Copyright
A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work, usually for a limited time.[1][2][3][4][5] The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form. Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself.[6][7][8] A copyright is subject to limitations based on public interest considerations, such as the fair use doctrine in the United States.
Some jurisdictions require "fixing" copyrighted works in a tangible form. It is often shared among multiple authors, each of whom holds a set of rights to use or license the work, and who are commonly referred to as rights holders.
Copyrights can be granted by public law and are in that case considered "territorial rights". This means that copyrights granted by the law of a certain state do not extend beyond the territory of that specific jurisdiction. Copyrights of this type vary by country; many countries, and sometimes a large group of countries, have made agreements with other countries on procedures applicable when works "cross" national borders or national rights are inconsistent.[15]
Typically, the public law duration of a copyright expires 50 to 100 years after the creator dies, depending on the jurisdiction. Some countries require certain copyright formalities[5] to establishing copyright, others recognize copyright in any completed work, without a formal registration. When the copyright of a work expires, it enters the public domain.
History
Background
The concept of copyright developed after the printing press came into use in Europe[16] in the 15th and 16th centuries.[17] The printing press made it much cheaper to produce works, but as there was initially no copyright law and before copyright law existed, anyone could buy or rent a press and print any text. Popular new works were immediately re-set and re-published by competitors, so printers needed a constant stream of new material. Fees paid to authors for new works were high, and significantly supplemented the incomes of many academics.[18]
Printing brought profound social changes. The rise in literacy across Europe led to a dramatic increase in the demand for reading matter.[16] Prices of reprints were low, so publications could be bought by poorer people, creating a mass audience.[18] In German language markets before the advent of copyright, technical materials, like popular fiction, were inexpensive and widely available; it has been suggested this contributed to Germany's industrial and economic success.[18] After copyright law became established (in 1710 in England and Scotland, and in the 1840s in German-speaking areas) the low-price mass market vanished, and fewer, more expensive editions were published; distribution of scientific and technical information was greatly reduced.[18][19]
Conception
The concept of copyright first developed in England. In reaction to the printing of "scandalous books and pamphlets", the English Parliament passed the Licensing of the Press Act 1662,[16] which required all intended publications to be registered with the government-approved Stationers' Company, giving the Stationers the right to regulate what material could be printed.[20]
The
In the US, the Constitution grants Congress the right to establish copyright and patent laws. Shortly after the Constitution was passed, Congress enacted the
Copyright laws allow products of creative human activities, such as literary and artistic production, to be preferentially exploited and thus incentivized. Different cultural attitudes, social organizations, economic models and legal frameworks are seen to account for why copyright emerged in Europe and not, for example, in Asia. In the Middle Ages in Europe, there was generally a lack of any concept of literary property due to the general relations of production, the specific organization of literary production and the role of culture in society. The latter refers to the tendency of oral societies, such as that of Europe in the medieval period, to view knowledge as the product and expression of the collective, rather than to see it as individual property. However, with copyright laws, intellectual production comes to be seen as a product of an individual, with attendant rights. The most significant point is that patent and copyright laws support the expansion of the range of creative human activities that can be commodified. This parallels the ways in which capitalism led to the commodification of many aspects of social life that earlier had no monetary or economic value per se.[22]
Copyright has developed into a concept that has a significant effect on nearly every modern industry, including not just literary work, but also forms of creative work such as sound recordings, films, photographs, software, and architecture.
National copyrights
Often seen as the first real copyright law, the 1709 British Statute of Anne gave the publishers rights for a fixed period, after which the copyright expired.[23] The act also alluded to individual rights of the artist. It began, "Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing ... Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors ... to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families:".[24] A right to benefit financially from the work is articulated, and court rulings and legislation have recognized a right to control the work, such as ensuring that the integrity of it is preserved. An irrevocable right to be recognized as the work's creator appears in some countries' copyright laws.
The Copyright Clause of the United States, Constitution (1787) authorized copyright legislation: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." That is, by guaranteeing them a period of time in which they alone could profit from their works, they would be enabled and encouraged to invest the time required to create them, and this would be good for society as a whole. A right to profit from the work has been the philosophical underpinning for much legislation extending the duration of copyright, to the life of the creator and beyond, to their heirs.
The original length of copyright in the United States was 14 years, and it had to be explicitly applied for. If the author wished, they could apply for a second 14‑year monopoly grant, but after that the work entered the public domain, so it could be used and built upon by others.
