A Short & Happy Guide to Copyright
Author:
Murray, Michael D.
Edition:
2nd
Copyright Date:
2022
12 chapters
have results for new cvv sites, 【 Visit Amsiga.com 】 ojM3t2s., buy cc non vbv, non avs sites, topcc cvv G3u6
Chapter 2. Originality and Creativity 14 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Clip art, in the common understanding of the term, is not protected by copyright, and so it is public domain material that may be used by a new author or artist. If the second artist makes a creative, original arrangement of the non-original raw material, the second artist could receive a new copyright on the compilation, the new arrangement, and any new expression that emerges from the artist’s conception and creation. No one can copy the exact compilation and arrangement, although new artists could take the same raw material and make different arrangements of their own, and receive a new copyright on their new, original arrangements and compilations.
- ) If the tattoo design was original to the tattoo artist, then the work is copyrightable. If it is a copy of a pre-existing design, a present or historical tribal mark, or one of a genre of tribal markings that the tattoo artist simply adopted and decided to put to use in a facial tattoo for his customer, Mike Tyson, then the work is non-original.
- You could receive a new copyright for every one of the photocopied images because each is new, original to the author (the operator of the photocopy machine), and each reveals a new conception from the mind of the author that was rendered into a tangible expression in the new images produced. Note that this example assumes you had a right to make copies of all or large portions of the original image; if you didn’t have the right to copy by license, permission, public domain status, or fair use, then your efforts to enjoy a new copyright would potentially be thwarted by the enforcement of the original artist’s copyright.
- The plaintiffs had made a new (original) selection and arrangement of telephone numbers focusing only on businesses that spoke Chinese. Because the selection and arrangement were new, not copied, and the work was conceived of and created by the author, and it had new expression (new meaning and message from the selection and compilation), then it met the copyright requirements. Note that only the new parts, the new selection and arrangement, were copyrightable. The preexisting names and telephone numbers of the businesses were not a part of the plaintiff’s copyright. Other persons could come along, take the same data as to the names and numbers of these businesses, and make their own selection, compilation, and arrangement of the data. But these persons will not be able to copy plaintiff’s particular selection, compilation, and arrangement.
- Inevitably, authors and artists make use of the creations of others in their own work. Some of this earlier material is public domain (no longer or never protected by copyright), and other material is used fairly (as will be discussed in the Fair Use chapter of this book, Chapter 9). The second artist cannot obtain a new copyright on the portions of earlier works not conceived of and created by the artist, but the second artist can obtain a copyright over new material, including new arrangements that create new content, meaning, and expression different from the old material. A shorthand way of expressing this concept may be demonstrated using clip art.
- Open Chapter
- Work must be done at employer’s site
- Note, too, that this is a new innovation in United States copyright law since 1977. 1977 refers to the effective date of the 1976 Copyright Act that overhauled the whole United States copyright code. Before 1977, copyright to works were to transfer to the purchasers of the works. If you bought a painting, you also bought the copyright to the painting; or so went the presumption. You could rebut the presumption by agreement—inserting a clause in the sales agreement to the effect that, “In this sale of the painting, buyer will
- Avoid Work Made for Hire Questions—Just Buy the Copyright
- If you are not sure of a worker’s status, and you want to own the copyright to the work without question, whether the analysis turns toward independent contractor status rather than employee status, then there is a simple solution: just buy the copyright. Copyrights can be transferred from one person to another by a sale or assignment. A contract to sell, license, or assign a copyright does not have anything to do with the parties’ employment status any more than a contract to purchase a used car would have anything to do with the buyer’s and seller’s employment status. An employer who has her doubts about the common law agency status of a worker should contract with the worker separately to purchase not only the works she produces but also the copyrights to the works. The two are separate—the work and the copyright to the work, as discussed below. If you separately buy the copyright, you’ll own and control it and need never worry over the common law agency test. You can insert this...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3. Ideas vs. Expressions 3 results
- , and assuming the movie-maker does not intend to obtain a license to use the Goodwin work, there are certain things the movie-maker could use from Goodwin’s text, and certain things she could not. Certainly the movie-maker could use the facts, but if one is not a historian, how does one know what are the facts and what are the “something else”? And the “something else” can be divided into standard interpretations and inferences regarding history, widely recognized and accepted, and not particularly attributed to a single author whose work still is under copyright protection. These standard interpretations mostly likely could be copied, although again, it would be hard for non-historians to know exactly what these are. Lastly, are the unique, original, creative inferences and conjectures of Goodwin herself. These are protected by Goodwin’s copyright. Again, could you tell this material from the rest? You could hire a historical consultant, or buy the rights to use Goodwin’s book, or...
