Slashdot Mirror

Isn't it 35 years once the original owner dies? Maybe I'm just reading this wrong...or maybe he did.

Check the copyright office database. The film was registered in 1958, renewed in 1986. It is under copyright for 95 years.

BUT archive.org does allow copyright holders to make a dedication to the public by a creative commons license. After archive.org recovers, check the details, and if there is a "creative commons license" link, click on it.

If circumvention is legal then it's not so much of a problem, but the current situation seems to be that it is not legal.

(1) Compilations consisting of lists of Internet locations blocked by commercially marketed filtering software applications that are intended to prevent access to domains, websites or portions of websites, but not including lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to protect against damage to a computer or computer network or lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to prevent receipt of email.

(2) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete.

(3) Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

(4) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling of the ebook's read-aloud function and that prevent the enabling of screen readers to render the text into a specialized format.

In fact, limiting the rights of others to distribute your works in order to encourage you to make them available is exactly what copyright is for, and this sort of case is a textbook example of why the principle matters.

Really?

I agree that content creators should have some limited rights that allow them to profit from their content, as that encourages the creation of more public content.

But in this case, nobody it saying that they wanted to publish this content later for profit. The plaintiffs intentionally made something public to the entire world, and went to some trouble and expense to do so. Now they want to pretend it never happened because the facts have become inconvenient.

What the Internet Archive does may or may not be technically legal, but it's certainly in harmony with the spirit of copyright law. When one publishes books, one is obliged to give a copy to the Library of Congress so that it remains on the permanent record.

Personally, I think the Library of Congress should just fund the Internet Archive and bless the project with their special powers of copyright exemption. Failing that, Congress should make legal this sort of non-profit archiving of public material. Copyright is the right to reasonable profit from your creative efforts, not the right to manipulate the historical record.

Ahh! So it would be okay in a newspaper that I paid for, but if it were in a free weekly paper (advertiser supported) or if I stole my neighbor's paper the situation is completely different. I see.

US copyright law exists to protect an author's right to express his or her ideas in their own particular... (idiom, sir?)...idiom. From the US Copyright Office: Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work. The attorneys in the case are examining the factual information conveyed and have no concern with the artistic elements of the web pages.

Imagine a rich person with an expensive painting puts it up in his gallery. You take a picture of it while it's in the gallery - there is nothing saying you can, but nothing saying you can't reproduce them. Now he dies and his son inherits, or he has a change of heart, and locks it away in his private room. This having happened, do you have the right to display your photo of the picture in public?

It would depend on your intent and particular usage. Fair use would allow it as reference in a work or perhaps for educational use. The courts have upheld "incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported" but this problably would not apply to your example.

In a nutshell, fair use allows limited non-commercial use of copyrighted material. The project in question is clear about their purpose - documenting the ever-changing Web for history's sake. They are non-profit and don't even cache the images (AFAIK). This information was published to the public. Others cannot represent the work as their own nor can the use it (without permission) in a commercial context.

By nature of copyrights, everything that you create is automatically copyrighted the instant that you create an origial work. This post has already been copyrighted by me.

You don't HAVE to register the copyright with the Copyright Office in order to retain the copyright. Doing so though gains you added benifits in case there is a dispute. Published works ARE REQUIRED to be registered. However, just putting the website up does not count as publishing. In order to be considered published works, the work must be sold or otherwise have a transfer of ownership, or through rental, lease, or lending. They Copyright Office has even said "The reports also state that it is clear that any form of dissemination in which the material object does not change hands, for example, performances or displays on television, is not a publication no matter how many people are exposed to the work." (Source)

United States Copyright Office

Copyright Basics

What Copyright is

United States Copyright Office

Copyright Basics

What Copyright is

United States Copyright Office

Copyright Basics

What Copyright is

"Copies" are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term "copies" includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.

Actually it is not prosecutable. Downloading copyrighted material for which you have no permission to do so is legal. In fact it's not a criminal offence.

I don't often support the moderation system, but in this case the parent poster must be modded down so is post is invisible, as he is a complete jackass that repeats stuff he hears on slashdot without checking the source material.

(Hmm technically this post violates copyright, but I argue that it would fall under the fair use exceptions as a parody.)

Perhaps you should mostly RTFCs, and probably should have started at the begining, with Circular 1, Copyright Basics

The operant section is excerpted:

WHO CAN CLAIM COPYRIGHT

Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.

In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author. Section 101 of the copyright law defines a "work made for hire" as:

* (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or
* (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as:
o a contribution to a collective work
o a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work
o a translation
o a supplementary work
o a compilation
o an instructional text
o a test
o answer material for a test
o an atlas
if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire....

