Talk:Copyright/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Copyright (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 > 2 >>

Contents

More old stuff

... but a link to wikipedia:copyrights from the page seems appropriate. (goes to check the Talk archive...) +sj+ 03:21, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To-do list:

(Moved to To-do list)

If you want to talk about "lax" copyright protection in some countries, it'd be best done in the context of IP as a whole. I'm thinking specifically of China - the problems aren't confined to just copyright, but also patents and TMs - David Stewart 04:33 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Prominent advocates of international copyright law regression/removal:"

"Prominent advocates of international copyright extension:"

This terminology seems inherently POV. What is considered regression? What is extension? All these people have ideas beyond just that of extending or reducing the term of copyright. anthony (see warning) 16:13, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Anthony, I'll debate most of your recent changes, but one thing that is not up for debate is that you are not one of the world leaders in copyright reform advocacy.Markvs 17:28, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
I never claimed I was. anthony (see warning)

New Development

In 1984, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that "When one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work ... and that time-shifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact ... that the entire work is reproduced ... does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use."


Well, you can kiss it good-bye. Recently, the cable industry premium networks (HBO, SHOWTIME, STARZ, ect.) have begun transmitting a copyguard encription in their broadcats. Older VCR devices should still be able to record their programs under fair use. However, newer machines -- especially DVD recorders -- will abort recording off these networks.

They just had to cut us off from fair use. They just had to have their control. This is a step backwards. -- Jason Palpatine 08:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


Images of public domain objects

scan of a public-domain photo
scan of a public-domain photo

To what extent is an image of a public domain object copyrightable? For example, suppose I take an image accurately representing the Mona Lisa. Can I copyright it? How about an accurate scan of the image on the right, taken in 1896 (by Roentgen)? The source claims to have copyright on this, but it seems like there is no creative expression involved in producing an acuurate scan of an object.

On the other hand, a photo of a public domain sculpture seems like it is copyrightable; can one have independent copyright on a photo of a copyrighted sculpture? --Andrew 14:47, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

U.S. lower federal courts (though not yet the Supreme Court) have held that an accurate image of a public domain picture is not copyrightable because it is not sufficiently original. The more that it deviates from that accuracy, whether from accident or design (such as through a hand-tracing of the Mona Lisa rather than a photograph or scan), the more that it may be independently copyrightable, but the protection would still only extend to the original elements that were added to the particular image, not to the underlying public domain image, so the copyright would not likely cover more than verbatim copying.
As far as photos of public domain sculptures, the result is basically the same--the protection extends to whatever original elements that were introduced by the photographer, but cannot extend to prevent others from photographing the same subject.
In other words, the scan to the right is not eligible for copyright protection under U.S. law. However, other jurisdictions don't necessary require originality in the same way and degree that the U.S. does, so the answer may change depending on which nation's laws you are considering. Postdlf 17:27 17 June 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! Does it make sense to add this information to the article? I know the article shouldn't be too Wikipedia-centric, but this seems like good general knowledge. --Andrew 15:02, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would add it, but I don't know how much it reflects copyright law generally rather than just U.S. copyright law. I don't know that other jurisdictions are as strict on the originality requirements as we are, though I also can't really see copyright law functioning without such a requirement. Postdlf 18:35, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It'd be useful for this issue to be addressed somewhere, perhaps United States copyright law, with mention of scanning as an example. A-giau 22:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

German uberricht section

The last two lines of this are confusing (earrings?). Can we get a native English speaker to clear up what they mean (e.g. "sweat of the brow")? Amber388 19:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Law Expires

The United States went through a weird copyright law change for the year 1976 despite 200 years of heritage. All copyrights on the year 1976 and before the year 1976 is due to expire during the year 2006. That is the nature of copyright, make your money and move on where after over twenty years of not making your money, then it is worthless. Why 1976? because a new copyright law took place in the year 1978, so the year 1976 is a sure thing.

The above "information" is bogus. Nothing currently under copyright in the U.S. is due to fall out of copyright until 2019 at the earliest. Tverbeek 01:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Question: The article describes copyright expiration as being (generally) the life of the author + X years. How then is copyright expired if the original owner is a corporation and not an individual such as in the case of a movie or software item?

Answer The copyright of anonymous works and works-for-hire lasts 95 years from first publication. [17 U.S.C. sec. 302]

See also

Now that we have categories, I don't think there's a need to have a laundry list of "see also"s at the bottom of the page. I think it's pretty self-evident that Category:Copyright law contains more articles on the subject. Postdlf 22:35, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The best solution is to incorporate the most relevant links in the text. Paranoid 06:40, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

The last sentence currently states that copyright is a type of intellectual property - surely it is not. A book, for example, is a type of IP, but copyright itself simply refers to such IP. Doesn't the grammar need adjusting, to correct the meaning? --Darrel Stadlen 02:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

"Copyright, like the other forms of intellectual property law, such as patents, and trade secrets, does not grant a monopoly right to the use of an invention, merely a right to prevent others doing it." Could someone explain what that sentence is trying to say, and why it is correct? Copyright and patent are monopoly forms of IP, because they prevent EVERYONE from using them, while trademarks normally only prevent competitors from using them. But I don't even know how "monopoly right" is being defined here if the right to prevent others from exploiting it is given as a contrast rather than as a feature. Postdlf 16:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"a right to preclude others from doing it" is not particularly good wording. Basically I have the same question. ;Bear 16:49, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

As I understand it, being able to prevent other people from using a thing is having a monopoly. That part of the introduction sounds like patent nonsense. Thue | talk 19:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The proper contrast to make is between trademarks, which normally prevent only competitors from using them as product source indicators, and only as long as the mark hasn't been abandoned due to lack of use, and the monopoly right of copyrights and patents, which prevent everyone else from using them for whatever purpose (aside from limitations such as fair use), regardless of whether the author actually makes use of the works himself. Can someone figure out a concise but proper way of rewording/explaining this, and make the proper changes? Postdlf 20:34, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I reworded and expanded. I have explained copyright and contrasted against patents, but only mentioned trademarks. Thue | talk 21:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
With some good help from User:Paranoid, trademarks are now also folded into the introduction. What do you think? :) Thue | talk 21:35, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Barnhorst edited out the comment that a patent grants a monopoly on an idea [1]. In my understanding, and from the intro paragraph at patent, patents do grant a monopoly. Comments? Thue | talk 16:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He also removed the paragraph ([2])

For example, if A were the first person to invent a spoon then A could get a patent on spoons, which means that nobody could make spoons without permission from A. If spoons were not patentable and B designed a spoon with a unique look, B would get a copyright on his design, meaning that nobody could copy the way Bs spoons looked without Bs permission.

contrasting copyrights and patents. As many people confuse copyright and patents I think it is appropriate to have this example in the introduction. No reason was given in the edit summery; why was it removed? Thue | talk 16:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the decision to remove it—I was intending to do something to it myself. I don't think it is a very clear or helpful illustration, and it didn't flow right from the intro. I think a contrast between copyright and other IP forms is proper, but in fact those two forms differ most on subject matter rather than how their protection operates, and this is mostly bound up in the idea/expression dichotomy. Patents cover ideas and processes, while copyrights cover particular expressions of ideas. Both entail monopoly rights (with limits) over their respective protected subject matter. Postdlf 16:31, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The spoon example is a bad one, in my opinion, particularly because the copyrightability of useful articles is not a simple area of copyright law. Your example glosses over the noncopyrightability of utilitarian features (which may nonetheless be unique), and the difference between over-all design and severable, superfluous design elements, not to mention that it also implicates trade dress. Examples need to be simple, but not by submerging relevant issues that are necessary to really understand them. Postdlf 16:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thue | talk 18:59, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The main reason for my edit is that neither Copyrights nor Patents give the positive right to use your invention, only to exclude others. There are many patents, for instance, that are completely dependent upon some other patented item--so the owner of the patent can't use the invention without permission from the holder of the other owner (this usually leads to cross-licensing). I agree my original wording was bad, as I was rushed, so I hope my newer version is better. My reason for cutting out the spoon example was that it actually wasn't an example supporting copyright, but design patents. Finally, Copyright only gives a limited monopoly at best, because of "fair use" among other reasons. --Barnhorst 18:12, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