- Non-fiction works are copyrighted, so you might be wondering what inside these works actually is copyrightable. You now know that facts and data are not copyrightable. If non-fiction works were just a running list of facts, little or nothing in the works would be copyrightable. But the authors express the facts in writing and in charts, diagrams, and illustrations, all of which can be original and creative arrangements of facts and data, and as such, can be copyrighted.
- The Copyright of Non-Fiction Works
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9. Fair Uses 30 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Life Magazine, who purchased the rights to the film for $150,000 at the time of the events, resisted anyone’s unauthorized use of the film for any purpose, news, education, or commentary. Many years later, the U.S. government declared the work to be an assassination record and took over the copyright to the work. Later still, the rights were donated to the 6th Floor Museum in Dallas at the site of the assassination.
- Factor two does not turn very many cases from fair to unfair or vice versa, but the factor is weighed in the analysis. Factor two has two main points: the copying of unpublished works, and the degree to which the first work is wholly original and creative. As to the first of these points, if a work is unpublished, keep your hands off of it. Publishing other people’s works before they get a chance to is considered unfair. It will rarely qualify as a fair use. Regarding the second point, the courts must consider whether the copyrighted work that was copied is a purely expressive, wholly created work, such as a work of fiction or visual art that is completely original to the author or artist from start to finish. Wholly original and creative works are harder to copy on a fair use basis. But if the work is non-fiction, or contains a significant amount of non-original, non-copyrightable material, it can be copied more readily, subject of course to the other factors.
- The list of public purposes for fair use is not exclusive, and in the area of visual arts, it has been expanded in recent years by the overarching, non-codified, but massively important concept of . Transformation is now the X-factor, the factor not listed in Section 107, the one factor that can make or break certain expressive uses of works. Highly transformed works are fair; non-transformed works must find some other justification for their fairness (such as a classic fair use for education or comment and criticism).
- work rather than simply a change in the character (the form, the contents) of the work. Even if the works were not changed in form, function, or genre, the fair use works were transformed in predominant purpose either through alteration of the contents, or recontextualization of the copied material, or by the addition of significant creative expression so that the predominant purpose of the new work was significantly different from the original work. Non-alteration of the contents and expression of artistic and literary works still can be justified as fair use, but the function and purpose of the original works must be changed in the second works in a manner that fulfills fair use objectives that promote the progress of the arts and the creation of new, original expression that benefits the public.
- Soon after he posted them, news agencies tried to get in touch with Morel to use some of the pictures, but failed. Then a random third party, Lisandro Suero, retweeted the photos claiming they were his own. Agence France Presse (AFP), during its current events coverage of the quake, grabbed photos from Suero’s tweet, and uploaded them to its AFP site. Getty obtained them from AFP, and further lent and licensed them to the Washington Post, and to many news outlets in the world. Morel’s photo shown above became
- Open Chapter
- patent law, with its relatively short twenty-year term, is given the control over useful, functional articles and functional aspects of articles, while copyright law, with its much longer “lifetime of the author plus seventy years” term, is given sway over non-functional, non-utilitarian, expressive works.
- Utility issues come up most often with sculpture. Is the work functional, and if so, is there a way to separate the functional aspects from the non-functional, ornamental, or purely expressive aspects? The separation can be literal and physical (meaning you actually can pull the components apart), or conceptual (if part of the object has creative, original expression that is unrelated to the functioning of the item—e.g., decoration—that you can imagine as a separate original creation). When the functional elements of a work are physically or conceptual separable from the purely expressive elements of the work, then the expressive elements may retain their copyright protection.
- Successful dress designers and dress makers may wish to protect the style, cut, or other distinctive features that tell buyers that this dress is the maker’s dress. But that is a good strategy for trademark law, not copyright. Trademark protects such stylistic adornments if they are used as markers of goods in commerce to distinguish the source of the goods from other manufacturers. Dolce Gabbana’s buckles and Chanel’s necklines and arrangement of buttons most likely could claim this kind of protection. To the extent that the adornments are expressive and completely non-functional, they are candidates for copyright protection much like the fabric decoration discussed above. But the functional parts of the buckle or buttons will not be protected under copyright.
