This link has been bookmarked by 1176 people and liked by 1 people. It was first bookmarked on 02 Mar 2006, by Matt scifo.
-
12 Jul 23
-
31 Dec 17
-
02 Jun 17
-
07 Mar 17
-
22 Feb 17
-
06 Dec 16
-
01 Nov 16
-
26 Aug 16
-
01 Aug 16
-
06 Apr 16
-
04 Apr 16
-
25 Mar 16
channyb2008An attempt to answer common myths about copyright seen on the net and cover issues related to copyright and USENET/Internet publication.
-
04 Mar 16
-
25 Feb 16
-
21 Feb 16
-
copyright has two main purposes, namely the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit from valuable work, and more recently the protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used
-
-
25 Jan 16
-
11 Nov 15
-
01 Nov 15
-
10 Big Myths about copyright explained
-
copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
-
notice strengthens the protection
-
The latest revision was in October 2008
-
-
08 Oct 15
-
you can't just take a non-parody and claim it is one on a technicality
-
-
17 Sep 15
-
This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not.
-
-
12 Sep 15
sarahsunraeBrad explains the top 10 copyright myths and how to know whether something is copyrighted.
copyright students parents internetsafety digitalcitizenship
-
This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you com
-
This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you com
-
today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention.
-
almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not.
-
This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you com
-
but it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you com
-
The correct form for a notice is:
"Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]"
You can use C in a circle © instead of "Copyright" but "(C)" has never been given legal force. -
False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law.
-
False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.
-
The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author.
-
-
14 Jul 15
katyparker27This article debunks several "myths" about copyrights and provides answer to many common questions about them. It goes over what is considered fair use and what is not and also what will happen if you get caught using someone else's work.
-
27 Jun 15
valerie taylor"today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise."
-
11 May 15
-
- "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
- This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.
-
-
10 May 15
-
basically the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work.
-
"If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
-
in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not.
-
It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary.
-
"If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
-
False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law.
-
If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
-
Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.
-
False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain
-
My posting was just fair use!"
-
The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other people's.
-
False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away.
-
-
09 May 15
-
the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work.
-
today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention.
-
almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not
-
You can use C in a circle © instead of "Copyright" but "(C)" has never been given legal force. The phrase "All Rights Reserved" used to be required in some nations but is now not legally needed most places. In some countries it may help preserve some of the "moral rights."
-
USA exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster
-
Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*).
-
created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the autho
-
Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away. You also can't "copyright a name" or anything short like that, such as almost all titles.
-
U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work
-
mostly civil law.
-
copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony.
-
in the 90s in the USA commercial
-
-
07 May 15
-
10 Big Myths about copyright explained
<!-- replaced only google,blank -->An attempt to answer common myths about copyright seen on the net and cover issues related to copyright and USENET/Internet publication.
-
-
26 Apr 15
-
12 Apr 15
-
"If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
-
This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention.
-
"If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
-
False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law
-
"If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
-
False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*).
-
"My posting was just fair use!"
-
he "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author.
-
"If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." -- "Somebody has that name copyrighted!"
-
False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away. You also can't "copyright a name" or anything short like that, such as almost all titles.
-
"If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me."
-
False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work.
-
- These days, almost all things are copyrighted the moment they are written, and no copyright notice is required.
- Copyright is still violated whether you charged money or not, only damages are affected by that.
- Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and don't grant you any permission to do further copying except perhaps the sort of copying the poster might have expected in the ordinary flow of the net.
- Fair use is a complex doctrine meant to allow certain valuable social purposes. Ask yourself why you are republishing what you are posting and why you couldn't have just rewritten it in your own words.
- Copyright is not lost because you don't defend it; that's a concept from trademark law. The ownership of names is also from trademark law, so don't say somebody has a name copyrighted.
- Fan fiction and other work derived from copyrighted works is a copyright violation.
- Copyright law is mostly civil law where the special rights of criminal defendants you hear so much about don't apply. Watch out, however, as new laws are moving copyright violation into the criminal realm.
- Don't rationalize that you are helping the copyright holder; often it's not that hard to ask permission.
