I used to worry about other people stealing my work. I do lots of different kinds of things so there is plenty to steal. In 35 years of being in business, I have produced plenty of exceptional photos, illustrations, graphic design, ads, websites, printed collateral material, logos, music and writing, to name just a few. And of course, I also have plenty of clients for all my competition to try to steal away from me as well. This is normal. If you are talented in any way, or in business of any kind, people steal from you.
What about copyright laws? Unless you want to waste lots of money hiring a lawyer to chase after every thief and take them to court only to get a judgement against them which they probably will never pay, what is the use? And that's if you're lucky. Most of the time in cases of Internet violation, you can never even locate the person responsible, let alone convict him of the crime. But it's not money I'm after. If I were, why in heaven's name would I be writing articles for Internet article directories who don't pay for use of their articles? I write for such sites to get the benefit of linkbacks for my website and blog. What are linkbacks? They are a vital component of SEO (search engine optimization), as links back to my website from highly ranked, popular websites, which contributes to my achieving page one search results for my own website when appropriate keywords are searched on Google. It's complicated but it works.
I recently was searching for some javascript code I could use to do something clever on my website. When I found what I wanted to adapt, I checked to see what the terms of use were. The writer of the code very humbly asked for a mere $5 if you wanted to remove his name from the invisible credits that would only appear where other code seekers would see it. Otherwise, it was free. How can you not respect a request like that? I happily left his name even though I needed to spend many hours tweaking the code to work in my situation but felt a certain kinship with this skilled individual that engendered the utmost in admiration and obedience. I treat others the way I wish to be treated myself.
It certainly was upsetting when I first realized that my articles were being used improperly and published as if written by someone on the website where I happened to find them. I checked the usage policies of the article websites to which I had submitted my articles which stated that it was required that articles be published with a signature line (meaning, author's name) along with a link to the author's website.
After reading that, I thought, "Oh, great! Maybe they will help me enforce their policies." But after further reading I quickly learned that it was my responsibility to do any policework, notifying offenders of what they so innocently had overlooked. Once such violations are brought to light, these well-meaning publishers will be eager to correct their ways. Ha! That's a laugh!
Not only do these offending websites have no way to contact anyone, they are enshrouded in secrecy by unknown hosts who ironically invite you to "report abuse," only to inform you that they cannot accept responsibility for any individual blog publisher's offenses. If you want to try posting a comment to communicate the violation, you usually need to register and log in, divulging all your own personal information, so your comment will ultimately get picked up by Google associated with a less-than-reputable website in some future search that will follow you to your grave. (Is this where we're headed, as members of this Google-dominated culture we live in?)
As I was searching the title of my article which is how I discovered the stolen usages, I saw something else which made me realize what a tangled web we weave on the Internet. One instance of my article used my title verbatim, but what followed in the body of the article was what appeared to be an error-ridden, broken-English, horrendous translation from some other language, which suggested that this article had gone full circle. I imagined someone publishing my English-language article in say, Chinese, for example, and someone translating it back into English to use it on the website where I found it. Let's just say I wasn't a bit unhappy about the lack of attribution in this situation!
But this is sad... a very sad state of affairs, wouldn't you agree? Or isn't it, rather, "Wake up and smell the coffee! This is reality, so get over it"? Hence, my resignation. As a person with wavering self-esteem to begin with, I accept having someone pirate my work to call his own in the same way I accept someone cutting me off in traffic, or cutting ahead of me in line at the grocery store. It's gotten to be so commonplace that what else can you do but just shrug your shoulders about it? Sure, you could make a scene but ironically in today's society, you would be running the risk of getting arrested for breach of peace and instigating a public disturbance. That would be a perfect example of today's justice. No thanks. I'd rather just look the other way and be glad that they're not hauling me off as the real criminal for publishing interesting articles that tempt others to steal them.
But... just a minute! Isn't that a website that has actually included my name as the author? And included a link to my picture and website as well? Well, now. Isn't that nice of someone, to be so kind! Funny how abiding by the rules we're all supposed to be following is the new supernatural, worthy of reverence usually reserved for the divine or the immortal.