- Bonus points if you were thinking, “Yes, but a lot of this work is not original to this artist, it is original to some guy at Campbell’s Soup Company many years ago, or at least to Andy Warhol some decades ago.” You are right. The creative, original additions to the old Campbell’s soup design (i.e., the word, “graffiti”), and at a certain level, the total concept and feel of the assembled arrangement of uncopyrightable parts is all that the second artist could hope to protect with his own, new copyright.
- litigated the utility of the design of the Esquire lamp (shown here). At the time it came out, the Esquire lamp was a new look for architectural lighting for pathways and sidewalks. The Esquire people wanted to protect its appearance under copyright law from duplication and derivative copying because the design was not an invention, and no patent protection was available. Esquire had not been using the overall shape of this lamp in commerce as an identifier of the source of the goods (i.e., that this shape of lamp was a mark that the lamp was an Esquire product) long enough to try for trademark protection. The Esquire people did not seek to protect the work’s functioning as a lamp—no lamps with lights on either side of a pole and facing down were to be precluded by this copyright. All Esquire wanted to protect was the exact shape of the lamp housing, which Esquire asserted was decorative and not functional.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4. Scènes à Faire and Merger 6 results (showing 5 best matches)
- An artist who produces a work that has many uncopyrightable elements—either because the work is non-fictional and contains many facts, or scientific and contains processes or procedures, or because the artist incorporated scènes à faire or merged elements that cannot be monopolized under copyright—is said to hold a “thin copyright” on the work. Thin doesn’t mean non-existent; however, it does mean that an alleged infringer will have to have taken a good chunk of the work in order to have copied enough
- Using the requisite parts of dolls faces in combination also does not automatically add up to a Barbie’s doll face. Look closely at the three doll heads here. Two are real Barbies, one is an imposter bought on the streets of an Italian city. Which is the imposter?
- of jellyfishes in sculpted glass media. In the narrative of the case, Lowry (glass artist 2), had been making flat, disc-like jellyfish sculptures, but no one was buying them. One day Lowry strolled into a gallery and saw Satava’s (glass artist 1’s) works—upright, glass-inside-glass sculptures of realistic-looking jellyfish, looking all the while as if a jellyfish was floating inside a glass sculpture (see illustrations below). Satava’s works were selling well. Shortly thereafter, Lowry started making his own upright, glass-inside-glass sculptures of realistic-looking jellyfish. Satava did not appreciate the highest form of flattery and sued to stop Lowry.
- The Banksy telephone box itself has certain scènes à faire material in it, namely the general appearance of a telephone box and a pick axe. But Banksy, the artist, reconfigured and recreated the box and axe into a totally new work with original content and expression. The overall appearance of the box and the pick axe is now in the form of a crumpled “body” impaled by the axe, and the fake dripping “blood” indicates the violence of the pick axe’s interaction with the “body” of the telephone box. This entire arrangement presents creative original material that would be subject to copyright protection.
- Much of this Banksy image has scènes à faire implications: the actual appearance of soldiers, young girls, and rifles; the stock cartoon way of depicting soldiers in uniform and small girls in prim little dresses. Even the particular style and coloration of the dress chosen for the girl is a nostalgic stock image—intentionally so, as Banksy wanted to communicate something ironic in the arrangement of the cartoony, stock images of the girl and the soldier but with the girl frisking the soldier. This creative original juxtaposition of the two subjects of the image creating new meaning and expression for the work as a whole would be subject to copyright protection.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10. Steps of a Copyright Dispute 4 results
- de minimis non curat lex
- copyist only had access to an early draft of the screenplay, and not the final, you may have problems proving the necessary access. It matters not if unprotected elements of the work are copied or adapted in a derivative work; non-original material, scènes à faire material, processes or procedures, or functional parts of the first work can be copied without copyright implications.