I see your point about patent not giving the right to use an idea unconditionally in all cases because it may be covered by other patents. But couldn't we just ignore that as a special case, and use my original formulation anyway? I think it would be nice to give a word or 2 about patents as opposed to copyright. Thue | talk
Actually, copyrights may be covered by other copyrights in the same way—derivative works may be based on earlier copyrighted works, so that if you don't own the copyright in the original you're forbidden from exploiting the derivative you have just made. But that isn't to say that copyrights and patents don't give you the affirmative right to use your own creations—it's just that in those cases, your work is limited to what you add on. It's a limited case of when the right to use your work may conflict with the right of someone else to keep you from using theirs, when the two aren't separable. The monopoly description is appropriate even with exceptions such as fair use, to contrast copyrights and patents from the very limited protection of trademarks, in which the protection of the mark itself is more the exception rather than the rule. Patent protection is the closest form of IP to copyright. Postdlf 20:16, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
We can certainly contrast copyright and patents, but the way to do it is on what they cover. Copyright is one way of expressing an idea and not utility (which is why so many people think copyright shouldn't protect software). Design patents are a particular design or ornamental shape, utility patents a way of doing something useful (although not a natural truth), and plant patents specific plants. There are nuances in the particular rights and length of protection, but patents only grant a monopoly as far as copyright does (very similar, actually), so the one word I have the most problem with in the original into is "unlike".--Barnhorst 20:19, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Another problem with the intro paragraph—Mickey Mouse as a cartoon character is copyrighted too—individual characters may be copyrighted rather than only trademarked, independent of any particular film, book, etc. The example is otherwise confusing and not appropriate for the intro—it seems to be mostly talking about the idea/expression dichotomy, by stating that anyone can make a movie with a talking mouse, just not one with Mickey Mouse. Postdlf 17:55, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I think the intro's good now. It sets up all the main issues of copyright that are discussed later in the article. I think the article itself needs some substantial reorganization, however, and likely some rewriting. I'm wary of tackling it all myself, however, because my studies have consisted almost exclusively of U.S. copyright law, and this article of course needs to deal with copyright generically, but I'll see what I can do. Postdlf 18:31, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is a question about the last edit to the intro—how is the term "intellectual property" non-neutral? Copyright, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, etc., are by definition forms of intellectual property protection. This is how courts address them, how legal scholars describe them, and how they are taught in law school. Whether or not some think there should be such a thing as intellectual property is an entirely separate issue of whether or not intellectual property actually exists as a coherent legal concept. The simple fact is that copyright is a form of intellectual property. Postdlf 07:20, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Intellectual property" considered non-neutral

I think using the phrase "Intellectual property" in this article transgresses the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. Many people do not accept the phrase as having any useful meaning. While copyrights, patents, trademarks and so on are explictly defined in law, "intellectual property" is not and people use the term to group together things which operate in very different ways. This controversy is covered more thoroughly in the intellectual property article and elsewhere on the web. It is quite straightforward to talk about copyright and how it differs from trademarks and patents without using such a nebulous term. This has nothing to do with believing in the merits of copyright or otherwise. Oska 07:29, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

IP may be a flawed concept, but it is not nebulous in that we know that it refers collectively to the legal protections of copyright, patent, trade secrets, and trademarks—this is the norm in the legal profession, and copyright is after all a legal term. Whether or not the concept or phrase of IP is problematic is beside the point—it is how copyright is best classified. I think western legal concepts of property overall are flawed, whether physical or intellectual, and that ownership of land is just about as ridiculous as ownership of a creative work—both just depend on your ability to use the law to punish others from doing something to something else in a way you don't like. These flaws don't render use of the term POV, because simply using it to describe a class of legal protection doesn't pass judgment on the merits of the concept, any more than describing Bush43 as the President of the U.S. signals approval of Bush v. Gore and the voting process in Florida. Many believe that Bush did not legitimately assume the office (I would be one), but does that mean that it makes sense to call the very use of the term "President Bush" POV? The problem is solved by including the critiques in the copyright and IP articles—nothing is accomplished by sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that these terms and classifications aren't generally used and accepted. Postdlf 07:54, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No, the problem is solved by including a critique of the term in the intellectual property article, as already exists. Perhaps you could have taken the time to read it before reverting my edit in less than quarter of an hour. Bringing discussion of the controversial term into the copyright article does not help the reader who simply wants to know about copyright. This article treats a subject which is real through being defined in law. Using the term "intellectual property", which is nebulous in that it is nowhere legally defined and thus allows a great elasticity in interpretation, does not help this article stick to dealing with a real entity in a factual and disinterested way. Oska 08:21, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
I did read it, and nothing in the critique is a reason why the term should be excluded as a POV descriptive here. Perhaps we shouldn't use the term "copyright" either, because calling it a "right" implies that it is more than an arbitrary legal grant by the government to a preferred class of persons, and it involves far more than just the "right" to "copy". I don't know if you are in law or not, but I don't believe there is a single legal concept or term that doesn't have its opponents among legal scholars—one of the profs at my school believes that the concept of "rights" is meaningless, and the use of the term always misleading because it carries with it connotations that are contrary to how "rights" actually function in law and government. Plus there are plenty of people in every academic field who think that the English language itself is POV in many ways, such as due to gender bias. The simple fact is that wikipedia can't place itself in the vanguard of purging language and relabelling concepts that are problematically titled—it should observe current practice but record the critiques. And the current universal practice is to classify copyright as a species of "intellectual property". Judges and other government officials use the term without comment, law schools organize curriculum under it, law firms describe their practice areas with it. I express no judgment as to whether IP should be abandoned as a term, but the simple fact is that it hasn't by far, and an encyclopedia should observe common usage.
Finally, you claimed that IP is "nowhere legally defined."
Intellectual property 1. A category of intangible rights protecting commercially valuable products of the human intellect. The category comprises primarily trademark, copyright, and patent rights, but also includes trade-secret rights, publicity rights, moral rights, and rights against unfair competition. 2. A commercially valuable product of the human intellect, in a concrete or abstract form, such as a copyrightable work, a protectable trademark, a patentable invention or a trade secret. The abbreviation is ‘I.P.’
Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Edition) at 813. Postdlf 12:20, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Specific Electronic Form

I have seen a number of web sites claiming copyright on "specific electronic form" of otherwise public domain works. Typically the form is plain text. An example is the large collection of historical documents at fordham.[3] The copyright claim is asserted in section II.

From my perusal of the page, this would seem to be a copyright type that is not discussed. Or, did I miss the relevant section. Does anyone know if this copyright claim is legitimate? If so, a discussion might be worth adding to the page. Specifically, could I legally just cut and paste the public domain works the kind professor has transcribed (not asking about ethics here).

The question occurred to me for obvious reasons, being on the wikipedia & wikisource. But it seems to be a relevant question for this article as well.Wolfman 01:46, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See the section above on scanning public domain images—the issue is pretty much the same for public domain text. You're quite free to copy and paste whatever text is not protected on the site. What the "specific electronic form" may refer to is how the text has been formatted to appear on their website, which if it's plain text, I can't see what that would actually include. It might refer to their database as a whole, too—the selection and arrangement of the public domain texts—though some courts have been reluctant to give protection to electronic databases, because the information isn't really arranged in a clear form like it would be in a print anthology. And it's also quite likely that they just slapped a copyright notice on it without even bothering to research whether or not they actually had anything that was copyrightable, just in case there was. I don't think there are any legal restrictions on doing that, especially since it is easy to mistakenly believe that something may be copyrightable when it isn't.
I haven't added any of this information to the main article because I'm not sure how general it is—my understanding of it comes solely from U.S. copyright law. Though all jurisdictions (to my knowledge) have a public domain, the requirements on originality differ, which would increase or decrease the amount of additions one would have to make to a public domain work in order to have a copyright on the new "version." The U.S. also gives less protection to databases than many other countries. Finally, I am unsure how moral rights under European law may come into play, namely whether there might be a right of source attribution even for public domain works, when copied verbatim from a particular source. Postdlf 14:16, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Photographic Copyright

This is probably a question everybody but me knows the answer to: How long after publication of a book in the UK are its photographs subject to copyright laws, specifically can photos from a book published in UK before 1920 be uploaded to Wikipedia. Giano 11:49, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Copyrighting Mickey Mouse?

Copyrights do not protect ideas or facts, however, but only the particular expression of an idea. A copyright on the cartoon character Mickey Mouse, for example, would not prevent others from creating talking mice, but only from too closely copying the character and traits of that talking mouse in particular.