Are we so jaded that merely obeying the law of the land has been elevated to an act of sainthood, and deserving of the grand prize awarded only to superhumans? I guess it follows then that telling the truth, showing respect, offering help and being fair are also beyond expectation for normal individuals, and anyone exhibiting such behavior should be honored with recognition as one of today's superheroes. Never mind that many religions teach "Thou shalt not steal"; in fact, raised as a Catholic, I was taught not to even "covet" my neighbor's goods, let alone go so far as to steal them. It was wrong to even "lust" after them, to use a term made famous (or would it be "infamous"?) by Jimmy Carter in a Playboy interview back in 1976. And certainly in civil law, everyone knows it is a punishable offense to take something that doesn't belong to you. But this is more than that. It is not only taking it, but gaining glory from it as well! And in some instances, it is even gaining revenue from it because of advertising that appears as a result of its saleability and magnetic appeal, drawing cybertraffic to fulfill promised ad viewership. That should fall under a more grievous category and worthy of an even bigger punishment.
And if I were inclined to contact a copyright lawyer, I would be advised of my many rights in such a case. I would also be informed that I would be responsible for payment to the lawyer to represent me whether he was successful in apprehending the guilty party or not. Another case of divine justice gone bad. My rights are violated and I pay as a result. No pain, no gain, right? The pain being my shock and awe at having been so flagrantly ripped off; my outrage at having someone else impersonate me as the author; and my disgust at needing to pay a lawyer to defend my rights. The gain? Obviously all in the thief's court, so to speak.
Marilyn Bontempo, president of Mid-Hudson Marketing since 1975, has extensive experience guiding business leaders, directors, and professionals with successful strategies for business growth and sustenance. Long-term relationships have been established with law firms, medical practices, pharmaceutical companies, real estate executives, and a variety of other trade, corporate and industrial specialists. Her professional writing, photographic, design and aesthetic specialties provide clients with proven methods of achieving successful branding and public image. Mid-Hudson Marketing is a top New York advertising, marketing, website and graphic design firm located in Dutchess County's Poughkeepsie area specializing for more than 35 years in the creation and management of high quality branding for business success. With numerous prestigious awards to its credit, the firm's services include full scale advertising programs; expert website development and search engine optimization; professional writing and ghostwriting; blog setup and management; e-commerce and email marketing; outdoor billboards; trade show and point-of-purchase displays; sell sheets, posters, flyers, brochures, and catalogs; logos and trademarks; photo enhancements; direct mail marketing; newsletters; public relations; and more: call (845) 493-0070. For more info, please visit: http://www.midhudsonmarketing.com
Monday, November 29, 2010
Understanding Copyright Infringement by Richard Trott
Copyright is something that is very important when it comes to the protection of intellectual property. So basically, what is all the fuss around copyrighting? Well, to be short, it is a law that will protect any kind of work like literary works, musical works, movies, radio broadcasts and so on, from being redistributed or aired by someone else, which is not related in any way to them. These are called copyright laws and they will never let anyone use the content other have worked to create without the sole permission of the authors or creators of that certain content.
These laws are usually very stringent and they will depend on the country where each of us will be living in. So yes, if you are dealing with Copyright Infringement you should know that you are in for some big trouble. Let us now take a look at the various types of works that can be a subject of Copyright Infringements and which we have already mentioned above:
Photographs, sculpture, graphic work, architecture and so on are part of the artistic works. This means that these works are very imposing when it comes to the visuals side. If you fall in this category and have such works under your sleeve, then you should know that they are very well protected by the law.
Musical works includes everything that is related to music and you should know that not only will your lyrics be the subject of copyrighted protection, but also the notes that you have used in your songs.
Books, poems, business letters, they are all part of the literary works and it would take a long time if we were to name all of them here. You will never have to worry about your works being plagiarized by others, as there are stringent laws that will protect you from these people.
When it comes to Infringement of copyright,video recordings like movies, soundtracks, radio shows, they can also be very well covered by the law and even the soundtrack of a movie will be considered as part of the movie, even if it belongs to many artists. You are also in for the same benefits when it comes to sound recordings. Thus no one will be able to reproduce them without your permission.
So here you are, some of the things that copyrighting laws will cover. If you will ever find yourself in the situation of having your content plagiarized or used without your permission, you can safely turn to the law as you will be the winner of the dispute. If you wish to do some Copyright search, then you can use a Copyright application available for free on the internet.
If you would like to know more about Copyright and Copyright Infringement, please visit our website.
These laws are usually very stringent and they will depend on the country where each of us will be living in. So yes, if you are dealing with Copyright Infringement you should know that you are in for some big trouble. Let us now take a look at the various types of works that can be a subject of Copyright Infringements and which we have already mentioned above:
Photographs, sculpture, graphic work, architecture and so on are part of the artistic works. This means that these works are very imposing when it comes to the visuals side. If you fall in this category and have such works under your sleeve, then you should know that they are very well protected by the law.
Musical works includes everything that is related to music and you should know that not only will your lyrics be the subject of copyrighted protection, but also the notes that you have used in your songs.
