Talk:Copyright

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Former featured article Copyright is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 27, 2004.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Copyright as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Indonesian language Wikipedia.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia There is a request, submitted by Chameleon, for an audio version of this article to be created.

See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information.

The rationale behind the request is: "Previously requested".

See also: Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests and Wikipedia:Spoken articles.
To-do list: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  1. Remove the "as of 1911" reference by fact-checking the related information to determine whether or not it is still true.
  2. clearly and early on, give the first theoretical justification of copyright law: compared to having everything in the public domain, the copyright system should result in more creative works, and higher-quality works
  3. clearly and early on, give the second theoretical justification of copyright law: that it's only fair that an author should be able to control and profit by his/her creations
  4. explore if and how these justifications have played out historically, and where they came from
  5. critically evaluate copyright law, citing, for example, cost/benefit studies. is copyright law working? if so, for whom?
  6. examine how copyright is perceived by "common people"
  7. cover the effects of "piracy", both in the "first world" and in places where enforcement is lax, e.g. China and South America
  8. give an example of a typical and/or high-profile copyright enforcement case
  9. Add the concept of the "Poor Man's Copyright", and emphasize whether or not it has ever held up in court.
  10. Add a 'permission granted by copyright holder to use on wikipedia' template option to the dropdown on the file upload page.

(Moved from talk page. Feel free to edit this. It should reflect the consensus of what needs to be worked upon.)
Priority 1 (top)
edit
Archive
Archives

This page is for discussion of the particular contents of the Copyright article, or for straightforward questions about copyright. This article is not the place for:

  1. debates about the merits of copyright (See Talk:Copyright/is copyright worthwhile?.)
  2. discussion of Wikipedia's copyright policies (See Wikipedia:Copyrights, or, for more informal discussion, see Wikipedia:Copyright issues.)

Contents

[edit] Start of "History" section looks familiar

I wrote this on slashdot.org in January 2002. The bold text is what caused me pause. I don't mind it being here, but someone might think it was not sanctioned. Of course others may differ and feel it's only a coincidence. Either way by posting it here I give permission for anything below to be used in Wikipedia.

They may not have had legal copyrights, but they had methods to protect their music.

Before copyright there were other ways to protect work. Mozart had a patron, Baroness von Waldstätten, who underwrote his needs so that he could spend the day doing whatever he wanted.

Because Mozart's patron allowed his music to be freely performed does not mean that it was always that way. Kings and princes always had court composers and they jealously guarded their music.

Handel's patron (George I, the first of the Hanoverian kings) jealously guarded "water music."'

Please remember at the time you couldn't "copy" music unless you could sit in the audience with a quill pen and follow along! Actually Mozart could do this, but not many others.

It was easy to protect music back then and hard to steal it. Don't think people wouldn't have if they could. The technology didn't exist.

Jump ahead to the 1890's where the rampant bootleging of sheet music was a huge business (please refer to http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/09/mann.htm )

From the above article a reference to Sullivan of Gilbert and Sullivan fame:

"The irate Sullivan filed lawsuit after lawsuit in U.S. courts, but only dented the trade. To prevent the pirating of The Pirates of Penzance, he long refused to publish the score; bouncers prowled every show to stop music thieves from writing down the melodies."

Let's face it, in U.S. society you are not going to do much with out being paid for it. So change the law, but until then buy what you use, or move to Canada where it is apparently legal now. (Yes, I know the original author lives there, I'm speaking to everyone else.)

Society values artistic works and society (Through the govenment) grants the creators a limited license to profit from their works in order to better society. That's the theory anyway. Maybe it's gotten out of hand, but the "music and information want to be free" approach doesn't really motivate humans to create great things.

Even throughout history people like Mozart have been motivated by "compensation" to produce new creative works.

...

While IP has always been created through time it has always been protected by rule, religion, or force. People didn't share fire - they stole it from each other. The Egyptians didn't give their knowledge of mummification away to anyone that asked. The Library of Alexandria (aka "The Kings Library") wasn't a place you or I could lend a book from. Knowledge really was power. Ptolemy III paid the sum of fifteen talents of silver (a vast amount) to be allowed to copy the works of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides.