Copyright law was enacted rather
International copyright treaties
The 1886
The United States and most Latin American countries instead entered into the Buenos Aires Convention in 1910, which required a copyright notice on the work (such as all rights reserved), and permitted signatory nations to limit the duration of copyrights to shorter and renewable terms.[29][30][31] The Universal Copyright Convention was drafted in 1952 as another less demanding alternative to the Berne Convention, and ratified by nations such as the Soviet Union and developing nations.
The regulations of the
In 1961, the
Copyright laws are standardized somewhat through these international conventions such as the Berne Convention and Universal Copyright Convention. These multilateral treaties have been ratified by nearly all countries, and
Obtaining protection
Ownership
The original holder of the copyright may be the employer of the author rather than the author themself if the work is a "work for hire".[33][34] For example, in English law the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides that if a copyrighted work is made by an employee in the course of that employment, the copyright is automatically owned by the employer which would be a "Work for Hire". Typically, the first owner of a copyright is the person who created the work i.e. the author.[35] But when more than one person creates the work, then a case of joint authorship can be made provided some criteria are met.
Eligible works
Copyright may apply to a wide range of creative, intellectual, or artistic forms, or "works". Specifics vary by
Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed.
Originality
Typically, a work must meet minimal standards of originality in order to qualify for copyright, and the copyright expires after a set period of time (some jurisdictions may allow this to be extended). Different countries impose different tests, although generally the requirements are low; in the United Kingdom there has to be some "skill, labour, and judgment" that has gone into it.[39] In Australia and the United Kingdom it has been held that a single word is insufficient to comprise a copyright work. However, single words or a short string of words can sometimes be registered as a trademark instead.
Copyright law recognizes the right of an author based on whether the work actually is an
Registration
In all countries where the
A widely circulated strategy to avoid the cost of copyright registration is referred to as the
Fixing
The Berne Convention allows member countries to decide whether creative works must be "fixed" to enjoy copyright. Article 2, Section 2 of the Berne Convention states: "It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to prescribe that works in general or any specified categories of works shall not be protected unless they have been fixed in some material form." Some countries do not require that a work be produced in a particular form to obtain copyright protection. For instance, Spain, France, and Australia do not require fixation for copyright protection. The United States and Canada, on the other hand, require that most works must be "fixed in a tangible medium of expression" to obtain copyright protection.[44] US law requires that the fixation be stable and permanent enough to be "perceived, reproduced or communicated for a period of more than transitory duration". Similarly, Canadian courts consider fixation to require that the work be "expressed to some extent at least in some material form, capable of identification and having a more or less permanent endurance".[44]
Note this provision of US law: c) Effect of Berne Convention.—No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Any rights in a work eligible for protection under this title that derive from this title, other Federal or State statutes, or the common law, shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto.[45]
Copyright notice
Before 1989, United States law required the use of a copyright notice, consisting of the copyright symbol (©, the letter C inside a circle), the abbreviation "Copr.", or the word "Copyright", followed by the year of the first publication of the work and the name of the copyright holder.[46][47] Several years may be noted if the work has gone through substantial revisions. The proper copyright notice for sound recordings of musical or other audio works is a sound recording copyright symbol (℗, the letter P inside a circle), which indicates a sound recording copyright to provide notice of copyright, with the letter P indicating a "phonorecord". In addition, the phrase All rights reserved which indicates that the copyright holder reserves, or holds for their own use was once required to assert copyright, but that phrase is now legally obsolete. Almost everything on the Internet has some sort of copyright attached to it. Whether these things are watermarked, signed, or have any other sort of indication of the copyright is a different story however.[48]
In 1989 the United States enacted the
Enforcement
Copyrights are generally enforced by the holder in a
In most jurisdictions the copyright holder must bear the cost of enforcing copyright. This will usually involve engaging legal representation, administrative or court costs. In light of this, many copyright disputes are settled by a direct approach to the infringing party in order to settle the dispute out of court.