- Posting E-mail is technically a violation, but revealing facts from E-mail you got isn't, and for almost all typical E-mail, nobody could wring any damages from you for posting it. The law doesn't do much to protect works with no commercial value.
In Summary
-
-
09 Apr 15
-
copyright is -- basically the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work. If you didn't know that, check out my own brief introduction tocopyright for more information. Feel free to link to this document, no need to ask me. Really, NO need to ask. <!-- replaced only block1,rightsquare --><script async="" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pub-config/ca-pub-5397334057241462.js" type="text/javascript"></script><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-5397334057241462"; google_ad_width = 250; google_ad_height = 250; google_ad_format = "250x250_as"; google_ad_channel ="0826429582"; google_color_border = "FFFFFF"; google_color_bg = "FFFFFF"; google_color_link = "0000CC"; google_color_url = "666666"; google_color_text = "000000"; //--></script> <script src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> -
- If it doesn't have a
copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."- This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne
copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn't post that either.
- If it doesn't have a
-
-
06 Apr 15
-
basically the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work
-
-
05 Apr 15
-
-
- These days, almost all things are copyrighted the moment they are written, and no copyright notice is required.
- Copyright is still violated whether you charged money or not, only damages are affected by that.
- Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and don't grant you any permission to do further copying except perhaps the sort of copying the poster might have expected in the ordinary flow of the net.
- Fair use is a complex doctrine meant to allow certain valuable social purposes. Ask yourself why you are republishing what you are posting and why you couldn't have just rewritten it in your own words.
- Copyright is not lost because you don't defend it; that's a concept from trademark law. The ownership of names is also from trademark law, so don't say somebody has a name copyrighted.
- Fan fiction and other work derived from copyrighted works is a copyright violation.
- Copyright law is mostly civil law where the special rights of criminal defendants you hear so much about don't apply. Watch out, however, as new laws are moving copyright violation into the criminal realm.
- Don't rationalize that you are helping the copyright holder; often it's not that hard to ask permission.
- Posting E-mail is technically a violation, but revealing facts from E-mail you got isn't, and for almost all typical E-mail, nobody could wring any damages from you for posting it. The law doesn't do much to protect works with no commercial value.
-
-
-
For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise.
-
False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property.
-
-
-
copyright is -- basically the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work.
-
-
-
Note that this is an essay about copyright myths. It assumes you know at least what copyright is -- basically the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work.
-
-
04 Apr 15
-
03 Apr 15
-
basically the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work.
-
everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not.
-
may not be copied unless you know otherwise.
-
-
27 Mar 15
-
16 Mar 15
-
09 Mar 15
-
-
legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work. If you didn't know that, check out my own brief introduction to copyright for more information. Feel free to link to this document, no need to ask me. Really, NO need to ask.
-
-
-
- If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
- False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.
-
- These days, almost all things are copyrighted the moment they are written, and no copyright notice is required.
- Copyright is still violated whether you charged money or not, only damages are affected by that.
- Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and don't grant you any permission to do further copying except perhaps the sort of copying the poster might have expected in the ordinary flow of the net.
- Fair use is a complex doctrine meant to allow certain valuable social purposes. Ask yourself why you are republishing what you are posting and why you couldn't have just rewritten it in your own words.
- Copyright is not lost because you don't defend it; that's a concept from trademark law. The ownership of names is also from trademark law, so don't say somebody has a name copyrighted.
- Fan fiction and other work derived from copyrighted works is a copyright violation.
-
-
-
the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work.
-
-
-
Note that this is an essay about copyright myths. It assumes you know at least what copyright is -- basically the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work. If you didn't know that, check
out my own brief introduction to copyright for more information. Feel free to link to this document, no need to ask me. Really, NO need to ask.
-
-
08 Mar 15
-
This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.
It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn't post that either.
-
False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is a USA exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money.
-
Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and forward network where all the thousands of copies made are done at the command (rather than the consent) of the poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect when one posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement of material into the public domain. It is important to remember that when it comes to the law, computers never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are given commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission. Furthermore it is very difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly stated licence that the copier was aware of.
Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post the item in the first place. If the poster didn't, then all the copies are pirated, and no implied licence or theoretical reduction of the copyright can take plac
-
-
-
what copyright is -- basically the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work.