In my understanding, Mickey Mouse cannot be copyrighted. However, Mickey Mouse can appear in, say, a drawing, which might bear a copyright notice, but it is the drawing that is copyrighted, not the character. The reason you can't just put Mickey Mouse into your own cartoon is not that the mouse is copyrighted but that the mouse is trademarked. It is useless to talk about a "copyright on the cartoon character Mickey Mouse" because such a copyright cannot exist. I would have deleted this entire paragraph, however, I want to retain the opening sentence, which would then need to be worked in with the rest of the text. - furrykef (Talk at me) 02:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the record, your conclusion is not supported by U.S. law, which does recognize character copyright. Think of it this way: The drawings of Mickey Mouse in "Steamboat Willie" are protected by copyright, so any subsequent illustration of him is a derivative work of those drawings. You simply cannot draw Mickey without copying from the cartoon (or a subsequent derivative work). Likewise with characters from a novel; if you write a story about a guy named James Bond whose spy codename is "007" you're copying from Ian Fleming's Casino Royale. Tverbeek 01:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it's still technically incorrect to say a character is copyrighted; it's the work that the character is from that is copyrighted. But I suppose in many cases this is a pedantic point, though the term "copyright" is often abused. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, characters can be copyrighted in the U.S., provided that they are sufficiently detailed. For instance, the idea of a "benevolent superhero" is not copyrightable, but a superhero who wears blue tights, has a red "S" on his chest, has an alter-ego named Clark Kent, and also happens to be a benevolent superhero would be copyrightable. Thus, we have Superman, the creators of which threatened to sue Sufjan Stevens for using his likeness on an album cover, for instance. Of course, users of the character can always claim fair use to varying degrees of success . . . - Jersyko·talk 21:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I remembering incorrectly, or did the U.S. extend copyright laws in that jurisdiction after furious lobbying the Disney Corporation when the copyright on Mickey Mouse was just about to expire a few years back? Some hostile commentators referred to it as the "Mickey Mouse" law, which was a clever insult if nothing else. Legis 14:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

The article needs this section: Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents, standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources. [4] OneGuy 06:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup and question

I was reorganising the 'critique of copyright' section (in good faith, and I hope my changes are considered positive). I have one question about how to interpret the following, which I left alone as a result:

It can be argued that, rather than criminalise the many millions of file sharers around the world who now routinely use the internet to breach copyright (given that copyright laws have proven unenforceable), copyright holders use the legal system to apply extortion by charging for products that are readily available for free

Obviously, this is saying that they do something instead of criminalising the file sharers. But is it saying they do use the legal system to apply extortion, or that they should do so as a valid profit model that avoids criminalisation?

If it's the former, I don't know how this sentence holds together. They have criminalised the file sharers, they just aren't very good at enforcing it. And I'm a little dubious about the latter, because 'extort' is not a phrase typically used in a white-hat proposed profit model. :) -- Wisq 01:55, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 19:58, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ironic that this article on copyright isn't citing its sources :) Valley2city 19:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC).
The US ones are easy--they are all, case refs including in the LC Copyright Bulletins. The others will take someone who knows

the relevant country's law. DGG 08:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Dialogue with User:WB2

Are we going to be allowed to edit the "Copyright" page itself, or is Novacatz, an unregistered user, going to be allowed to delete anything that he wants to – claiming that your addition is somehow vandalism? WB2 07:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Your addition is vandalism—it really deals with irrelevant matters to the subject, it's written in the spirit of heated advocacy, and it makes very little sense. Postdlf 07:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Irrelevant? What I said is WHAT the copyright law is all about: protecting rights to ownership; and MOST everyone out here that I know still feels that somehow, if they just put a copyright to something, then it belongs to them.
I think they have a right and a NEED to know what the facts are, rather than for them to go ahead and copyright something, and then get sued for plagerism or grand larceny later on.
I know, I've sued people before, and they all think the same stupid thing.
Your article cannot be a NPOV, as you say, if all sides aren't presented; what's the problem?
WB2 08:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Advocacy? How so? Advocating what, Freedom of Speech?
Yeah you're right, I am advocating Freedom of Speech, and as my advantage is out here in the home of Wikipedia, I'll be voicing it to the people over here too.
WB2 08:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
NPOV Requires all sensible and academically significant sides to be presented. The more I read what you were trying to insert, the more it's clear that your concerns about surveillance and "render[ing] 'certain individuals' in the community 'persons of no value'" have absolutely no connection to copyright, nor are they written in the form of an academic explanation. Perhaps you should wait until you've clarified your thoughts better, or perhaps found a legal resource to cite from? Postdlf 08:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
O.K., but you don't know these people [who do this stuff].
Talking to them is like catching somebody redhanded: you've got to "ahem" a lot; but I'll get the cites, it's just that I though the internal links took care of all the cites already like California's Penal Code Sec. 630 et seq [California Envasion of Privacy Act], United States Code Sec. 1951 [Extortion, Definition], Title 17 United States Code Copyrights Sec. 204(a) [Copyrights, Ownership], etc.
WB2 08:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
"These people" who do what "stuff"? And invasion of privacy and extortion simply are not issues pertaining to a discussion of copyright. Where did you get the idea that they were relevant here? Postdlf 08:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Invasion of Privacy, as it pertains to theft of intangible intellectual property ...
Like I said, you don't know these people [out here in California and in Music] who do these things – they get desperate, they steal, etc. – its a common thing in Music and Entertainment, and those who are directly involved in those fields know exactly what I'm talking about, but not people like you who only see the hype.
It's exactly like Eminem, for example, says on one of his albums: "that's why your lyrics show up on my s***."
If we're talking about copyrighting things, then its implied that there is some kind of theft going, sir, that's one of the main reasons for copyrighting; but it is true that the idea of theft of intellectual property prior to its being placed into a "tangible medium" isn't dealt with that often, and when it is its known as "eavesdropping" or "grand larceny" or "extortion" if an entity such as the Entertainment Industry Developement Corporation (EIDC) out here in California gets involved.
Most songs that you here on the radio are stolen from other artists long before they're copyrighted, and that's common knowledge to anyone in Music or the Entertainment Industry, its just that its very difficult to sue these people who always tend to steal from the very poor or destitute.
Further, the incentive is so high to steal, with the millions upon millions of dollars floating around in the Entertainment Industries, that often times the Mafia or police department itself gets involved and literally threaten, place under false arrest, and even murder those who get dissatisfied or threaten to snitch.
You should see them out here every day "protecting" the celebrities, but whose to protect us from them?
The legal Maxim involved is the following ...
A piratis et latronibus capta dominium non mutant ~ Things captured by pirates or robbers do not change their ownership ~ which basically means that, as it applies here to "invasion of privacy" and "extortion", just because you have quickly gone over to the copyright office and copyrighted those lyrics that you swear are your own, doesn't mean that you own the copyright if you had eavesdropped, tape recorded without permission, or took diction without permission the words that you used to make your song with of another individual.
Just simply copyrighting something doesn't get you "home free" and I feel that it is necessary to include that with any definition of "copyright" per se , since most of the poeple I deal with are fresh out of highschool and have no idea of exactly what the law says.
Well, that's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it – to inform the general population of what the facts are?
I hope this answers your questions as to the pertinence of intellectual property theft and its relation to copyright.
What issues you're referring to are dealing with the question of tangible as opposed to intangible properties, and those distinctions are quite clearly made in the copy right law, but that only after it is placed in a tangible medium can it actually be copyrighted; but like I said, if Mr Jesse Feder over at the Copyright Office finds out or is informed that what had been copyrighted was stolen, he is supposed to annull that copyright.
Theft and copyright go hand in hand, how can you say these two issues don't relate to each other? WB2 23:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Clearly, government (or civilian) abuses of privacy are a serious concern, although they don't really relate to copyright, which is only about material meant for publishing. It sounds like your ideas would find a more receptive audience on a blog, designed to sway and inform people of important new ideas rather than just reporting neutral background ideas as we're trying to do here. At a minimum, especially for a polished article like this one, work out the details on the talk page first to clear up grammatical and factual errors; for instance, I think you meant National Security Agency instead of National Services Administration. Lunkwill 10:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I'll look it up, but being "neutral" means publishing all sides, and if you are leaving out the correction of a common misconception, then the full definition hasn't been placed forward.
Has nothing to do with "swaying" an opinion, it has all to do with informing people of all the facts, which for some reason you and Mr Postdlf seem to be having problems with.
Being "neutral" does not mean "maintaining the status quo" and being little lambs that politely jump over their fences and go back to their stables so that they can nicely be slaughtered.
Telling only one side of a story, or hiding an important portion of a definition is a violation of neutrality since it seeks only to present those things the author wnats you to see as opposed to what the reader might have wanted to know about.
The lack of neutrality by way of selective editing also known as propaganda is also a serious concern, and as I understood, has no place here at Wikipedia.org or am I mistaken?
Do you all here actually represent an entity that is attempting to brainwash the readers of the Internet, because that is what you are doing if a complete definition isn't forwarded?
WB2 23:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
And the 17 Minute Gap (the giant sized white area in the intro paragraph above the TOC) looked ugly too
WB2 07:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Also, please reread the Vandalism page, my re-edit of the front page here of Copyright does not constitute Wiki Vandalism
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad faith edits that do not make their bad faith nature explicit and inarguable, are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia.
WB2 07:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

That's as it may be, but Novacatz obviously did not know it was a 'good faith' edit at the time. I also agreed when I reviewed his change at the time (as I review my watchlist regularly), even if I know it was good faith now.