Books, poems, business letters, they are all part of the literary works and it would take a long time if we were to name all of them here. You will never have to worry about your works being plagiarized by others, as there are stringent laws that will protect you from these people.
When it comes to Infringement of copyright,video recordings like movies, soundtracks, radio shows, they can also be very well covered by the law and even the soundtrack of a movie will be considered as part of the movie, even if it belongs to many artists. You are also in for the same benefits when it comes to sound recordings. Thus no one will be able to reproduce them without your permission.
So here you are, some of the things that copyrighting laws will cover. If you will ever find yourself in the situation of having your content plagiarized or used without your permission, you can safely turn to the law as you will be the winner of the dispute. If you wish to do some Copyright search, then you can use a Copyright application available for free on the internet.
If you would like to know more about Copyright and Copyright Infringement, please visit our website.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Copyright Laws Are Serious and You Have the Right to Defend Your Work! by Lance Winslow
As a hobby writer in retirement and a highly prolific writer of e-books and online articles I can tell you that we have a severe problem on the Internet with copyright violations. I can't tell you how many of my articles have been stolen and placed onto other websites, and I've even seen where my articles were slightly rewritten and filled with anchored key words, and then the individuals who own the website leave my name on it. Not only does this make me look bad, but they have no right to use that content in that way.
Luckily, I claim copyright to what I write, and I have the right to defend myself, and my work. If you are a writer or you have intellectual property, or you have written books, or articles online or articles in electronic magazines you also have the same rights. The unfortunate challenge is that this problem is so pervasive that you can't possibly track down everyone that violates your copyrights, because no one has that much time in a day. Worse, if you hire someone to track down all these folks it could cost you a ton of money.
Nevertheless, if you can track down such individuals you may be surprised to find that you can serve them and have them come to court and they will actually have to pay you a good chunk of money. One newspaper in Las Vegas the Las Vegas Review Journal is going after people who have stolen their content and placed it on their blogs or websites. It is probably their contention that this endeavor will pay for itself, and the word will get out to folks online not to steal their content anymore.
They have every right to do this, although there are a lot of people online complaining about it, however, it's usually the people who have stolen the content, and that now found themselves in court, and don't want to pay. Please consider all this.
Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow believes writing 21,500 articles was a lot of work - because all the letters on his keyboard are now worn off.
Luckily, I claim copyright to what I write, and I have the right to defend myself, and my work. If you are a writer or you have intellectual property, or you have written books, or articles online or articles in electronic magazines you also have the same rights. The unfortunate challenge is that this problem is so pervasive that you can't possibly track down everyone that violates your copyrights, because no one has that much time in a day. Worse, if you hire someone to track down all these folks it could cost you a ton of money.
Nevertheless, if you can track down such individuals you may be surprised to find that you can serve them and have them come to court and they will actually have to pay you a good chunk of money. One newspaper in Las Vegas the Las Vegas Review Journal is going after people who have stolen their content and placed it on their blogs or websites. It is probably their contention that this endeavor will pay for itself, and the word will get out to folks online not to steal their content anymore.
They have every right to do this, although there are a lot of people online complaining about it, however, it's usually the people who have stolen the content, and that now found themselves in court, and don't want to pay. Please consider all this.
Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow believes writing 21,500 articles was a lot of work - because all the letters on his keyboard are now worn off.
Can You Copyright News Headlines? by Adele A Pace
This article addresses the law relating to copyright in news headlines and explores the case law relating to whether media publishers can protect their headlines as original literary works.
Media companies have tried to claim copyright protection over newspaper headlines reproduced on the internet. News publishers have claimed that news headlines qualify for copyright protection as original literary works under copyright legislation. As early as 1918 in the case of International News Service v Associated Press 248 U.S. 215 the US Supreme Court has held that there can be no copyright in facts or 'news of the day'.
Courts have been reluctant to afford literary copyright to titles, characters and news headlines. However newspaper publishers see the reproduction or abstracting of headlines as theft of their content. Newspaper publishers have tried to obtain copyright protection in their headlines as discrete original literary works under copyright legislation.
For copyright protection to exist a literary work must exist and not every piece of writing or printing will constitute a literary work within the meaning of the law.
Typically, single words, short phrases, advertising slogans, characters and news headlines have been refused copyright protection even where they have been invented or newly coined by an author. The courts have given different reasons for denying copyright protection to such works. One reason offered is that the 'works' are too trivial or not substantial enough to qualify for copyright protection. The case of Exxon Corporation v Exxon Insurance Consultants Ltd (1981) 3 All ER 241 is a leading English precedent where copyright was refused for the word Exxon as an original literary work.
