On 8/16/2011 12:51 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
I don't believe your claim that you can take something which is PD, make an exact image of it, slap it up in a new work of your own (enjoying copyright protection automatically) and then claim copyright over that PD image in your work.
Copyright applies to the presentation of your work, showing creativity. An image that you reproduce faithfully shows no creativity and can enjoy no new copyright, no matter how hard you push your view. That's it. Period.
So I can freely copy any PD image, from any source, and not need to worry about copyright violation. PD doesn't change simply because a PD item is republished. The presentation of the item is copyright, not the item itself.
I personally agree with that. However, it often costs more to prove your right to use something in court than to knuckle under if an aggressive rights owner comes after you. This is especially true when you are planning to distribute your own work worldwide - just getting a letter from the publisher telling you that they either give you the right to use an image or have no rights over that image is necessary before your work will be accepted by a publisher or distributor.
An additional minor quibble. At least in the US a person does*not* need to reapply for copyright each time they revise an item. Copyright is an automatic process, merely by the fact of presenting something in a fixed media. You*can* file a copyright. You do not*need* to file a copyright, in order to enjoy copyright protection under the law.
I also agree with you - except that the registered version has an ironclad protection you can protect in court while revised versions afterwards may not be so easy to protect unless they are also registered. It becomes a kind of "chain of custody" issue. If I were to create something original and show it to no one else for 50 years until I published it and died 5 years later, which would apply to the copyright expiration date - date of author's death, date of creation or date of publication?
In the real world there are many examples of published books and screenplays that could clearly be seen as derivative - even plagiarized works from one or more unpublished sources. This is a big deal within the Writer's Guild and the reason for their online system of protecting manuscripts by registering before a work is shown to others.
One of the most (in)famous books in American Religion is "The Book of Mormon", parts of the first edition of which were (alleged to be) plagiarized from the "Manuscript Story" and arguably violated the 1790 Copyright Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Spalding The work has been revised at least nine times (not counting translations) to make it "fit" the theology of the modern day church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon
The year of publication applies to published material. The year you make it public, to the public, for public consumption.
Unpublished material, if it enjoys copyright protection at all, would be based on the year of creation. That however might be a red herring if it, in fact, does not enjoy any copyright protection. Does copyright protect material not published?
Plagiarism and copyright are seperate issues and should not be conflated, as different approaches apply to each.
-----Original Message----- From: Robin McCain robin@slmr.com To: foundation-l foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 16, 2011 2:36 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] copyright issues
On 8/16/2011 12:51 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote: I don't believe your claim that you can take something which is PD, make an xact image of it, slap it up in a new work of your own (enjoying copyright rotection automatically) and then claim copyright over that PD image in your ork.
Copyright applies to the presentation of your work, showing creativity. An mage that you reproduce faithfully shows no creativity and can enjoy no new opyright, no matter how hard you push your view. That's it. Period.
So I can freely copy any PD image, from any source, and not need to worry bout copyright violation. PD doesn't change simply because a PD item is epublished. The presentation of the item is copyright, not the item itself. personally agree with that. However, it often costs more to prove your ight to use something in court than to knuckle under if an aggressive ights owner comes after you. This is especially true when you are lanning to distribute your own work worldwide - just getting a letter rom the publisher telling you that they either give you the right to se an image or have no rights over that image is necessary before your ork will be accepted by a publisher or distributor.
An additional minor quibble. At least in the US a person does*not* need to eapply for copyright each time they revise an item. Copyright is an automatic rocess, merely by the fact of presenting something in a fixed media. You*can* ile a copyright. You do not*need* to file a copyright, in order to enjoy opyright protection under the law. also agree with you - except that the registered version has an ronclad protection you can protect in court while revised versions fterwards may not be so easy to protect unless they are also egistered. It becomes a kind of "chain of custody" issue. If I were to reate something original and show it to no one else for 50 years until published it and died 5 years later, which would apply to the opyright expiration date - date of author's death, date of creation or ate of publication? In the real world there are many examples of published books and creenplays that could clearly be seen as derivative - even plagiarized orks from one or more unpublished sources. This is a big deal within he Writer's Guild and the reason for their online system of protecting anuscripts by registering before a work is shown to others. One of the most (in)famous books in American Religion is "The Book of ormon", parts of the first edition of which were (alleged to be) lagiarized from the "Manuscript Story" and arguably violated the 1790 opyright Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Spalding The work as been revised at least nine times (not counting translations) to make t "fit" the theology of the modern day church. ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon ______________________________________________ oundation-l mailing list oundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 8/16/2011 2:50 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
The year of publication applies to published material. The year you make it public, to the public, for public consumption.