A careful reading of the excerpt you provide from Circular 9 says that it is only "likely" that a work created within the "scope of employment" will be deemed a "work for hire" - clearly NOT a default setting. And this does not even begin to address the areas, as discussed in this topic, where works are created outside the "scope of employment" or under a contracting agreement or arrangement.

This is why savy people always spell out the copyright ownership issues around created works in WRITING, which was really the crux of my post. I guess you could rely on your own interpretation of the Circulars to protect yourself, but it is clearly bad business. An enterprising attorney might just be able to parse terms like "scope of employment" contrary to your interpretations and drive the proverbial truck through the other loopholes.

Recall, fortunes can turn on the what the meaning of the word "is" is.

If a work is "made for hire," the employer, and not the employee, is considered the author. [...] The closer an employment relationship comes to regular, salaried employment, the more likely it is that a work created within the scope of that employment would be a work made for hire. However, since there is no precise standard for determining whether or not a work is made for hire under the first part of the definition, consultation with an attorney for legal advice may be advisable.

I'm not really sure if this issue has ever been decided regarding video, but it's quite possible that the MPEG-2 stream could be claimed as copyrighted. When Penguin Books goes through, say, Great Expectations, and does layout, changes punctuation to match the American rules, etc. their version is copyrighted.

Not necessarily. From Copyright Office circular 14, with my emphasis:

To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.

The Christian Coalition thinks Grokster is about kiddie porn.

Seriously

When people like you stop thinking you have some right to grab anything you want off the internet for free. You want change? Support musicians and directors who distribute their work the way you think they should.

I own a web hosting company so I know a bit about this topic because I have had to research it.

You have to register an agent for copyright infringement and accept email communication as adequate notification because according to the U.S Copyright Office at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/onlinesp/, the following is what you have to do in order to limit service provider liability:

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, signed into law on October 28, 1998, amended the copyright law to provide limitations for service provider liability relating to material online. New subsection 512(c) of the copyright law provides limitations on service provider liability with respect to information residing, at direction of a user, on a system or network that the service provider controls or operates, if the service provider has designated an agent for notification of claimed infringement by providing contact information to the Copyright Office and through the service provider's publicly accessible web site.

NOTE: Be sure to follow the exact procedures specified in subsection 512(c):

(3) Elements of notification.

(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:

(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.

(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.

(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.

(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

(B)(i) Subject to clause (ii), a notification from a copyright owner or from a person authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner that fails to comply substantially with the provisions of subparagraph (A) shall not be considered under paragraph (1)(A) in determining whether a service provider has actual knowledge or is aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent.

(ii) In a case in which the notification that is provided to the service provider's designated agent fails to comply substantially with all the provisions of subparagraph (A) but substantially complies with clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) of subparagraph (A), clause (i) of this subparagraph applies only if the service provider promptly attempts to contact the person making the notification or takes other reasonable steps to assist in the receipt of notification that substantially complies with all the provisions of subparagraph (A)."

NOTE: Be sure to realize the consequences for misrepr

I own a web hosting company so I know a bit about this topic because I have had to research it.

You have to register an agent for copyright infringement and accept email communication as adequate notification because according to the U.S Copyright Office at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/onlinesp/, the following is what you have to do in order to limit service provider liability:

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, signed into law on October 28, 1998, amended the copyright law to provide limitations for service provider liability relating to material online. New subsection 512(c) of the copyright law provides limitations on service provider liability with respect to information residing, at direction of a user, on a system or network that the service provider controls or operates, if the service provider has designated an agent for notification of claimed infringement by providing contact information to the Copyright Office and through the service provider's publicly accessible web site.

NOTE: Be sure to follow the exact procedures specified in subsection 512(c):

(3) Elements of notification.

(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:

(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.

(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.

(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.

(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

(B)(i) Subject to clause (ii), a notification from a copyright owner or from a person authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner that fails to comply substantially with the provisions of subparagraph (A) shall not be considered under paragraph (1)(A) in determining whether a service provider has actual knowledge or is aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent.

(ii) In a case in which the notification that is provided to the service provider's designated agent fails to comply substantially with all the provisions of subparagraph (A) but substantially complies with clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) of subparagraph (A), clause (i) of this subparagraph applies only if the service provider promptly attempts to contact the person making the notification or takes other reasonable steps to assist in the receipt of notification that substantially complies with all the provisions of subparagraph (A)."

NOTE: Be sure to realize the consequences for misrepr

I own a web hosting company so I know a bit about this topic because I have had to research it.

