by Heinz Regniet -
The public domain is a range of abstract materials-commonly referred to as intellectual property-which are not owned or controlled by anyone.The term indicates that these materials are therefore "public property", and available for anyone to use for any purpose.
The laws of various countries define the scope of the public domain differently, making it necessary to specify which jurisdiction's public domain is being discussed.Furthermore, the public domain can be defined in contrast to several forms of intellectual property; the public domain in contrast to copyrighted works is different from the public domain in contrast to trademarks or patented works.
The public domain is most often discussed in contrast to works restricted by copyright.Under modern law, most original works of art, literature, music, etc are covered by copyright from the time of their creation for a limited period of time (which varies by country).When the copyright expires, the work enters the public domain.
About 15 percent of all books are in the public domain, including 10 percent of all books that are still in print.
The public domain can also be defined in contrast to trademarks. Names, logos, and other identifying marks used in commerce can be restricted as proprietary trademarks for a single business to use.Trademarks can be maintained indefinitely, but they can also lapse through disuse, negligence, or widespread misuse, and enter the public domain.
It is possible, however, for a lapsed trademark to become proprietary again, leaving the public domain.
The public domain also contrasts with patents.
New inventions can be registered and granted patents restricting others from using them without permission from the inventor.
Like copyrights, patents last for a limited period of time, after which the inventions covered by them enter the public domain and can be used by anyone.
Intellectual property law, Primary rights, Copyright, Patents, Trademarks, Industrial design rights, Utility models, Geographical indication, Trade secrets, Related rights, Trade names, Domain names, Sui generis rights, Database rights, Mask work, Plant breeder´s rights, Supplementary protection certificate, Indigenous intellectual property.
A creative work is said to be in the public domain if there are no laws which restrict its use by the public at large. For instance, a work may be in the public domain if no laws establish proprietary rights over the work, or if the work or its subject matter are specifically excluded from existing laws. Because proprietary rights are founded in national laws, an item may be public domain in one jurisdiction but not another. For instance, some works of literature are public domain in the United States but not in the European Union and vice versa.
The underlying idea that is expressed or manifested in the creation of a work generally cannot be the subject of copyright law (see idea-expression divide). Mathematical formula will therefore generally form part of the public domain, to the extent that their expression in the form of software is not covered by copyright; however, algorithms can be the subject of a software patent in some jurisdictions.
Works created before the existence of copyright and patent laws also form part of the public domain. The Bible and the inventions of Archimedes are in the public domain. However, copyright may exist in translations or new formulations of these works. Although "intellectual property" laws are not designed to prevent facts from entering the public domain, collections of facts organized or presented in a creative way, such as categorized lists, may be copyrighted.
Collections of data with intuitive organization, such as alphabetized directories like telephone directories, are generally not copyrightable.
In some countries copyright-like rights are granted for databases, even those containing mere facts. A sui generis database rights regime is in place in the European Union.
Works of the United States Government and various other governments are excluded from copyright law and may therefore be considered to be in the public domain in their respective countries. They may also be in the public domain in other countries as well.
All copyrights and patents have always had a finite term, though the terms for copyrights and patents differ.When terms expire, the work or invention is released into public domain.
In most countries, the term for patents is 20 years.
A trademark registration may be renewed and remain in force indefinitely provided the trademark is used, but could otherwise become generic.
Copyrights are more complex than patents; generally, in current law, the copyright in a published work expires in all countries (except Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Samoa, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) when any of the following conditions are satisfied :The work was created and first published before January 1, 1923, or at least 95 years before January 1 of the current year, whichever is later;The last surviving author died at least 70 years before January 1 of the current year;No Berne Convention signatory has passed a perpetual copyright on the work; and neither the United States nor the European Union has passed a copyright term extension since these conditions were last updated. This must be a condition because the exact numbers in the other conditions depend on the state of the law at any given moment.
These conditions are based on the intersection of United States and European Union copyright law, which most other Berne Convention signatories recognize. Note that copyright term extension under US tradition usually does not restore copyright to public domain works (hence the 1923 date), but European tradition does because the EU harmonization was based on the copyright term in Germany, which had already been extended to life plus 70. United States law all or part of this article may be confusing or unclear.
In the United States, copyright law has changed several times since the founding of the country.
Rural that Congress does not have the power to re-copyright works that have fallen into the public domain.
"After World War I and after World War II, there were special amendments to the Copyright Act to permit for a limited time and under certain conditions the recapture of works that might have fallen into the public domain, principally by aliens of countries with which we had been at war.
Works created by an agency of the United States government are public domain at the moment of creation.
Examples include military journalism, federal court opinions (but not necessarily state court opinions), congressional committee reports, and census data. However, works commissioned by the government but created by a contractor are still subject to copyright, and even in the case of public domain documents, availability of such documents may be limited by laws limiting the spread of classified information.
Before 1978, unpublished works were not covered by the federal copyright act This does not mean that the works were in the public domain. Rather, it means that they were covered under (perpetual) common law copyright The Copyright Act of 1976, effective 1978, abolished common law copyright in the United States; all works, published and unpublished, are now covered by federal statutory copyright.
