History UsefulNotes / Copyright

22nd May '18 8:49:00 PM Jill1Daniel
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Copyright in recent years is becoming an increasingly contentious subject, especially in the digital age, where some see it as becoming and increasingly irrelevant and outdated concept, especially when it comes to things such as derivative works and remixing, and extremely long copyright terms only benefit larger corporations in the long run, and severely limit the public domain. It can also be argued that copyright in its current form does little to benefit to truly benefit public and "promote the progress of science and useful arts" (the purpose of copyright as stated in the United States constitution, contrary to popular belief, compensating the creator is ''not'' the constitutional purpose of copyright, but rather to benefit the public). In fact, some would argue that intellectual property is ''not'' actually property, but rather a "privilege" with property-like... um... [[ShapedLikeItself attributes.]]

to:

Copyright in recent years is becoming an increasingly contentious subject, especially in the digital age, where some see it as becoming and increasingly irrelevant and outdated concept, especially when it comes to things such as derivative works and remixing, and extremely long copyright terms only benefit larger corporations in the long run, and severely limit the public domain. It can also be argued that copyright in its current form does little to benefit to truly benefit public and "promote the progress of science and useful arts" (the purpose of copyright as stated in the United States constitution, contrary to popular belief, compensating the creator is ''not'' the constitutional purpose of copyright, but rather to benefit the public). In fact, some would argue that intellectual property is ''not'' actually property, but rather a "privilege" with property-like... um...erm... [[ShapedLikeItself attributes.]]
22nd May '18 8:47:35 PM Jill1Daniel
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Copyright in recent years is becoming an increasingly contentious subject, especially in the digital age, where some see it as becoming and increasingly irrelevant and outdated concept, especially when it comes to things such as derivative works and remixing, and extremely long copyright terms only benefit larger corporations in the long run, and severely limit the public domain. It can also be argued that copyright in its current form does little to benefit to truly benefit public and "promote the progress of science and useful arts" (the purpose of copyright as stated in the United States constitution, contrary to popular belief, compensating the creator is ''not'' the constitutional purpose of copyright, but rather to benefit the public). In fact, some would argue that intellectual property is ''not'' actually property, but rather a "privilege" with a few property-like... Erm... [[ShapedLikeItself Properties.]]

to:

Copyright in recent years is becoming an increasingly contentious subject, especially in the digital age, where some see it as becoming and increasingly irrelevant and outdated concept, especially when it comes to things such as derivative works and remixing, and extremely long copyright terms only benefit larger corporations in the long run, and severely limit the public domain. It can also be argued that copyright in its current form does little to benefit to truly benefit public and "promote the progress of science and useful arts" (the purpose of copyright as stated in the United States constitution, contrary to popular belief, compensating the creator is ''not'' the constitutional purpose of copyright, but rather to benefit the public). In fact, some would argue that intellectual property is ''not'' actually property, but rather a "privilege" with a few property-like... Erm... um... [[ShapedLikeItself Properties.attributes.]]
8th Mar '18 2:26:46 AM MarkLungo
Is there an issue? Send a Message


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.

to:

This is also why Open Source/Free Software exists, exists; the copyright holder chooses not to enforce the right to prohibit making copies 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.
8th Mar '18 2:25:50 AM MarkLungo
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The copyright owner is granted the ''right'' to stop certain uses, not the ''requirement'' to do so. This is different from UsefulNotes/{{trademark}}s; if you don't "police" your mark (stop misuse of it), then if there is a lawsuit the court may declare your mark generic (allowing anyone to use it) because you didn't actively protect it, or abandoned (you stopped associating the mark with the good or service). This requirement is not applicable to copyright; the copyright owner is allowed to use that right selectively; they can ignore 4,000 violations and then successfully drop a hammer on the 4,001st; the fact they didn't go after the several thousand other unauthorized uses is not an issue the court is going to notice or care about. For instance, it was okay for Creator/JKRowling to approve the ''HP Lexicon'' when it was just a Web site, but she attempted to throw the book at its author when it was being made into a book. This is due to the fact that Trademark is governed by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution rather than the Copyright/Patent clause. Trademarks only have value insofar as they represent ''something else.'' Copyrighted works are valuable as themselves.

to:

The copyright owner is granted the ''right'' to stop certain uses, not the ''requirement'' to do so. This is different from UsefulNotes/{{trademark}}s; if you don't "police" your mark (stop misuse of it), then if there is a lawsuit the court may declare your mark generic (allowing anyone to use it) because you didn't actively protect it, or abandoned (you stopped associating the mark with the good or service). This requirement is not applicable to copyright; the copyright--the copyright owner is allowed to use that right selectively; selectively, so they can ignore 4,000 violations and then successfully drop a hammer on the 4,001st; the 4,001st. The fact they didn't go after the several thousand other unauthorized uses is not an issue the court is going to notice or care about. For instance, it was okay for Creator/JKRowling to approve the ''HP Lexicon'' when it was just a Web site, but she attempted to throw the book at its author when it was being made into a book. This is due to the fact that Trademark is governed by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution rather than the Copyright/Patent clause. Trademarks only have value insofar as they represent ''something else.'' Copyrighted works are valuable as themselves.
3rd Feb '18 6:05:52 AM faunas
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Adding onto this debate is [[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/16481921080/house-republicans-copyright-law-destroys-markets-its-time-real-reform.shtml a policy brief document that was released by the Republican Study Committee]] that was widely praised across social media circles by both democrats and republicans alike, but was quickly pulled after entertainment lobbyists and the US Chamber of Commerce pressured them into pulling the document (the [=RSC=] [[BlatantLies claims it was not properly vetted,]] nobody believes them), and into firing the writer of the policy brief. The brief itself involved shooting down multiple "myths" surrounding copyright, suggesting that copyright ''violates nearly every tenant of laissez faire capitalism'' (which makes the page image of DigitalPiracyIsEvil HilariousInHindsight), and makes several suggestions for copyright reform, including expanding fair use to and dramatically limiting copyright terms to a ''maximum'' of 46 years, with copyright terms over 12 years being taxed. Basically, big media's worst nightmare, but fantastic for many people, especially on the internet, who see the [=RSC=]'s backpedaling as a sign of cowardice and a step backwards for the Republicans trying to attract a new audience after losing the 2012 election.

to:

Adding onto this debate is [[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/16481921080/house-republicans-copyright-law-destroys-markets-its-time-real-reform.shtml a policy brief document that was released by the Republican Study Committee]] that was widely praised across social media circles by both democrats and republicans alike, but was quickly pulled after entertainment lobbyists and the US Chamber of Commerce pressured them into pulling the document (the [=RSC=] [[BlatantLies claims it was not properly vetted,]] nobody believes them), and into firing the writer of the policy brief. The brief itself involved shooting down multiple "myths" surrounding copyright, suggesting that copyright ''violates nearly every tenant of laissez faire capitalism'' (which makes the page image of DigitalPiracyIsEvil HilariousInHindsight), and makes several suggestions for copyright reform, including expanding fair use to and dramatically limiting copyright terms to a ''maximum'' of 46 years, with copyright terms over 12 years being taxed. Basically, big media's worst nightmare, but fantastic for many people, especially on the internet, who see the [=RSC=]'s backpedaling as a sign of cowardice and a step backwards for the Republicans trying to attract a new audience after losing the 2012 election.
election. Although, this brief has been criticized, namely by [[http://www.copyhype.com/2012/11/republican-study-committee-policy-brief-on-copyright-part-1/ pro-copyright law blog Copyhype]].
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.
This list shows the last 10 events of 26. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=UsefulNotes.Copyright