That being said, I had trouble making heads or tails of that edit. But the first thing I noticed was its extremely informal style and massive use of all-caps for emphasis. This in particular is not Wikipedia style, and even replacing the caps with italics for emphasis would still be excessive. The informal style includes all the various colloquialisms like "insane ramblings", "you da man", etc., and is also generally not proper style. Some may also constitute POV in that they pass strong judgement without qualification of who or why.

Second, it really didn't seem to have anything to do with copyright, but rather with eavesdropping, fraud, taking someone's words out of context, etc. I could be wrong here (again, I still have trouble figuring out what it's saying), but it seemed to be entirely about what copyright is not, and could probably have been summed up in a single paragraph, if not a single sentence — if it belongs in Copyright at all.

Finally, the whole thing does seem fairly POV; that is to say, whether or not it's true (I don't know enough to say), it's seems like it's trying extremely hard to drive a viewpoint home. I don't know if this was the intent or not, but NPOV is not about emphatically expressing all sides; it's about neutrally reporting facts, or all opinions if the facts are disputed.

That's not to say your issue is unwelcome on the page. Once I am certain what your issue is and how it relates to copyright, I could render an opinion on that. But the text would have to make both of those clear, too, and I don't think the original text did. -- Wisq 13:18, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

POV would dictate a need to remove truth; as the saying goes, "the truth will set you free."
I've been doing lyrics for some 40 years and I know what people need to hear: the truth.
I understand your style manual, etc. – we use the California Style Manual out here – but for you to edit a very important part of the Copyright Law: 17 USC Copyrights § 201, House Report No. 94-1476 [ownership]: is akin to coming in here and just deleting things as you please.
Everyone (in Music) knows who Morris Levy, Peter Tripp, Alan Freed, and Dick Clark were and the scandals surrounding the Payola cases of the late 50's and early 60's; I think its important to leave this info in there.
Also, its hot news. Don Henley, formerly of The Eagles (we need semi-bold for names or titles in italics), was sued by several members of his entourage for allegations of slavery.
Refusing ownership to things someone else has stolen is very much the issue in copyrights.
The things that you can or cannot copyright, legally, that's the issue; not what happens after you copyrighted it.
You can't justify your definition here if you're hiding an important part of it.
WB2 06:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heraldry

It might be interesting to distinguish the quasi-intellectual property protection afforded heraldic representations (coats of arms, &c.), in jurisdictions where such protection exists, from the form of protection afforded by copyright. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The rights governing lawful use of an achievement of arms, although anciently governed by different legislation, amount to a parallel of those guaranteeing copyright observance. This is less grimly pursued than was formerly the case, except where the arms-bearer and the unlawful user are businesses.
Nuttyskin 12:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Artificial barrier

The latest changes seem to be (mostly) technically correct but POV anti-copyright. There's "artificial barrier", "expressions would be able to flow freely in the absence of government", "government does not necessarily carry any moral authority", "the backlash against the idea of copyright", etc.

I fixed one part that directly contradicted the article, but I'm not touching the rest due to lack of specific knowledge. I'm not sure if these belong in the article as they stand; I suspect they could be significantly shortened, and their presence in the first paragraph shortened to

A copyright is a form of intellectual property, enforced by the government, which secures to its holder . . .

While I am anti-intellectual-property myself, frankly, all ownership is enforced by the government. The only thing that says I have property and that someone can't come along and take it is my country's laws. If my country also says that my expressions of ideas are my property, that's just a (less universally agreeable) "artificial barrier" to theft, and we have plenty of those already. I may or may not agree, but "in the absence of government", I think we'd have too many problems to be engaging in free-flowing expression anyway. -- Wisq 14:35, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestions for the article, but I'm compelled to dispute a statement made in that last paragraph. The government is not the only thing that prevents theft. The individual owner can also conceal his property from potential thieves, keep it away from potential thieves (i.e. stay out of bad neighborhoods), or forcefully resist thieves. With that in mind, compare the watch on one's wrist to intellectual property. Protection of personal possessions is almost wholly the responsibility of that person (the government is pretty ineffective), whereas protection of intellectual property is almost wholly the responsibility of the government. AdamRetchless 16:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The same ideas of protecting personal possesional also apply to IP. You can conceal it (i.e. not widely publish it), keep it away from potentail thieves (i.e. don't tout it to publishers with a bad reputation) and forcibly resist theives (i.e. SONY DRM). Once ANY property is in the hands of another unlawfully you have to resort to the legal due process, which usually includes courts, to recover it. Copyright is in now way diffrent to anyother form of property in this regards.

American Motors, Nynex, et al.

Quesion: are the logos for defunct companies still copyrighted? -Litefantastic 23:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

history section

The article says,

"the modern concept of copyright originated in 1710 with the British Statute of Anne"

I believe this is incorrect. Didn't François Ier originate the droit d'auteur, together with the dépôt légale -- he reigned 1515-1547 -- and the notion drifted across the Channel later to infect Albion as well?

Before I research the details to support this, what do others here know?

--Kessler 15:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

OK here's a little research:
* The Bibliothèque Nationale de France says, my trans.,
"In 1537 the king [François Ier] introduced a new idea in a law of December 28, ordering all printers and librarians to deposit at the library at the chateau at Blois any printed book put on sale in the kingdom. This obligation, called dépôt légal, constituted a fundamental step for the Bibliothèque [Royale/Nationale]."
http://www.bnf.fr/pages/connaitr/siecle.htm
Copyright, as I understand it, refers to the rights and obligations associated with the "dépôt légal", called in the anglophone world "copyright deposit".
A little more, then, from a very interesting article in a recent volume on the subject, by and edited by several who know the field well:
"Before there were printed books little distinction was made between physical documents and rights to what they conveyed. It was common to treat the right to copy as conveyed with the manuscript, and natural to protect both with the law of theft." [the writer cites Harry Ransome, The First Copyright Statute (UTexas, 1956) p. 21.]
[Incidentally the medieval pecia system offers one interesting instance: students were allowed to take home and copy from entire bound works, and sometimes from single gatherings, of precious ms. editions: the copying was the point, in that case.]
"Only after the invention of the printing press [1455] did greater facility for multiplying copies create any need to distinguish. At first the primary consideration of the state was not so much with copying the contents of works as with their nature, and in particular with the regulation of their distribution."
"Royal favour was extended to enable wider distribution of works furthering the causes of the established powers." [a footnote cites 1 Richard III c. 9 (1484). But I wonder whether this is a copyright law or simply a censorship law?]
"However, the invention of printing coincided, by no means coincidentally, with the bitter religious and political disputes of the Reformation and the emergence of the nation state, so control was needed to prevent use of the press by potential subversives.” [here a footnote says, “It is thus unsurprising to find Henry VIII proclaiming royal control over printing in 1534 in 25 Henry VIII c. 15.” Again, though, is this copyright or just censorship? Or perhaps the two can’t be separated?]
“Such control was expressed: positively, by royal warrant privileges to print particular works…” [the footnote in this case says, “Such privileges appear to have been modeled on a scheme invented in Venice to cope with the earlier use of printing there, but by 1518 the system was sufficiently established in England for it to be expedient to publish a list of extant privileges.” So maybe the Venetians win...]
“…and even patents to print works of a generic class, such as law books or bibles, incidentally expanding patronage and raising revenue; and negatively, by regulation requiring all printing presses to be licensed… In an eery precursor of modern attitudes the public sector involved the private so as to achieve its objectives. The interests of booksellers and printers were engaged by granting a Charter to the Stationers’ Company to regulate for the government. Its preamble makes it abundantly clear that the primary aim was regulation… Involvement of the Star Chamber started in 1586…”
This is from Criminality and copyright, by Colin Tapper, in David Vaver and Lionel Bently eds. Intellectual Property in the New Millenium (Cambridge U., 2004) p. 267-8. Tapper is Professor of Law at Magdalen and Vaver is Professor of Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law at St. Peter’s, both at Oxford, Bently is Professor of Intellectual Property at Cambridge.
So, back to the French: their dépôt légal date being 1537, and assuming that copyright = dépôt legal, then we need to know when the English first required copyright deposit. We also need to decide whether copyright = censorship, although censorship has been going on for so long that it seems such an equation might be meaningless. Ditto for “regulation”: copyright can’t be said to have begun with government “regulation", that being a lot older than anything we think of as copyright. So it seems to me that the French win this point, so far, with their 1537 date, unless someone can show me a date prior to that for English copyright deposit?
Maybe "protection" is more the issue, tho: whether the author or really the commercial publishing house is being "protected" -- the modern question, IMO -- or the government/king, as in these early cited examples... Isn't that what this "1710 British Statute of Anne" is all about?
--Kessler 16:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


I've deleted the portion of the history section that read: "Access control was always used as a measure to disallow works from being copied without the consent of the author/owner. The Library of Alexandria (a.k.a. “The Kings Library”) was not a place that an average person could walk into and borrow a book from. Ptolemy III paid the sum of fifteen talents of silver to be allowed to copy the works of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides."