-
-
07 Mar 15
-
jpleas3Ten of the biggest myths about copyrights explained in "Templetons.com." article.
DGL Vocab copyright law myths plagiarism reference legal fairuse writing 10 big myths about copyright explained protection risk people
-
Copyrights can expire after a long time, putting something into the public domain, and there are some fine points on this issue regarding older copyright law versions. However, none of this applies to material from the modern era, such as net postings.
-
copyrights turn a blind eye to "fan fiction" or even subtly encourage it because it helps them. Make no mistake, however, that it is entirely up to them whether to do that.
-
-
06 Mar 15
headnshouldersWhile copyright law makes it technically illegal to reproduce almost any new creative work (other than under fair use) without permission, if the work is unregistered and has no real commercial value, it gets very little protection. The author in this case can sue for an injunction against the publication, actual damages from a violation, and possibly court costs. Actual damages means actual money potentially lost by the author due to publication, plus any money gained by the defendant. But if a work has no commercial value, such as a typical E-mail message or conversational USENET posting, the actual damages will be zero. Only the most vindictive (and rich) author would sue when no damages are possible, and the courts don't look kindly on vindictive plaintiffs, unless the defendants are even more vindictive.
-
-
Note that this is an essay about copyright myths. It assumes you know at least what copyright is -- basically the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work.
-
-
-
"If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
-
This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention.
-
lmost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not.
-
efault you should assume
-
copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise.
-
notice strengthens the protection, by warning people
-
If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is.
-
applies to pictures
-
"If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
-
False.
-
still a violation if you give it away
-
serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property.
-
not a violation,
-
USA exception for personal copying of music,
-
no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action.
-
"If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
-
Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*).
-
False.
-
"My posting was just fair use!"
-
"If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." -- "Somebody has that name copyrighted!"
-
"If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me."
-
"They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!"
-
"Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?"
-
"It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising."
-
"They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it."
-
So I can't ever reproduce anything?"
-
-
-
copyright myths.
-
legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work
-
copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
-
almost everything created
-
after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected
-
default you should assume
-
is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise
-
You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net,
-
"All Rights Reserved"
-
You can use C in a circle © instead of "Copyright" but "(C)" has never been given legal force.
-
"If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
-
False.
-
It's still a violation
-
exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation,
-
when it comes to the law, computers never make copies, only human beings make copies.
-
Computers are given commands, not permission.
-
(*) Copyrights can expire after a long time,
-
"fair use
-
only the ability to appropriate other people's.
-
Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed.
-
not harm the commercial value of the work
-
opying just 300 words from Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir for a magazine article was ruled as not fair use,
-
" concept varies from country to country,
-
don't defend
-
you lose it."
-
Copyright is effectively never lost these days,
-
Delta Airlines "owns" that word applied to air travel,
-
I would be very wary of trying to label my works with a name like "mtv.
-
If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me."
-
False
-
"derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work --
-
If you write a story using settings or characters from somebody else's work, you need that author's permission.
-
"fan fiction" is arguably a copyright violation
-
Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright you would usually get sued
-
Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of criminal law
-
In civil cases you can even be made to testify against your own interests.
-
Actually, in the 90s in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony.
-
piracy on the net hurts everybody who wants a chance to use this wonderful new technology to do more than read other people's flamewars.
-
copy is not to have the copyright.
-
if the work is unregistered and has no real commercial value, it gets very little protection.
-
author
-
can sue for an injunction against the publication, actual damages from a violation, and possibly court costs.
-
It's also been extended to allow things like home recording of TV shows and moving music from CDs you own to your MP3 playe
-
almost all things are copyrighted
-
-
-
"If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
-
This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention.
-
"If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
-
False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law.
-
"If it's posted to
-
Usenet
-
it's in the public domain."
-
False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*).
-
It is important to remember that when it comes to the law, computers never make copies, only human beings make copies.
-
Computers are given commands, not permission.
-
"My posting was just fair use!"
-
The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author.
-
doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other people's
-
The "fair use" concept varies from country to country, and has different names (such as "fair dealing" in Canada) and other limitations outside the USA.
