History UsefulNotes / Copyright

24th Nov '17 10:34:43 AM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The right to stop some uses is not a natural right. Copyright as it exists now is a creation of government, and the rights the copyright owner does have can be and are restricted for some uses and not others. Basically it depends on who has better lobbyists to meet with members of Congress and get their side's interests put into law. The very first form of Copyright was [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne The Statute of Anne]] which applied for 28 years. This law was so popular it was incorporated in the The US Constitution and has been extended several times. The 1976 Act is a complex piece of legislation that made nobody happy because it was the result of a nearly two decade fight between copyright holders and ''librarians'' among others representing the public interest. Nowadays the trend in copyright law is to pass broad sweeping prohibitions (such as the UsefulNotes/DigitalMillenniumCopyrightAct) and have the Librarian of Congress review the law every three years to issue exceptions. The [[http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/07/drm-buster-faq-what-it-means-for-you/ exceptions]] released in July 2010 have been seen as positive for the general public and believers in FairUse.

to:

The right to stop some uses is not a natural right. Copyright as it exists now is a creation of government, and the rights the copyright owner does have can be and are restricted for some uses and not others. Basically it depends on who has better lobbyists to meet with members of Congress and get their side's interests put into law. The very first form of Copyright was [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne The Statute of Anne]] which applied for 28 years. This law was so popular it was incorporated in the The US Constitution and has been extended several times. The 1976 Act is a complex piece of legislation that made nobody happy because it was the result of a nearly two decade fight between copyright holders and ''librarians'' among others representing the public interest. Nowadays the trend in copyright law is to pass broad sweeping prohibitions (such as the UsefulNotes/DigitalMillenniumCopyrightAct) and have the Librarian of Congress review the law every three years to issue exceptions. The [[http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/07/drm-buster-faq-what-it-means-for-you/ exceptions]] released in July 2010 have been seen as positive for the general public and believers in FairUse.
UsefulNotes/FairUse.



You can lend your copy of ''Film/{{Inception}}'' to a friend and not violate the distribution right because it isn't sufficiently "public." What is considered public is defined by the common law (i.e., court cases). However, if your friend burns extra copies of ''Inception'' so you both can have one or uses the clips to make an [[{{Shipping}} Arthur/Ariadne]] tribute video, he has violated the reproduction (burning the copy) and adaptation (the music video) rights. Uploading the video onto Website/YouTube might be considered violation of the public performance right. The question then become whether these uses can fall under FairUse.

to:

You can lend your copy of ''Film/{{Inception}}'' to a friend and not violate the distribution right because it isn't sufficiently "public." What is considered public is defined by the common law (i.e., court cases). However, if your friend burns extra copies of ''Inception'' so you both can have one or uses the clips to make an [[{{Shipping}} Arthur/Ariadne]] tribute video, he has violated the reproduction (burning the copy) and adaptation (the music video) rights. Uploading the video onto Website/YouTube might be considered violation of the public performance right. The question then become whether these uses can fall under FairUse.
UsefulNotes/FairUse.



One of the biggest exceptions to the exclusive right of the copyright owner is the concept of FairUse, which allows some uses which the copyright holder would normally be able to stop. You can thank, of all things, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for this. This is yet another reason Canada's fair use provisions are much narrower than even the United States allows: Canada has much weaker free speech rules.

It should be noted that copyright holders often do their best to discourage the concept of fair use. They'd prefer either to get paid for uses which would be considered fair use or even to stop a use they don't like, even where fair use permits it. For that reason, FairUse is one of the most amorphous areas of copyright law and it's easy to find a case to support just about any proposition.

to:

One of the biggest exceptions to the exclusive right of the copyright owner is the concept of FairUse, UsefulNotes/FairUse, which allows some uses which the copyright holder would normally be able to stop. You can thank, of all things, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for this. This is yet another reason Canada's fair use provisions are much narrower than even the United States allows: Canada has much weaker free speech rules.