- Cases—Using just a few seconds of a sound recording and incorporating just a few notes or words into a new recording still can be infringement. The courts in each of the
- As noted in the initial chapters cited above, the basic idea of originality is that the copied portions of the work originate with the author, and that they are therefore not copied. Scènes à faire in visual art refers to images we call stock images that the author copied or at least adapted for her own expressions. Merged ideas and expression are not original to one artist. Some arrangements and compilations of uncopyrightable material are held to be original, providing new expression that is attributable to the artist; others are held to be so unimaginative and predictable (alphabetical order of list items, numeric order of numbers, etc.) that they are held not to be material originating with the author.
- Open Chapter
Table of Contents 2 results
Chapter 7. Derivative Works 4 results
- The law is clear that you don’t get a new copyright (and a new copyright term) over the preexisting copyrighted work you own and control when you adapt it and reuse it for a new creation. Only the newly added original and creative material gets a new copyright running from the new creation date. Thus, if an author prepares a new edition of an existing text, she only gets a new copyright on the newly added, edited, or updated material. The other material still in the book from the first edition retains the same copyright and term from the original edition.
- Copyright precludes the unauthorized copying of original creations whose expressions are fixed in a tangible media, but that is not all it precludes. Copyright also precludes others from adapting the content of an original work for their own purposes. The derivative works right gives copyright owners the right to preclude exact, direct, and verbatim copies of their work, and also adaptations, translations, and extensions of the work in new works or new media.
- If protection is limited to the words as they appear on the page—a strictly literal application of the term “expression”—the protection for original “Writings” envisioned by the Constitution would be considerably thin—unfairly thin, in fact. A new author could imitate the plot, character types, exposition, conflict, resolution, and all other original elements of a novel so long as she changed the wording. All of us could take a crack at writing new Harry Potter novels extending the characters types and situations of the books past the
- Thus, the copyright holder controls the original and those works that can be made that incorporate the original work’s expressive, communicative potential (subject, of course, to originality, idea-expression, merger, and scènes à faire limitations). Basically, any subsequent work that incorporates part of the expression of the original work such that this expression shines through in the new work can qualify as a derivative work. And the original copyright owner can authorize or preclude the creation of such works.
- Open Chapter
- If you want a new copyright on a work that used to be public domain or which contains public domain material, you have to follow copyright’s requirements and do something to the work that makes it original to you that is conceived of and created by you. And for public domain content, the change has to be substantial and material. You cannot just put a new cover on it or change the title. Copyright wants a new work with new expression. Note, too, that the copyright you obtain only runs forward on the creative, original part or arrangement that you added. The public domain content that you did not alter in a substantial material way remains public domain material.
- Works in the public domain are free for the taking. You can copy them or reprint and republish them. You can build on them, change them, do what you want with them. All is permitted. Note that if you reproduce or republish public domain works, you will not get a new copyright on the works. If you add to them, you will only get a copyright on that which you added.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1. Copyright Basics 1 result
- and distributes creative works (and owns the copyright to the works). It can mean a scientist who writes reports of her findings and generates charts and diagrams. It can mean a computer programmer (coder) who produces works in a computer language of source code and object code for the express purpose of communicating a result in that computer language. It can mean a business that creates a new visual or auditory design for cloth, textiles, flooring, toys, or other products. Many of the examples in this book come from the visual arts, so I often will use the term “
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: May 2nd, 2022
- ISBN: 9781636593401
- Subject: Intellectual Property
- Series: Short & Happy Guides
- Type: Overviews
-
Description:
The Short and Happy Guide to Copyright is a succinct, enjoyable, and time-friendly text that is designed for you:
- To get up to speed on the biggest issues of copyright law, and the black letter law addressing those issues;
- To educate yourself as to your future clients’ rights, potential liabilities, and options and opportunities regarding legal problems in copyright. Whether you plan to specialize in copyright or intellectual property, or simply want to be available to your firm or law office as an attorney who can take on a novel problem in an exciting and potentially high-profile and high-dollar-value area of your firm’s or office’s practice, this book will be useful to you;
- To provide a vocabulary of legal terms to use when consulting with lawyers, clients, accountants, financial planners, and insurers regarding copyright problems in the creative, entertainment, and scientific fields;
- To identify existing or potential legal problems in your clients’ and your organization’s practices. This guide will discuss a variety of areas in which exposure to legal liability or sanctions may present itself as a current or future problem based on your clients’ practices and procedures.
/
