All Rights Reserved - 王朝网络宽屏版

You've come to this page because you've asked questions similar to the following:

This is the Frequently Given Answer to such questions.

For all copyrighted works bar those that are first published in a handful of North American and South American countries, the assertion "All rights reserved." in a copyright declaration is nowadays just pointless chaff. Moreover, for copyrighted works that are first published outside of North America and South America, the phrase has always been pointless chaff.

The origin of the assertion

The assertion "All rights reserved." in copyright declarations was a requirement in those countries party to the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention of 1910. The reason for the requirement was item 3 of the convention which stated that the author of a copyrighted work had to explicitly assert his/her property right over the work in order to gain copyright protection in all countries signatory to the convention:

3rd.--The acknowledgement of a copyright obtained in one State, in conformity with its laws, shall produce its effects of full right, in all the other States, without the necessity of complying with any other formality, provided always there shall appear in the work a statement that indicates the reservation of the property right.

The assertion does not apply, and has never applied, outside of North and South America.

The Buenos Aires Convention only applies to copyrighted works produced in those countries that are actually party to it. Since it was a convention between only North and South American countries, it thus only applies to copyrighted works made in those North and South American countries.

It doesn't apply to copyrighted works first published in countries that aren't and never have been parties to the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention. Asserting "All rights reserved." on a copyrighted work first published in such countries is, and always has been, just noise.

For example: This web page is first published in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom isn't and never has been party to the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention, and an "All rights reserved." assertion on this page would be meaningless.

The Buenos Aires Copyright Convention is now largely superfluous.

All of the countries party to the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention of 1910 are now party to at least one of two other copyright treaties:

The Universal Copyright Convention of 1971

This is the weaker of the two. It requires (in order to afford complete copyright protection in those countries that have formal copyright registration and declaration procedures) a copyright declaration comprising (as per Article 3):

the ? symbol,

the copyright proprietor's name, and

the year of first publication.

The Berne Copyright Convention of 1971

This is the stronger of the two. It does not require copyright declarations at all, let alone declarations that also assert the reservation of property rights, in order for copyrighted works to be afforded copyright protection within other countries. Indeed, article 5 paragraph 2 expressly waives any such requirements:

Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which they are protected under this Convention, in countries of the Union other than the country of origin, the rights which their respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals, as well as the rights specially granted by this Convention.

The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality; [...]

Historical aside:

The Berne Copyright Convention has been around since 1886. The prime motivator for creation of the Universal Copyright Convention in 1952 was the United States. It had not signed the revised 1948 version of the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention. However, it could not sign the Berne Copyright Convention because at the time its copyright law required copyright declarations to be affixed to copyrighted works.

Eventually, in 1988, the United States amended 17 USC § 401 and 17 USC § 402 to make copyright declarations optional, instead of mandatory as they had theretofore been. (Be aware that the House Report commentary attached to the copy of the US Code hyperlinked here predates that amendment, and talks as if copyright declarations are mandatory.) It then became able to be party to the Berne Copyright Convention, which it did in 1989.

Article 17 of the Universal Copyright Convention expressly makes it subordinate to the Berne Copyright Convention.

In the case of copyrighted works first published in most American countries the coverage of these two treaties is complete, and the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention is now completely superfluous. Copyrighted works first published in the those American countries are afforded protection, in all of the other countries that are parties to the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention, under either the Berne Copyright Convention or the Universal Copyright Convention. Thus the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention's requirement for an "All rights reserved." assertion is now superfluous for copyrighted works first published in most American countries.

For example: This requirement is now, and has been since 1989, superfluous for copyrighted works first published in the United States, since (as can be confirmed by consulting the U.S. Copyright Office's list of copyright treaty agreements) the United States has an agreement under either the Berne Copyright Convention or the Universal Copyright Convention with all of the countries with which it has an agreement under the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention.

Other discussions of this aspect of copyright law (whilst taking a U.S.-centric view) all concur:

As noted in § 4.1, the Buenos Aires Convention is essentially dead today, and the "All Rights Reserved" notice no longer serves much useful purpose. It lives on mostly as a testament to inertia on the part of U.S. publishers.