-
"If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." -- "Somebody has that name copyrighted!"
-
False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away.
-
can't "copyright a name" or anything short like that, such as almost all titles.
-
"If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me."
-
False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work.
-
Yes, that means almost all "fan fiction" is arguably a copyright violation.
-
"They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!"
-
Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright you would usually get sued, not be charged with a crime.
-
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of criminal law, as is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
-
"Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?"
-
Actually, in the 90s in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony.
-
"They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it."
-
To have a copy is not to have the copyright. All the E-mail you write is copyrighted.
-
However, E-mail is not, unless previously agreed, secret.
-
"So I can't ever reproduce anything?"
-
Myth #11 (I didn't want to change the now-famous title of this article) is actually one sometimes generated in response to this list of 10 myths.
-
-
05 Mar 15
-
15 Feb 15
-
10 Feb 15
-
09 Feb 15
-
-
This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.
It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn't post that either
-
-
-
10 Big Myths about copyright explained
-
- 1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
- This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.
-
- If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
- False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is a USA exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money.
-
-
08 Feb 15
-
- "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
- This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.
It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn't post that either.
-
- "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
- False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is a USA exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money.
-
- "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
- False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.
-
-
-
basically the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work
-
-
-
- 1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
- This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.
-
-
-
- 1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
- This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.
-
-
07 Feb 15
-
10 Big Myths about copyright explained
-
1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
-
2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
-
3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
-
4) "My posting was just fair use!"
-
5) "If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." -- "Somebody has that name copyrighted!"
-
6) "If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me."
-
7) "They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!"
-
8) "Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?"
-
9) "It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising."
-
10) "They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it."
-
11)"So I can't ever reproduce anything?"
-
-
06 Feb 15
-
-
today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.
-
You can use C in a circle © instead of "Copyright" but "(C)" has never been given legal force. The phrase "All Rights Reserved" used to be required in some nations but is now not legally needed most places. In some countries it may help preserve some of the "moral rights."
-
Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and forward network where all the thousands of copies made are done at the command (rather than the consent) of the poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect when one posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement of material into the public domain
-
-
05 Feb 15
-
-
almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyright
-
The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copy
-
ed and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copy
-
opyright [dates] by [author/owner]"
-
It's still a violation if you give it away
-
Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domai
-
copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express you
-
r own works -- only the ability to appropriate other people's.
-
Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed.
-
If you write a story using settings or characters from somebody else's work, you need that author's permission.
-
a copyright violation.
-
Yes, that means almost all "fan fiction" is arguably
-
USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony.
-
To have a copy is not to have the copyright.
-
-
27 Jan 15
-
13 Jan 15
-
12 Jan 15
-
11 Jan 15
-
almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not.
-
Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain
-
-
-
- 1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
- This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.
-
-
-
copyright is -- basically the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work.
-
almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise
-
-
-
An attempt to answer common myths about copyright seen on the net and cover issues related to copyright and USENET/Internet publication.
-
-
-
10 Big Myths about copyright explained
-
basically the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work.
-
"If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
-
"If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
-
"If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
-
"If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." -- "Somebody has that name copyrighted!"
-
"If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me."
-
-
-
the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work.
-
-
-
his was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention.
-
It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn't post that either.
-
If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action.
-
Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.
-
The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations.
-
Fair use isn't an exact doctrine, though. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use.
-
Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away.
-
owning a mark doesn't mean complete control
-
U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work
-
many, but not all holders of popular copyrights turn a blind eye to "fan fiction" or even subtly encourage it because it helps them.
-
criticism and parody. The fair use provision says that if you want to make fun of something like Star Trek, you don't need their permission to include Mr. Spock. This is not a loophole; you can't just take a non-parody and claim it is one on a technicality
-
f you violate copyright you would usually get sued, not be charged with a crime.
-
Actually, in the 90s in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony.
-
It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not
-
To have a copy is not to have the copyright
-
copyright isn't an iron-clad lock on what can be published. Indeed, by many arguments, by providing reward to authors, it encourages them to not just allow, but fund the publication and distribution of works so that they reach far more people than they would if they were free or unprotected -- and unpromoted
-
copyright has two main purposes, namely the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit from valuable work, and more recently the protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used.
