Ted Harding Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk sed:
<much snipping, I dislike include wars>
You may well have a case, since there is implicit copyright on any "original work". However, the fact that you made it available without explicit restriction on your website could (but by no means necessarily) weaken your claim: basically, naively but unwisely, you left it up for grabs.
No, he didn't. Under the Berne convention and assorted other laws, the copyright is indeed implicit; but copyright has a default, which is that all rights that he did not explicitly grant are reserved. So legally, the face he did not put an explicit copyright and/or (non) permission notice on it does not weaken his claim at all.
Copyright normally extends also to "electronic" duplication these days. For the legal aspects of this, you need proper advice, however, since it's a can of worms.
No, it isn't. It's very simple and there is a lot of case law in the area.
Certainly the action was cheeky and "sharp". One possibility you might consider is approaching these people with the observation that they have made commercial use for profit (and the deed is already done so you can't have it pulled it back) without permission and owe you something, which you could certainly have asked for if they had approached you beforehand, So you could invite them to donate you a specified sum for this particular instance of usage ... and, at the same time, make it clear that this would not entitle them to further usage in future without your permission. Even so, it might be useful to get better advice beforehand than I can give you!
I think this is a much better option than legal action. Although Martyn would certainly win any legal action that came up, it would be costly and time consuming. It would be in both Martyn's and .net's interest to settle this amicably and outside of the courts.
(I'd suggest employing Zeta Jones and Partners as consultants, but I doubt you could afford their fee).
The best of luck, Ted.
lewis