"...by 1978, the scope was expanded to apply to any 'expression' that has been 'fixed' in any medium, this protection granted automatically whether the maker wants it or not, no registration required."[51]
Copyright infringement
For a work to be considered to infringe upon copyright, its use must have occurred in a nation that has domestic copyright laws or adheres to a bilateral treaty or established international convention such as the
Statistics regarding the effects of copyright infringement are difficult to determine. Studies have attempted to determine whether there is a monetary loss for industries affected by copyright infringement by predicting what portion of pirated works would have been formally purchased if they had not been freely available.[53] Other reports indicate that copyright infringement does not have an adverse effect on the entertainment industry, and can have a positive effect.[54] In particular, a 2014 university study concluded that free music content, accessed on YouTube, does not necessarily hurt sales, instead has the potential to increase sales.[55]
According to the IP Commission Report the annual cost of intellectual property theft to the US economy "continues to exceed $225 billion in counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade secrets and could be as high as $600 billion."
Rights granted
According to World Intellectual Property Organisation, copyright protects two types of rights. Economic rights allow right owners to derive financial reward from the use of their works by others. Moral rights allow authors and creators to take certain actions to preserve and protect their link with their work. The author or creator may be the owner of the economic rights or those rights may be transferred to one or more copyright owners. Many countries do not allow the transfer of moral rights.[59]
Economic rights
With any kind of property, its owner may decide how it is to be used, and others can use it lawfully only if they have the owner's permission, often through a license. The owner's use of the property must, however, respect the legally recognised rights and interests of other members of society. So the owner of a copyright-protected work may decide how to use the work, and may prevent others from using it without permission. National laws usually grant copyright owners exclusive rights to allow third parties to use their works, subject to the legally recognised rights and interests of others.[59] Most copyright laws state that authors or other right owners have the right to authorise or prevent certain acts in relation to a work. Right owners can authorise or prohibit:
- reproduction of the work in various forms, such as printed publications or sound recordings;
- distribution of copies of the work;
- public performance of the work;
- broadcasting or other communication of the work to the public;
- translation of the work into other languages; and
- adaptation of the work, such as turning a novel into a screenplay.
Moral rights
Moral rights are concerned with the non-economic rights of a creator. They protect the creator's connection with a work as well as the integrity of the work. Moral rights are only accorded to individual authors and in many national laws they remain with the authors even after the authors have transferred their economic rights. In some EU countries, such as France, moral rights last indefinitely. In the UK, however, moral rights are finite. That is, the right of attribution and the right of integrity last only as long as the work is in copyright. When the copyright term comes to an end, so too do the moral rights in that work. This is just one reason why the moral rights regime within the UK is often regarded as weaker or inferior to the protection of moral rights in continental Europe and elsewhere in the world.[60] The Berne Convention, in Article 6bis, requires its members to grant authors the following rights:
- the right to claim authorship of a work (sometimes called the right of paternity or the right of attribution); and
- the right to object to any distortion or modification of a work, or other derogatory action in relation to a work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honour or reputation (sometimes called the right of integrity).
These and other similar rights granted in national laws are generally known as the moral rights of authors. The Berne Convention requires these rights to be independent of authors’ economic rights. Moral rights are only accorded to individual authors and in many national laws they remain with the authors even after the authors have transferred their economic rights. This means that even where, for example, a film producer or publisher owns the economic rights in a work, in many jurisdictions the individual author continues to have moral rights.
The Copyright Law in the United States, several exclusive rights are granted to the holder of a copyright, as are listed below:
- protection of the work;
- to determine and decide how, and under what conditions, the work may be marketed, publicly displayed, reproduced, distributed, etc.
- to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies; (including, typically, electronic copies)
- to import or export the work;
- to create derivative works; (works that adapt the original work)
- to perform or display the work publicly;
- to sell or cede these rights to others;
- to transmit or display by radio, video or internet.[36]
The basic right when a work is protected by copyright is that the holder may determine and decide how and under what conditions the protected work may be used by others. This includes the right to decide to distribute the work for free. This part of copyright is often overseen. The phrase "exclusive right" means that only the copyright holder is free to exercise those rights, and others are prohibited from using the work without the holder's permission. Copyright is sometimes called a "negative right", as it serves to prohibit certain people (e.g., readers, viewers, or listeners, and primarily publishers and would be publishers) from doing something they would otherwise be able to do, rather than permitting people (e.g., authors) to do something they would otherwise be unable to do. In this way it is similar to the
Indian copyright law is at parity with the international standards as contained in TRIPS. The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, pursuant to the amendments in 1999, 2002 and 2012, fully reflects the Berne Convention and the Universal Copyrights Convention, to which India is a party. India is also a party to the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Rights of Producers of Phonograms and is an active member of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The Indian system provides both the economic and moral rights under different provisions of its Indian Copyright Act of 1957.[63]
Duration
Copyright subsists for a variety of lengths in different jurisdictions. The length of the term can depend on several factors, including the type of work (e.g. musical composition, novel), whether the work has been published, and whether the work was created by an individual or a corporation. In most of the world, the default length of copyright is the life of the author plus either 50 or 70 years. In the United States, the term for most existing works is a fixed number of years after the date of creation or publication. Under most countries' laws (for example, the United States[64] and the United Kingdom[65]), copyrights expire at the end of the calendar year in which they would otherwise expire.
