TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:RE: Is your documentation copyrighted? From:MAGGIE SECARA <SECARAM -at- mainsaver -dot- com> To:TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>, "'Backer, Corinne'" <CBacker -at- glhec -dot- org> Date:Tue, 25 Jan 2000 13:53:32 -0800
Corinne asked:
> My situation:
>
> Questions:
> 1. In your opinion, do I need to worry about officially applying for
> copyrights? (I'm in the US)
>
In my informed but unofficial opinion, no, you don't.
> 2. If I don't go through the official gov't process, would Trish's method
> cover us in a dispute?
>
The mail it to yourself method is really only useful for unpublished work.
Anything that actually is printed and distributed, especially with a date on
it, shows that you published it and when.
> 3. Also, if I don't complete the official process, can I include copyright
> information in my manuals?
>
I do. The copyright exists all by itself. No reason not to make a note of
it with the date.
> We do have a lawyer on staff, but he's the CEO and I don't chat with him
> regularly. ;)
>
How about an email? :-) Even so, not every lawyer is well-versed in laws
involving copyright and intellectual property. If you express a concern to
your CEO, however, I'm sure he can find the right person to ask.
And that about plumbs the depth of my understanding on this topic <VBG>
MaggiRos
> Maggie Secara
> secaram -at- mainsaver -dot- com
>
> "All the world's a stage, Mick, but some of us are dreadfully
> under-rehearsed."