Exxon argued it enjoyed copyright in the word Exxon having invested time and energy in employing linguists to invent the word, contending that the actual size of the literary work doesn't preclude a work from acquiring copyright protection. The court found that the work was too short or slight to amount to a copyright work.
The Court also stated that although the word was invented and original it had no particular meaning comparing it with the word 'Jabberwocky' used for Lewis Carroll's famous poem. US case law has only recognised limited intellectual property rights in invented names or fictional characters in exceptional cases. There is no modern english or Australian case which has recognised that titles, phrases, song and book titles should be granted copyright protection.
Publishers asserting copyright in headlines say that compiling and arresting headlines involve a high degree of novelty and creativity, and should qualify as original literary works. To be a literary work, a work has to convey pleasure or afford enjoyment or instruction. It must also be original and to satisfy the test of originality it must be original not just in the sense of originating from an identifiable author rather than copied, but also original in the particular form of expression in which an author conveys ideas or information. This is because copyright is not meant to protect facts or ideas.
The question whether copyright can subsist in newspaper headlines was discussed briefly by a Judge in a Scottish case called Shetland Times Ltd v Wills [1997] FSH 604. The Judge didn't arrive at a final conclusion as to whether a newspaper headline can be a literary work, but expressed reservations about granting copyright to headlines, especially where they only provide a brief indication of the subject matter of the items they refer to in an article.
Newspaper headlines are similar in nature to titles of a book or other works and titles, slogans and short phrases which have been refused copyright protection. In the case of IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 14, the High Court held that no copyright can subsist in a programme title alone. The Courts have based their reasons for refusing copyright protection to such works both of the basis that they are too short (see Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Corp Ltd (194) AC 112) or alternatively that titles of newspapers, songs, magazines, books, single words and advertising slogans lack sufficient originality to attract copyright protection.
The title 'Opportunity Knocks' for a game show was refused protection, as was the title "The Man who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo" for a song and "Splendid Misery" for a novel. Courts have also refused copyright protection for invented names such as Kojak and newspaper titles such as 'The Mirror'. Such titles and names may however be protected by other forms of intellectual property such as trademark law or the tort of passing off.
Whilst Courts have recognised that newspaper headlines may involve creative flair and be clever and engaging but represent little more than the fact or idea conveyed.
Adele Pace - http://www.pacelegal.com.au - For more resources on internet law, e-commerce and intellectual property.
Media companies have tried to claim copyright protection over newspaper headlines reproduced on the internet. News publishers have claimed that news headlines qualify for copyright protection as original literary works under copyright legislation. As early as 1918 in the case of International News Service v Associated Press 248 U.S. 215 the US Supreme Court has held that there can be no copyright in facts or 'news of the day'.
Courts have been reluctant to afford literary copyright to titles, characters and news headlines. However newspaper publishers see the reproduction or abstracting of headlines as theft of their content. Newspaper publishers have tried to obtain copyright protection in their headlines as discrete original literary works under copyright legislation.
For copyright protection to exist a literary work must exist and not every piece of writing or printing will constitute a literary work within the meaning of the law.
Typically, single words, short phrases, advertising slogans, characters and news headlines have been refused copyright protection even where they have been invented or newly coined by an author. The courts have given different reasons for denying copyright protection to such works. One reason offered is that the 'works' are too trivial or not substantial enough to qualify for copyright protection. The case of Exxon Corporation v Exxon Insurance Consultants Ltd (1981) 3 All ER 241 is a leading English precedent where copyright was refused for the word Exxon as an original literary work.
Exxon argued it enjoyed copyright in the word Exxon having invested time and energy in employing linguists to invent the word, contending that the actual size of the literary work doesn't preclude a work from acquiring copyright protection. The court found that the work was too short or slight to amount to a copyright work.
The Court also stated that although the word was invented and original it had no particular meaning comparing it with the word 'Jabberwocky' used for Lewis Carroll's famous poem. US case law has only recognised limited intellectual property rights in invented names or fictional characters in exceptional cases. There is no modern english or Australian case which has recognised that titles, phrases, song and book titles should be granted copyright protection.
Publishers asserting copyright in headlines say that compiling and arresting headlines involve a high degree of novelty and creativity, and should qualify as original literary works. To be a literary work, a work has to convey pleasure or afford enjoyment or instruction. It must also be original and to satisfy the test of originality it must be original not just in the sense of originating from an identifiable author rather than copied, but also original in the particular form of expression in which an author conveys ideas or information. This is because copyright is not meant to protect facts or ideas.