The length and requirements for copyright duration are subject to change by legislation, and since the early 20th century there have been a number of adjustments made in various countries, which can make determining the duration of a given copyright somewhat difficult. For example, the United States used to require copyrights to be renewed after 28 years to stay in force, and formerly required a copyright notice upon first publication to gain coverage. In Italy and France, there were post-wartime extensions that could increase the term by approximately 6 years in Italy and up to about 14 in France. Many countries have extended the length of their copyright terms (sometimes retroactively). International treaties establish minimum terms for copyrights, but individual countries may enforce longer terms than those.[66]
In the United States, all books and other works, except for sound recordings, published before 1926 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain. The applicable date for sound recordings in the United States is before 1923.[67] In addition, works published before 1964 that did not have their copyrights renewed 28 years after first publication year also are in the public domain. Hirtle points out that the great majority of these works (including 93% of the books) were not renewed after 28 years and are in the public domain.[68] Books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this renewal requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country.
But if the intended exploitation of the work includes publication (or distribution of derivative work, such as a film based on a book protected by copyright) outside the US, the terms of copyright around the world must be considered. If the author has been dead more than 70 years, the work is in the public domain in most, but not all, countries.
In 1998, the length of a copyright in the United States was increased by 20 years under the Copyright Term Extension Act. This legislation was strongly promoted by corporations which had valuable copyrights which otherwise would have expired, and has been the subject of substantial criticism on this point.[69]
Limitations and exceptions
In many jurisdictions, copyright law makes exceptions to these restrictions when the work is copied for the purpose of commentary or other related uses. United States copyright law does not cover names, titles, short phrases or listings (such as ingredients, recipes, labels, or formulas).[70] However, there are protections available for those areas copyright does not cover, such as trademarks and patents.
Idea–expression dichotomy and the merger doctrine
The idea–expression divide differentiates between ideas and expression, and states that copyright protects only the original expression of ideas, and not the ideas themselves. This principle, first clarified in the 1879 case of Baker v. Selden, has since been codified by the Copyright Act of 1976 at 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The first-sale doctrine and exhaustion of rights
Copyright law does not restrict the owner of a copy from reselling legitimately obtained copies of copyrighted works, provided that those copies were originally produced by or with the permission of the copyright holder. It is therefore legal, for example, to resell a copyrighted book or
Some countries may have
In
In addition, copyright, in most cases, does not prohibit one from acts such as modifying, defacing, or destroying one's own legitimately obtained copy of a copyrighted work, so long as duplication is not involved. However, in countries that implement
Fair use and fair dealing
Copyright does not prohibit all copying or replication. In the United States, the
- the purpose and character of one's use;
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- what amount and proportion of the whole work was taken;
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.[72]
In the
In the United States the AHRA (
Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Later acts amended US Copyright law so that for certain purposes making 10 copies or more is construed to be commercial, but there is no general rule permitting such copying. Indeed, making one complete copy of a work, or in many cases using a portion of it, for commercial purposes will not be considered fair use. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits the manufacture, importation, or distribution of devices whose intended use, or only significant commercial use, is to bypass an access or copy control put in place by a copyright owner.[36][73][74] An appellate court has held that fair use is not a defense to engaging in such distribution.[citation needed]
EU copyright laws recognise the right of EU member states to implement some national exceptions to copyright. Examples of those exceptions are:
- photographic reproductions on paper or any similar medium of works (excluding sheet music) provided that the rightholders receives fair compensation;
- reproduction made by libraries, educational establishments, museums or archives, which are non-commercial;
- archival reproductions of broadcasts;
- uses for the benefit of people with a disability;
- for demonstration or repair of equipment;
- for non-commercial research or private study;
- when used in parody.