So while the ancient scholars and composers may not have had our modern day protection of copyright, please don't confuse that with no protection at all.

The original page is not available, but I reposted it in June of 2002 and it is located on this page: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/05/2037201&mode=thread&tid=97 I don't believe this is any longer searchable in google unless you do a site specific search on slashdot.org AKAJack 19:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History - nothing about Durer and Titian cases to protect their prints

I came here hoping to find something to link to for my article Marcantonio Raimondi, b1480, who provoked one of the earliest cases on copyright in Venice. There is nothing about this here, nor about the rather latwer case involving Titian. I'm no expert, but printmaking, because making plates was expensive, but not so much so that they could not profitably be copied, was a notable area for early copyright law, & not just in Rome & Venice. "priviledge" systems, which combined censorship & copyright in shifting combinations, came in earlier for prints than most other types of material in most parts of Europe, or so I understand.

someone who knows more than i do should get this into the section.

btw, I thought curses & imprecations,rabbinical & other, were common in manuscript books against those who MIScopied. i mean this doesn't reduce the point, but reinforces it.

Get to it, lawyers!

Johnbod 03:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I now see I should have done this on History of copyright law so will copy it there, but it seems to have gone quiet since January, unlike here. Johnbod 03:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about copywrite

Would it be possible to copyright an unique name and if so, how much cost/effort would it take? --Eiyuu Kou 18:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


What meaning does the following phrase have? "Includes Copyrighted Material of <name here>"

Does this imbue the document with copyright protection? or is it just an FYI?

does it mean anything different when it goes on to say "..., With its permission. Copyright, <name here>, 2002, 2003"

-User: lara78660 3:36 March 13, 2007

[edit] Papal Copyright

I was looking up something else and came across the following on Benedict and copyright: [[1]]

- and can someone archive part of this talk page please - it is long (and the remaining library session is short) Jackiespeel 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright symbol

      • can someone remove the disgusting picture in under the "copyright symbol". Please!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.46.203.100 (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2006

I first thought this unsigned message (tag added) was about the ugliness of the thick ultra-black copyright symbol that was there, but no such luck – there was vandalism around that date. I still went ahead and replaced Image:Copyright.svg with Image:Copyright-serif.svg which I just made and uploaded. I hope that's allright with everyone. – McDutchie 05:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very US centric

This article seems focused on US copyright. It mentions other copyright legislations but the main part seems top be talking about US specific laws.64.149.244.94! Hicham Vanborm

We are interested in changing this so that it is more international. What parts still need cleanup? --71.161.219.152 22:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Requesting to edd a link

This article talks about why copyright and patent laws are obsolete and should be abolished for the sake of modern day information society. It is writen by Prof. Blondheim ( who resides as an Associate Professor in Communication and American Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem). The article is published at omedia, which is a non commercial articles site. THE ARTICLE

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yuval a (talk • contribs) 12:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Other Aspects

The "Other Aspects" section is poorly written. I tagged it. E.g. "It can be argued that, rather than criminalize millions of file sharers around the world who now routinely use the Internet to commit acts which can be argued breach copyright in this or that jurisdiction." is not even a sentence, and there are several instances of this.

[edit] Copy-edit complete

I copy edited this article (if that's the right verb, I'm new). The spelling and grammar of the article should be okay now.

Stevob2007 18:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archived nicely

I've archived this page properly. Hooray! --Goyston (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global average for default copyright length?

Someone, please explain this: "In most of the world the default length of copyright for many works is either life of the author plus 50 or 70 years." --83.109.63.6 07:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] anonymous authors

What is the copyright status of works posted anonymously? In particular, of Wikipedia articles written anonymously?

When do those works go into the public domain (the "life of the author + 70 years" doesn't work, since I don't know who the author is, much less what year she died). --68.0.120.35 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, works posted anonymously do *not* immediately go into the public domain.