of course, that is the definition of publication
But look at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/303.html
Unpublished works (in the United States at least) have copyright protection. If nothing else, the creator(s) has/have moral rights to the work. Usually they also have legal rights. (I'm no lawyer, but my entertainment attorney told me to assume everything has rights unless you find a specific exemption under the law)
Unpublished material, if it enjoys copyright protection at all, would be based on the year of creation. That however might be a red herring if it, in fact, does not enjoy any copyright protection. Does copyright protect material not published?
Yes it can. For example: Members of the Beatles recorded some material and did not publish it. According to the layers of copyright, the creator(s) owned it from the moment it was recorded, the recording studio and producers (if any) also had rights dated back to that time. Since it wasn't published there were no publishers rights. Whoever was given a copy of the recording also had the tangible right of ownership of a copy.
Many years later it was published as part of Anthology 1. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles%27_recording_sessions for details.
For the US, also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
Plagiarism and copyright are seperate issues and should not be conflated, as different approaches apply to each.
True. In the case cited below, the Manuscript Story would have had copyright protection under current US law but had no such protection under the 1790 law. It wasn't until the 1976 law that protection was extended to unpublished works. As such, the only litigation possible at that time would have been under the rules of plagiarism and such litigation was considered.
-----Original Message----- From: Robin McCain robin@slmr.com To: foundation-l foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 16, 2011 2:36 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] copyright issues
On 8/16/2011 12:51 PM,wjhonson@aol.com mailto:wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
I don't believe your claim that you can take something which is PD, make an
exact image of it, slap it up in a new work of your own (enjoying copyright protection automatically) and then claim copyright over that PD image in your work.
Copyright applies to the presentation of your work, showing creativity. An
image that you reproduce faithfully shows no creativity and can enjoy no new copyright, no matter how hard you push your view. That's it. Period.
So I can freely copy any PD image, from any source, and not need to worry
about copyright violation. PD doesn't change simply because a PD item is republished. The presentation of the item is copyright, not the item itself. I personally agree with that. However, it often costs more to prove your right to use something in court than to knuckle under if an aggressive rights owner comes after you. This is especially true when you are planning to distribute your own work worldwide - just getting a letter from the publisher telling you that they either give you the right to use an image or have no rights over that image is necessary before your work will be accepted by a publisher or distributor.
An additional minor quibble. At least in the US a person does*not* need to
reapply for copyright each time they revise an item. Copyright is an automatic process, merely by the fact of presenting something in a fixed media. You*can* file a copyright. You do not*need* to file a copyright, in order to enjoy copyright protection under the law. I also agree with you - except that the registered version has an ironclad protection you can protect in court while revised versions afterwards may not be so easy to protect unless they are also registered. It becomes a kind of "chain of custody" issue. If I were to create something original and show it to no one else for 50 years until I published it and died 5 years later, which would apply to the copyright expiration date - date of author's death, date of creation or date of publication?
In the real world there are many examples of published books and screenplays that could clearly be seen as derivative - even plagiarized works from one or more unpublished sources. This is a big deal within the Writer's Guild and the reason for their online system of protecting manuscripts by registering before a work is shown to others.
One of the most (in)famous books in American Religion is "The Book of Mormon", parts of the first edition of which were (alleged to be) plagiarized from the "Manuscript Story" and arguably violated the 1790 Copyright Act.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Spalding The work has been revised at least nine times (not counting translations) to make it "fit" the theology of the modern day church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Litigation under the rules of plagiarism.... Can you cite that law for me?