Accessible copies
It is legal in several countries including the United Kingdom and the United States to produce alternative versions (for example, in large print or braille) of a copyrighted work to provide improved access to a work for blind and visually impaired people without permission from the copyright holder.[75][76]
Religious Service Exemption
In the US there is a Religious Service Exemption (1976 law, section 110[3]), namely "performance of a non-dramatic literary or musical work or of a dramatico-musical work of a religious nature or display of a work, in the course of services at a place of worship or other religious assembly" shall not constitute infringement of copyright.[77]
Transfer, assignment and licensing
A copyright, or aspects of it (e.g. reproduction alone, all but moral rights), may be assigned or transferred from one party to another.
A transfer or licence may have to meet particular formal requirements in order to be effective,[79] for example under the Australian Copyright Act 1968 the copyright itself must be expressly transferred in writing. Under the US Copyright Act, a transfer of ownership in copyright must be memorialized in a writing signed by the transferor. For that purpose, ownership in copyright includes exclusive licenses of rights. Thus exclusive licenses, to be effective, must be granted in a written instrument signed by the grantor. No special form of transfer or grant is required. A simple document that identifies the work involved and the rights being granted is sufficient. Non-exclusive grants (often called non-exclusive licenses) need not be in writing under US law. They can be oral or even implied by the behavior of the parties. Transfers of copyright ownership, including exclusive licenses, may and should be recorded in the U.S. Copyright Office. (Information on recording transfers is available on the Office's web site.) While recording is not required to make the grant effective, it offers important benefits, much like those obtained by recording a deed in a real estate transaction.
Copyright may also be
Free licenses
Copyright licenses known as open or free licenses seek to grant several rights to licensees, either for a fee or not. Free in this context is not as much of a reference to price as it is to freedom. What constitutes free licensing has been characterised in a number of similar definitions, including by order of longevity the
Founded in 2001 by James Boyle, Lawrence Lessig, and Hal Abelson, the Creative Commons (CC) is a non-profit organization[81] which aims to facilitate the legal sharing of creative works. To this end, the organization provides a number of generic copyright license options to the public, gratis. These licenses allow copyright holders to define conditions under which others may use a work and to specify what types of use are acceptable.[81]
Terms of use have traditionally been negotiated on an individual basis between copyright holder and potential licensee. Therefore, a general CC license outlining which rights the copyright holder is willing to waive enables the general public to use such works more freely. Six general types of CC licenses are available (although some of them are not properly free per the above definitions and per Creative Commons' own advice). These are based upon copyright-holder stipulations such as whether they are willing to allow modifications to the work, whether they permit the creation of derivative works and whether they are willing to permit commercial use of the work.[82] As of 2009[update] approximately 130 million individuals had received such licenses.[82]
Criticism
Some sources are critical of particular aspects of the copyright system. This is known as a debate over
Concerns are often couched in the language of
Public domain
Copyright, like other
See also
- Adelphi Charter
- Artificial scarcity
- Authors' rights and related rights, roughly equivalent concepts in civil law countries
- Conflict of laws
- Copyfraud
- Copyleft
- Copyright abolition
- Copyright Alliance
- Copyright alternatives
- Copyright for Creativity
- Copyright in architecture in the United States
- Copyright on the content of patents and in the context of patent prosecution
- Criticism of copyright
- Criticism of intellectual property
- Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (European Union)
- Copyright infringement
- Copyright on religious works
- Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA)
- Digital rights management
- Digital watermarking
- Entertainment law
- Freedom of panorama
- Information literacies
- Intellectual property protection of typefaces
- List of Copyright Acts
- List of copyright case law
- Literary property
- Model release
- Paracopyright
- Philosophy of copyright
- Photography and the law
- Pirate Party
- Printing patent, a precursor to copyright
- Private copying levy
- Production music
- Rent-seeking
- Reproduction fees
- Samizdat
- Software copyright
- Threshold pledge system
- World Book and Copyright Day
References
- Oxford Dictionaries. Archived from the originalon 29 September 2016. Retrieved 20 December 2018.
- ^ "Definition of Copyright". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 20 December 2018.
- ^ Nimmer on Copyright, vol. 2, § 8.01.
- ^ "Intellectual property", Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed. (2014).
- ^ a b "Understanding Copyright and Related Rights" (PDF). www.wipo.int. p. 4. Retrieved 6 December 2018.
- ^ Stim, Rich (27 March 2013). "Copyright Basics FAQ". The Center for Internet and Society Fair Use Project. Stanford University. Retrieved 21 July 2019.
