start being disputed in justice (because the
publication act could have been illegal, and this illegal act not
discovered before long by their legitime owners, or because the owners
won't be able to find who perfomed the illegal publication) : this is
even harder to prove when the first publication was made on the
Internet only, as documents that are not electronically signed.
Received on Sat Nov 10 2012 - 13:17:16 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Nov 10 2012 - 13:17:18 CST