The question whether copyright can subsist in newspaper headlines was discussed briefly by a Judge in a Scottish case called Shetland Times Ltd v Wills [1997] FSH 604. The Judge didn't arrive at a final conclusion as to whether a newspaper headline can be a literary work, but expressed reservations about granting copyright to headlines, especially where they only provide a brief indication of the subject matter of the items they refer to in an article.
Newspaper headlines are similar in nature to titles of a book or other works and titles, slogans and short phrases which have been refused copyright protection. In the case of IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 14, the High Court held that no copyright can subsist in a programme title alone. The Courts have based their reasons for refusing copyright protection to such works both of the basis that they are too short (see Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Corp Ltd (194) AC 112) or alternatively that titles of newspapers, songs, magazines, books, single words and advertising slogans lack sufficient originality to attract copyright protection.
The title 'Opportunity Knocks' for a game show was refused protection, as was the title "The Man who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo" for a song and "Splendid Misery" for a novel. Courts have also refused copyright protection for invented names such as Kojak and newspaper titles such as 'The Mirror'. Such titles and names may however be protected by other forms of intellectual property such as trademark law or the tort of passing off.
Whilst Courts have recognised that newspaper headlines may involve creative flair and be clever and engaging but represent little more than the fact or idea conveyed.
Adele Pace - http://www.pacelegal.com.au - For more resources on internet law, e-commerce and intellectual property.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Beware of Copyright Infringement When Recording Sound Effects by Alan M McKinney
Copyright is a set of rights assigned to the owner/creator of a piece of original work. Those rights are assigned automatically upon creation of the work. For the sound recordist and designer, these rights are essential in order to give control over any sound recordings created and how they can be used. It's fair to say they are the lifeblood of our work.
Copyright must be respected and considered at all times when recording sound effects. It's easy to overlook possible copyright infringements when out in the busy world recording. We are bombarded with recorded sound on a daily basis and it has become an ingrained part of our lives. From advertising and television and radio programmes to toys and ringtones, copyright material is everywhere and it's very easy to accidentally capture sound under copyright in a sound effect recording. If you do, it renders that sound effect unusable with the possibility of serious legal action being taken against you.
So just how easy is it to accidentally capture copyright material in a sound effect recording? The short answer is very easy. On many occasions I have been in the studio editing down recordings I have just made and realised I captured a ringtone of a passing person's phone or music being played in a passing car. It may sound insignificant, but those ringtones or that music is under copyright and it's illegal to record or distribute copyrighted work without permission from the copyright owner.
I have compiled a list of just some of the copyrighted sounds we hear regularly and may accidentally capture when recording sound effects:
1. Music - music is everywhere: on the radio; television; stereo system; background music in shops; restaurants and bars; computer games; toys; gadgets; sporting events and more.
2. Ringtones - most modern cell phones have a range of recorded ringtones available and many are under copyright. Even that old sound of a 'Bell' telephone is probably a recording and under copyright.
3. Toys and Games - electronic toys and games often use short audio recordings. From an action figure's spoken catchphrase to the buzzer on a board game, they are probably under copyright.
4. Computer Games - It's almost a certainty that the audio in any computer game is under copyright, including amusement arcade games.
5. Software - All those interface beeps, button clicks, musical signatures etc. are all likely to be under copyright.
6. Recorded Announcements - These can be some of the easiest copyright infringements to make. Recorded announcements can be heard in: train stations; airports; bus/coach terminals; sporting events; trains; aircraft; busses; ferries; elevators; shops and many more places.
So remember to always consider what and where you are recording. Take time to listen to the surroundings of where you are going to record to establish the risk of recording copyrighted material. It won't only be a waste of your time if you do but can land you in serious legal trouble.
Alan McKinney is the founder and co-owner of http://www.soundscalpel.com a professional sound effect and production music library and professional sound designer with over 15 years experience.
Copyright must be respected and considered at all times when recording sound effects. It's easy to overlook possible copyright infringements when out in the busy world recording. We are bombarded with recorded sound on a daily basis and it has become an ingrained part of our lives. From advertising and television and radio programmes to toys and ringtones, copyright material is everywhere and it's very easy to accidentally capture sound under copyright in a sound effect recording. If you do, it renders that sound effect unusable with the possibility of serious legal action being taken against you.
So just how easy is it to accidentally capture copyright material in a sound effect recording? The short answer is very easy. On many occasions I have been in the studio editing down recordings I have just made and realised I captured a ringtone of a passing person's phone or music being played in a passing car. It may sound insignificant, but those ringtones or that music is under copyright and it's illegal to record or distribute copyrighted work without permission from the copyright owner.
