10 Big Myths about copyright explained

by Albert Milliron | April 10, 2008 at 12:06 pm
944 views | 24 Recommendations | 12 comments

Photos

10 Big Myths about Copyright

10 Big Myths about Copyright

see larger image

uploaded by Albert Milliron

10 Big Myths about copyright explained. So as no to violate copyright or fair use rules. (it would be ambarassing to violate the law when writing about violating the law) here is the first three. 

Please see the original article for the rest.  Is this news, well depends on how you look at it.  If you have never seen this article and you learn something.  It is news to you.

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.

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."

2) "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.

3) "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.

What is Fair Use?

Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. It is based on free speech rights provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The term "fair use" is unique to the United States; a similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law which implements two 1996 WIPO treaties. It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services that are used to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as DRM) and criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, even when there is no infringement of copyright itself. It also heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended title 17 of the U.S. Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of Online Providers from copyright infringement by their users.

On May 22, 2001, the European Union passed the EU Copyright Directive or EUCD, which addresses some of the same issues as the DMCA. But the DMCA's principal innovation in the field of copyright, the exemption from direct and indirect liability of internet service providers and other intermediaries (Title II of the DMCA), was separately addressed, and largely followed, in Europe by means of the separate Electronic Commerce Directive.

Advertisement
recommend This comment thread is now closed
Vinny
Vinny
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 12:23 on April 10th, 2008

politisite, I like this story. It's good stuff.

0
Vinny

I feel an important one for members to see is:

4) "My posting was just fair use!"
0
Albert Milliron

Vinny,

I probably should have added that part but I didn't want post the whole article per NP terms of use.  Wouldn't be a laugh if I violaed copyright lays in a post about copyright law

0
Vinny

No danger of that Al! I know you are totally honest when it comes to fair usage and making it clear what is your own work and what is from other sources.

Jordan Yerman
Jordan Yerman
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 13:35 on April 10th, 2008

Copyright only extends to creative works; companies have tried to enforce control over things like advertising circulars, which even the draconian DMCA doesn't support. The DMCA has, in my opinion, done more harm than good in limiting fair-use reproductions online. If I had a nickel for all the bogus takedown notices that I've seen... well, I'd have a lot of nickels.

0
Albert Milliron

I added something on Fair Use

Rhonda J Mangus
Rhonda J Mangus
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 14:36 on April 10th, 2008

politisite, I like this story. It's good stuff.  It certainly would be a laugh if you violated copyright law:). Thanks for sharing!

PEP
PEP
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 18:02 on April 10th, 2008

politisite,excellent stuff. I hope people actually click and read the whole thing.

Bottom line: stealing someone else's writing or photos is an act of thievery. It's not only legally wrong, but morally wrong, too. Once I find someone stealing other's work and presenting it as their own, and they keep dong it, from that point on I no longer trust anything they say or present. After all, if you start your presentation with lies, that's how you'll go along with everything else.

0
PEP

Here's an example I've used in teaching. Near you there is an inventive young artist. He's figured out a way to use fallen tree limbs and other found material to make a new design in chairs. His work is as exquisite as say, art noveau, and very very popular.

You like his work. In fact, you go to his shop, and there's no one around. So you take his work home to enjoy. After all, you see he has others there. They're not exactly alike, as they're all hand-made originals, so you might as well.

Would you pick that chair up and take it home with you? Stealing someone else's copyrighted work is the same thing.

Now, let's say that you're having a big party and wish to impress. So you go down to the artist's dispaly room, and steal one of his works. You take it home and people are so impressed over your work. Is it an original? They ask. Oh yes, you say. EAch one is. And so people marvel at your work.

When someone notices that it's taken from someone else, you explain it away by saying "It's fair use...I'm having this party and wanted something special to impress people with, so I brought it home for tonight."

Now someone, who hasn't heard the exchange, approaches you, and offers you money to buy the chair or to use it over the weekend in an exhibit. You accept. Someone else invites you to display "your" chair in their community art show. You accept.

Meanwhile, the guy who rounded up the materials, developed his technique, did the actual work in creating these chairs, and who's making a living--or trying to--and a reputation from his work, is minus some chairs, and you've gained attention, status, admiration, compliments, and oh yes, money, too, for the other guy's work.

If you steal other's work, whether chair, writing, photo, etc. then you're exactly the same kind of thief who'd steal the woodworker's chairs.

My primary master's work was in the legal aspects of mass communications. Although I didn't finish the degree because I was too busy working as a journalist and writer, I sure gained a lot from that focus.

0
Rob Walker

Your examples are pretty much dead on and this interpretation of copyright is pretty accurate from what I can see.

I'd like to point out though that for digital 'art' the rules change considerably.

Since taking something online merely creates an exact replica of the product, there is no physical 'theft' involved. This is the mainstay of the Canadian legislation protecting the downloading of just about any material online. There is no 'loss', that original piece can still be displayed, sold, admired, etc.

There are still matters of attribution to address, but it's not 'theft' in any traditional sense. This has many people confused these days.

Now, does this change for a piece of software, such as Photoshop, which exists only in digital form...what happens when one of these is copied? Is the physical disc the important part, or the information/program it stores? Or is it the value of the software itself? Does a download constitute a lost sale, or would that purchase never have happened?

Obviously Politisite's original article and your comments are more directed towards the journalism aspect, which is great, I'm just throwing this out there as it's my particular field of interest (copyright/fair use/net neutrality).

0
PEP

Interesting stuff!

OK, let's see that you, Rob, have an award-winning photo, or original artwork. I could buy the original artwork, or a copy of it, from you, or a copy of the photo, from you and your studio.

You post your work on the net. Instead of contacting you to buy, I simply download what I want. Then, using a high-quality printer I print my own copy. Then I have what I want--but you don't have payment for it.

Or, I take that copy and use it, without credit even, as a cornerstone of my web pages. Apparently, according to Canadian law on digital use, I've done nothing wrong.

So I could create an entire website of original art/photos, that I could present without compensation or even acknowledgement, right? And if I wanted to present it as my own work, what's to stop me, in terms of the Canadian legal outlook?

If someone has a book published of their photos--think Ansel Adams--can I then just take the book because it's only a copy, per Canadian law? That law seems a bit nutsy to me, frankly. You can take anything digital and make your own physical copy.

What they seem to be saying is that creativity is worth nothing, and that there is no such thing as intellectual property. Just my take on it, from your post.

There are vampires everywhere, so why help them to feed on others?

Barry ORegan
Barry ORegan
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 19:37 on April 10th, 2008

politisite, I like this story. It's good stuff. Okay so all my orginal photoshop pics on Now Public are free to use by anyone.

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from