The claim that "pre-1923 works are in the public domain" is correct only for published works; unpublished works are under federal copyright for at least the life of the author plus 70 years.
For a work made for hire, the copyright in a work created before 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or registered for copyright, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures 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. If the work was created before 1978 but first published on or before December 31, 2002, the work is covered by federal copyright until 2047.
Works published with notice of copyright or registered in unpublished form prior to January 1, 1964, had to be renewed during the 28th year of their first term of copyright to maintain copyright for a full 95-year term.
Until the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the lack of a proper copyright notice would place an otherwise copyrightable work into the public domain, although for works published between January 1, 1978 and February 28, 1989, this could be prevented by registering the work with the Library of Congress within 5 years of publication. After March 1, 1989, an author's copyright in a work begins when it is fixed in a tangible form; neither publication nor registration is required, and a lack of a copyright notice does not place the work into the public domain.
Sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, were generally covered by common law or in some cases by statutes enacted in certain states, but were not covered by federal copyright law.
The 1976 Copyright Act, effective 1978, provides federal copyright for unpublished and published sound recordings fixed on or after February 15, 1972. Recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, are still covered, to varying degrees, by common law or state statutes. Any rights or remedies under state law for sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, are not annulled or limited by the 1976 Copyright Act until February 15, 2067.
Critics of copyright term extensions have said that Congress has achieved a perpetual copyright term "on the installment plan.
British government works are restricted by either Crown Copyright or Parliamentary Copyright.
Published Crown Copyright works become public domain at the end of the year 50 years after they were published, unless the author of the work held copyright and assigned it to the Crown.
In that case, the copyright term is the usual life of author plus 70 years Unpublished Crown Copyright documents become public domain at the end of the year 125 years after they were first created.
However, under the legislation that created this rule, and abolished the traditional common law perpetual copyright of unpublished works, no unpublished works will become public domain until 50 years after the legislation came into effect.
Since the legislation became law on 1 August 1989, no unpublished works will become public domain under this provision until 2039.
Parliamentary Copyright documents become public domain at the end of the year 50 years after they were published.
Crown Copyright is waived on some government works provided that certain conditions are met.
These numbers reflect the most recent extensions of copyright in the United States and Europe.
Canada and New Zealand have not, as of 2006, passed similar twenty-year extensions
Consequently, their copyright expiry times are still life of the author plus 50 years.
Australia passed a 20-year copyright extension in 2004, but delayed its effect until 2005, and did not make it revive already-expired copyrights.
Hence, in Australia works by authors who died before 1955 are still in the public domain.
As a result, works ranging from Peter Pan to the stories of H. Lovecraft are public domain in both countries.(The copyright status of Lovecraft's work is debatable, as no copyright renewals, which were necessary under the laws of that time, have been found.
Also, two competing parties have independently claimed copyright ownership on his work.
As with most other Commonwealth of Nations countries, Canada and Australia follow the general lead of the United Kingdom on copyright of government works.Both have a version of Crown Copyright which lasts for 50 years from publication.
New Zealand also has Crown Copyright, but has a much greater time length, at 100 years from the date of publication.
India has a government copyright of sixty years from publication, to coincide with its somewhat unusual life of the author plus sixty years term of copyright. According to Thai copyright law, the copyright term is the life of author plus 50 years.When the author is a legal entity or an anonymous person, the copyright term is 50 years from the date of publication.
Works of applied art (defined as drawings, paintings, sculpture, prints, architecture, photography, drafts, and models) have a copyright term of 25 years from publication.
Republication of works after the expiration of the copyright term does not reset the copyright term.
Thai state documents are public domain,but creative works produced by or commissioned by government offices are protected by copyright.
Japanese copyright law does not mention public domain. Hence, even when some materials are said to be "in the public domain" there can be some use restrictions. In that case, the term copyright-free is sometimes used instead. Many pre-1953 both Japanese and non-Japanese films are considered to be in the public domain in Japan.
Examples of inventions whose patents have expired include the inventions of Thomas Edison.
Examples of works whose copyrights have expired include the works of Carlo Collodi, Mozart, and most of the works of Mark Twain, excluding the work first published in 2001, A Murder, a Mystery, and a Marriage.
In the United States, the images of Frank Capra's classic film, It's a Wonderful Life (1946) entered into the public domain in 1974, because someone inadvertently failed to file a copyright renewal application with the Copyright Office during the 28th year after the film's release or publication.
Although copyright law generally does not provide any statutory means to "abandon" copyright so that a work can enter the public domain, this does not mean that it is impossible or even difficult, only that the law is somewhat unclear.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Copyright Bill Would Cost Songwriters $35 Million a Year
If the Harper government's proposed copyright legislation, Bill C-32, were to pass, it would reduce by $34.9 million the revenues songwriters and music publishers earn from licensing the right to reproduce songs. The lost revenue would represent 45% of the annual royalties collected by CMRRA-SODRAC Inc. (CSI), which collects royalties for the reproduction of songs.