-----Original Message----- From: Robin McCain robin@slmr.com To: foundation-l foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 16, 2011 7:43 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] copyright issues
On 8/16/2011 2:50 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
The year of publication applies to published material. The year you make it public, to the public, for public consumption.
of course, that is the definition of publication
But look at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/303.html
Unpublished works (in the United States at least) have copyright protection. If nothing else, the creator(s) has/have moral rights to the work. Usually they also have legal rights. (I'm no lawyer, but my entertainment attorney told me to assume everything has rights unless you find a specific exemption under the law)
Unpublished material, if it enjoys copyright protection at all, would be based on the year of creation. That however might be a red herring if it, in fact, does not enjoy any copyright protection. Does copyright protect material not published?
Yes it can. For example: Members of the Beatles recorded some material and did not publish it. According to the layers of copyright, the creator(s) owned it from the moment it was recorded, the recording studio and producers (if any) also had rights dated back to that time. Since it wasn't published there were no publishers rights. Whoever was given a copy of the recording also had the tangible right of ownership of a copy.
Many years later it was published as part of Anthology 1. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles%27_recording_sessions for details.
For the US, also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
Plagiarism and copyright are seperate issues and should not be conflated, as different approaches apply to each.
True. In the case cited below, the Manuscript Story would have had copyright protection under current US law but had no such protection under the 1790 law. It wasn't until the 1976 law that protection was extended to unpublished works. As such, the only litigation possible at that time would have been under the rules of plagiarism and such litigation was considered.
-----Original Message----- From: Robin McCain robin@slmr.com To: foundation-l foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 16, 2011 2:36 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] copyright issues
On 8/16/2011 12:51 PM,wjhonson@aol.com mailto:wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
I don't believe your claim that you can take something which is PD, make an
exact image of it, slap it up in a new work of your own (enjoying copyright protection automatically) and then claim copyright over that PD image in your work.
Copyright applies to the presentation of your work, showing creativity. An
image that you reproduce faithfully shows no creativity and can enjoy no new copyright, no matter how hard you push your view. That's it. Period.
So I can freely copy any PD image, from any source, and not need to worry
about copyright violation. PD doesn't change simply because a PD item is republished. The presentation of the item is copyright, not the item itself. I personally agree with that. However, it often costs more to prove your right to use something in court than to knuckle under if an aggressive rights owner comes after you. This is especially true when you are planning to distribute your own work worldwide - just getting a letter from the publisher telling you that they either give you the right to use an image or have no rights over that image is necessary before your work will be accepted by a publisher or distributor.
An additional minor quibble. At least in the US a person does*not* need
to
reapply for copyright each time they revise an item. Copyright is an
automatic
process, merely by the fact of presenting something in a fixed media.
You*can*
file a copyright. You do not*need* to file a copyright, in order to enjoy copyright protection under the law. I also agree with you - except that the registered version has an ironclad protection you can protect in court while revised versions afterwards may not be so easy to protect unless they are also registered. It becomes a kind of "chain of custody" issue. If I were to create something original and show it to no one else for 50 years until I published it and died 5 years later, which would apply to the copyright expiration date - date of author's death, date of creation or date of publication?
In the real world there are many examples of published books and screenplays that could clearly be seen as derivative - even plagiarized works from one or more unpublished sources. This is a big deal within the Writer's Guild and the reason for their online system of protecting manuscripts by registering before a work is shown to others.
One of the most (in)famous books in American Religion is "The Book of Mormon", parts of the first edition of which were (alleged to be) plagiarized from the "Manuscript Story" and arguably violated the 1790 Copyright Act.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Spalding The work has been revised at least nine times (not counting translations) to make it "fit" the theology of the modern day church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 8/17/2011 7:02 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
Litigation under the rules of plagiarism.... Can you cite that law for me?
I'm not a lawyer, but I seem to recall that a Tort can be filed for just about anything that is perceived to cause injury. Note that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism mentions copyright infringement as a related issue to plagiarism...