The statement about Ptolemy III is false: the fifteen talents were a deposit demanded by the government of Athens to make sure that Ptolemy returned the dramas once he had had the copies made; they were not a fee for copying. Ptolemy, however, decided to keep the original (and presumably more accurate) versions, and sent his copied versions to Athens. Thus, he forfeited his deposit rather than having an inferior copy in his Library.

The other two statements seem rather pointless in isolation. Not to mention that they are rather vague, and have little evidence to support them.

NAFTA and CAFTA

I'm trying to understand the implication of these "free trade agreements" and am particularly interested in the sections on Intellectual property. I see that they aren't mentioned in theis article. By the criteria used here, do they amount to "International copyright agreements", or do you want to focus on agreements that are exclusively about copyright and open to any country? The terms of these agreements match American copyright law, but I'm not sure if they also match Mexican and central American copyright laws, or whether these countries need to change these laws to be in compliance with the treaty. This may be an interesting note in this article. AdamRetchless 16:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the point you make here. I've recently fairly persuasive arguments that "regional" economic organizations -- to become "political" a little later -- are the new tier in all of this. The idea is that the EU is all that's left over from the earlier round of regional entity-making, but now NAFTA & CAFTA and a resuscitated ASEAN and Mercosur and particularly Andean Pact, will take on the regional thinking and structures of the EU to become the new international arena actors... goodbye internationalism, in other words, hello international regionalism...
I am not convinced of that yet, but it sure interests me. At the same time the bilateralism which the world inherited from Henry Kissinger interests me as well: that is what CAFTA and NAFTA are to me, essentially -- the US "going it alone" with its immediate neighbors, largely absent any ability to get along with others.
So if, for whatever rationale, NAFTA & CAFTA are going to end up becoming the true "international carriers" for intellectual property among other policies, they really should be mentioned in the article. Particularly as they have specific int prop language in the documents. Will you add some text?
--Kessler 21:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


US Copyright Legal Question

If a photographer is paid by a person to take a picture of him or her, and the person in the picture did not sign over any intellectual property rights, who own the rights to edit and/or copy the picture?

The photographer. The subject possesses no intellectual property rights where they happen to be the subject; any more than an otter snapped by a wildlife photographer.
Nuttyskin 12:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

copyright infringement - crime or tort?

Is the infringement of copyright a civil or a criminal matter? I used to think it was a civil matter, but I have read stuff which suggests that copyright infringement is criminal. Perhaps the law has changed. No doubt the law varies according to where you are. Perhaps I have been reading material by people who have an interest in exaggerating the consequences of copyright infringement.

Copyright has traditionally be a strictly civil matter. Recent U.S. legislation (esp. DMCA) has introduced criminality into the question, by making certain actions (e.g. hacking copy protection) not only unlawful but illegal. Tverbeek

(C)

I see it all the time. Is it widely accepted as an ASCII substitute for ©?

Most people probably don't know how to type one on their keyboards :). Husky 17:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Would you mind giving instruction as to how to do so? Trademark#Terminology_and_symbols includes it in it's article, so I figure it's appropriate. wbm 15:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Australian Copyright Law

Why is there no section on Australian (or German) copyright law if there are sections on UK and US copyright law? The world is round and down under is on top and under the rule of law!

If you miss something you can write it yourself or put up a request for it. That's the beauty of Wikipedia :) Husky 17:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Urheberrecht ?

Does this article try to include a description of the German "Urheberrecht" ? On one hand, many of the statements are just plain wrong for the Urheberrecht (Urheberrecht cannot be transfered, no need to mark a piece of work to get into the benefits of the Urheberrecht), on the other hand the article quotes German Copyright (which does not exist) in the section about Typefaces.

Does Urheberrecht cover the same ground and guarantee analogous rights as copyright law? Then it is the German equivalent of copyright law.
Urheber means "originator", and recht is a cognate of "right", so Urheberrecht means originator-right. I'd say that corresponded to the aims, if not the exact wording, of copyright. Wouldn't you?
Nuttyskin 12:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Author/Publisher relationship

I believe the following from the 3rd paragraph of "History" to be slightly misleading, but honestly don't know how it should be reworded:

"Given that publishers now obtain the copyright from the authors as a condition of mass reproduction of a work, one of the criticisms of the current system is that it benefits publishers more than it does authors. This is a chief argument of the proponents of peer-to-peer file sharing systems."

Publishers only "obtain" copyrights from authors when the author's work is done on a work-for-hire basis. In other cases, the author retains copyright while temporarily granting some of their "exclusive rights" to their publisher, generally for a limited time. Given that work-for-hire agreements are standard for some types of book (like textbooks), but rare for others (mass market fiction)I believe the statement to be in error. It confuses both the publisher/author relationship and the argument of file sharing proponents. JosephPub

Subject matter of this article

My impression of this article is that it is meant to cover the issue of copyright generally, leaving pecularities in individual countries' laws to be discussed in the appropriate articles (like United States copyright law etc.), else the copyright article would be overrun with U.S. pecularities instead of general copyright information. While some discussion of distinctions among different countries' laws has a place in this article, I think it is inappropriate for the article to become too U.S.-centric. Does anyone disagree? There is an anon that is adding a lot of U.S.-centric information to the article, and I simply want to clarify that my stance on the subject matter of this article isn't off. - Jersyko talk 21:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  • After reading through the article again, I think, perhaps, that my critique applies to nearly the entire article. It seems far too U.S.-centric as a whole. Maybe this contributed to the article's removal from featured status (i guess i should check that . . .), but I propose that this definitely needs to change. - Jersyko talk 21:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Etymology

I'm questioning the etymology given for "copyright" in the opening paragraph. It seems counterintuitive to me, applying a fairly modern sense of the word "copy" (a noun referring to text for a newspaper article or advertisement) rather than the more straightforward sense of the verb "to copy". Obviously it didn't apply to movies, sound recordings, etc. at first, but that's only because they hadn't been invented yet, not because pictures and music weren't protected. "The right to copy" seems a more plausible derivation. Tverbeek 01:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with Tverbeek. I think, however, that possibly all the changes to the introduction by 207.200.116.133 should be reverted. While the information added is well-written and mostly correct (aside from the aforementioned etymology), I don't think most of it belongs in the introduction. Possibly in other parts of the article, but not the intro. - Jersyko talk 02:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Soundtrack copyright

Film licences usually contain the phrase "The copyright proprietor has licensed this DVD (including its soundtrack) for private home use only." What exactly constitutes the soundtrack of the film? Does this mean that you can dowload the "Score/Soundtrack Album" of the film without breaking the law? I can't find the answer anywhere on wikipedia and I think it is worth a note somewhere...

  • I think "soundtrack" in this context means simply the audio of the film (i.e. the score, but also any other sounds contained on the DVD, like the movie's dialogue). Also, a "license for home use" does not necessarily allow the home user to make a copy of the soundtrack (or pictures) on his/her computer. Of course, fair use is permitted if you are in the United States. - Jersyko talk 19:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Question

If I was to write a book, and use the HUMMER name (or other manufacturer names, for that matter) in my book, would that be copyright infringement or anything? Would I need to get permission to do so? - 70.31.89.46 17:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Late reply, as I just happened to see the question: No, it would not be a copyright infringement, as Hummer may be a trademark, but not something you can copyright. Thomas Blomberg 23:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright of Martial Arts forms

The American Taekwondo Association claims copyright on the martial arts forms that they teach.