You have to register an agent for copyright infringement and accept email communication as adequate notification because according to the U.S Copyright Office at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/onlinesp/, the following is what you have to do in order to limit service provider liability:

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, signed into law on October 28, 1998, amended the copyright law to provide limitations for service provider liability relating to material online. New subsection 512(c) of the copyright law provides limitations on service provider liability with respect to information residing, at direction of a user, on a system or network that the service provider controls or operates, if the service provider has designated an agent for notification of claimed infringement by providing contact information to the Copyright Office and through the service provider's publicly accessible web site.

NOTE: Be sure to follow the exact procedures specified in subsection 512(c):

(3) Elements of notification.

(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:

(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.

(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.

(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.

(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

(B)(i) Subject to clause (ii), a notification from a copyright owner or from a person authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner that fails to comply substantially with the provisions of subparagraph (A) shall not be considered under paragraph (1)(A) in determining whether a service provider has actual knowledge or is aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent.

(ii) In a case in which the notification that is provided to the service provider's designated agent fails to comply substantially with all the provisions of subparagraph (A) but substantially complies with clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) of subparagraph (A), clause (i) of this subparagraph applies only if the service provider promptly attempts to contact the person making the notification or takes other reasonable steps to assist in the receipt of notification that substantially complies with all the provisions of subparagraph (A)."

NOTE: Be sure to realize the consequences for misrepr

You can search copyright records at http://www.copyright.gov/ easily;

For example, I searched for Weezer, and you'll see that their song "Undone" lists Spike Jonze as the director, but the "Claimant" (copyright holder) is Geffen Records, Inc. (employer for hire). Sometimes the actual author is listed, but that means nothing as far as who is entitled to royalties or has control over the work.

What the artist gets is determined entirely by their contract with the record company. Feel free to look up more of your favorite artists, etc. But you will rarely find a well-known artist that owns their own copyright.

Therefore, it is impossible in most cases for your "someone" in your hypothetical to contract directly with the artist, because the artist has nothing to offer them.

However... What those who make and enforce the laws fail to realize is that they breed utter contempt for the rule of law with unfair and unreasonable laws and decisions.

I agree... I think the point that needs to be made though is that people could care less about the law b/c they think it's bullshit. Let's stop trying to justify everything. Let's just say, the law sucks, I don't choose to abide by it, consequences or not, and would like to see it changed for these reasons.

I appreciate your post, it wasn't a flame and your comments about the DMCA were interesting and relevant.

Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978

A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

It would appear from documentation at the US Copyright Office website (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ9.html#determi ning) that photography cannot be considered work-for-hire, ever - if I read the "nine catagories" correctly.

Well we're not really discussing the amount of work required in either of these two pursuits, are we?

I was under the impression that copyright was something one obtained for a creative work. I don't know the recording business: how much of the recording engineer's job is creative? According to the US Copyright office, "Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of "original works of authorship," including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works." [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html%5D

The next question is, what portion of a wedding photographer's, or recording engineer's, work is creative? My point was -- and feel free to correct me -- that a photographer's work is more creative that that of a recording engineer. Music is created by the musician, which is why recording staff hold no copyright interest. On the other hand, photographs are created by the photographer. That may be where we differ - you view a photograph as simply a recording of someone else's creative work, and I view the photograph as the creative work itself.

the purposes for which Fair Use is defined. (Under Fair Use you are entitled to use a portion of a copyrighted work, not the whole thing.)

Fair Use is not defined as a list of things which are acceptable. The US Copyright Office explains this here, and the relevant section of the copyright law which I believe you are referring to reads:

"the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

If this ever got to court (which I doubt would happen if they respond quickly to requests to expunge) then they could probably argue that they fall under scholarship or research, but they don't even need to. Other purposes may be considered as well.

sorry, missed one. They have now posted the results of their request for comment, tho no conclusions. http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/index.htm l also, you might check out http://www.orphanworks.org/

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/14/12 21237&tid=103&tid=123&tid=17

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/28/21 4213&tid=192

http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr3739.html

Saddly, the deadline was on or before 5 p.m. EST on March 25, 2005

I have seen nothing since about their thoughts from the comments they recieved.

IIRC, Copyright mark is the date of first publication,

I don't know where you get that idea from. Copyright applies from when a work is created. I think the following applies: US Copyright

Works Originally Created before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date

These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well. The law provides that in no case will the term of copyright for works in this category expire before December 31, 2002, and for works published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright will not expire before December 31, 2047.