-- part 3 of Terry Carroll's famous U.S. Copyright Law Q&A document

The U.S. did not sign the Buenos Aires Convention when it was revised in 1948, and all of its signatories are now also signatories to either or both of Berne Copyright or the UCC. The Buenos Aires Convention is now essentially a dead letter in international copyright law.

-- part 4 of Terry Carroll's famous U.S. Copyright Law Q&A document

A: No, this is not required. The "all rights reserved" copyright notice originated in the Buenos Aires Convention of 1910. The effect of this Convention in the United States has always been unclear. Since the United states joined the Berne Copyright Convention in 1989, there clearly is no need to include this statement.

-- a United States Library of Congress factsheet

The only cases where the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention has any remaining applicability, and thus where "All rights reserved." actually performs any useful function at all, are corner cases: the cases of works first published in countries that are only party to the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention and one of the other two treaties, and where protection is desired in a country that is only party to the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention and the other of the other two treaties.

For example: Nicaragua and Honduras are both parties to the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention, but don't share a better treaty in common. A copyrighted work first published in Nicaragua (party to the Universal Copyright Convention but not the Berne Copyright Convention) is only afforded protection in Honduras (party to the Berne Copyright Convention but not the Universal Copyright Convention) under the terms of the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention, and so requires an "All rights reserved." assertion.

Aside:

Note that the copyrighted work is afforded protection in other countries party to the Universal Copyright Convention, such as the Dominican Republic and the United States, for example, but only under the terms of that convention. So, for copyrighted works first published in Nicaragua, whilst "All rights reserved." is necessary for gaining protection in Honduras, a copyright declaration is necessary for gaining protection in the United States, the Dominican Republic, and other Universal Copyright Convention countries. Copyrighted works first published in Nicaragua must have the entire boilerplate if they are to be afforded protection in every other country that they can be afforded protection.

Contrast this with the converse case. For copyrighted works first published in the United States, only a copyright declaration is necessary for gaining protection in Nicaragua, and nothing at all is necessary for gaining protection in Honduras.

翻译上面的文字：

您来到这个网页，是因为您问的问题类似如下：

这里是常见的鉴于这些问题的解答。

起源的说法

第三.--承认版权获得在一个国家，在符合其法律，须出示其影响的充分权利，在所有其他国家，但必须遵守任何其他手续，应提供总是出现在工作一份声明，表示要保留产权。

主张不适用，也从未申请外，北美和南美。

布宜诺斯艾利斯公约只适用于受版权保护的作品在这些国家，实际上是该条约的缔约国。因为它是唯一的公约之间的北美和南美国家，因此，它仅适用于受版权保护的作品在这些北美和南美国家。

布宜诺斯艾利斯版权公约，现在基本上是多余的。

所有国家加入了布宜诺斯艾利斯版权公约1910年现在是至少有一个其他两个版权条约：

世界版权公约的1971年

的？符号，

著作权所有人的姓名，

今年首次发表。

伯尔尼版权公约的1971年

作者享有，就为他们的作品受到保护，本公约规定，在联盟国家以外的国家的原产地，该权利各自法律现在或可能授予以下的国民，以及权利特别是本公约所授予的。

享有和行使这些权利不应受任何手续; [...]

历史撤销：

第17条世界版权公约明文使它服从伯尔尼版权公约。

例如：这个要求，现在，已自1989年以来，多余的版权作品首次发表在美国，因为（如可通过咨询美国版权办公室的名单版权条约协定）美国达成了一项协议下无论是伯尔尼版权公约或世界版权公约的所有国家与它有一个协议，根据协议布宜诺斯艾利斯版权公约。

其他讨论这方面的版权法（同时以美国为中心的观点）都同意：

-第3部分特里卡罗尔的著名的美国版权法问答文件

美国没有签署公约的布宜诺斯艾利斯进行了修订时，在1948年，所有签署国现在还签署一方或双方伯尔尼版权或UCC的。布宜诺斯艾利斯公约现在基本上是一纸空文，在国际版权法保护。

-第4部分特里卡罗尔的著名的美国版权法问答文件

-美国国会图书馆的参数

最后：