These forms do not quite fall under the legal rulings on choreography because martial arts forms are not principally form of entertainment. Has this been addressed in law? Mbac 21:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The American Taekwondo Association can claim copyright on anything they want. Quite how anyone could infringe that copyright is rather more problematic, and probably impossible to enforce. Can we really expect to see street gangs being served with legal letters alleging their unlawful use of martial arts forms?
Nuttyskin 12:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Also see below commentary about choreography and US copyright law.Yellowdesk 02:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Choreography and Copyright in the US

The short answer to the Taekwondo question is "yes, it has been addressed" and "no, it's not clear what the status is exactly" for new creations, and the form could be concievably be considered "social dance steps and simple routines," and not within the ambit of current copyright law. This area of copyright: non-performance choreography, I speculate, will be settled by a suit between an exercise studio and some individual who carries the ideas and forms they learn to their own business. For moves and steps published before January 1, 1978, that kind of choreography (if choreography is the right categorization of Taekwondo) is arguably in the public domain. See below.

In the US, by a Supreme Court decision in the mid 1800s (citation to come), all dance choreography (whether performance or social dance) was excluded from the ambit of copyright, since the law in effect then did not contemplate dance choreography, and the constitution merely states (in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8):

(The Congress shall have Power…) To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

Since ballet (the choreography under question in the case before that Supreme Court) was determined by the court to be neither a "science" nor "useful art," all choreography failed to merit copyright in the US. The settled law became that a dance might obtain copyright status as an integral and internal part of a "dramatic work" such as a play. There are also instances where the US copyright office in the 20th century rejected attempts to register copyright in a balletic work. Hence all dance choreography published before the changes in the US copyright law enacted in 1976, and coming into effect in January 1, 1978 are in the public domain. The Copyright act of 1976 contemplated copyright for choreography for the first time in these sections:

Title 17 Chapter 1 Sect. 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general
(a) (4) pantomimes and choreographic works

But the report of the Judiciary committee that reported the bill out qualified the sort of choreography that is included. Here's an excerpt from the legislative history, specifically excluding "social dance steps" from coverage within the term "choreographic works":

HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
House Commission on the Judiciary
HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476
94th Congress, 2nd Session (1976)
... Of the seven items listed, four are defined in section 101. The three undefined categories - 'musical works,' 'dramatic works,' and 'pantomimes and choreographic works' - have fairly settled meanings. There is no need, for example, to specify the copyrightability of electronic or concrete music in the statute since the form of a work would no longer be of any importance, nor is it necessary to specify that 'choreographic works' do not include social dance steps and simple routines.

Further, also within the copyright law, from section 102 :

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Useful background on performance choreography, not the subject of the above commentary is Julie van Camp's article "Copyright of Choreographic Works" appearing in "1994-95 Entertainment, Publishing and the Arts Handbook" edited by Stephen F. Breimer, Robert Thorne, and John David Viera New York: Clark, Boardman, and Callaghan, 1994 (pp. 59-92) [5]

I realize some more citations are in order on this topic. Yellowdesk 05:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Creative works copyright limitation

"The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of 1886 first established the recognition of copyrights between sovereign nations. Under the Berne convention, copyrights for creative works do not have to be asserted or declared, as they are automatically assigned: an author does not have to "register" or "apply for" a copyright. As soon as a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all exclusive rights to the work and any derivative works unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them, or until the copyright expires."

Since I'm no copyright expert myself, I'd appreciate it if someone cleared up whether Internet publication qualifies as "fixing" (I'm assuming it does), and when this "automatic" copyright expires. Also, does the contract an author makes with a publisher an "explicit disclaiming" of the copyright or not? Vespers 05:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Major re-write needed

This article is becoming one of the longest in Wikipedia. Although almost every section refers to another page for more in-depth reading, most of those sections are still a mile long, mainly repeating what can be found in the in-depth article. Also, the external links are growing by the day. In order to keep the size down, I suggest a thorough edit section by section, where any vital information not to be found in the corresponding in-depth article is moved over, and where sub-sections (which in many cases have their own in-depth articles) are completely moved over to the corresponding main in-depth article. The end result should be a short and snappy digest about copyright, consisting of very brief texts and lots of links for further reading. It would also mean that the article can become truly international, as much of the current US and British oriented text would be found in the respective in-depth articles instead, thus giving more room for short presentations of other countries' copyright issues. Currently, there just isn't room for anything more. I have, for instance, found a source where most countries' copyright laws can be read in full in English, but just adding the links to each such law text is impossible right now - and most readers wouldn't even notice those links in this massive article. What do you think? Thomas Blomberg 15:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Self-reference in article

I'm usually a proponent of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, but I think that the header in this article "For copyright issues in relation to Wikipedia itself, see Wikipedia:Copyrights" is probably useful, despite its self-referential nature. Thoughts? Rhobite 18:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Reasons article was not promoted

This article did not become a good article for a number reasons. Some of the most pressing include:

  1. The article does not contain sufficient citations or references.
  2. The subsection titles under the "Europe" section are erratic and there is no summary for the "Netherlands".
  3. The Australian copyright section is incorrectly formatted and also has no summary.
  4. The article spends a disporportionately long time on "Copyrights and the United States Government" but not on copyrights and other governments.
  5. The "Other aspects" section heading shows lack of thought about the article's structure should probably be reconsidered.
  6. There is no problem with discussing copyrights on typefaces, but the discussion probably doesn't deserve its own subsection.
  7. The "Registering copyright" section needs to discuss registering copyrights in countries other than the United States.
  8. The "External links" and "See also" sections are unwieldy and should probably be reorganized.

Truthfully the article appears a long way from good article status. And it really needs a thorough proof-reading and restructure before it can be considered further.

Cedars 04:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright after death of creator - when & why?

I don't see any coherent discussion of when the concept of copyright extending far after the creator's death arose, and what was the reasoning (if any) behind it - as distinct from the motivation, which is easy to see on the part of corporations. It seems to me completely illogical as it generally ends up rewarding people (author's family or copyright holding corporations) who did not do any of the original work, and now have what amounts to an arbitrary monopoly. Why does anyone who didn't do the work deserve to have an exclusive right to reproduce it? For example James Joyce's descendant trying to prevent readings from Ulysses on the 100th anniversary of Bloomsday...

In addition if copyright were to expire at the author's death the corporations would have a big incentive to keep their artists healthy and active!

Copyright on works produced by a big collaboration is trickier... the article seems to say it extends 95 years after the first publication - which seems absurd, unless life expectancy is going to get very much longer very soon!

--Tdent 16:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

An eighty- or ninety-year-old would have little incentive to publish the epic novel he had been writing all his life if he and his family could only benefit from its sale until the day he dies. (Even if you are young, who knows when you or your children will die?) His publisher would also be reluctant to risk investing the money required to print thousands of copies if other publishers could steal it away in just a few years. The goal of copyright is progress -- to reward authors for writing new, original ideas instead of just copying old works. GUllman 17:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There are different opinions on what the 'goal' of copyright is, and whether it achieves those goals, and I don't place much trust in economic arguments for copyright after death. Copyright creates a monopoly, which may or may not be a good thing for progress, depending on circumstances. I certainly don't believe the main reason why an 80-year old writer would want to publish his epic novel is financial. And what about a writer who has no children, or dislikes his children, or dislikes his publisher? As for other publishers 'stealing it away'... this is an absurd argument, since after the alleged 'theft' the first publisher still has the right to print and sell copies in a free market.

As for authors 'copying old works', you are confusing plagiarism (fraudulently passing other people's work off as your own), with copyright violation. And if you think the thousands of pulp novels copyrighted every year contain 'new, original ideas'...

My counterargument to copyright after death is: 1) Copyright law should give people what they deserve (ie justice) 2) Relatives or publishers may have helped or hindered the author, and so may have many other people 3) Therefore relatives or publishers do not deserve to get a monopoly on the work. The law is not a good way to give incentives of dubious and selective effectiveness at the price of significantly restricting freedom - which copyright after death certainly does. --Tdent 17:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

are copyrights granted by governments?

The opening sentence states that copyrights are granted by governments.

This is not the international norm.

The U.S. no longer subscribes to the 'granted by government' belief.

In 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed an earlier decision (Wheaton v Peters 33 U.S. 591 1834) when it held:

"Before the adoption (of the Constitution) the common law,..., in England and this country granted causes of action for copyright infringement" (Felton v Columbia 521 U.S. 340)

The granted v natural right is a distinction with a difference.