I have compiled a list of just some of the copyrighted sounds we hear regularly and may accidentally capture when recording sound effects:
1. Music - music is everywhere: on the radio; television; stereo system; background music in shops; restaurants and bars; computer games; toys; gadgets; sporting events and more.
2. Ringtones - most modern cell phones have a range of recorded ringtones available and many are under copyright. Even that old sound of a 'Bell' telephone is probably a recording and under copyright.
3. Toys and Games - electronic toys and games often use short audio recordings. From an action figure's spoken catchphrase to the buzzer on a board game, they are probably under copyright.
4. Computer Games - It's almost a certainty that the audio in any computer game is under copyright, including amusement arcade games.
5. Software - All those interface beeps, button clicks, musical signatures etc. are all likely to be under copyright.
6. Recorded Announcements - These can be some of the easiest copyright infringements to make. Recorded announcements can be heard in: train stations; airports; bus/coach terminals; sporting events; trains; aircraft; busses; ferries; elevators; shops and many more places.
So remember to always consider what and where you are recording. Take time to listen to the surroundings of where you are going to record to establish the risk of recording copyrighted material. It won't only be a waste of your time if you do but can land you in serious legal trouble.
Alan McKinney is the founder and co-owner of http://www.soundscalpel.com a professional sound effect and production music library and professional sound designer with over 15 years experience.
International Copyright Protection by Ramaswami Natarajan
Copyright Intellectual Property can be protected at National and International. Copyright has international protection such as Berne convention, universal copyright convention, WIPO copyright Treaty, Rome convention, Brussels convention etc.
The International union for the protection of literary and artistic works was established in 1886 in Berne, Switzerland. It is popularly known as Berne Convention. It entered into force on 5th December, 1887 and it has been revised for five times. It is administered by world intellectual property organization (WIPO). The Berne convention has 38 articles and special provisions for the developing countries. The convention has established a minimum of protection of life plus 50 years or an alternative of fifty years from publication of anonymous work and pseudonymous work. India is a member of the Berne convention.
One of the International copyright protections is Universal Copyright Convention (UCC). The universal copyright convention was signed and entered into force on September 6, 1952. It was revised on 1971 at Paris. The protection given is for published as well as unpublished works. The member countries must grant a minimum copyright term of 25 years from publication, or life of the author plus 25 years. The foreign authors of other member countries must be granted exclusively rights for at least seven years.
The next International Copyright protection for the performers, producers of phonogram and broadcasting organizations is Rome convention. The Rome convention was completed on October 26, 1961 and entered into force on may 18, 1964 basically intend to protect the neighboring rights. Phonogram is a sound recording. The rights in respect of phonograms and performances and broadcasting are called neighboring rights.
The benefits of this convention are performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasters. The protection is granted for twenty years term will vary according to the nature of work. The eligibility to participate in this convention is that a state must be a member of either of the Berne convention or the universal copyright convention.
Another International Copyright protection is WIPO copyright Treaty. It was adopted by the diplomatic conference at Geneva on December 20, 1996 and entered into force on January 1, 1996. This convention is for the protection of rights of performers and produces of phonograms. The term of protection is fifty years.
Some treaties convention gives protection for the unauthorized duplication. On October 29, 1971, the convention for the producers of phonograms against unauthorized duplication of their phonograms is signed at Geneva. The main purpose of this Geneva Convention is to fight against the practice of piracy by third parties.
The convention relating to the distribution of programme- carrying signals transmitted by satellite and audio- visual works is Brussels convention signed on may 21 1974. The main purpose is to battle the misappropriation of satellite signals on an international level. The treaty on international registration of audio-visual works Geneva signed on April 20, 1989 at Geneva. It deals with the registration of audio- visual works at the international level.
Ramaswami Natarajan Patent and Trademark Attorney is a co-founder of TMPsearchers.com. He created the India Patent Agent Examination Course syllabus. Provides Copyright registration services and can liaise at Indian Patent Office.
The International union for the protection of literary and artistic works was established in 1886 in Berne, Switzerland. It is popularly known as Berne Convention. It entered into force on 5th December, 1887 and it has been revised for five times. It is administered by world intellectual property organization (WIPO). The Berne convention has 38 articles and special provisions for the developing countries. The convention has established a minimum of protection of life plus 50 years or an alternative of fifty years from publication of anonymous work and pseudonymous work. India is a member of the Berne convention.