The changes proposed by the government would allow broadcasters to copy music for use in programming their increasingly automated stations and networks without permission from, or payment to, songwriters or music copyright owners.
In testimony today, CSI President David Basskin, told the Legislative Committee examining Bill C-32: "They'll tell you the copies broadcasters make are worthless. That's nonsense. Expert evidence, accepted by the Copyright Board of Canada, extensively documents the benefits commercial radio broadcasters receive. For instance, through 'voice tracking', broadcasters can produce a four-hour program in 20 or 30 minutes."
Last week, commercial radio broadcasters told the Committee that current music royalty rates are unreasonable and unsustainable. CSI provided evidence to the Committee today that such stations pay all copyright owners, including CSI, just 5.7% of their revenue, despite the fact that music makes up 80% of their programming. They also provided evidence that, in 2009, despite a severe recession, their pre-tax profit margin was 21.2%.
CSI told the Legislative Committee that other provisions in Bill C-32 would also undermine the rights of its members. Failure to modernize the existing private copying provisions would result in the rapid disappearance of private copying revenues. The Bill also authorizes the making of uncompensated "technological reproductions", multiple backup copies, and the distribution of user-generated content through profitable commercial intermediaries like YouTube.
"Modernizing the Copyright Act should aim to create a stable, innovation-friendly environment without eliminating existing or potential royalty sources for creators," said CSI's Vice-President, Alain Lauzon. "The current law is technologically neutral and this principle should not be called into question. What constitutes copying or reproduction today should remain so as technologies continue to evolve."
CSI is a joint venture of the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency Limited (CMRRA) and the Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada (SODRAC). CMRRA and SODRAC represent the reproduction rights of the authors and publishers of more than 90% of the musical works sold or broadcast in Canada.
The changes proposed by the government would allow broadcasters to copy music for use in programming their increasingly automated stations and networks without permission from, or payment to, songwriters or music copyright owners.
In testimony today, CSI President David Basskin, told the Legislative Committee examining Bill C-32: "They'll tell you the copies broadcasters make are worthless. That's nonsense. Expert evidence, accepted by the Copyright Board of Canada, extensively documents the benefits commercial radio broadcasters receive. For instance, through 'voice tracking', broadcasters can produce a four-hour program in 20 or 30 minutes."
Last week, commercial radio broadcasters told the Committee that current music royalty rates are unreasonable and unsustainable. CSI provided evidence to the Committee today that such stations pay all copyright owners, including CSI, just 5.7% of their revenue, despite the fact that music makes up 80% of their programming. They also provided evidence that, in 2009, despite a severe recession, their pre-tax profit margin was 21.2%.
CSI told the Legislative Committee that other provisions in Bill C-32 would also undermine the rights of its members. Failure to modernize the existing private copying provisions would result in the rapid disappearance of private copying revenues. The Bill also authorizes the making of uncompensated "technological reproductions", multiple backup copies, and the distribution of user-generated content through profitable commercial intermediaries like YouTube.
"Modernizing the Copyright Act should aim to create a stable, innovation-friendly environment without eliminating existing or potential royalty sources for creators," said CSI's Vice-President, Alain Lauzon. "The current law is technologically neutral and this principle should not be called into question. What constitutes copying or reproduction today should remain so as technologies continue to evolve."
CSI is a joint venture of the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency Limited (CMRRA) and the Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada (SODRAC). CMRRA and SODRAC represent the reproduction rights of the authors and publishers of more than 90% of the musical works sold or broadcast in Canada.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Copyright - The Concept of Fixed Creations
by Richard Chapo -
Copyright law is loved by creators of material that can be copyrighted and disliked by most everyone else. Before the web rolled around, the scope of copyright law was fairly well established. Once the world started going digital, all heck broke loose. If you want to understand copyright, you need to grasp what can be copyrighted. This brings us to the concept of fixed creations.
Although I stink at them, I enjoy a good video game or two. To say they have evolved beyond the first games of Pong and Missile Command is a slight understatement. What might surprise you, however, is to learn that copyright law has evolved massively as well when it comes to video games. How so? The first games were not allowed to be copyrighted! We'll get back to that in a moment because it fleshes out the concept of fixed creations.
So, what is a fixed creation of the mind? It is an original work that is a result of the creativity of the author. It cannot be something that is simply observed or already exists. Let's consider some examples.
Stephen King is a rather prolific writer. Imagine his writing process. He sits and thinks up some truly wild things in his mind. This is then reduced to writing and published. The resulting book is clearly a product of his imagination and is fixed in the form of text. It is a classic copyrightable item.
Now let's return to our video game issue. The first video games were not allowed to be copyrighted because courts ruled the moving images were manifested by the players, and thus weren't creative. This obviously tells us how little judges understood in regard to video games. Eventually, an enterprising lawyer was able to get a judge to understand that the game was made up of a creative idea of a designer that was reduced to code and could be replicated. Given this, the game was a fixed creation of the mind and could be copyrighted. If this change hadn't been made, you would associate Halo with angels instead of Xbox.