If the government does not grant copyright in exchange for registration (which includes a fee and deposit) than registration become an illegal taking without compensation. This issue will appear before the Courts soon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dkeogh (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure I follow. So copyright protection was originally a common law creation. Got it. But why does it therefore follow that copyright protection is not currently granted by the government in the U.S.? Regarding registration/fees, yes, the government does not require that you register and pay a fee to have a copyright. But that doesn't require one to conclude that the government therefore does not "grant" copyright. Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says "Congress shall have the power To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;." Aside from this, there's the whole Copyright Act of 1976 thing. Yeah, I really have no idea what you're trying to argue here. Clearly, the government grants copyright protection via statutes through exercise of its constitutionally-granted power to do so. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 20:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Only foreign national have copyrights in the United States without registration becaues only they may take legal action to protect their rights without registration (anywhere - ever ). U.S. citizens do not have the right to go to court without registration. Without a remedy no right exists.

The word "secure" in the Constitution does not give Congress the right to grant copyrights. It allows that an existing copyright monopoly be secured to prevent a abuse of the public. Secured like a criminal put in a secure prison. Congress does not grant copyright for a limited time, Congress limits an otherwise pepetual copyright to a certain amount of time.

If Congress had not written any copyright law at all copyrights would still exist and be enforcable. A common law property right includes access to common law remedies. --207.69.137.39 01:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a rather unusual theory to me. Do you have citations to support this idea, even as an alternative theory, let alone as one which you think should be stated as simply correct? Rlitwin 02:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe this is true: Only foreign national have copyrights in the United States without registration I have been told by copyright attorneys (and I'm not one ), that all works created by US nationals have a copyright even if you don't register them with the Library of Congress. You can still enforce them with legal action. What registration does for you is allows you to get punitive damages and legal fees. Can any copyright attorneys comment on this (with citations)?--Nowa 10:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The Copyright Act of 1976 is unequivocal in stating that "registration is not a condition of copyright protection."17 U.S.C. 408 Registration is not required for coypright protection to attach; it is only required if a copyright holder is seeking certain remedies ("statuory damages" or attorney fees) in an infringement action.17 U.S.C. 412 Copyright protection attaches automatically in certain "fixed" original works of authoriship per 17 U.S.C. 102. So, you're basically correct, Nowa. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 14:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks--Nowa 15:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: International norm. It have been stated for over a hundred years. Berne Convention Article 5, Section 2 "The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of the protection in the courtry of origin of the work"

RE: Only foreign nationals have rights without registration: 17 U.S.C.A. 411(a)(b) ".. no action for infringement of copyright in any United States work shall be isstituted until registration of copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title." The U.S. screws it own citizens in order to comply with a treaty and not reform its own rogue law.

RE: origin of right in the U.S. 1976 House Report "Two basic and well-estavlished principles are restated in Section 201(a) (title 17), 1) That the origin of copyrigth ownership is is the author of the work." This is the controlling statement of legislative intent.

RE: Feltner reversing Wheaton. The Feltner decision relies on Beckford v Hood 7 T.R.621,627. Beckford held that common law remedies had not been lost and no rights were confered by the Statute of Ann 1710. ".. the statute having vested the rigth in the author, the common law gives the remedy by action on the case for the violation of it." "vested means fully and unconditionally guaranteed as a letgal right."

AS a result at the time of the U.S. Constitution was written common law was still available (In theoretical retrospect anyway). The Wheaton court's belidf that common law dis not exist has been the foundation of U.S. copyright law. The doctrice of publication divests is now impossible to justify. Publication divests means that an aushor loses all rights to her work the moment it is shown in public. Then the government grants the rights back for a period of time. Under this theory even a work registered before publication divests upon publication when it simultanaeously granted back to the author under whatever conditions it wants.

No kidding. you can't make this stuff up.

Anyway, what Congress givith Congress can takith away, what Congress did not givith Congress can not takith without exhanging something of equal value. Registration has become an illegal taking. This has not been adjudicated - yet.

I believe that the term "granted" should be changed to "secures" which means both confines and protects. Alternately, as neither term seems to actually add to the understanding, that the phrase "granted by governments" simply be stricken.

I am not an attorney.

Weasels

"and, in some jurisdictions, industrial designs. Copyright is a type of intellectual property; designs or industrial designs may be a separate or overlapping form of intellectual property in some jurisdictions."

Please actually list them, perhaps as a ref. --Rtc 21:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

US specificity

As the lead says, "fair use" is the US concept, and the entire article about it. But it's a long article; some of the sections reiterate that they;re talking about the US. but others don't, and the reader may get confused. They;d be easy to add, but I don;t want to come in from elsewhere and tamper with a very carefully prepared page, unless asked.

Did you mean to make this statement at the Talk:Fair use page? --71.169.129.75 00:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. I'll put it there. Thanks. DGG 02:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Reproduction In Specialized Formats Permitted

The article says nothing about the fact that U.S. copyright law permits unlimited reproduction of a copyrighted work, without obtaining the permission of the author or owner, when the reproduction is in a "specialized format". An example is the publication of copyrighted articles and books in braille for use by blind and visually impaired people. Major braille publishing companies, such as the National Braille Press, make use of this exclusion all the time. Someone more knowledgeable than me should do some research on this and update the article, as this is an important omission. David 15:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at it, but does United States copyright law address these issues? · j e r s y k o talk · 16:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
No. That article doesn't mention anything about this exception for "specialized formats" such as braille. Neither do the Fair use or Braille book articles. David 13:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I have just put the appropriate text and a link in this page, and external links in the other two.

DGG 23:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Protects Ideas?

This is from the copyrights official site.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci


What Is Not Protected by Copyright?

Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)

Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents

Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration

Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lamrock (talk • contribs) .

That's true in the U.S. But is it true in other countries? · j e r s y k o talk · 13:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

other countries: split?

May I suggest that the best way to deal with this page is a split: Copyright (US) and Copyright (elsewhere). The US history and legisation and cases form a good sequences. But the others dont fit in. DGG 08:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic content

I am removing this link "(For discussion, see http://bfp.sp.unipi.it/~pievatolo/lm/kantbraz.html.)" from the "Limits and Exceptions to Copyright" section. Can you imagine picking up an encyclopedia in a library and reading, in the middle of an article, "If you want to debate this, please send a letter to this address.."? Exemplar sententia 13:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would love to see that. Coulda been a footnote. Might still become a footnote. ~ Otterpops 20:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

(Should have copyrighted it. Exemplar sententia 13:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

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)

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

Papal Copyright

I was looking up something else and came across the following on Benedict and copyright: [[6]]

- 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)

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)

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)

There should be some notice that the word "copyright" is US (UK?) based, we for example call it "autorská práva" (author's rights) in Czech Republic. Very important part of those rights is the nontransferable right to claim authorship, I don't know if it is emphasized in copyright. Ottodostal (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to do this by moving US-centric material to United States copyright law, but my edits are getting reverted. --71.169.150.172 02:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I was guilty of one of the reversions, but I self-reverted once I was notified that the edits were helpful and I reviewed them more thoroughly. I agree that your edits are improving the article, and will try to watch for anyone that might revert you. Editors might be less likely to revert if you edited under a registered username, though nothing forces you to log in, of course. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

btw... The whole of Wikipedia tends to be US or English centric --24.2.108.32 05:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)-Nick

It almost looks like this article is almost entirely about Anglo-American copyright. Maybe it should be renamed as such?

If not, significant changes will be needed to actually reflect copyright in the rest of the world. --Ernstk (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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).

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.

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)

Archived nicely

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

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)

It means that the duration of copyright is usually the life of the author, plus either 50 or 70 years. Good critique. I've clarified it. Terry Carroll 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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).


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).

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)

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)

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)

Just another comment

"Content that violates any copyright will be deleted."

Given that the warning quoted above is not followed by something like "current copyright laws are insane", many people will have the right to assume the Wikipedia managers enjoy and/or approve the general insaneness of the whole copyright thing. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.1.33 22:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you will find much agreement on that point; it's most a matter of not getting in trouble for violating copyright law, which could endanger the whole project. Wikipedia generally tries to remain neutral on controversial issues, so I don't think it would be appropriate to criticize copyright law of any particular country in the input form. -- Beland 04:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

More historical background

While I don't suggest copying from http://www.answers.com/topic/licensing-of-the-press-act-1662 it does have more historical background. Someone with more drive should look for a more credible source. On that note, this article does not cite its sources WELL. It has number citation, but in the works cited section, it doesn't show the numbers! --24.2.108.32 05:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest copying from there either, as it's another wikipedia article (Licensing of the Press Act 1662) - Answers.com mirrors wikipedia. --Harris 07:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Who owns the copyright if the author is dead?