-----Original Message----- From: Robin McCain robin@slmr.com To: foundation-l foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 16, 2011 7:43 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] copyright issues
On 8/16/2011 2:50 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
The year of publication applies to published material. The year you make it public, to the public, for public consumption.
of course, that is the definition of publication
But look athttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/303.html
Unpublished works (in the United States at least) have copyright protection. If nothing else, the creator(s) has/have moral rights to the work. Usually they also have legal rights. (I'm no lawyer, but my entertainment attorney told me to assume everything has rights unless you find a specific exemption under the law)
Unpublished material, if it enjoys copyright protection at all, would be based on the year of creation. That however might be a red herring if it, in fact, does not enjoy any copyright protection. Does copyright protect material not published?
Yes it can. For example: Members of the Beatles recorded some material and did not publish it. According to the layers of copyright, the creator(s) owned it from the moment it was recorded, the recording studio and producers (if any) also had rights dated back to that time. Since it wasn't published there were no publishers rights. Whoever was given a copy of the recording also had the tangible right of ownership of a copy.
Many years later it was published as part of Anthology 1. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles%27_recording_sessions for details.
For the US, also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
Plagiarism and copyright are seperate issues and should not be conflated, as different approaches apply to each.
True. In the case cited below, the Manuscript Story would have had copyright protection under current US law but had no such protection under the 1790 law. It wasn't until the 1976 law that protection was extended to unpublished works. As such, the only litigation possible at that time would have been under the rules of plagiarism and such litigation was considered.
-----Original Message----- From: Robin McCain<robin@slmr.com mailto:robin@slmr.com> To: foundation-l<foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Tue, Aug 16, 2011 2:36 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] copyright issues
On 8/16/2011 12:51 PM,wjhonson@aol.com mailto:wjhonson@aol.com <mailto:wjhonson@aol.com mailto:wjhonson@aol.com?> wrote:
I don't believe your claim that you can take something which is PD, make an
exact image of it, slap it up in a new work of your own (enjoying copyright protection automatically) and then claim copyright over that PD image in your work.
Copyright applies to the presentation of your work, showing creativity. An
image that you reproduce faithfully shows no creativity and can enjoy no new copyright, no matter how hard you push your view. That's it. Period.
So I can freely copy any PD image, from any source, and not need to worry
about copyright violation. PD doesn't change simply because a PD item is republished. The presentation of the item is copyright, not the item itself. I personally agree with that. However, it often costs more to prove your right to use something in court than to knuckle under if an aggressive rights owner comes after you. This is especially true when you are planning to distribute your own work worldwide - just getting a letter from the publisher telling you that they either give you the right to use an image or have no rights over that image is necessary before your work will be accepted by a publisher or distributor.
An additional minor quibble. At least in the US a person does*not* need
to
reapply for copyright each time they revise an item. Copyright is an
automatic
process, merely by the fact of presenting something in a fixed media.
You*can*
file a copyright. You do not*need* to file a copyright, in order to enjoy copyright protection under the law. I also agree with you - except that the registered version has an ironclad protection you can protect in court while revised versions afterwards may not be so easy to protect unless they are also registered. It becomes a kind of "chain of custody" issue. If I were to create something original and show it to no one else for 50 years until I published it and died 5 years later, which would apply to the copyright expiration date - date of author's death, date of creation or date of publication?
In the real world there are many examples of published books andscreenplays that could clearly be seen as derivative - even plagiarized works from one or more unpublished sources. This is a big deal within the Writer's Guild and the reason for their online system of protecting manuscripts by registering before a work is shown to others.
One of the most (in)famous books in American Religion is "The Book of Mormon", parts of the first edition of which were (alleged to be) plagiarized from the "Manuscript Story" and arguably violated the 1790 Copyright Act.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Spalding The work has been revised at least nine times (not counting translations) to make it "fit" the theology of the modern day church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org?> Unsubscribe:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
For plagiarism to "cause injury" you have to specify the type of injury in your suit. And then the case is not about laws about plagiarism per se, of which there are none, but laws about the type of injury you are claiming.