Copyright is a fairly simple concept to understand in theory. Applying it to real world situations can be a bit more complex. Making sure you understand the concept of fixed creations will take you a long way to getting it right.
Richard A. Chapo is with SanDiegoBusinessLawFirm.com - providing copyright transfer agreement preparation services.
Copyright law is loved by creators of material that can be copyrighted and disliked by most everyone else. Before the web rolled around, the scope of copyright law was fairly well established. Once the world started going digital, all heck broke loose. If you want to understand copyright, you need to grasp what can be copyrighted. This brings us to the concept of fixed creations.
Although I stink at them, I enjoy a good video game or two. To say they have evolved beyond the first games of Pong and Missile Command is a slight understatement. What might surprise you, however, is to learn that copyright law has evolved massively as well when it comes to video games. How so? The first games were not allowed to be copyrighted! We'll get back to that in a moment because it fleshes out the concept of fixed creations.
So, what is a fixed creation of the mind? It is an original work that is a result of the creativity of the author. It cannot be something that is simply observed or already exists. Let's consider some examples.
Stephen King is a rather prolific writer. Imagine his writing process. He sits and thinks up some truly wild things in his mind. This is then reduced to writing and published. The resulting book is clearly a product of his imagination and is fixed in the form of text. It is a classic copyrightable item.
Now let's return to our video game issue. The first video games were not allowed to be copyrighted because courts ruled the moving images were manifested by the players, and thus weren't creative. This obviously tells us how little judges understood in regard to video games. Eventually, an enterprising lawyer was able to get a judge to understand that the game was made up of a creative idea of a designer that was reduced to code and could be replicated. Given this, the game was a fixed creation of the mind and could be copyrighted. If this change hadn't been made, you would associate Halo with angels instead of Xbox.
Copyright is a fairly simple concept to understand in theory. Applying it to real world situations can be a bit more complex. Making sure you understand the concept of fixed creations will take you a long way to getting it right.
Richard A. Chapo is with SanDiegoBusinessLawFirm.com - providing copyright transfer agreement preparation services.
Public Domain and Copyright Protection
by Sarah Kolb -
It's illegal to use someone else's copyrighted work without their permission, but a copyright registration doesn't last forever. In fact, a copyright lasts only a certain number of years past the author's death; when the registration ceases to be valid, the work enters the public domain and is freely available for use by anyone who chooses to use it. So how do you determine whether a work's copyright registration has run out -- our whether that work was ever registered in the first place? These questions seem straightforward, but the answers are more complex than you might think.
Unfortunately, if you'd like to use a particular work but you're not sure where to start, it's your own responsibility to determine whether it's protected by a copyright or in the public domain. A work might be in the public domain for any number of reasons; in order to figure out if you're free to use a work, there are a few questions you should ask yourself.
Is it an original work, or an idea?
Not everything is able to be copyrighted. Only "original works" that have been "fixed in a tangible medium" are able to be copyrighted -- the underlying idea is not. In addition, blank forms and other documents that contain no original work cannot be protected: ledgers, weight charts, address books, score cards, and other similar works are ineligible for copyright protection. Standard calendars are also ineligible -- however, while the calendar aspect cannot be protected, any artwork or photography that accompanies the calendar could be protected as a work of visual art.
Here are a few examples of things that cannot be copyrighted and, therefore, can be freely used:
* Someone writes a fictional children's book about dinosaurs, and they copyright the text. You want to write your own book about dinosaurs. Understand that it's the text alone that is protected from infringement, not the idea of fictional dinosaur friends going on journeys and doing other activities similar to the first dinosaur book. (Here's a great example of this point -- a frequent request my company's copyright division receives is to submit a few-page synopsis of a novel for copyright protection. We're careful to explain that while we could certainly send in those few pages of text for protection, our customers must understand that it's the actual text of the synopsis that would be protected, and not the book idea itself -- likely not what they had in mind!)
* Here's another example, this one from a court case by the name of Dunlap v. G&L Holding Group, Inc. (heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on August 27th, 2004). In this case, a gentleman came up with an idea for a bank that caters to gay and lesbian clientele. G&L Bank was formed and Dunlap became an employee. However, shortly after G&L's inception, Dunlap was fired and subsequently sued for theft of his idea. However, the suit was dismissed -- an "idea" cannot be protected, so someone who "steals" that idea has not broken any copyright laws.
Has the work been registered with the US Copyright Office?
With more recent works, the best place to start is the USCO's Copyright Records Search. Simply search the online database for the work you're looking for.
Of course, it isn't that simple. If the work isn't found there, that doesn't mean you've eliminated the possibility that the work is registered. It just means you have to dig a little harder. You may need to enlist the USCO's help in locating the registration. This process has its costs ($115 for even an estimate of the cost!) -- but guess what's even costlier? Being sued for copyright infringement.