As long as none of the identities of any of the authors of a anonymous or pseudonymous work are revealed "for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first", then the copyright expires at the end of that term (in the U.S.). See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html

Does this apply to Wikipedia articles written anonymously by people in other countries, or does some other international rule apply? --68.0.120.35 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The answer to the part of 68.0.120.35's question regarding Wikipedia in particular is that Wikipedia contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, which, as its article explains, is a form of copyleft. In fact, when you make an edit, the frame outside the editing area, between that and the "Save page" button, expressly says "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL.". — Lumbercutter 14:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section gone from this article

It seems absurd to me that no summary of the history of copyright article is given on this page. It doesn't need to be a long essay, but we should have at least a couple of paragraphs. Otherwise, it's impossible to put copyright in context, and understand its implications. --jacobolus (t) 04:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The summary was deleted by vandalism here (2006-11-04). It's back now. Rl 07:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the legal basis of claiming "Copyright renewed"?

Sometimes I have seen, in books that have been reprinted decades after their original publication (by a different publisher), that the copyright page makes a claim such as, for example, "Original copyright 1942 John Doe. Copyright renewed 1971 by Mary Doe." How does anyone have a legal right to extend the time period of a copyright by "renewing" it? If the copyright on Mary's great-grandpappy's memoir is about to expire, can she really "renew" it for another 70 years? I hope that a lawyer or paralegal who has real knowledge of such things may contribute to this article a section on "copyright renewal". — Lumbercutter 14:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's probably a US specific thing that you are refering too. See the page on United States copyright law. Under previous law, copyright in the US lapsed 28 years after publication, but could be renewed for a further 28 years. Current US law and the laws of most (all?) other nations don't have such a provision. Numerous minor works are now in the public domain because their copyright was not renewed after 28 years, but proving non-renewal requires a lot of research. Zeimusu | Talk page 15:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah! Bingo! Thanks so much. — Lumbercutter 16:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claiming Copyright in a Facsimile

Hello,

   The www.jewishencyclopedi.org" has placed the Jewish Encyclopedia which

they acknowledge to be in the pubic domain (USA) online. One section contains a transcription of each article. The other section contains photographs of each page from each article - like an unaltered digitized photocopy. They have placed copyright notices on the bottom of the these photocopies. Since the text is in the public domain and since no new work was done to create a digitalized photocopy, how can they claim copyright on it.


Patrick —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.72.130 (talk) 11:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Oops

I think I made an error and deleted a chunk of the page somehow. Would somebody please fix that? :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.96.223.162 (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Pictures

The red copyright and no copyright symbols are allowed to be on the page. Stop deleting them. Replay7 18:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

They are redundant to images already in the article and the red one is much less commonly used than the black (not to mention that it's visually abrasive). Please adhere to the three revert rule. Thank you. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to inaccurate information

The page currently contains this link:

This page misleads visitors in that it indicates that for works "Published before January 1, 1964", the question as to whether the copyright was timely renewed is answered with the question, "Was copyright registration renewed between December 31 of the year of the 27th anniversary of publication and December 31 of the year of the 28th anniversary of publication?" This is incorrect for works originally published and copyrighted prior to 1949. (The calendar-year rule implicit in the question is correct for works of 1951-1964. It also applies to 1950, but not exclusively so.) For works prior 1949 and earlier, the renewal window ran from the 27th anniversary of publication to the 28th anniversary of publication. (Exceptions apply when the copyright notice has an earlier date.) The linked page incorrectly suggests that a renewal is not valid if the renewal window is not adjusted to start and end with the December 31st following the 27th and 28th anniversaries. Such calendar-year renewal-windows did not become operable in U.S. copyright until 1978 (at which time 1950 works were eligible for renewal), with the coming into effect of the 1976 Copyright Act, wherein Section 305 revised the copyright term so that all copyright terms now ended on the December 31 of the year within which the copyright would otherwise expire on any date. BBCD 23:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parody vs Satire

From the third paragraph:

In some jurisdictions, copyright law provides scope for satirical or interpretive works which themselves may be copyrighted.

I think this needs a footnote specifying which jurisdictions, or the mention of satire should be removed. This is because of the easy confusion between satire and parody (specifically in reference to US law). Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody

AThomas203 18:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/p/Talk%7ECopyright_0511.html"