For example unfair trade as in "I made all these designs and posted them to my website, company X stole my work by creating the actual products without the need to do any design work". That sort of thing. But that's not a law about plagiarism.
On 8/17/2011 9:20 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
For plagiarism to "cause injury" you have to specify the type of injury in your suit. And then the case is not about laws about plagiarism per se, of which there are none, but laws about the type of injury you are claiming. For example unfair trade as in "I made all these designs and posted them to my website, company X stole my work by creating the actual products without the need to do any design work". That sort of thing. But that's not a law about plagiarism.
Wow! you opened a can of worms... I'm sure at least one of my lawyer friends who specialize in intellectual property could respond in great detail about this.
According to the Berne Convention authors have moral rights as well as legal rights.
We aren't talking about student work here, but the real world where a lot of money at stake. It doesn't even matter if the issue is laughed out of court - you have still spent many thousands of dollars just getting to that day. (this is why companies often settle rather than go to court)
I can assure you that no reputable publisher or distributor would knowingly accept work that has been extensively plagiarized on the basis that there is potential for a lawsuit of some sort unless they had deep pockets and were knowingly doing this as a marketing strategy.
All I'm trying to say here is that plagiarism often accompanies copyright infringement, and that there can be a very fine line between the two. In real world terms - you don't want to go there.
Robin there are no laws (in the US) about plagiarism, that's what I'm saying. None. Zero. They don't exist. Why? Because plagiarism does not de facto create any injury. Wikipedia and the foundation operate under U.S. law so that's what is germane to this list, not what some other country including other Berne signatories do or don't do.
The U.S. does not recognize moral rights in the way that Germany or France do, but rather claims under this umbrella are tried under defamation or unfair competition laws.
However some editors throw "plagiarism" around and shout "illegal illegal", because they are trying to make some sheded point more concrete. It's not concrete in the U.S., you have to show what specific sort of actual injury occurred.
-----Original Message----- From: Robin McCain robin@slmr.com To: Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com Cc: foundation-l foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 17, 2011 9:44 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] copyright issues
On 8/17/2011 9:20 AM, Wjhonson wrote: For plagiarism to "cause injury" you have to specify the type of injury in your suit. And then the case is not about laws about plagiarism per se, of which there are none, but laws about the type of injury you are claiming.
For example unfair trade as in "I made all these designs and posted them to my website, company X stole my work by creating the actual products without the need to do any design work". That sort of thing. But that's not a law about plagiarism.
Wow! you opened a can of worms... I'm sure at least one of my lawyer friends who specialize in intellectual property could respond in great detail about this.
According to the Berne Convention authors have moral rights as well as legal rights.
We aren't talking about student work here, but the real world where a lot of money at stake. It doesn't even matter if the issue is laughed out of court - you have still spent many thousands of dollars just getting to that day. (this is why companies often settle rather than go to court)
I can assure you that no reputable publisher or distributor would knowingly accept work that has been extensively plagiarized on the basis that there is potential for a lawsuit of some sort unless they had deep pockets and were knowingly doing this as a marketing strategy.
All I'm trying to say here is that plagiarism often accompanies copyright infringement, and that there can be a very fine line between the two. In real world terms - you don't want to go there.
Can you guys please take this discussion off-list? Thanks.
Ryan Kaldari
On 8/17/11 9:55 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
Robin there are no laws (in the US) about plagiarism, that's what I'm saying. None. Zero. They don't exist. Why? Because plagiarism does not de facto create any injury. Wikipedia and the foundation operate under U.S. law so that's what is germane to this list, not what some other country including other Berne signatories do or don't do.
The U.S. does not recognize moral rights in the way that Germany or France do, but rather claims under this umbrella are tried under defamation or unfair competition laws.
However some editors throw "plagiarism" around and shout "illegal illegal", because they are trying to make some sheded point more concrete. It's not concrete in the U.S., you have to show what specific sort of actual injury occurred.
-----Original Message----- From: Robin McCainrobin@slmr.com To: Wjhonsonwjhonson@aol.com Cc: foundation-lfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 17, 2011 9:44 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] copyright issues
On 8/17/2011 9:20 AM, Wjhonson wrote: For plagiarism to "cause injury" you have to specify the type of injury in your suit. And then the case is not about laws about plagiarism per se, of which there are none, but laws about the type of injury you are claiming.