In what year was the work registered for copyright protection?
In some cases, you might know that the work was copyrighted at one point but be unsure whether that registration is still valid and effective. There are many factors involved (the year of registration, whether or not the copyright symbol needed to be affixed to works registered in that particular year, and so on), but there are a few general rules:
*If the work was published before 1923, the copyright has expired. It is now in the public domain and free to use.
*If a work was published between 1923 and 1963 and the copyright registration was not renewed, the work is free to use.
* The registration of a work created after January 1, 1978, will remain effective until 70 years after the author's death (or the death of the last author, if there were more than one authors). If the work was anonymous, registration remains effective for 120 years from the registration date.
* If the work was published before 1978, and the copyright symbol and notice were not included in the work, it's in the public domain (and always has been).
* If the work was published between 1978 and March 1, 1989, it's a little trickier -- if the copyright notice was not included in the work at the time of publication, the author had five years to do so. If they did not, the work is in the public domain.
Sarah Kolb, http://www.clickandcopyright.com
Since 2000, Click Industries, Ltd. has been helping thousands of small business owners, independent entrepreneurs, writers, and musicians start new business ventures, protect their intellectual property, and find new ways to market and promote their businesses and creative works. The management team of Click Industries brings a wealth of experience from the fields of government, law, IT development, and book publishing.
It's illegal to use someone else's copyrighted work without their permission, but a copyright registration doesn't last forever. In fact, a copyright lasts only a certain number of years past the author's death; when the registration ceases to be valid, the work enters the public domain and is freely available for use by anyone who chooses to use it. So how do you determine whether a work's copyright registration has run out -- our whether that work was ever registered in the first place? These questions seem straightforward, but the answers are more complex than you might think.
Unfortunately, if you'd like to use a particular work but you're not sure where to start, it's your own responsibility to determine whether it's protected by a copyright or in the public domain. A work might be in the public domain for any number of reasons; in order to figure out if you're free to use a work, there are a few questions you should ask yourself.
Is it an original work, or an idea?
Not everything is able to be copyrighted. Only "original works" that have been "fixed in a tangible medium" are able to be copyrighted -- the underlying idea is not. In addition, blank forms and other documents that contain no original work cannot be protected: ledgers, weight charts, address books, score cards, and other similar works are ineligible for copyright protection. Standard calendars are also ineligible -- however, while the calendar aspect cannot be protected, any artwork or photography that accompanies the calendar could be protected as a work of visual art.
Here are a few examples of things that cannot be copyrighted and, therefore, can be freely used:
* Someone writes a fictional children's book about dinosaurs, and they copyright the text. You want to write your own book about dinosaurs. Understand that it's the text alone that is protected from infringement, not the idea of fictional dinosaur friends going on journeys and doing other activities similar to the first dinosaur book. (Here's a great example of this point -- a frequent request my company's copyright division receives is to submit a few-page synopsis of a novel for copyright protection. We're careful to explain that while we could certainly send in those few pages of text for protection, our customers must understand that it's the actual text of the synopsis that would be protected, and not the book idea itself -- likely not what they had in mind!)
* Here's another example, this one from a court case by the name of Dunlap v. G&L Holding Group, Inc. (heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on August 27th, 2004). In this case, a gentleman came up with an idea for a bank that caters to gay and lesbian clientele. G&L Bank was formed and Dunlap became an employee. However, shortly after G&L's inception, Dunlap was fired and subsequently sued for theft of his idea. However, the suit was dismissed -- an "idea" cannot be protected, so someone who "steals" that idea has not broken any copyright laws.
Has the work been registered with the US Copyright Office?
With more recent works, the best place to start is the USCO's Copyright Records Search. Simply search the online database for the work you're looking for.
Of course, it isn't that simple. If the work isn't found there, that doesn't mean you've eliminated the possibility that the work is registered. It just means you have to dig a little harder. You may need to enlist the USCO's help in locating the registration. This process has its costs ($115 for even an estimate of the cost!) -- but guess what's even costlier? Being sued for copyright infringement.
In what year was the work registered for copyright protection?
In some cases, you might know that the work was copyrighted at one point but be unsure whether that registration is still valid and effective. There are many factors involved (the year of registration, whether or not the copyright symbol needed to be affixed to works registered in that particular year, and so on), but there are a few general rules:
*If the work was published before 1923, the copyright has expired. It is now in the public domain and free to use.
*If a work was published between 1923 and 1963 and the copyright registration was not renewed, the work is free to use.
* The registration of a work created after January 1, 1978, will remain effective until 70 years after the author's death (or the death of the last author, if there were more than one authors). If the work was anonymous, registration remains effective for 120 years from the registration date.
* If the work was published before 1978, and the copyright symbol and notice were not included in the work, it's in the public domain (and always has been).
* If the work was published between 1978 and March 1, 1989, it's a little trickier -- if the copyright notice was not included in the work at the time of publication, the author had five years to do so. If they did not, the work is in the public domain.