It should be noted that copyright holders often do their best to discourage the concept of fair use. They'd prefer either to get paid for uses which would be considered fair use or even to stop a use they don't like, even where fair use permits it. For that reason, FairUse UsefulNotes/FairUse is one of the most amorphous areas of copyright law and it's easy to find a case to support just about any proposition.



The standard FanFicDisclaimer that you are not doing it for profit may make it less likely that you'll be sued, but it won't rule it out[[note]]the not-for-profit portion of FairUse doesn't actually apply here anyway[[/note]]. See DigitalPiracyIsEvil for more on this.

to:

The standard FanFicDisclaimer that you are not doing it for profit may make it less likely that you'll be sued, but it won't rule it out[[note]]the not-for-profit portion of FairUse UsefulNotes/FairUse doesn't actually apply here anyway[[/note]]. See DigitalPiracyIsEvil for more on this.
25th Oct '17 2:47:56 PM Unknownlight
Is there an issue? Send a Message


You can lend your copy of ''Film/{{Inception}}'' to a friend and not violate the distribution right because it isn't sufficiently "public." What is considered public is defined by the common law (i.e., court cases). However, if your friend burns extra copies of ''Inception'' so you both can have one or uses the clips to make an [[{{Shipping}} Arthur/Ariadne]] tribute video, he has violated the reproduction (burning the copy) and adaptation (the music video) rights. Uploading the video onto Youtube might be considered violation of the public performance right. The question then become whether these uses can fall under FairUse.

to:

You can lend your copy of ''Film/{{Inception}}'' to a friend and not violate the distribution right because it isn't sufficiently "public." What is considered public is defined by the common law (i.e., court cases). However, if your friend burns extra copies of ''Inception'' so you both can have one or uses the clips to make an [[{{Shipping}} Arthur/Ariadne]] tribute video, he has violated the reproduction (burning the copy) and adaptation (the music video) rights. Uploading the video onto Youtube Website/YouTube might be considered violation of the public performance right. The question then become whether these uses can fall under FairUse.
9th Jan '17 5:59:34 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Toymaker Mattel didn't like the song "Barbie Girl," which parodied the unrealistic lifestyle of its {{Franchise/Barbie}} doll line, and [[http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/296/296.F3d.894.98-56577.html sued the group that produced the song]]. Judge Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the song was a valid parody of the toymaker's product (and in a CrowningMomentOfFunny, Kozinski ends his opinion with the immortal line "The parties are advised to chill"). The Eveready battery company didn't like that the Adolph Coors brewery was doing a beer ad with an actor in a pink bunny suit parodying its "Bunny" ads (which were parodies of ''other'' ads), and in a case of "Can dish it out but can't take it," sued Coors over the ad. The court found this actor in a bunny suit a valid parody, saying "[[LeslieNielsen Mr. [Leslie] Nielsen]] is not a toy, and does not run on batteries." On the other hand, the courts have ruled that you do have to be making ''direct'' commentary on the work you're parodying - ''Geisel v. Penguin'', a suit over a Literature/TheCatInTheHat parody mocking the OJ Simpson trial was found to be a violation of copyright, as the parody was using the Dr. Seuss work as just a vehicle for the message.

to:

Toymaker Mattel didn't like the song "Barbie Girl," which parodied the unrealistic lifestyle of its {{Franchise/Barbie}} doll line, and [[http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/296/296.F3d.894.98-56577.html sued the group that produced the song]]. Judge Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the song was a valid parody of the toymaker's product (and in a CrowningMomentOfFunny, Kozinski ends his opinion with the immortal line "The parties are advised to chill"). The Eveready battery company didn't like that the Adolph Coors brewery was doing a beer ad with an actor in a pink bunny suit parodying its "Bunny" ads (which were parodies of ''other'' ads), and in a case of "Can dish it out but can't take it," sued Coors over the ad. The court found this actor in a bunny suit a valid parody, saying "[[LeslieNielsen "[[Creator/LeslieNielsen Mr. [Leslie] Nielsen]] is not a toy, and does not run on batteries." On the other hand, the courts have ruled that you do have to be making ''direct'' commentary on the work you're parodying - ''Geisel v. Penguin'', a suit over a Literature/TheCatInTheHat parody mocking the OJ Simpson trial was found to be a violation of copyright, as the parody was using the Dr. Seuss work as just a vehicle for the message.
28th Aug '16 1:48:20 PM AreYouTyler
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Copyright gives its owner the ability to restrict certain uses of a work of art (generally called just a "work" on this very wiki) for a certain period of time. Once that period of time expires, the work falls into the "public domain" and the ability to enforce restrictions ends. Note that this is the ''ability'' to enforce a restriction; the copyright owner can choose not to enforce some restrictions, which is why Website/FanFictionDotNet still exists. Music/TheGratefulDead, for example, had a policy to let fans legitimately make recordings of their performances (which would have been bootlegs if the permission had not been granted), even letting them bring recording equipment near the stage to do so.

to:

Copyright gives its owner the ability to restrict certain uses of a work of art (generally called just a "work" on this very wiki) for a certain period of time. Once that period of time expires, the work falls into the "public domain" "PublicDomain" and the ability to enforce restrictions ends. Note that this is the ''ability'' to enforce a restriction; the copyright owner can choose not to enforce some restrictions, which is why Website/FanFictionDotNet still exists. Music/TheGratefulDead, for example, had a policy to let fans legitimately make recordings of their performances (which would have been bootlegs if the permission had not been granted), even letting them bring recording equipment near the stage to do so.
3rd Mar '16 8:15:42 AM Morgenthaler
Is there an issue? Send a Message


You can lend your copy of ''{{Inception}}'' to a friend and not violate the distribution right because it isn't sufficiently "public." What is considered public is defined by the common law (i.e., court cases). However, if your friend burns extra copies of ''{{Inception}}'' so you both can have one or uses the clips to make an [[{{Shipping}} Arthur/Ariadne]] tribute video, he has violated the reproduction (burning the copy) and adaptation (the music video) rights. Uploading the video onto Youtube might be considered violation of the public performance right. The question then become whether these uses can fall under FairUse.

to:

You can lend your copy of ''{{Inception}}'' ''Film/{{Inception}}'' to a friend and not violate the distribution right because it isn't sufficiently "public." What is considered public is defined by the common law (i.e., court cases). However, if your friend burns extra copies of ''{{Inception}}'' ''Inception'' so you both can have one or uses the clips to make an [[{{Shipping}} Arthur/Ariadne]] tribute video, he has violated the reproduction (burning the copy) and adaptation (the music video) rights. Uploading the video onto Youtube might be considered violation of the public performance right. The question then become whether these uses can fall under FairUse.
26th Aug '15 7:55:34 PM RisefromYourGrave
Is there an issue? Send a Message


[[quoteright:225:http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Copyright1_2883.png]]

to:

[[quoteright:225:http://static.[[quoteright:176:http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Copyright1_2883.png]]
10th May '15 7:25:19 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Any use of a song (music and lyrics) in a public performance generally requires a license. A broadcaster or a webcaster playing a song recording would be required to pay licensing fees for use of the underlying song (music and lyrics). Copyrights for sound recordings, due to a ridiculous tangle of state and federal laws, are notoriously hard to clear and it's best to assume that any original ''recordings'' are NOT in the public domain. However, this is different from copyrights in "musical works." The copyright law has a provision ("mechanical licenses") which requires that anyone who wants to create a cover of a song to be allowed to so long as they pay the statutory fees. The [[http://www.harryfox.com/index.jsp Harry Fox Agency]] is the place to go to find out information about fees in general. Owners of the musical work copyrights (who may different than owners of the SOUND RECORDING copyrights) may choose to lower their fees. This commonly occurs when the producers of ''{{Glee}}'' wish to cover a song.