For example unfair trade as in "I made all these designs and posted them to my website, company X stole my work by creating the actual products without the need to do any design work". That sort of thing. But that's not a law about plagiarism.
Wow! you opened a can of worms... I'm sure at least one of my lawyer friends who specialize in intellectual property could respond in great detail about this.
According to the Berne Convention authors have moral rights as well as legal rights.
We aren't talking about student work here, but the real world where a lot of money at stake. It doesn't even matter if the issue is laughed out of court - you have still spent many thousands of dollars just getting to that day. (this is why companies often settle rather than go to court)
I can assure you that no reputable publisher or distributor would knowingly accept work that has been extensively plagiarized on the basis that there is potential for a lawsuit of some sort unless they had deep pockets and were knowingly doing this as a marketing strategy.
All I'm trying to say here is that plagiarism often accompanies copyright infringement, and that there can be a very fine line between the two. In real world terms - you don't want to go there.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Technically you are correct. As I've stated, I'm not a lawyer.
My original statement did not refer to any specific laws about plagiarism - rules are not necessarily laws and I'm sure that by 1831 many institutions of higher learning had some sort of statement like an honor code that included such a rule. (My college honor code only dates back to 1848 but I'm sure it wasn't the first)
As for litigation - I don't think anyone was going to actually attempt to go into court on this matter. The Book of Mormon was extremely controversial and received a lot of adverse publicity - it is one thing to claim that you are going to file an action and quite another to do it. These people were simply trying to discredit Joseph Smith.
But notice what I said about the fine line and how an aggressive opponent can use it to waste your time and money. That is why WikiMedia (and every other publisher) has to budget for a legal staff - to deflect this kind of junk and is a good reason for purchasing E&O insurance.
On 8/17/2011 9:55 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
Robin there are no laws (in the US) about plagiarism, that's what I'm saying. None. Zero. They don't exist. Why? Because plagiarism does not de facto create any injury. Wikipedia and the foundation operate under U.S. law so that's what is germane to this list, not what some other country including other Berne signatories do or don't do. The U.S. does not recognize moral rights in the way that Germany or France do, but rather claims under this umbrella are tried under defamation or unfair competition laws. However some editors throw "plagiarism" around and shout "illegal illegal", because they are trying to make some sheded point more concrete. It's not concrete in the U.S., you have to show what specific sort of actual injury occurred.
-----Original Message----- From: Robin McCain robin@slmr.com To: Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com Cc: foundation-l foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 17, 2011 9:44 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] copyright issues
On 8/17/2011 9:20 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
For plagiarism to "cause injury" you have to specify the type of injury in your suit. And then the case is not about laws about plagiarism per se, of which there are none, but laws about the type of injury you are claiming. For example unfair trade as in "I made all these designs and posted them to my website, company X stole my work by creating the actual products without the need to do any design work". That sort of thing. But that's not a law about plagiarism.
Wow! you opened a can of worms... I'm sure at least one of my lawyer friends who specialize in intellectual property could respond in great detail about this.
According to the Berne Convention authors have moral rights as well as legal rights.
We aren't talking about student work here, but the real world where a lot of money at stake. It doesn't even matter if the issue is laughed out of court - you have still spent many thousands of dollars just getting to that day. (this is why companies often settle rather than go to court)
I can assure you that no reputable publisher or distributor would knowingly accept work that has been extensively plagiarized on the basis that there is potential for a lawsuit of some sort unless they had deep pockets and were knowingly doing this as a marketing strategy.
All I'm trying to say here is that plagiarism often accompanies copyright infringement, and that there can be a very fine line between the two. In real world terms - you don't want to go there.
On 08/17/11 10:33 AM, Robin McCain wrote:
As for litigation - I don't think anyone was going to actually attempt to go into court on this matter. The Book of Mormon was extremely controversial and received a lot of adverse publicity - it is one thing to claim that you are going to file an action and quite another to do it. These people were simply trying to discredit Joseph Smith.