Sarah Kolb, http://www.clickandcopyright.com
Since 2000, Click Industries, Ltd. has been helping thousands of small business owners, independent entrepreneurs, writers, and musicians start new business ventures, protect their intellectual property, and find new ways to market and promote their businesses and creative works. The management team of Click Industries brings a wealth of experience from the fields of government, law, IT development, and book publishing.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Copyright: The Basics by Sarah Kolb
When you create a new work, you own the copyright to that work. It happens automatically; you don't have to do anything other than create an original work. Of course, this abstract idea looks great on paper, but the obvious problem is that who created a work is essentially one person's claim against another.
Why should I copyright my work?
The fact that you've created a work doesn't necessarily mean that you're able to prove you've created the work -- and if you're not able to prove in a court of law that you created something, you're not going to be able to sue someone for using it without your permission.
This is where registering a copyright comes in. It's the only way to legally prove your authorship. You may have heard of the "poor man's copyright" -- the act of mailing a copy of the work to yourself, keeping the package unopened and the postmark intact -- but as there is no language to support this, it simply is not a legal defense. Better to copyright your work, allowing no room for argument.
What types of works are eligible for copyright protection?
Any work of original authorship (meaning that it is not an exact copy of another work) that has been fixed in a tangible medium (either physically or digitally; in other words, it is a thing and not just an idea) can be copyrighted. Examples include:
Photographs
Paintings
Compositions
Poetry
Books
Sound Recordings
Audio/Visual Recordings
Software
Computer programs
Not all types of works can be protected by a copyright. Examples of works not eligible for this type of protection include:
Blank forms (graph paper, scorecards, address books, etc.)
Public knowledge (height and weight charts, tape measures, anything taken from common sources)
Ideas
Names
Titles
Short Phrases
Logos (unless there is enough original authorship to warrant protection as two-dimensional artwork; simply setting a name or title in a specific font or giving the letters some sort of artistic treatment does not contain enough original authorship to qualify)
However, you may be able to protect types of intellectual property not eligible for copyright protection in another way, such as with a trademark or a patent. It's best to discuss this with your legal advisor, if you're uncertain which type of protection is best for your work.
Can I Protect My Unpublished Work With A Copyright?
Absolutely. Publication was once a requirement, but the current Copyright Act no longer requires that a work be published to receive protection.
Incidentally, recent versions of the Copyright Act have removed one other previous requirement: that the copyright notice and symbol be present on the work. While a good idea to deter would-be copyright infringers, the copyright notice is no longer required to be placed on the work, even if that work is published. Ignorance of a work's copyright protection is not a legal excuse to violate that protection.
Sarah Kolb, http://www.clickandcopyright.com.
Since 2000, Click Industries, Ltd. has helped thousands of small business owners, independent entrepreneurs, artists, musicians, and writers start new businesses, protect their intellectual property and find new ways to market and promote their business and creative works. Our copyrighting division, Click and Copyright, offers copyright filing services for creative professionals.
Why should I copyright my work?
The fact that you've created a work doesn't necessarily mean that you're able to prove you've created the work -- and if you're not able to prove in a court of law that you created something, you're not going to be able to sue someone for using it without your permission.
This is where registering a copyright comes in. It's the only way to legally prove your authorship. You may have heard of the "poor man's copyright" -- the act of mailing a copy of the work to yourself, keeping the package unopened and the postmark intact -- but as there is no language to support this, it simply is not a legal defense. Better to copyright your work, allowing no room for argument.
What types of works are eligible for copyright protection?
Any work of original authorship (meaning that it is not an exact copy of another work) that has been fixed in a tangible medium (either physically or digitally; in other words, it is a thing and not just an idea) can be copyrighted. Examples include:
Photographs
Paintings
Compositions
Poetry
Books
Sound Recordings
Audio/Visual Recordings
Software
Computer programs
Not all types of works can be protected by a copyright. Examples of works not eligible for this type of protection include:
Blank forms (graph paper, scorecards, address books, etc.)
Public knowledge (height and weight charts, tape measures, anything taken from common sources)
Ideas
Names
Titles
Short Phrases
Logos (unless there is enough original authorship to warrant protection as two-dimensional artwork; simply setting a name or title in a specific font or giving the letters some sort of artistic treatment does not contain enough original authorship to qualify)
However, you may be able to protect types of intellectual property not eligible for copyright protection in another way, such as with a trademark or a patent. It's best to discuss this with your legal advisor, if you're uncertain which type of protection is best for your work.
Can I Protect My Unpublished Work With A Copyright?
Absolutely. Publication was once a requirement, but the current Copyright Act no longer requires that a work be published to receive protection.
Incidentally, recent versions of the Copyright Act have removed one other previous requirement: that the copyright notice and symbol be present on the work. While a good idea to deter would-be copyright infringers, the copyright notice is no longer required to be placed on the work, even if that work is published. Ignorance of a work's copyright protection is not a legal excuse to violate that protection.
Sarah Kolb, http://www.clickandcopyright.com.