- ^ Daniel A. Tysver. "Works Unprotected by Copyright Law". Bitlaw.
- ^ Lee A. Hollaar. "Legal Protection of Digital Information". p. Chapter 1: An Overview of Copyright, Section II.E. Ideas Versus Expression.
- ^ Copyright, University of California, 2014, retrieved 15 December 2014
- ^ "Journal Conventions". Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law. Archived from the original on 13 March 2014. Retrieved 7 November 2022.
- ISBN 9789067047937– via Google Books.
- ISBN 9780190451264– via Google Books.
- SSRN 1839527. Archived from the originalon 3 June 2018. Retrieved 7 November 2022.
- ^ "Copyright Basics" (PDF). www.copyright.gov. U.S. Copyright Office. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022. Retrieved 20 February 2019.
- ^ "International Copyright Law Survey". Mincov Law Corporation.
- ^ a b c Copyright in Historical Perspective, p. 136-137, Patterson, 1968, Vanderbilt Univ. Press
- ^ Joanna Kostylo, "From Gunpowder to Print: The Common Origins of Copyright and Patent", in Ronan Deazley et al., Privilege and Property: Essays on the History of Copyright (Cambridge: Open Book, 2010), 21-50; online at books.openedition.org/obp/1062
- ^ a b c d Thadeusz, Frank (18 August 2010). "No Copyright Law: The Real Reason for Germany's Industrial Expansion?". Spiegel Online.
- ^ Lasar, Matthew (23 August 2010). "Did Weak Copyright Laws Help Germany Outpace The British Empire?". Wired.
- (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022.
- ^ JSTOR 44027015.
- ISBN 0-8133-1385-6.
- ISBN 978-1-84542-282-0– via Google Books.
- ^ "Statute of Anne". Copyrighthistory.com. Retrieved 8 June 2012.
- ^ Frank Thadeusz (18 August 2010). "No Copyright Law: The Real Reason for Germany's Industrial Expansion?". Der Spiegel. Retrieved 11 April 2015.
- doi:10.3386/w26885.
- ^ a b "Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works Article 5". World Intellectual Property Organization. Archived from the original on 11 September 2012. Retrieved 18 November 2011.
- JAIC36 (2): 165–179.
- ^ "International Copyright Relations of the United States", U.S. Copyright Office Circular No. 38a, August 2003.
- ^ Parties to the Geneva Act of the Universal Copyright Convention Archived 25 June 2008 at the Wayback Machine as of 1 January 2000: the dates given in the document are dates of ratification, not dates of coming into force. The Geneva Act came into force on 16 September 1955, for the first twelve to have ratified (which included four non-members of the Berne Union as required by Art. 9.1), or three months after ratification for other countries.
- ^ 165 Parties to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works Archived 6 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine as of May 2012.
- ISBN 978-0-19-926339-4– via Google Books.
- ^ 17 U.S.C. § 201(b); Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989)
- ^ Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid
- ^ Stim, Rich (27 March 2013). "Copyright Ownership: Who Owns What?". The Center for Internet and Society Fair Use Project. Stanford University. Retrieved 21 July 2019.
- ^ a b c
Yu, Peter K, ed. (30 December 2006). Intellectual property and information wealth: copyright and related rights. Westport, Connecticut, USA: Praeger. ISBN 978-0-275-98882-1. Praeger is part of the Greenwood Publishing Group. Hardcover. Possible alternative ISBN 978-0-275-98883-8.
- ISBN 9789280528046. Retrieved 1 December 2017.
- ^ ISBN 978-1-84113-225-9– via Google Books.
- ^ Express Newspaper Plc v News (UK) Plc, F.S.R. 36 (1991)
- ^ "Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright" (PDF). copyright.gov. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022. Retrieved 4 June 2015.
- ^ "Copyright in General (FAQ)". U.S. Copyright Office. Retrieved 11 August 2016.
- ^ "Copyright Registers" Archived 5 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine, United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office
- ^ "Automatic right", United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office
- ^ a b See Harvard Law School, Module 3: The Scope of Copyright Law. See also Tyler T. Ochoa, Copyright, Derivative Works and Fixation: Is Galoob a Mirage, or Does the Form(GEN) of the Alleged Derivative Work Matter?, 20 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 991, 999–1002 (2003) ("Thus, both the text of the Act and its legislative history demonstrate that Congress intended that a derivative work does not need to be fixed in order to infringe."). The legislative history of the 1976 Copyright Act says this difference was intended to address transitory works such as ballets, pantomimes, improvised performances, dumb shows, mime performances, and dancing.