AFAIK there was no litigation over Spalding and the Book of Mormon, so there is nothing there that could serve as a precedent. More recent editions have updated language and corrected spelling, but that in itself would not give enough originality for a new copyright. Indeed, a new revisionist Book of Mormon purporting to correct Joseph Smith's views with sufficient originality would no longer have a valid claim to be THE Book of Mormon.
But notice what I said about the fine line and how an aggressive opponent can use it to waste your time and money. That is why WikiMedia (and every other publisher) has to budget for a legal staff - to deflect this kind of junk and is a good reason for purchasing E&O insurance.
Such an aggressive claimant can waste your time and money without any justification whatsoever. A large organization comes to expect frivolous legal action as a matter of course. E & O insurance serves a different function.
On 8/17/2011 9:55 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
Robin there are no laws (in the US) about plagiarism, that's what I'm saying. None. Zero. They don't exist. Why? Because plagiarism does not de facto create any injury. Wikipedia and the foundation operate under U.S. law so that's what is germane to this list, not what some other country including other Berne signatories do or don't do. The U.S. does not recognize moral rights in the way that Germany or France do, but rather claims under this umbrella are tried under defamation or unfair competition laws. However some editors throw "plagiarism" around and shout "illegal illegal", because they are trying to make some sheded point more concrete. It's not concrete in the U.S., you have to show what specific sort of actual injury occurred.
The US had to include reference to moral rights as a part of coming into compliance with the Berne Convention, but it is a provision that is completely without teeth. Moral rights follow the tradition od civil law countries where copyright law is seen as part of human rights. In common law countries copyrights are primarily property rights, and the enthusiasm for moral rights has been at best lukewarm.
Plagiarism relates to the moral right of attribution. All it takes to avoid such a claim is to give proper credit, even if your selection is otherwise a copyright infringement.
On 8/17/2011 9:20 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
For plagiarism to "cause injury" you have to specify the type of injury in your suit. And then the case is not about laws about plagiarism per se, of which there are none, but laws about the type of injury you are claiming. For example unfair trade as in "I made all these designs and posted them to my website, company X stole my work by creating the actual products without the need to do any design work". That sort of thing. But that's not a law about plagiarism.
Wow! you opened a can of worms... I'm sure at least one of my lawyer friends who specialize in intellectual property could respond in great detail about this.
Why would anyone trying to protect a design ever post it to the internet in the first place? There is such a thing as design patents, but in the absence of a registered patent the designer should not seek compensation for his own stupidity.
We aren't talking about student work here, but the real world where a lot of money at stake. It doesn't even matter if the issue is laughed out of court - you have still spent many thousands of dollars just getting to that day. (this is why companies often settle rather than go to court)
Of course, that's how intellectual property vultures and trolls make their money. Numerous people who have received legal notices regarding allegedly illegal downloads of music and movies simply pay up instead of fight. They are so intimidated by the thought of a legal proceeding that they are unable to call the complainer's bluff.
I can assure you that no reputable publisher or distributor would knowingly accept work that has been extensively plagiarized on the basis that there is potential for a lawsuit of some sort unless they had deep pockets and were knowingly doing this as a marketing strategy.
How does the reputable publisher know that it has been plagiarised?
All I'm trying to say here is that plagiarism often accompanies copyright infringement, and that there can be a very fine line between the two. In real world terms - you don't want to go there.
Sure, the two are frequently in company, but the distinction is easily made when the subject is raised.
Ray
Actually, this has all been fun, but we've managed to provoke others into telling us to take this elsewhere and we all got sidetracked.
In the beginning of the thread I was simply commenting on the nit picking that can occur over the most trivial changes in copyritten material and how in the real world we have to do a CYA on things that are most like nonissues. The global nature of Internet has forever changed our lives.
An excellent example of this: we found royalty free music clips of George Gershwyn on a European web site we've used in the past. Under the Berne Convention his work is now public domain. However this is not so in the United States as a result of the 1998 Copyright law. To actually use any Gershwyn music composed after 1922 in the U.S. we'd either have to pay for a synchronization license or wait until sometime after 2019 when the 95 years is up.
