[From my Webnote series]
Related:
Okay, maybe linguistically it has become verbicized, even though this practice gives rise to false implications (such as hypocrisy: Kinsella, if you don’t believe in copyright, why did you copyright your book?1 Answer: I don’t, as much as possible (see the CC-BY or CC0 notices on my websites and most publications), nor was Against Intellectual Property “copyrighted” by the Mises Institute [nor would it by hypocritical if it were]).2
From a Grok conversation:
Prompt: Are you sure it’s correct to use copyright as a verb as you did? It’s not as if the JB “is copyrighted” by the translator or publisher, like an invention is patented because the inventor filed a patent application. Don’t such works automatically receive copyright protection?
Answer:
Yes, you’re correct on the core point: under modern U.S. copyright law (post-1976 Copyright Act, effective 1978, and aligned with the Berne Convention since 1989), copyright protection arises automatically upon the creation and fixation of an original work in a tangible medium—no formal registration, notice, or application is required for the copyright to exist. The work is simply protected by copyright from the moment it’s fixed (e.g., written down, recorded). Registration with the U.S. Copyright Office is optional but provides benefits like the ability to sue for infringement and claim statutory damages.
… As for using “copyright” as a verb (e.g., “is copyrighted” or “copyrighted works”): This is standard, accepted English usage in legal and everyday contexts, even if it’s not a pure verb like “patent” (which implies an active filing process). Dictionaries like Merriam-Webster define “copyright” as both a noun and verb, with “copyrighted” meaning “secured by copyright” or “protected under copyright law.” It’s a shorthand for describing the status of a work under protection, regardless of whether that protection was automatic or notice-based. From an anti-IP standpoint, this linguistic shift subtly reinforces the myth of copyright as a “property” grant rather than a state-imposed monopoly that arises without explicit action, distorting natural rights in information.
… Yes, using “copyright” as a verb (e.g., “to copyright a work” or “the material is copyrighted”) is indeed standard, accepted, and correct in English, particularly in legal, publishing, and everyday contexts. This usage has been documented in major dictionaries for over two centuries.
… If your concern stems from an anti-IP perspective—where terms like “copyrighted” might imply a more active, legitimate “property” claim than the automatic monopoly it represents—that’s a valid philosophical critique, but it doesn’t make the verb form linguistically incorrect. It’s embedded in how the language has evolved around the concept.
- KOL470 | Intellectual Property & Rights: Ayn Rand Fan Club 92 with Scott Schiff (“This is my book. It came out two years ago. This has all my arguments in it. Legal Foundations. You said it’s not copyrighted. Well, it’s copyrighted because all copyright is automatic, but I have a Creative Commons Zero license on there. So, I’ve made it public domain as much as the law will allow me to make it. Yeah, I’ve had three or four smartasses say things like, “This is you, there’s so many bad arguments for IP.” They’ll say, “Oh, well, Kinsella.” First, I get the hypocrisy argument. “Oh, you’re a practicing patent lawyer, so you’re a hypocrite.” I’m like, well, so basically, the only people you want to complain about IP law are people who don’t know anything about it?”); Let’s Make Copyright Opt-OUT; Copyright is very sticky!; Are anti-IP patent attorneys hypocrites?; “Oh yeah? How would like it if I copy and publish your book under my name?!”: On IP Hypocrisy and Calling the Smartasses’ Bluffs; “The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism” (Mises Daily 2010) (from Darcy: “Communism and opposition to property rights is hardly a new idea.
The Mises Institute copyrights its material, and so it is itself a proponent of IP demonstrated in action.”); Authors: Don’t Make the Buddy Holly Mistake (from Stranger: “a CC license is still a copyright – the Mises Institute will use force on those who copy their books without making a reference to the Mises Institute. … The Mises Institute did not have to include an attribution clause in its copyright notice.”); Mises Institute: Do As They Say, Not As They Do? (Robert Wenzel). [↩]
- See the copyright page of the PDF, and also the note on the page for Against Intellectual Property:
N.b.: The copyright notice printed on this edition of my work is factually and legally incorrect: the copyright is held by me, not by the Mises Institute. And the copyright is 2001, the year the article was first published, not 2008. To be clear, and as indicated already in the footer to my Stephankinsella.com website, which hosts this work:
To the extent possible under law, N. Stephan Kinsella has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to “Against Intellectual Property,” first published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies 15, no. 2 (Spring 2001). This work is published from: United States.If this CC0 grant fails to be legally enforceable for any reason [see “Copyright is very sticky!”], I hereby grant a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (
, or CC BY 4.0) as a fallback.As a second fallback I hereby estop myself and any legal heirs from asserting copyright in this work.
So I don’t want to hear from any legally illiterate, disingenuous smartasses saying “Oh yeah? If you are against copyright, why did you copyright your article? See “Oh yeah? How would like it if I copy and publish your book under my name?!”: On IP Hypocrisy and Calling the Smartasses’ Bluffs.”
And as I explained previously,
they [Mises Institute] didn’t copyright it. they put a copyright notice on it that was false. they said they have copyright; they do not, since it was not a work for hire and I never assigned it in writing. I have the copyright, and all my work it on stephankinsella.com with CC-BY applied to try to liberate it as much as the state will let me. It’s bizarre for pro-copyrgiht people to blame me for having copyright that their system imposes on me against my will. It’s like telling a black guy that he has no right to be against affirmative action or anti-discrimination laws since he is eligible to use these laws if he wants. why is it his fault if statist impose laws on society?”
From I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarchist libertarian writer who thinks patent and copyright should be abolished. AMA. [↩]
You must log in to post a comment. Log in now.