If an author has been dead for less than 50/70/95 years then who owns the copyright to their works. Who owns the copyright of George Orwell's 1984? 218.215.143.107 02:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

George-orwell.org claims that his works are now in the public domain and has posted the entire works. HTH // Brick Thrower 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's strange. The Wikipedia article for 1984 as well as many other sources on the internet say that the book is under copyright until 2044 in the United States. 218.215.143.107 06:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

George-orwell.org does not look like a particularly reliable source; I would not trust it. Regarding your other copyright questions, I recommend that you consult an intellectual property attorney with a particular fact situation, as the answer may vary based on location and the work in question. · jersyko talk 12:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
In the United States, the provision that measures copyright terms based on the death of the author is only applicable to works that were created in 1978 or later. 1984 was published in 1949 (according to Nineteen Eighty-Four). It would have gotten an initial copyright term of 28 years, i.e., into 1977. If its copyright was renewed (and I'd be stunned if it was not), it would have gotten a second 67-year term (initially 28 years; then extended to 47 years; and extended again to where it now sits at 67 years). So, under current US law (again, unless it was not renewed), the copyright in 1984 will expire on December 31, 2044.
I have a somewhat dated Copyright FAQ that answers some of this stuff in more detail.
I have no clue why George-orwell.org would think that copyright has expired. Even if they think that the life+70 provision applies (it doesn't), that would have copyright expire 70 years after Orwell's death in 1950, i.e., December 31, 2020. My guess is that they're making two errors: first, thinking the lifetime-based term provisions apply to older works; and second, missing the fact that even if that provision applied, it was changed from life+50 to life+70 in 1998. If you make both of those errors, you would reach the conclusion that the copyright expired in 2000.
By the way, none of this addresses the question in the section header, "Who owns the copyright if the author is dead?" the answer to that is that a copyright is just like any other piece of property owned by someone who dies. It passes on according to the terms of the decedent's will, and absent any will, or a provision in the will covering the copyright, it passes on to whoever owns the residue of the estate.
Terry Carroll 18:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Would that mean that the work of an author without any children or other relatives who hasn't any will or anything will become public domain immediately when he or she dies? -- Algotr 22:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
No, a copyright is pretty much like any other piece of personal property. The copyright code (in the US) has no specific provisions on how it can be willed or otherwise change ownership upon the death of the copyright owner. It's left to the each individual state (we're still talking US here, right?) to regulate that, just as it regulates the passage of other property ownership. We're moving outside of copyright law now, and therefore outside my area of expertise, and into probate law. Most states have provisions that get the property to some family member somehow -- sometimes a pretty remote family member -- via some pretty arcane statutes. It's rare that there's no family member anywhere, although it might be something like a third or fourth cousin. However, it may be that no family member can be found, even if one exists, or maybe the copyright owner was an only child of an only child of an only child and there's no branches off his family tree to locate an heir. But even if that happens, the usual provision, as I understand it, in most states is for the state to take ownership through a process called "escheat". For example, California's escheat provision can be found in California Probate Code § 6804. Most, if not all, other states have comparable provisions. Terry Carroll 00:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Unavailable Material?

A lot of entertainment and software material is of limited availability around the world. For an example, Japanese anime is barely available at all in europe/america. If i should want to obtain an anime serie that is not released outside japan with apropriate subtitles or dub, do copyright laws still make it illegal to download the serie with apropriate subtitles or dub (by apropriate i mean a dub or subtitle i can understand)? Wether they are fanmade or professionally made subtitles/dubs? --195.134.57.233 13:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"do copyright laws still make it illegal..?" Yes, of course.--Svetovid 13:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

further reading and see also

The "further reading" and see also section is a mess and is very long. I'm going to set a goal of going through it all with the goal of removing 3/4 of the links and such so we have a core of very usefully and highly on topic issues. Discussion of the public domain should, for example, be on the public domain article and relevant links should be within the text of the article.

Just a heads up. I'll get to it eventually but feel free to take a stab at it yourself if you agree and feel the desire. mako (talk•contribs) 13:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright and Life

I think I see a pattern here -- the expiration of a copyright is just like a person's death due to a long lifespan. 68.227.221.61 22:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I make a photocopy of a recently printed book with Shakespears work?

According to the article: "In the United States, all books and other works published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain." Does that mean that I can make copies of a recently printed book where the text was originally written before 1923?

Algotr 10:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is a replication of the Shakespearean work then you can. If it included new works, such as illustrations, the issue becomes complicated. If the work is a verbatim copy of Shakespeare then the publisher didn't pay anyone to copy it, neither do you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.146.141 (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright and baseball stats

Hi. Any copyright counsel out there? The baseball people are having a raging debate about copyright and baseball statistics ... and the ability to use those stats on Wikipedia. Jailhouse lawyers have taken over. If someone with expertise is out there, perhaps they could clarify matters at [7]

using names

my friends and i wanted to make a vid to put on youtube and we wanted to call it teenage wasteland, but there's a documentary called teenage wasteland, this vid is gonna be a series n i just wasnt sure if we could get in trouble for usin their name, the vid isnt goin to b nething like the documentary if you know nething please tell me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoinNsane (talk • contribs).

so, you're putting a video series on youtube and you want to know if you can use the name of another video that is copyrighted? i heard somewhere that the title of books cannot be copyrighted, i am not sure if this is the same with movies though... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.23.148.191 (talk) 09:32:54, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

In New Zealand at least there is no copyright in a title because it is 'too insubstantial'. Green v Broadcasting Corp of New Zealand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.146.141 (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Name of article

I feel that the name of this article is POV. The term "copyright" is inherently POV as it implies that "copyright" is a right; there are no rights involved in the matter discussed in this article, except the human rights infringed by the abusers of so-called "copyright", like the Racketeering Industry Association of America RIAA.

So-called "copyright" is functionally a legal monopoly created by action of positive law, granted at the pleasure of the sovereign people, and continued under their sufferance, insofar as they feel that said monopoly benefits the public interest. There are no rights involved in it; it is a privilege, not a right, and to refer to legal privileges as rights diminishes the respect that is accorded to real rights like freedom of speech, the right to vote, etc.

I think a term that reflects the functional aspects of "copyright" should be used to name this article, such as "intellectual monopoly", "government-granted monopoly", or "legal monopoly" would be good names. Or we could just merge this article with "monopoly" and set up a redirect from "copyright" to "monopoly".

Any thoughts? Katana0182 03:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly a framing issue with these terms. The term copyright, however, is much older and much better established than intellectual property. Also, copyright has a specific meaning or at least is not nearly as ambiguous as IP. – I assume the last suggestion is a joke. Merging copyright into monopoly would be inane. Rl 10:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The legal subject covered by this article is called a "Copyright." It would be absurd, highly-POV, and less useful for the article to use some other name to cater to the anti-copyright crowd.Terry Carroll 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Cuba

Hi! What about the copyright for Cuba? Any notice? Thank you. Alegreen 06:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuba is a member of both the Berne Convention and the WTO (which means it subscribes to TRIPS); see List of parties to international copyright treaties. Berne prohibits condition a copyright on formalities such as copyright notice or registration; and TRIPS incorporates this prohibition from Berne. Presumably, Cuba is complying with its requirements under Berne and TRIPS, and does not require notice; however, I've never actually looked at Cuban copyright law. Terry Carroll —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:13:53, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Number line / Number row

i dont know if this is reletive, but does any one know what the numbers on the copyright page of a book mean? ie: on one of my books, on the copyright page, about five paragraphs down there are the numbers:

12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1                         06 07 08 09 10 11

does anyone know what these mean??

oh, and also, below that, write after "Printed in the U.S.A." is the number 40.

does anyone know what that means too?

thanks.76.23.148.191 09:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, this is unrelated to copyright; it's a way of tracking the printing number.
I've sometimes seen this referred to as a "number line" or "number row." It comes from the old days of set type. When the book is first set up to print, it gets a line like this: "9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1". When you see a book printed with that sequence, you're looking at its first printing. If the book is successful and needs a second printing, the printer would scratch off the '1' but leave the rest of the print set up, so books printed from that second print run would have: "9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2". Note the absence of the '1'. So by looking at the sequence, you can tell what print run you have; the lowest number present is the number of the print run.
The practice would no longer be necessary today, with digital typesetting; it's really no more expensive to change text from "first printing" to "second printing" than it is to change "9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1" to "9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2", but it's an established practice.
On the '40" after the "Printed in the USA," I have no clue. Terry Carroll 17:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)