add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
| advertise add site services publishers database health videos
| | about toolbar stats live show health store more stuff JOIN/LOGIN |
Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking... independentliving.com | Dual loyalties: Commentary on to talk or not to talk by Ashok Sinha issuesinmedicalethics.org | Copyright - Copyright and Disclaimer orthop.washington.edu |
This page is for discussion of the particular contents of the Copyright article, or for straightforward questions about copyright. This article is not the place for:
[edit] Information about copyright symbolCopyright symbol redirects to this article, but there's no information about the symbol here. It would be great to know its history, how to generate it from a keyboard, etc. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
(Indent reverted) How to generate Copyright symbol is described in article by holding the ALT key while typing the numbers 0169 on the numeric keypad. History for C in circle or "(C)" (is valid instead of C in circle) mark set is told on 6 September 1952, though not clear statement found by myself in English web site(s). Note: the symbol of a lower case "c" inside of a circle accompanied by the name of the copyright proprietor and the year of first publication placed in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of claim of copyright The three element, Copyright＋issue year＋Writersname is used quite popular in general, such as "© 2008 Writers-name, All rights reserved. or "Copyright 2008 Writers-name, All rights reserved", however without showing this, Copyright is protected by "copyright law"of each country. "Copyright 2008-2010 Writers-name, All rights reserved" is very ambiguity against Universal Copyright Convention, because moment of issue year timing is not specified exactly. Search keywords is/are: the 1952 Convention Copyright (C) The following web site and description may help you. My English en-2 may not help interpret and edit article correctly. http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/copyright/html_eng/page1.shtml the 1952 Convention http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/UNTS13444.html 4th paragraph: Have resolved to revise the Universal Copyright Convention as signed at Geneva on 6 September 1952 (hereinafter called "the 1952 Convention"), and consequently, http://www.cni.org/docs/infopols/US.Universal.Copyright.Conv.html http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/ocl.html [Ref.] International Conventions (Status as of August 2006) http://www.unesco.org/culture/copyright/html_eng/ucc52ms.pdf http://www.britannica.co.jp/azbrowse/u/u7.html Universal Copyright Convention http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9074354/Universal-Copyright-Convention --Namazu-tron (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC) [edit]I am removing this link http://info4.juridicas.unam.mx/ijure/tcfed/133.htm?s= because it does not relate to the subject of copyright. This site is about the Mexican "Federal Law of Animal Sanity" ("Ley Federal de Sanidad Animal") Amoscare (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I am removing the link * Against Perpetual Copyright from the external links as it is not directly related to the topic and is an opinion piece. Sbauman487 (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC) [edit] Distinguish US Copyright LawPerhaps this article could be improved or clarified by separating or distinguishing US copyright law from that of other nations, the WTO TRIPs regime, or the WIPO. The purpose of copyright is subtly different in the US than in parts of Europe. US law, enshrined in the Constitution, is very interested in striking a balance between protecting innovation and delivering "the useful arts" to the people. In Europe, copyright purpose is more geared toward protecting an artist's "moral rights" in his or her work from dilution or use by others. This is a fundamental conceptual difference that's hard to discuss under the monolithic heading of "copyright" that doesn't distinguish between the different purposes of copyright. However, the US and the world moved closer to more uniform copyright laws after the Uruguay Round of GATT. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) signed into law in the US has made it possible to possess a copyright in a work created without registering it at all (although there are still advantages to registration). The DMCA was also the domestic (US) enabling legislation Congress enacted as part of the US obligation under the Uruguay Round talks of GATT / TRIPs. TRIPs are administered by the WTO. Bkinloch (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC) [edit] Copying Section IncorrectSection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#What_is_a_.22copy.22.3F on What is a "copy"? incorrectly states that a "A three-dimensional counterpart of a two-dimensional drawing is usually not a “copy” of the drawing, under United States copyright law" This is contrary Rogers v Koons and other cases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons http://www.owe.com/legalities/legalities30.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.176.62 (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Write an article FOR this magazine. What does that really mean?I responded to a newspaper ad that advertised a position as journalist. The editor asked me to write a 300 word article for the publication she sought a journalist for. I sent the article through via email on the deadline. Although I came in subsequently for another test, they told me that they found a journalist for the position. Months later the publisher called me to offer me a job, not as a journalist, but advertising sales person. I took the job, and discovered my article in one of their magazines. They had printed it for publication without my consent, without giving me credit, and without paying for the article. Their argument was that they asked me to write an article FOR this publication. The editor said, she did not know it was my article when it went to print, and she was unwilling to pay me for it. Have they acted illegally / unlawfully according to South Africn copyright laws? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inktaps (talk • contribs) 12:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Creatrix?"Creatrix" is not really a word, is it? Perhaps in theology, but hopefully not in the context of copyright law? I believe that "creator" applies equally to males and females. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.153.132 (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC) [edit] "Life of the Author"Could someone clarify what the life of the author plus 50 or 70 years means? Does it mean the date of death and 50 or 70 years or something else? Thanks.--Gramy! 17:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Sorry. I didn't read the rest of the section. I get it now. If someone else was confused by this, then you should probably change it.--Gramy! 17:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Recieving CopyrightCan you please describe how to get the copyrights? Is it something any particular organization provides it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.34.231.233 (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No organization or authorization needed - international copyright protection is automatic, it exists as soon as a work is created, and this principle applies in all the countries party to the Berne Convention.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmd4632 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC) [edit] QuestionIf I had created a compilation CD, would I be able to put it on Last.fm? I don't mean like uploading the tracks, just the tracklist. Would that be copyright or not? Tcatron565 (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a forum. Seek help elsewhere. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 16:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC) [edit] Transfer and LicensingI feel like there should be a separate page for discussion of Transfer and Licensing, discussing types of contracts, exclusive vs. non-exclusive licenses, and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.228.75 (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC) [edit] POV in "Justification" sectionThe "Justification" section is an interesting essay, but it's largely opinion. I share much of the opinion expressed here, but it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I've stricken one paragraph that was pure editorial. The rest could still use some edit. 20:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Constitutionality of term extensionsAbsent from this discussion, at least as far as US Copyright Law, is the defacto notion that copyright extension is itself unconstitutional, being in direct violation of the specific Constitutional statements regarding the inability of Congress to produce "no ex post facto bill of attainder", that is, to change the rules in play. Alterations to copyright laws can alter the copyright length of newly produced material after the law has been altered, but changing the length of copyright is tantamount to extending the length of your sentence for a crime after you've already been convicted and sentenced for that crime. That no one has yet challenged this is probably due to the need for a large war chest to fight Disney's deep pockets on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.219.28 (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] VandalismI've noticed that even now, unregistered users still mess up this topic. I would like to propose a semi-lock on this topic to protect it from future spamming. Adam Hillman (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Not sure if it's down to vandalism but there is a weird bias in this article towards publishers. It's very odd and creepy and tries to make it seem like copyrights should always go automatically to publishers, when the whole point of copyright was originaly to protect authors from publishers to maintain the flow of ideas to create more good works (as the article itself even quotes!). In fact copyright has always gone to the author first and not the publisher. I've tried to correct this. It's not at all nice that someone has done this however. --Kystal (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] wordwide view: copyright/author's rightsThere are fundamental differences between the common law concept of copyright and the civil law author's rights. This article quite obviously isn't aware of this and anglocentrically treats copyright in the common law sense as if it were universal. But since the article author's rights exists, it shouldn't be too difficult to fix this. It should be noted in this article that in a large part of the world—the larger one, in fact—"copyright" takes on the different form of author's rights, which is a fundamentally different concept, although the effects are largely, but not completely, the same. "Author's rights" should be linked and at least be shortly defined. They comprise moral rights and property rights. The moral rights are personality rights. Therefore, while the property rights are transferable, the moral rights are so only in case of death—to the heirs. This also explains why author's rights come to existence together with the work, without any need to claim them. It might also be helpful to know that the Berne Convention is founded on author's rights. On the other hand, the expression "intellectual property" is closely linked to copyright and remains somewhat alien to civil law, although it is now used there widely, too. German legalese for example prefers to speak of "Immaterialgüterrecht". Now don't make me translate that. --88.67.45.138 (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC) [edit] TagsFor a former featured article, this one has too many tags for neutrality, verification and references. Is somebody using these tags inappropriately? The tag for neutrality says there is a dispute, but there is no dispute noted on this talk page for that section. The article appears to have adequate, authoritative references which can easily be verified with hot links. Isn't it time the tags were removed, or for whoever put them there to make a real contribution to the article instead of merely being critical? Dr. Perfessor 03:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] US centric ArticleAs the case with so many other Articles this piece talks of copyright law as if it exist only in United States. Whereas one can understand the economic significance of copyright law in the US since RIAA MPAA and many huge corporations rely soley on these laws for their major source of revenues, it does not warrant filling up of copyright law article substantially with US copyright legal regime. The Article goes into details US copyright law in nitty gritty when there exists another separate article on US copyright law. It only makes a passing refernce to other common law countries and to very less extent to civil law copyright system. I hope this inherent bias running across various Articles, and discussion pages (talking only of US situations) could be neutralized by doing research on other countries around the world. I do not object to giving more bytes to US if it is justified in the context of the Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.120.65 (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC) This is a historic problem, and a common one as well. Many contributors to the English Wikipedia are from the US and my impression is that to start with many articles were written from a US perspective for US readers. Many articles are now being "globalised" as per wikipolicy (it takes its time), see tag below.