This is why we do the best due diligence we can BEFORE we use material. Rights specialists are cheap compared to the chance of litigation with teeth, however small.
On 8/17/2011 2:00 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
On 08/17/11 10:33 AM, Robin McCain wrote:
As for litigation - I don't think anyone was going to actually attempt to go into court on this matter. The Book of Mormon was extremely controversial and received a lot of adverse publicity - it is one thing to claim that you are going to file an action and quite another to do it. These people were simply trying to discredit Joseph Smith.
AFAIK there was no litigation over Spalding and the Book of Mormon, so there is nothing there that could serve as a precedent. More recent editions have updated language and corrected spelling, but that in itself would not give enough originality for a new copyright. Indeed, a new revisionist Book of Mormon purporting to correct Joseph Smith's views with sufficient originality would no longer have a valid claim to be THE Book of Mormon.
But notice what I said about the fine line and how an aggressive opponent can use it to waste your time and money. That is why WikiMedia (and every other publisher) has to budget for a legal staff - to deflect this kind of junk and is a good reason for purchasing E&O insurance.
Such an aggressive claimant can waste your time and money without any justification whatsoever. A large organization comes to expect frivolous legal action as a matter of course. E & O insurance serves a different function.
On 8/17/2011 9:55 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
Robin there are no laws (in the US) about plagiarism, that's what I'm saying. None. Zero. They don't exist. Why? Because plagiarism does not de facto create any injury. Wikipedia and the foundation operate under U.S. law so that's what is germane to this list, not what some other country including other Berne signatories do or don't do. The U.S. does not recognize moral rights in the way that Germany or France do, but rather claims under this umbrella are tried under defamation or unfair competition laws. However some editors throw "plagiarism" around and shout "illegal illegal", because they are trying to make some sheded point more concrete. It's not concrete in the U.S., you have to show what specific sort of actual injury occurred.
The US had to include reference to moral rights as a part of coming into compliance with the Berne Convention, but it is a provision that is completely without teeth. Moral rights follow the tradition od civil law countries where copyright law is seen as part of human rights. In common law countries copyrights are primarily property rights, and the enthusiasm for moral rights has been at best lukewarm.
Plagiarism relates to the moral right of attribution. All it takes to avoid such a claim is to give proper credit, even if your selection is otherwise a copyright infringement.
On 8/17/2011 9:20 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
For plagiarism to "cause injury" you have to specify the type of injury in your suit. And then the case is not about laws about plagiarism per se, of which there are none, but laws about the type of injury you are claiming. For example unfair trade as in "I made all these designs and posted them to my website, company X stole my work by creating the actual products without the need to do any design work". That sort of thing. But that's not a law about plagiarism.
Wow! you opened a can of worms... I'm sure at least one of my lawyer friends who specialize in intellectual property could respond in great detail about this.
Why would anyone trying to protect a design ever post it to the internet in the first place? There is such a thing as design patents, but in the absence of a registered patent the designer should not seek compensation for his own stupidity.
We aren't talking about student work here, but the real world where a lot of money at stake. It doesn't even matter if the issue is laughed out of court - you have still spent many thousands of dollars just getting to that day. (this is why companies often settle rather than go to court)
Of course, that's how intellectual property vultures and trolls make their money. Numerous people who have received legal notices regarding allegedly illegal downloads of music and movies simply pay up instead of fight. They are so intimidated by the thought of a legal proceeding that they are unable to call the complainer's bluff.
I can assure you that no reputable publisher or distributor would knowingly accept work that has been extensively plagiarized on the basis that there is potential for a lawsuit of some sort unless they had deep pockets and were knowingly doing this as a marketing strategy.
How does the reputable publisher know that it has been plagiarised?
All I'm trying to say here is that plagiarism often accompanies copyright infringement, and that there can be a very fine line between the two. In real world terms - you don't want to go there.
Sure, the two are frequently in company, but the distinction is easily made when the subject is raised.
Ray
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org