[Foundation-l] copyright issues

Wed Aug 17 16:07:34 UTC 2011

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 at slmr.com>
> To: foundation-l <foundation-l at 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 Unpublished works (in the United States at least) have copyright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  Unpublished material, if it enjoys copyright protection at all, would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 at slmr.com  <mailto:robin at slmr.com>>
> >  To: foundation-l<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org  <mailto:foundation-l at 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 at aol.com  <mailto:wjhonson at aol.com>   <mailto:wjhonson at aol.com  <mailto:wjhonson at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org  <mailto:foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>   <mailto:foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org  <mailto:foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org?>>
> >  Unsubscribe:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org  <mailto:foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Unsubscribe:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l