Interesting questions: one could argue the material was written in Japan by a US Citizen. Which country's copyright laws apply? I'd say Japan's as in 1945.

Does providing the work to a censor count as publication? It's debatable, but I'd say yes: The legislative reports define "to the public" as distribution to persons under no explicit or implicit restrictions with respect to disclosure of the contents. Of coruse this is probably moot because it was created before 1976.

Regardless I object to someone slapping on the current year as the date of copyright. Maybe that is supposed to be a reference to the book the son is publishing, but the original work (and that's all the website is quoting) should become public domain much earlier than what the son is claiming. Not to mention applying his own name (and hence his own lifespan).

I object to the sloppiness that can curtail the growth of the public domain. Of course copyright is now so long that for all practical purposes it makes almost no difference in the here and now.

Unless you can successfully argue that the article was legally "published" by distribution to the censors in which case it would NOW be in the public domain.

The UK even retroactively takes things out of the public domain

This happened in the USA with the URAA (Uruguay Round Agreements Act.) Certain foreign works were public domain in the USA because the copyright holders had not followed certain formalities. The URAA restored copyright to these works. As it was, the URAA had provisions for "reliance parties" (those who started exploiting a URAA-covered work prior to the URAA enactment.) Parties planning to enforce restored copyrights could notify a reliance party directly or they could have the Copyright Office publish a public notice. After being notified, reliance parties had a 12-month grace period before they had to honor the restored copyright. Reliance parties who had created a derivative work of a URAA-covered work were treated slightly different. Derivative works could continue to be exploited in exchange for paying compensation to the copyright holder of the URAA-covered work.

In work for hire,

The source of confusion here is that in order for the work to be considered "work for hire" there has to be a contract to that effect. However such a contract can be rather nebulous - an employer-employee relationship (such as suggested by the buyer with-holding income tax) is suggestive of, but not necessarily definitive proof of, a work-for-hire contract.

Here is info on determining when something is work-for-hire and when it isn't when contract doesn't really spell it out: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ9.html#determin ing

Of course the contract can spell it out (and most do, whether it is for a "W2" employee or a "1099" contractor).

So, while the end result of work-for-hire is very clear (ownership of the copyright goes to the person comissioning the work) sometimes determining if the relationship is work-for-hire or not can be a lot more complex.

Which is no surprise since lawyers have to pay for their bmws, trophy wives and second homes in the bahamas too!

A good quantity of music I enjoy are on labels owned by Sony and other members of the RIAA. Am I supposed to change my music tastes because of copy protection?

Soy-tainly, just as people who like cigarettes are expected to change their tastes once they develop a high risk of lung cancer.

Granted, it's bad, but if you're goign that far, *you* have forgotten what music is about.

Some people claim that people who buy major label pap have forgotten what music is about, that the restrictive "all rights reserved" terms imposed by labels hinder collaboration among musicians, changing music from a participatory sport into a spectator sport.

Personally, I don't risk buying anything made by a major record label in the last 3 years

Try 95.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use:

"quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."

Creation of a derivative work is prohibited unless explicitly authorized. The right to "prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work" is an exclusive right guaranteed to a copyright holder. See 17 U.S.C. 106(2). You're right that copyright in a derivative work only extends to the new portions, but I'm not sure that, for example, you could remove the BSD licensed portions of Windows and distribute them under the BSD license as Microsoft will claim that their arrangement and selection of code from the original BSD sources is copyrightable and, given a favorable court, they may win. As an example, consider a photograph of a BSD-licensed object among other objects. Could you take a knife and cut out the BSD-licensed object from the photo and use that portion of the photo any way you want? Is it really and trully severed from the more restrictively licensed photo?

The Bono Act didn't return anything to copyright; the URAA, passed at the same time did. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38b.html gives a list of what the URAA did; in particular, it only returned certain foreign works to copyright.

The fundermental question here is how can extending existing copyrights, let alone renewing expired copyrights, possibly be in accordance with section 8, clause 1 of the US Consitution?
If a government can twist the meaning of a fairly short (even after a few hundred years of ammending) plain language consitution into something diametrically opposed to its original intent. Then the several hundred page, in something like 10 langauges, "EU Consitution" isn't even worth the paper it's printed on.

But if the teacher just put the movie in to give the kids a break on a hot summers day and allow him/her to grade some papers without being bothered...I am pretty sure that would fall outside of fair use in the USA.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

But thanks to the Bono Act, in the U.S. all sound recordings made before 1972 are now copyrighted until 2067. This applies even to the earliest recordings on wax cylinders and discs made in the 1890s, which Sony now claims the rights to.

