Basskisser,

So when AP, CNN, Wall Street Journal say their material has a copyright,
they are just teasing us.

Since the written works seen on most news sites have also been printed in a
newspaper and not exclusively on their web site I don't believe the section
of the code you are citing is appropriate to the news web sites. The
experts I have read believe the news web cites would fall under the section
of the code I cited.. Since every interpretation I have found agrees with
my interpretation, I will have to assume they are correct, and you are not.





"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Comcast News" wrote in message
news:6E5Sc.281509$XM6.254525@attbi_s53...
I am not certain what your source meant, but when you go to the US
government site concerning copyrights (
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp) they state:
"HOW TO SECURE A COPYRIGHT
Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation
The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently
misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the
Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following Note.)
There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See
"Copyright Registration."

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work
is
"created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time.
"Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually
perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such
as
books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm.
"Phonorecords" are material objects embodying fixations of sounds
(excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such
as
cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the "work") can
be
fixed in sheet music (" copies") or in phonograph disks ("
phonorecords"),
or both.

If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that
is
fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that
date."

end of quote.

It seems your source either disagrees with the US Copyright Office or
your
cite was in reference to another matter, possible republishing someone
Usenet post when responding to a Usenet post.

That IS the law, direct from the Copyright Act. Please go read Section
411(a) of the Copyright Act, and get back to me.