Since 2000, Click Industries, Ltd. has helped thousands of small business owners, independent entrepreneurs, artists, musicians, and writers start new businesses, protect their intellectual property and find new ways to market and promote their business and creative works. Our copyrighting division, Click and Copyright, offers copyright filing services for creative professionals.
Licensing and Transference of Copyright
By Malika Bajpai
A Copyright acquired by an individual or a party may be transferred to another party. To accomplish this some conditions must be carried out among the parties. This is a common practice in the music industry. The creator of a music or song forms an agreement with the music company in which the company acquires all the rights to copy, distribute and publicize the items in the market. The original creator is provided with royalties in return. Due to the advent of the internet much of the copying and distribution is done through the internet but the company also pays heed to the marketing factor. The company looks after the marketing the creator (singer or musician) among the masses.
It depends on the copyright holder whether he/she wants to transfer all the vested rights to other. The owner of the right may transfer few of the rights to some party. When the transfer is done the original owner have to sign in legal documents. For exclusive license this is particularly useful where both the parties agree on the conditions and give their sign. The rights that are handed over to the party are mentioned exclusively leaving behind other rights. Legal documents involving such transfers of right should be with the concerned Copyright office. In US this is the rule.
Licensing of the Copyright is also performed in some countries. The benefit that adheres to the license considerably helps individual to acquire the copyrighted work without the consent of the owner. For this the concerned, issues a notice to the authority and pays some amount of money as fixed by the authority. If someone violates the law related to licensing it may lead to infringement. Various bodies have been formed to look that the policies and procedures are carried out properly. Thus doing this ensures that the creators are returned with adequate fees fixed for them.
To learn more about bankruptcy related issues please log on to the given website http://www.lawandlegalcare.com Law and Legal Care is a law portal having eminent team of attorneys across US, and offers quality service to its clients.
A Copyright acquired by an individual or a party may be transferred to another party. To accomplish this some conditions must be carried out among the parties. This is a common practice in the music industry. The creator of a music or song forms an agreement with the music company in which the company acquires all the rights to copy, distribute and publicize the items in the market. The original creator is provided with royalties in return. Due to the advent of the internet much of the copying and distribution is done through the internet but the company also pays heed to the marketing factor. The company looks after the marketing the creator (singer or musician) among the masses.
It depends on the copyright holder whether he/she wants to transfer all the vested rights to other. The owner of the right may transfer few of the rights to some party. When the transfer is done the original owner have to sign in legal documents. For exclusive license this is particularly useful where both the parties agree on the conditions and give their sign. The rights that are handed over to the party are mentioned exclusively leaving behind other rights. Legal documents involving such transfers of right should be with the concerned Copyright office. In US this is the rule.
Licensing of the Copyright is also performed in some countries. The benefit that adheres to the license considerably helps individual to acquire the copyrighted work without the consent of the owner. For this the concerned, issues a notice to the authority and pays some amount of money as fixed by the authority. If someone violates the law related to licensing it may lead to infringement. Various bodies have been formed to look that the policies and procedures are carried out properly. Thus doing this ensures that the creators are returned with adequate fees fixed for them.
To learn more about bankruptcy related issues please log on to the given website http://www.lawandlegalcare.com Law and Legal Care is a law portal having eminent team of attorneys across US, and offers quality service to its clients.
Monday, February 21, 2011
WikiLeaks and US Government, Serial Violators of Copyright
by Vel Nirtist -
Since WikiLeaks and the American government are locked in a bitter and acrimonious struggle, a claim that the two share a common underlying mentality may appear bizarre.
And yet, such is indeed the case: what unites US government and the WikiLeaks is their attitude to copyright -- or, more precisely, their respective answer to the question "do the tools of exercising the copyright belong with the copyright itself, or can they be used separately?"
WikiLeaks clearly thinks that the latter is the case -- and uses a tool of copyright, the internet, even though it has no copyright to the material itself. In WikiLeaks mind, the copyright and the exercise of its tools do not belong together; one party can have the copyright to the material, yet a different party can wield the tools to publish this material.
Which is precisely the position of the US government.
Consider this scenario. You wrote a book, and therefore have the copyright to it -- the right to publish. Unwilling to go to a publisher because he will pocket two thirds of the profit, or because you have no connections, you decide to exercise your copyright and to publish your book yourself. How do you make the book trade -- the libraries and bookstores -- aware of your newly forthcoming book? For that, you need the government's help -- you need to add it to the Library of Congress' catalog that provides subject keywords by which your book can be found by the interested parties. This is the key tool of exercising your copyright, since it makes your book visible in the marketplace.
Yet, if you publish your book yourself, the government denies you the use of this catalog, this essential tool of the copyright -- even though you actually own the copyright itself. Only the bigger third-party publishers -- the middlemen -- are permitted its use, not the actual owners of copyright -- the authors. Clearly, the government believes that the copyright and its tools do not belong together -- and thus, it fully shares the WikiLeaks position and philosophy.