That's not entirely correct. The Bono Act didn't return anything to copyright; the URAA, passed at the same time did. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38b.html gives a list of what the URAA did; in particular, it only returned certain foreign works to copyright. Also, only for "for 95 years from the year of first publication. ... For example, a sound recording published in 1925 will be protected until 2020." (If I'm not mistaken, works before 1923 wouldn't be renewed because they weren't out of copyright due to the technicalities listed under clause 3 in the above document.)

Now, the confusing part is that states have been permitted to hold common-law copyrights on soundrecordings, and New York apparently does so, for a indefinite amount of time (not longer than 2067). But that's independent of Bono and URAA.

17 USC 512 indicates that a "service provider" is not liable for copyright violations conducted over their network as long as they meet certain conditions (generally, being uninvolved in any way other than routing traffic). A LAN operator in this setup might be regarded as a service provider:

17 USC 512(k) Definitions -

(1) Service provider. -
(A) As used in subsection (a), the term "service provider" means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.

(B) As used in this section, other than subsection (a), the term "service provider" means a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, and includes an entity described in subparagraph (A).

(Insert standard IANAL disclaimer here)

Let's go to the source. 17 U.S.C. 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

...

/blockquote

Let's go to the source. 17 U.S.C. 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

...

/blockquote

Let's go to the source. 17 U.S.C. 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

...

Sony has re-copyrighted their "mastering" and "production"...

Was there substantial original authorship involved in the remastering? If not, then the remastered version is not a derivative work under United States copyright law, and Sony's claim of a copyright is invalid.

This is pretty stupid. The author of a work is the copyright owner in perpetuity unless they assign ownership to someone else. If there are multiple authors then the authors as a group own the copyright. This is the way copyright has always worked.

A work is technically, and legally, copyright upon creation by the author. You don't have to register something with the US Copyright Office for it to be protected. The point of registering with the Copyright Office is to provide an official registration so that if you are legally challenged, it's likely the first person to register is the owner. But it's nothing more than a measure of protection.

If I create a work and you register the copyright in your name, the burden of proof falls to me to prove that I created it first. But if I can do that, then legally I'm protected and you are not.

So putting your name on it does nothing for it. If you want to protect it, go to the Copyright Office web site, download the form, fill it out, and send it in with you $30. That's the best protection you can have.

Wouldent this be covered under Derivative Works as the author "derives" the finished product from a copyrighted work? I am way way not a lawyer, IANAL./div

Wouldent this be covered under Derivative Works as the author "derives" the finished product from a copyrighted work? I am way way not a lawyer, IANAL./div

This is pretty stupid. The author of a work is the copyright owner in perpetuity unless they assign ownership to someone else. If there are multiple authors then the authors as a group own the copyright. This is the way copyright has always worked.

A work is technically, and legally, copyright upon creation by the author. You don't have to register something with the US Copyright Office for it to be protected. The point of registering with the Copyright Office is to provide an official registration so that if you are legally challenged, it's likely the first person to register is the owner. But it's nothing more than a measure of protection.

If I create a work and you register the copyright in your name, the burden of proof falls to me to prove that I created it first. But if I can do that, then legally I'm protected and you are not.

So putting your name on it does nothing for it. If you want to protect it, go to the Copyright Office web site, download the form, fill it out, and send it in with you $30. That's the best protection you can have.

Plus registering your copyright allows you to sue for triple damages and attorney fees for willfull infringement. If you don't register your copyright, suing for copyright infringement is almost moot because of all the attorney fees you're going to have to dish out.

Check out all the advantages for yourself here:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr

This is pretty stupid. The author of a work is the copyright owner in perpetuity unless they assign ownership to someone else. If there are multiple authors then the authors as a group own the copyright. This is the way copyright has always worked.

A work is technically, and legally, copyright upon creation by the author. You don't have to register something with the US Copyright Office for it to be protected. The point of registering with the Copyright Office is to provide an official registration so that if you are legally challenged, it's likely the first person to register is the owner. But it's nothing more than a measure of protection.

If I create a work and you register the copyright in your name, the burden of proof falls to me to prove that I created it first. But if I can do that, then legally I'm protected and you are not.

So putting your name on it does nothing for it. If you want to protect it, go to the Copyright Office web site, download the form, fill it out, and send it in with you $30. That's the best protection you can have.

Wouldent this be covered under Derivative Works as the author "derives" the finished product from a copyrighted work? I am way way not a lawyer, IANAL.

"WHO CAN CLAIM COPYRIGHT

Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright."

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc

Sorry babe, but he does have a legal right to publish them.