|
A quick note about federal statutes: If it specifically outlines what is valid, you can imply that anything other than that is not valid. This is a general rule, and is sometimes not true. However, the Supreme Court has instituted the "plain meaning rule" in Gemsco v. Wailing which essentially says if the statute is clear and unambiguous, courts are not allowed to read into it what is not there. That being said, when a statute is ambiguous, trouble often arises. In this case though, the Copyright office has specifically mentioned what is an appropriate way to indicate copyright, and therefore your best bet is to follow their guidelines.
|