Protecting a copyright

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? Colorado

What does a copyright owner have to do to protect their copyright and what happens if they don't. Trademark law requires the owner of a trademark to actively "protect" the trademark. Is there anything in copywight law with the same requirement or are there case histories requiring it?

For example. Company A owns a copyright on an item. When these items show up on the ebay website this company shuts down the auction under the ebay VeRO program.

People file a counternotice on this take down. The company allows the counternotice to expire which allows the individual to relist that item but takes no other action.

But the next week this company shuts down the same item by another seller.

It's a cycle of shutdowns, counternotices, counternotices expiring, and no action taken. It sounds to me like they really aren't protecting their copyright.

If they aren't protecting their copyright can they be in danger of losing it? Inquiring minds want to know.

Seems to me that this sort of intentional non-action constitutes misrepresentation as well as outrageous conduct.

And yes I've looked at the tabberone website since this concerned eBay and VeRO but I couldn't find an answer there.undefined

Am not a lawyer but from what i have read in the copyright site of the government there is no obligation to register a copyright , it is automatic at the moment of creation, but if it is not registered, you can get in unnecesary troubles, any way, i have the impression the problem you mention belongs more to a trademark than to a copyright, why don`t you visit the copyright website of the government?, they explain all these in detail, good luck.

What does a copyright owner have to do to protect their copyright and what happens if they don't.

Click to expand...

A copyright owner does not have to do anything to protect their rights -- unlike trademarks, copyrights (and patents) are not "use it or lose it."

If a copyright owner does not enforce his rights, then he may lose the right to enforce his rights against a particular infringer. For example, if I own a copyright, and person A is infringing, and I find out about it and do nothing, I may be barred from later enforcing my rights against A in this particular case. This is called "laches" -- basically, it is unfair to the otehr person to let them "run up" damages before suing them, or allowing them to "rely" on your NOT suing them to build their own business, or whatnot. The typical period is 3-5 years -- if you wait that long, then the courts may not let you enforce your rights.

However, this is really limited. First of all, the loss of right to sue is not automatical, like a statute of limitation -- it is a "fairness" decision, and a court could rule that it would not be "fair" to not allow me to sue A, no matter how long it has been. Further, if, for example, both A and B are infringing, I can ignore A, and eventually lose my rights to sue A, but I can sue the hell out of B. My loss of rights against A has nothing to do with B. If A is infringing, and I don't sue and eventually lose my right to sue, then B starts infringing (either in the same way or in a different way), I can immediately sue B.

It's a cycle of shutdowns, counternotices, counternotices expiring, and no action taken. It sounds to me like they really aren't protecting their copyright.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? They ARE protecting their copyright -- just not doing it in a "traditional" way by suing in court. It may be that the damages they are suffering may not justify a court battle -- but contacting eBay is free, and who knows, if they keep shutting people down, maybe eventually people will stop selling their stuff. It may not be the most efficient way to protect a copyright, but it is a method nonetheless.

If they aren't protecting their copyright can they be in danger of losing it?

Click to expand...

No. The only way for a copyright to "go away" is for it to expire or for the copyright owner to EXPLICITLY hand the work over to the public domain.

Seems to me that this sort of intentional non-action constitutes misrepresentation as well as outrageous conduct.

Click to expand...

Why misrepresentation? If they have a copyright, they can enforce it, or not, however they want. This type of enforcement is only outrageous to those who are profiting from their copyright without permission.