Skip to main content
Law

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

3
  • 2
    I must disagree with this answer somewhat -- while a copyright notice is not necessary for copyright to apply, U.S. law (at least) formally specifies a format for copyright notices, and use of such a notice does have legal implications (e.g., invalidating a defense of innocent infringement). The non-use of a notice is of course not non-application of copyright, but I argue that the absence of a notice is not a "valid notice" (insofar as a non-notice cannot be a notice) especially since 17 USC 401 does specify what a valid notice looks like.
    – apsillers
    Commented Sep 29, 2016 at 15:16
  • 2
    In other words, I don't think the license text here is asking for application of copyright); rather, it is applying the completely arbitrary requirement that derivatives include a copyright notice, just as it might apply any other arbitrary requirement, e.g., you must pay $5 for each copy you produce, or that derivatives may only be distributed within the state of California.
    – apsillers
    Commented Sep 29, 2016 at 15:24
  • 5
    I also disagree with this answer but for an additional reason. The purpose of requiring a copyright notice on derivative works is to give notice of who the actual author is and distance the original author from the derivative work. If you take their samples and make a song that is later at the center of a lawsuit (copyright, defamation, etc), the the copyright notice will hopefully steer people first to the derivative author and not the original author. That is the purpose of the clause in the copyright grant above.
    – David
    Commented Sep 29, 2016 at 20:22