- ^ See US copyright law
- Pub. L. 94–553: Copyright Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 2541, § 401(a) (19 October 1976)
- , 102 Stat. 2853, 2857. One of the changes introduced by the BCIA was to section 401, which governs copyright notices on published copies, specifying that notices "may be placed on" such copies; prior to the BCIA, the statute read that notices "shall be placed on all" such copies. An analogous change was made in section 402, dealing with copyright notices on phonorecords.
- ISBN 978-1-250-06259-8.
- ^ "U.S. Copyright Office – Information Circular" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022. Retrieved 7 July 2012.
- 17 U.S.C.§ 401(d)
- ISBN 978-1-250-06259-8.
- S2CID 221957508.
- ^ Butler, S. Piracy Losses "Billboard" 199(36)
- ^ "Urheberrechtsverletzungen im Internet: Der bestehende rechtliche Rahmen genügt". Ejpd.admin.ch. Archived from the original on 19 August 2014. Retrieved 28 July 2020.
- SSRN 2425386.
- ^ "IP Commission Report" (PDF). NBR.org. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022. Retrieved 1 September 2021.
- ^ "Impacts of Digital Piracy on the U.S. Economy" (PDF). GlobalInnovationPolicyCenter.com. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022. Retrieved 2 September 2021.
- ^ "Advertising Fuels $1.34 Billion Illegal Piracy Market, Report by Digital Citizens Alliance and White Bullet Finds". Digital Citizens Alliance. Retrieved 2 September 2021.
- ^ a b c "World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)" (PDF). 20 April 2019.
- ^ a b "THE MUTILATED WORK" (PDF). Copyright User. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022.
- ^ "authors, attribution, and integrity: examining moral rights in the united states" (PDF). U.S. Copyright Office. April 2019. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022.
- ^ Tom G. Palmer, "Are Patents and Copyrights Morally Justified?" Accessed 5 February 2013.
- ^ Dalmia, Vijay Pal (14 December 2017). "Copyright Law In India". Mondaq.
- ^ 17 U.S.C. § 305
- ^ The Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995, part II, Amendments of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
- OCLC 50606064– via Google Books.
- ^ "Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States.", Cornell University.
- ^ See Peter B. Hirtle, "Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States 1 January 2015" online at footnote 8 Archived 26 February 2015 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Lawrence Lessig, Copyright's First Amendment, 48 UCLA L. Rev. 1057, 1065 (2001)
- ^ "(2012) Copyright Protection Not Available for Names, Titles, or Short Phrases U.S. Copyright Office" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022.
- ^ "John Wiley & Sons Inc. v. Kirtsaeng" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 July 2017.
- ^ "US CODE: Title 17,107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use". .law.cornell.edu. 20 May 2009. Retrieved 16 June 2009.
- ^ "The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998" (PDF). Copyright Office. December 1998. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 October 2003. Retrieved 7 November 2022.
- ^ "Digital Millennium Copyright act". American Library Association. Archived from the original on 19 March 2012. Retrieved 7 November 2022.
- ^ "Chapter 1 – Circular 92 – U.S. Copyright Office". www.copyright.gov.
- ^ "Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act 2002 comes into force". Royal National Institute of Blind People. 1 January 2011. Retrieved 11 August 2016.
- ^ General Guide to the Copyright Act of 1976, US Copyright Office, Ch.8, p.11, September 1977
- ^ ISBN 978-92-805-1271-7.
- ISBN 978-92-805-1271-7.
- ISBN 978-92-805-1271-7.
- ^ a b "Creative Commons Website". creativecommons.org. Retrieved 24 October 2011.
- ^ a b Rubin, R. E. (2010) 'Foundations of Library and Information Science: Third Edition', Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc., New York, p. 341
- ^ "MEPs ignore expert advice and vote for mass internet censorship". European Digital Rights. 20 June 2018. Retrieved 24 June 2018.
- ^ "Copyright Week 2019: Copyright as a tool of censorship". European Digital Rights (EDRi). Retrieved 27 February 2021.
- ^ "Revealed: How copyright law is being misused to remove material from the internet". The Guardian. 23 May 2016. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
Further reading
- Dowd, Raymond J. (2006). Copyright Litigation Handbook (1st ed.). Thomson West. ISBN 0-314-96279-4.