--SasiSasi (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC) [edit] Globalising the articleI have started to move some of the very US specific stuff into the United States copyright law... I will do some work on this over the next days (time, oh time), any help is welcome.--SasiSasi (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC) [edit] The term "Intellectual Property"Use of the term "Intellectual Property" is right wing POV-pushing that should be avoided. The neutral way is to refer to copyrights, patents, and trademarks separately. Jwray (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Jwray, I am afraid that the train left the station long ago on this one. I remember during the 1970s opposing the use of "intellectual property" to talk about patents, and meeting consistent defeat. The American Patent Law Ass'n changed its name to the American Intellectual Property Ass'n; the Patent Section (of which I was Chief) of the US Dep't of Justice's Antiotrust Division became the Intellectual Property Section; and innumerable law committees changed their names. The term is pretentious and affected, but I think it goes to far to call it a right-wing POV-pusher. The worst it does is to imply that patents and copyrights are somehow sacred and inviolable (as in the 4-3 USSC decision on relief in the Hartford Empire case), buit more recent decisions seem no longer to take such notions seriously (see the CAFC decision in thre Zoltek case). I think we should save our energy for more substantive issues than this. PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I understand that some members of the open source community, most notably Stallman, object to the term; and that's fine. However, it's definitely established as the umbrella term for these and other types of rights. See, for example the web page What is Intellectual Property? ([2]) hosted by the United Nations agency, the World Intellectual Property Organization. To avoid using the term in deference to a minority opinion like Stallman's, in the face of near-universal acceptance of the term would be violating WP:NPOV. TJRC (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Poor man’s copyright
What happened in 1978? —Frungi (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Use of "creator" in introductionThe first paragraph states: Copyright gives the creator of an original work exclusive right for a certain time period in relation to that work... I think it should be mentioned in the introduction that often the copyright does not, in fact, belong to the creator of the work but to the creator's employer. In fact, the introduction contradicts itself by saying that copyright generally lasts for 50-100 years after the death of the creator. How can it belong to the creator, then? Esn (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] The large "fair use" paragraph at the top of the article - not necessaryI don't think the following paragraph is necessary in the overview of Copyright, so I've removed it:- "The development of the Internet, digital media, and computer network technologies, such as peer-to-peer file sharing, have prompted reinterpretation of these exceptions, introduced new difficulties in enforcing copyright, and inspired additional challenges to copyright law's philosophic basis. Simultaneously, businesses with great economic dependence upon copyright have advocated the extension and expansion of their copyrights, and sought additional legal and technological enforcement." EssentialParadox (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Free encyclopedic public domain source (CRS report)I'm adding Congress's CRS reports to their relevant talk pages, since they're so thorough and you can just copy-and-cite the content ... here's yours:
PS : if you can think of a better talk page for this, please copy it there
[edit] International copyright lawI would love to see a table comparing the copyright laws in different countries. Possible columns would whether a three strikes law is in force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.209.108.248 (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ↑ top of page ↑ | about thumbshots |