One of the International copyright protections is Universal Copyright Convention (UCC). The universal copyright convention was signed and entered into force on September 6, 1952. It was revised on 1971 at Paris. The protection given is for published as well as unpublished works. The member countries must grant a minimum copyright term of 25 years from publication, or life of the author plus 25 years. The foreign authors of other member countries must be granted exclusively rights for at least seven years.
The next International Copyright protection for the performers, producers of phonogram and broadcasting organizations is Rome convention. The Rome convention was completed on October 26, 1961 and entered into force on may 18, 1964 basically intend to protect the neighboring rights. Phonogram is a sound recording. The rights in respect of phonograms and performances and broadcasting are called neighboring rights.
The benefits of this convention are performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasters. The protection is granted for twenty years term will vary according to the nature of work. The eligibility to participate in this convention is that a state must be a member of either of the Berne convention or the universal copyright convention.
Another International Copyright protection is WIPO copyright Treaty. It was adopted by the diplomatic conference at Geneva on December 20, 1996 and entered into force on January 1, 1996. This convention is for the protection of rights of performers and produces of phonograms. The term of protection is fifty years.
Some treaties convention gives protection for the unauthorized duplication. On October 29, 1971, the convention for the producers of phonograms against unauthorized duplication of their phonograms is signed at Geneva. The main purpose of this Geneva Convention is to fight against the practice of piracy by third parties.
The convention relating to the distribution of programme- carrying signals transmitted by satellite and audio- visual works is Brussels convention signed on may 21 1974. The main purpose is to battle the misappropriation of satellite signals on an international level. The treaty on international registration of audio-visual works Geneva signed on April 20, 1989 at Geneva. It deals with the registration of audio- visual works at the international level.
Ramaswami Natarajan Patent and Trademark Attorney is a co-founder of TMPsearchers.com. He created the India Patent Agent Examination Course syllabus. Provides Copyright registration services and can liaise at Indian Patent Office.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Copyright Law Online - Follow the Rules in France or Go Dark
by Lance Winslow
It looks like the European Union is all over the copyright violations happening online. Right now they are going after Piracy downloads of music, and movies. Next, however they will be going after digital books (eBooks), and stolen news articles which are put onto blogs, or copied into Internet forums. The UK has also talked about this, and they too are making laws to prevent copyright violations.
In the United States we have a huge lobby in Hollywood, in both the record industry and the film industry which is trying to prevent unauthorized downloads. In France, the UK, and all throughout the European Union, as well as the United States, Internet laws are being introduced that will allow government officials and regulators to turn off websites who violate copyrights.
In some cases there may be a three strikes law, but one of the biggest fears of people who own websites is that there will be false complaint from competitors and their sites will be shut down unnecessarily. Yes, this could happen in the United States as well, and there have been things tried in the past to shut down websites which may have malware on them.
We also know in the United States that the media companies, especially the newspapers which are nearly bankrupt have talked with the Federal Trade Commission and the Congress about the ongoing copyright piracy. Not long ago, there was a very interesting article in the Wall Street Journal titled; "All Eyes on France As Officials in First New Anti-Piracy Law," by Max Colchester which was published in the third week of October 2010.
The article states that in this new law in France warnings will be sent out to anyone who is suspected of downloading copyright material. In other words, Internet users could have their ISP turned off, which would mean they can't even get e-mails if they are caught downloading stuff. Three-strike type rule - and basically you would receive a set of warnings according to the article;
"your Internet connection has been used to commit acts, recognized by police authorities, which could be regarded as a breach of law," and at that point you would have to prove that you did or didn't personally do this, and then defend your right not to lose your Internet service. That's pretty scary isn't it? It sounds rather draconian in many cases. To get a full understanding of this topic, I recommend you go to the Wall Street Journal website and read that article.
Further, I'd like you to know that our think tank is been considering all this, and we are quite worried that this will be misused by authorities for various purposes; such as to limit political dissent, free speech, and exert more control over the society. In fact, it could also be something that happens in the United States. Perhaps, this is why The Electronic Freedom Foundation is also looking into all of this. Please consider all this.
Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow believes writing 21,500 articles was a lot of work - because all the letters on his keyboard are now worn off.
It looks like the European Union is all over the copyright violations happening online. Right now they are going after Piracy downloads of music, and movies. Next, however they will be going after digital books (eBooks), and stolen news articles which are put onto blogs, or copied into Internet forums. The UK has also talked about this, and they too are making laws to prevent copyright violations.
In the United States we have a huge lobby in Hollywood, in both the record industry and the film industry which is trying to prevent unauthorized downloads. In France, the UK, and all throughout the European Union, as well as the United States, Internet laws are being introduced that will allow government officials and regulators to turn off websites who violate copyrights.