- Ellis, Sara R. Copyrighting Couture: An Examination of Fashion Design Protection and Why the DPPA and IDPPPA are a Step Towards the Solution to Counterfeit Chic, 78 Tenn. L. Rev. 163 (2010), available at Copyrighting Couture: An Examination of Fashion Design Protection and Why the DPPA and IDPPPA are a Step Towards the Solution to Counterfeit Chic.
- Ghosemajumder, Shuman. Advanced Peer-Based Technology Business Models. MIT Sloan School of Management, 2002.
- Lehman, Bruce: Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure (Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, 1995)
- Lindsey, Marc: Copyright Law on Campus. ISBN 978-0-87422-264-7.
- Mazzone, Jason. Copyfraud. SSRN
- McDonagh, Luke. Is Creative use of Musical Works without a licence acceptable under Copyright? International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC) 4 (2012) 401–426, available at SSRN
- ISBN 0-8205-1465-9.
- Patterson, Lyman Ray (1968). Copyright in Historical Perspective. Online Version. Vanderbilt University Press. ISBN 0-8265-1373-5.
- Rife, by Martine Courant. Convention, Copyright, and Digital Writing (Southern Illinois University Press; 2013) 222 pages; Examines legal, pedagogical, and other aspects of online authorship.
- Rosen, Ronald (2008). Music and Copyright. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-533836-2.
- Shipley, David E. "Thin But Not Anorexic: Copyright Protection for Compilations and Other Fact Works" UGA Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-001; Journal of Intellectual Property Law, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2007.
- Silverthorne, Sean. Music Downloads: Pirates- or Customers?. Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, 2004.
- Sorce Keller, Marcello. "Originality, Authenticity and Copyright", Sonus, VII(2007), no. 2, pp. 77–85.
- Steinberg, S.H.; Trevitt, John (1996). Five Hundred Years of Printing (4th ed.). London and New Castle: The British Library and Oak Knoll Press. ISBN 1-884718-19-1.
- Story, Alan; Darch, Colin; Halbert, Deborah, eds. (2006). The Copy/South Dossier: Issues in the Economics, Politics and Ideology of Copyright in the Global South (PDF). Copy/South Research Group. ISBN 978-0-9553140-1-8. Archived from the original(PDF) on 16 August 2013.
- Ransom, Harry Huntt (1956). The First Copyright Statute. Austin: University of Texas. ISBN 9780292732353.
- Rose, M. (1993), Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright, London: Harvard University Press
- Loewenstein, J. (2002), The Author's Due: Printing and the Prehistory of Copyright, London: University of Chicago Press.
- Abbott, Madigan, Mossoff, Osenga, Rosen. "Holding States Accountable for Copyright Piracy" (PDF). Regulatory Transparency Project. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022. Retrieved 15 May 2021.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
External links
| Library resources about Copyright |
- Moraes, Frank (2 October 2020). "Copyright Law In 2020 Explained In One Page". WhoIsHostingThis.com. A simplified guide.
- Copyright at Curlie
- WIPOLex from WIPO; global database of treaties and statutes relating to intellectual property
- Copyright Berne Convention: Country List List of the 164 members of the Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works
- Copyright and State Sovereign Immunity, U.S. Copyright Office
- The Multi-Billion-Dollar Piracy Industry with Tom Galvin of Digital Citizens Alliance, The Illusion of More Podcast
- Education
- Copyright Cortex
- A Bibliography on the Origins of Copyright and Droit d'Auteur
- MIT OpenCourseWare 6.912 Introduction to Copyright Law Free self-study course with video lectures as offered during the January 2006, Independent Activities Period (IAP)
- USA
- Copyright Law of the United States Documents, US Government
- Compendium of Copyright Practices (3rd ed.) United States Copyright Office
- Copyright from UCB Libraries GovPubs
- Early Copyright Records From the Rare Book and Special Collections Division at the Library of Congress
- UK
- Copyright: Detailed information at the UK Intellectual Property Office
- Fact sheet P-01: UK copyright law (Issued April 2000, amended 25 November 2020) at the UK Copyright Service
Copyright law by country | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Africa |
|  | |||
| Americas | |||||
| Asia | |||||
| Europe |
| ||||
| Oceania | |||||
| National | |
|---|---|
| Other | |