to:

Any use of a song (music and lyrics) in a public performance generally requires a license. A broadcaster or a webcaster playing a song recording would be required to pay licensing fees for use of the underlying song (music and lyrics). Copyrights for sound recordings, due to a ridiculous tangle of state and federal laws, are notoriously hard to clear and it's best to assume that any original ''recordings'' are NOT in the public domain. However, this is different from copyrights in "musical works." The copyright law has a provision ("mechanical licenses") which requires that anyone who wants to create a cover of a song to be allowed to so long as they pay the statutory fees. The [[http://www.harryfox.com/index.jsp Harry Fox Agency]] is the place to go to find out information about fees in general. Owners of the musical work copyrights (who may different than owners of the SOUND RECORDING copyrights) may choose to lower their fees. This commonly occurs when the producers of ''{{Glee}}'' ''Series/{{Glee}}'' wish to cover a song.
24th Feb '15 10:33:02 AM Tdarcos
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

This is also why Open Source/Free Software exists, the copyright holder chooses not to enforce the right to prohibit making copies but still has the ability to go after someone who makes a new version of the work but does not release the source code of the new version. Or in the case of works licensed under the Creative Commons Non-Commercial license, they have no objections to making copies for others for free but you have to get permission to make copies to sell.
22nd Jan '14 7:07:07 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Toymaker Mattel didn't like the song "Barbie Girl," which parodied the unrealistic lifestyle of its {{Barbie}} doll line, and [[http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/296/296.F3d.894.98-56577.html sued the group that produced the song]]. Judge Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the song was a valid parody of the toymaker's product (and in a CrowningMomentOfFunny, Kozinski ends his opinion with the immortal line "The parties are advised to chill"). The Eveready battery company didn't like that the Adolph Coors brewery was doing a beer ad with an actor in a pink bunny suit parodying its "Bunny" ads (which were parodies of ''other'' ads), and in a case of "Can dish it out but can't take it," sued Coors over the ad. The court found this actor in a bunny suit a valid parody, saying "[[LeslieNielsen Mr. [Leslie] Nielsen]] is not a toy, and does not run on batteries." On the other hand, the courts have ruled that you do have to be making ''direct'' commentary on the work you're parodying - ''Geisel v. Penguin'', a suit over a Literature/TheCatInTheHat parody mocking the OJ Simpson trial was found to be a violation of copyright, as the parody was using the Dr. Seuss work as just a vehicle for the message.

to:

Toymaker Mattel didn't like the song "Barbie Girl," which parodied the unrealistic lifestyle of its {{Barbie}} {{Franchise/Barbie}} doll line, and [[http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/296/296.F3d.894.98-56577.html sued the group that produced the song]]. Judge Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the song was a valid parody of the toymaker's product (and in a CrowningMomentOfFunny, Kozinski ends his opinion with the immortal line "The parties are advised to chill"). The Eveready battery company didn't like that the Adolph Coors brewery was doing a beer ad with an actor in a pink bunny suit parodying its "Bunny" ads (which were parodies of ''other'' ads), and in a case of "Can dish it out but can't take it," sued Coors over the ad. The court found this actor in a bunny suit a valid parody, saying "[[LeslieNielsen Mr. [Leslie] Nielsen]] is not a toy, and does not run on batteries." On the other hand, the courts have ruled that you do have to be making ''direct'' commentary on the work you're parodying - ''Geisel v. Penguin'', a suit over a Literature/TheCatInTheHat parody mocking the OJ Simpson trial was found to be a violation of copyright, as the parody was using the Dr. Seuss work as just a vehicle for the message.
21st Dec '13 11:30:11 PM C2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


With recent laws such as SOPA and PIPA still in memory, the debate is ''not'' going away anytime soon.

to:

With recent laws attempts at legislation such as SOPA and PIPA still in memory, the debate is ''not'' going away anytime soon.
This list shows the last 10 events of 21. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=UsefulNotes.Copyright