Yuck. My willingness to provide egotistical satisfaction to bloggers ends where excessive strain on my eyes begins.
My hostility is also due to my aversion to the self-deification implied by the proclamation of arbitrary personal copyrights by the legally enthusiastic whose idealism is matched only by their ignorance.

self-deified here. please make your idols in my image, and of jade. for the hostile and over zealous; explain where my idealism extends and my ignorance begins. or fuck off because if your eyes hurt - shut them.

I think Lego® share the same aversion as Raphael.

not the same at all. lego® attempted wordmark vs domain name. raphael queries the necessity for copyright on a site that will present a collection my design work in tangible form. lego® presented it’s case with standard legal muscle flexing. raphael voiced his opinion and disdain with arrogance and tiresome provocation.

No, no, I will defend Raphael against this “tiresome” you throw at him.

Granted I voiced “I’m” opinion with more indifference to “it’s” characterisation than Lego voiced “it’s”.
And I care little to formalise it, though I perhaps care enough to paraphrase it:
(a) I don’t like the appearance of n’s intro page (this was just my own free expression and not a provocation for debate);and
(b) jotting the words “copyright so-and-so then-and-then” does not add *further* legal protection (this is provocation for debate), and I just see it as ignorant pretentiousness (this is not).

Adding a copyright notice does add further legal protection. Without a copyright notice, a particular work (flash animation, blog content, artwork) can be assumed to be in the public domain. That is why there are copyright notices next to photos in newspapers and Time magazine, for example. Read the second paragraph under “Use of copyright notice” here: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.html

Good link. I quote from that circular:
“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. There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration.” Also: “The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U. S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works.”

My immediate interpretation of the above portion of one circular is that the fact that the copyright notice is optional, implies directly and necessarily that all relevant rights are guaranteed equally effectvely by alternate means. You now have the burden of showing me how the copyright notice is legally beneficial in the particular case, if you know.
I will also maintain that any additional legal advantage you may construct pales in front of the unenforceability of it all, and I will further maintain that the outcome of our present, significantly focused discussion is quite irrelevant to my original comment, since ardent ignorance can randomly cause valid actions as much as ridiculous ones.

By the way, where the hell did the idea that I query “the necessity for copyright on a site that will present a collection my design work” come from? Completely irrelevant. I have no clue what the site will contain. I just (barely) saw a copyright notice on a slime-coloured background painfully sporting a blog-like scribbles; I’m not sure what first made me nauseous, but I’m sure it was no design work.

Read the second paragraph under “Use of copyright notice” here: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.html

The additional legal advantage is in bold, lest you miss it again.

The fact that you make irrelevant comments does not mean that I can’t flame you for fun when they’re wrong.

Ok, I yield the point, pursuant to our unposted discussion. The copyright notice is useful to the extent that the next available defence is worse than the “innocence defence”.

However, I stick by my “accidental validity” interpretation of n’s notice, while still recovering from my nausea :P

so you are not complaining about copyright anymore? just focusing on the slime coloured background and the miserable blog (”not for debate”), and your assumption that my insertion of copyright notice was wholly accidental (your new debate).

working in the design field and dealing unscrupulous manufacturers in hong kong necessitates that I that I be aware of copyright. whether this be under advice and/or unregistered, and regardless of my understanding of its deeper legal elements; you go too far to assume “accidental validity”. you need not apologise for your dismissive assumption. it has not been ignorant debate, only disappointing that you should be ignorant enough to assume to know my motives. this you should apologise for.

it had seemed like you were originally questioning the necessity of copyright - specific to eatlego. perhaps orestes was also under the same impression.

perhaps the point is taken and I should withdraw the shade of green used; I shall redesign the site to have yellow text on black background and more portraits of myself in parks with shorter and less humourous captions.

Yes, I did concede that your copyright notice serves its purpose in keeping the throngs of your zealous jealous fans from copying your blog. It works. I would also work if you added it to any “post it” notes you have written, or to your shopping lists. Good luck shielding yourself from all those preoccupied opportunists.

As for your witty web page comparison, I admit you are a much better artist than I am - and you’d better be, since that’s what you do and may be doing for a living. Still, lousy designer that I am, I know ugly when I see it. Don’t take it personally, you did not come up with 669900.