-
-
10 Jan 15
-
Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away. You also can't "copyright a name" or anything short like that, such as almost all titles. You may be thinking of trade marks, which apply to names, and can be weakened or lost if not defended.
-
-
09 Jan 15
-
10 Big Myths about copyright explained
<!-- replaced only google,blank -->An attempt to answer common myths about copyright seen on the net and cover issues related to copyright and USENET/Internet publication.
-
-
-
- 5) "If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." -- "Somebody has that name copyrighted!"
- False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away. You also can't "copyright a name" or anything short like that, such as almost all titles. You may be thinking of trade marks, which apply to names, and can be weakened or lost if not defended.
-
"derivative works"
-
Yes, that means almost all "fan fiction" is arguably a copyright violation. If you want to publish a story about Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock, you need Paramount's permission, plain and simple. Now, as it turns out, many, but not all holders of popular copyrights turn a blind eye to "fan fiction" or even subtly encourage it because it helps them. Make no mistake, however, that it is entirely up to them whether to do that.
There is a major exception -- criticism and parody. The fair use provision says that if you want to make fun of something like Star Trek, you don't need their permission to include Mr. Spock. This is not a loophole; you can't just take a non-parody and claim it is one on a technicality. The way "fair use" works is you get sued for copyright infringement, and you admit you did copy, but that your copying was a fair use. A subjective judgment on, among other things, your goals, is then made.
-
protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit from valuable work
-
copyright has two main purposes
-
to control how a work is used.
-
-
02 Jan 15
-
09 Dec 14
hpbookmarksWell-known resource by Brad Templeton.
copyright law myths plagiarism reference legal fair use teachers teaching
-
04 Dec 14
-
03 Dec 14
-
- "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
- This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.
-
It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn't post that either.
-
The correct form for a notice is:
"Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]"
-
You can use C in a circle © instead of "Copyright" but "(C)" has never been given legal force. The phrase "All Rights Reserved" used to be required in some nations but is now not legally needed most places. In some countries it may help preserve some of the "moral rights."
-
- "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
- False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is a USA exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money.
-
- "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
- False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.
-
The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author.
-
- "If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." -- "Somebody has that name copyrighted!"
- False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away. You also can't "copyright a name" or anything short like that, such as almost all titles. You may be thinking of trade marks, which apply to names, and can be weakened or lost if not defended.
-
- "If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me."
- False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process. If you write a story using settings or characters from somebody else's work, you need that author's permission.
-
-
-
- 1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
- This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.
-
-
sklani1610 Big Myths about copyright explained
copyright law DGL copyrights Vocabulary Internet copy Definition
-
02 Dec 14
-
You can use C in a circle © instead of "Copyright" but "(C)" has never been given legal force. The phrase "All Rights Reserved" used to be required in some nations but is now not legally needed most places. In some countries it may help preserve some of the "moral rights."
-
- These days, almost all things are copyrighted the moment they are written, and no copyright notice is required.
- Copyright is still violated whether you charged money or not, only damages are affected by that.
- Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and don't grant you any permission to do further copying except perhaps the sort of copying the poster might have expected in the ordinary flow of the net.
- Fair use is a complex doctrine meant to allow certain valuable social purposes. Ask yourself why you are republishing what you are posting and why you couldn't have just rewritten it in your own words.
- Copyright is not lost because you don't defend it; that's a concept from trademark law. The ownership of names is also from trademark law, so don't say somebody has a name copyrighted.
- Fan fiction and other work derived from copyrighted works is a copyright violation.
- Copyright law is mostly civil law where the special rights of criminal defendants you hear so much about don't apply. Watch out, however, as new laws are moving copyright violation into the criminal realm.
- Don't rationalize that you are helping the copyright holder; often it's not that hard to ask permission.
- Posting E-mail is technically a violation, but revealing facts from E-mail you got isn't, and for almost all typical E-mail, nobody could wring any damages from you for posting it. The law doesn't do much to protect works with no commercial value.
In Summary
-
-
-
10 Big Myths about copyright explained
-
"If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
-
almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not.
-
"If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
-
False.
-
It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property.
-
Page Comments
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.