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