In some cases there may be a three strikes law, but one of the biggest fears of people who own websites is that there will be false complaint from competitors and their sites will be shut down unnecessarily. Yes, this could happen in the United States as well, and there have been things tried in the past to shut down websites which may have malware on them.
We also know in the United States that the media companies, especially the newspapers which are nearly bankrupt have talked with the Federal Trade Commission and the Congress about the ongoing copyright piracy. Not long ago, there was a very interesting article in the Wall Street Journal titled; "All Eyes on France As Officials in First New Anti-Piracy Law," by Max Colchester which was published in the third week of October 2010.
The article states that in this new law in France warnings will be sent out to anyone who is suspected of downloading copyright material. In other words, Internet users could have their ISP turned off, which would mean they can't even get e-mails if they are caught downloading stuff. Three-strike type rule - and basically you would receive a set of warnings according to the article;
"your Internet connection has been used to commit acts, recognized by police authorities, which could be regarded as a breach of law," and at that point you would have to prove that you did or didn't personally do this, and then defend your right not to lose your Internet service. That's pretty scary isn't it? It sounds rather draconian in many cases. To get a full understanding of this topic, I recommend you go to the Wall Street Journal website and read that article.
Further, I'd like you to know that our think tank is been considering all this, and we are quite worried that this will be misused by authorities for various purposes; such as to limit political dissent, free speech, and exert more control over the society. In fact, it could also be something that happens in the United States. Perhaps, this is why The Electronic Freedom Foundation is also looking into all of this. Please consider all this.
Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow believes writing 21,500 articles was a lot of work - because all the letters on his keyboard are now worn off.
Copyright Laws Are Serious and You Have the Right to Defend Your Work!
by Lance Winslow
As a hobby writer in retirement and a highly prolific writer of e-books and online articles I can tell you that we have a severe problem on the Internet with copyright violations. I can't tell you how many of my articles have been stolen and placed onto other websites, and I've even seen where my articles were slightly rewritten and filled with anchored key words, and then the individuals who own the website leave my name on it. Not only does this make me look bad, but they have no right to use that content in that way.
Luckily, I claim copyright to what I write, and I have the right to defend myself, and my work. If you are a writer or you have intellectual property, or you have written books, or articles online or articles in electronic magazines you also have the same rights. The unfortunate challenge is that this problem is so pervasive that you can't possibly track down everyone that violates your copyrights, because no one has that much time in a day. Worse, if you hire someone to track down all these folks it could cost you a ton of money.
Nevertheless, if you can track down such individuals you may be surprised to find that you can serve them and have them come to court and they will actually have to pay you a good chunk of money. One newspaper in Las Vegas the Las Vegas Review Journal is going after people who have stolen their content and placed it on their blogs or websites. It is probably their contention that this endeavor will pay for itself, and the word will get out to folks online not to steal their content anymore.
They have every right to do this, although there are a lot of people online complaining about it, however, it's usually the people who have stolen the content, and that now found themselves in court, and don't want to pay. Please consider all this.
Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow believes writing 21,500 articles was a lot of work - because all the letters on his keyboard are now worn off.
As a hobby writer in retirement and a highly prolific writer of e-books and online articles I can tell you that we have a severe problem on the Internet with copyright violations. I can't tell you how many of my articles have been stolen and placed onto other websites, and I've even seen where my articles were slightly rewritten and filled with anchored key words, and then the individuals who own the website leave my name on it. Not only does this make me look bad, but they have no right to use that content in that way.
Luckily, I claim copyright to what I write, and I have the right to defend myself, and my work. If you are a writer or you have intellectual property, or you have written books, or articles online or articles in electronic magazines you also have the same rights. The unfortunate challenge is that this problem is so pervasive that you can't possibly track down everyone that violates your copyrights, because no one has that much time in a day. Worse, if you hire someone to track down all these folks it could cost you a ton of money.
Nevertheless, if you can track down such individuals you may be surprised to find that you can serve them and have them come to court and they will actually have to pay you a good chunk of money. One newspaper in Las Vegas the Las Vegas Review Journal is going after people who have stolen their content and placed it on their blogs or websites. It is probably their contention that this endeavor will pay for itself, and the word will get out to folks online not to steal their content anymore.
They have every right to do this, although there are a lot of people online complaining about it, however, it's usually the people who have stolen the content, and that now found themselves in court, and don't want to pay. Please consider all this.
Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow believes writing 21,500 articles was a lot of work - because all the letters on his keyboard are now worn off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)