[snozolli]

(c) 2021

Fun fact[1], © gives some additional protection worldwide, but in the US simply writing "Copyright 2021" gives you full protection. Meanwhile, "(c)" doesn't actually mean anything, doesn't gain you any worldwide protection like © does, and arguably invalidates the rest of "Copyright (c) 2021".

[1] that might not even be a fact anymore, as I learned it from an excellent book on copyright in the early 90s, when DOS made "(c)" ubiquitous.

[marcosdumay]

> Meanwhile, "(c)" doesn't actually mean anything, doesn't gain you any worldwide protection like © does

Law does not work like a compiler. It doesn't just throw "syntax error" when you use an incorrect representation.

[chungy]

"(c)" is sufficiently understood as the ASCII equivalent of "©" that I doubt the distinction will ever matter in court.

[snozolli]

© is an established, international symbol. "(c)" is gibberish.

If you put gibberish in the middle of a copyright notice, what does that do? What does "Copyright ><(((('> 2021" mean, legally speaking?

[MagicMoonlight]

It doesn't do anything because courts aren't retarded.

Like how I could point a gun at you and say

>Hand over the money or I'll gloobensloobenKILLfleubenYOU

and they wouldn't go "oh no there's a syntax error release this man immediately, it clearly wasn't a robbery"

[beej71]

In the US, putting the work in a tangible medium causes it to be fully protected. No "Copyright" required. [1]

And, in addition to circle-c, any of these are valid substitutes in the US for the symbol, according to [2] 2204.4(A):

• The letter c with a parenthesis over the top.

• The letter c with a parenthesis under the bottom.

• (c

• c)

• (c)

• The letter c with an unenclosed circle around it.

[1] https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork

[2] https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/

[feoren]

It's a good exercise to try to spot when you're accidentally spreading disinformation. We'd all be better off if we took a second before posting something we think we know, to ask: wait, is this a real thing or is this bullshit?

Here we have the idea that you can do the secret handshake incorrectly and thereby invalidate what most countries view as an automatic right (copyright usually doesn't even require any notice) and that adjudicating judges would shrug and say "Sorry, you used parentheses: my hands are tied. They're free to copy you", based on some random book from the 90s that was likely also full of bullshit. Does that sound right to you?

[snozolli]

It's a good exercise to try to spot when you're accidentally spreading disinformation.

You might want to ask yourself that very question.

based on some random book from the 90s that was likely also full of bullshit

Nah, it was an excellent book that I pored over.

I don't understand why you guys are so confident with zero basis for your position other than "I'm so used to seeing it that I assume it's legally valid".

As I explained already, "(c)" is gibberish. Go ask a lawyer if you should put meaningless gibberish in the middle of legal disclaimers.

[chungy]

"(c)" as an alternative to "©" predates your 1990s book by many decades. It even predates its common usage on computers (1960s or so), because typewriters have existed since the 19th century and "(c)" has been used since that century and the limitations typewriters imposed on typed documents.

No court will ever be confused by it, your copyright will never be invalidated by it.

[jjk166]

Nope, the comment you're replying to is correct. Look up the Berne Convention.

If your book was actually from the 90s, then it was out of date, as the US adopted the new copyright rules in 1989.