Taking the tools of the copyright away from the owners of the copyright locks the latter out of the mainstream marketplace of ideas, to the detriment of us all. If all could speak, rather than merely those with the connections, perhaps many problems that surfaced in government cables leaked by the WikiLeaks would have been solved through the free and public debate. But the government doesn't want an open debate, and denies the key to the marketplace of ideas -- the tools of copyright -- to wider public. WikiLeaks, equally cavalier about the copyright, and sharing with the government the premise that tools of copyright do not belong with the copyright itself, now gave the government a taste of its own medicine -- and published what the government -- the copyright owner -- does not want published.
So, evisceration of copyright turned out to be a double-edged sword. The very same principle of separating tools of the copyright from the copyright itself produced two very different outcomes: in one case, the authors who want their work present in the mainstream marketplace of ideas cannot place their books into it; yet in the other, the authors who would rather escape the limelight, now find themselves engulfed in it.
Solution? Let the copyright be copyright, so the tools of publishing (or of exercise of the copyright, which is the same) belong together. Hopefully, the court case to which I am a party -- Overview Books v. US -- will restore the normal meaning of the copyright as the author's right to publish without a middleman -- and his or her ability to utilize all requisite tools, including the government-maintained catalog.
While the government should be able to keep its secrets, the public should also be able to do what it needs to do to function properly -- to freely discuss whatever the members of the public want to discuss. Both needs will be served by restoring to the copyright its normal function -- that of allowing authors the right to present their works to the mainstream marketplace of ideas -- or to withhold it from the public scrutiny if they wish to do so.
Vel Nirtist writes on the role of religion in fostering terrorism. He is author of “The Pitfall of Truth: Holy War, its Rationale and Folly.” His blog is at http://www.rootoutterrorism.com
Since WikiLeaks and the American government are locked in a bitter and acrimonious struggle, a claim that the two share a common underlying mentality may appear bizarre.
And yet, such is indeed the case: what unites US government and the WikiLeaks is their attitude to copyright -- or, more precisely, their respective answer to the question "do the tools of exercising the copyright belong with the copyright itself, or can they be used separately?"
WikiLeaks clearly thinks that the latter is the case -- and uses a tool of copyright, the internet, even though it has no copyright to the material itself. In WikiLeaks mind, the copyright and the exercise of its tools do not belong together; one party can have the copyright to the material, yet a different party can wield the tools to publish this material.
Which is precisely the position of the US government.
Consider this scenario. You wrote a book, and therefore have the copyright to it -- the right to publish. Unwilling to go to a publisher because he will pocket two thirds of the profit, or because you have no connections, you decide to exercise your copyright and to publish your book yourself. How do you make the book trade -- the libraries and bookstores -- aware of your newly forthcoming book? For that, you need the government's help -- you need to add it to the Library of Congress' catalog that provides subject keywords by which your book can be found by the interested parties. This is the key tool of exercising your copyright, since it makes your book visible in the marketplace.
Yet, if you publish your book yourself, the government denies you the use of this catalog, this essential tool of the copyright -- even though you actually own the copyright itself. Only the bigger third-party publishers -- the middlemen -- are permitted its use, not the actual owners of copyright -- the authors. Clearly, the government believes that the copyright and its tools do not belong together -- and thus, it fully shares the WikiLeaks position and philosophy.
Taking the tools of the copyright away from the owners of the copyright locks the latter out of the mainstream marketplace of ideas, to the detriment of us all. If all could speak, rather than merely those with the connections, perhaps many problems that surfaced in government cables leaked by the WikiLeaks would have been solved through the free and public debate. But the government doesn't want an open debate, and denies the key to the marketplace of ideas -- the tools of copyright -- to wider public. WikiLeaks, equally cavalier about the copyright, and sharing with the government the premise that tools of copyright do not belong with the copyright itself, now gave the government a taste of its own medicine -- and published what the government -- the copyright owner -- does not want published.
So, evisceration of copyright turned out to be a double-edged sword. The very same principle of separating tools of the copyright from the copyright itself produced two very different outcomes: in one case, the authors who want their work present in the mainstream marketplace of ideas cannot place their books into it; yet in the other, the authors who would rather escape the limelight, now find themselves engulfed in it.
Solution? Let the copyright be copyright, so the tools of publishing (or of exercise of the copyright, which is the same) belong together. Hopefully, the court case to which I am a party -- Overview Books v. US -- will restore the normal meaning of the copyright as the author's right to publish without a middleman -- and his or her ability to utilize all requisite tools, including the government-maintained catalog.
While the government should be able to keep its secrets, the public should also be able to do what it needs to do to function properly -- to freely discuss whatever the members of the public want to discuss. Both needs will be served by restoring to the copyright its normal function -- that of allowing authors the right to present their works to the mainstream marketplace of ideas -- or to withhold it from the public scrutiny if they wish to do so.
Vel Nirtist writes on the role of religion in fostering terrorism. He is author of “The Pitfall of Truth: Holy War, its Rationale and Folly.” His blog is at http://www.rootoutterrorism.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)