posted
Rule of thumb: Copyright = 75 years (+ or - any adjustments due to estate ownership and/or control.)
Not everything you think is in the public domain really is. FACTOID: For instance, the song, "Happy Birthday To You" is still copyrighted. While no one will send the copyright infringement police to bust your birthday party, commercial use of that song requires royalties to be paid to the copyright holder.
posted
I went to a concert recently in which the Happy Birthday song was sung. The copyright owner was listed in the program. Guess who?
Michael Jackson.
The article in Elan's post above is 3 years old, so apparently Mikie bought it fairly recently. I think I remember reading it.
Here's a link that explains copyright law in the US in a quick little chart. Current law is 70 years after the death of the copyright owner if he hasn't legally transferred ownership before that time.
posted
Copyright law is some of the most corrupt on the books and completely defeats the original intended purpose of the copyright -- which was to encourage artists and authors to create, knowing they could make exclusive money from theor own works for a period of time. I'm pretty sure I won't need my stuff copyrighted for 70 years after I'm dead and my kids sure as heck better make their own livelihood.
Actually, copyright abuse, I mean law, has an interesting history. I believe the Walt Disney corporation is to blame for much of the changes that have occurred this century. They didn't want to let go of Mickey.
posted
Christine is right. Copyright isn't for a certain number of years from when something was written, but a certain number of years (I thought it was 75, not 70) from when the author/composer/lyricist/whatever died.
I understand that Disney wants to get it changed to eternity so that nothing (meaning Mickey and friends, of course) will ever go into the public domain.
quote:How long does a copyright last? The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after Jan. 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1, Copyright Basics.
posted
I fail to see, however, how the copyright law can be viewed as corrupt. In my opinion as an artist, it's one of the best laws on the books. You don't even have to register your work to be covered (although it certainly helps to have it documented in event of future litigation.) The copyright law assures the creative of their rights and ownership and you are covered from the moment the original is done.
Is the copyright law perfect? No, but no law perfectly applies to each and every instance. Law can only provide broad guidelines. The interpretation of how that law applies to a specific case may require the individual attention of a judge/lawyer/jury.
I agree that Disney has gone bad... Walt must be spinning in his grave. Witness the violent cartoons (Atlantis) that pass as kiddie fodder. I am aware of child-care centers who have had Disney lawyers descend on them for having pictures of Mickey and Minnie painted on their walls. The centers have to paint over the images or be sued. I also spoke with a costume rental shop. They couldn't advertise their "mouse" costume as a Mickey Mouse costume. Disney lawyers have been known to call costume rental places and ask, anonymously, if the shop has a "Mickey Mouse" costume to rent. If the shop owner says "yes" then they are hit with a hefty fine for copyright violation. But this is Disney twisting the law, not a fault of the basic law In My Humble Opinion. -Susan
[This message has been edited by Elan (edited July 27, 2005).]
posted
By the way, the Disney thing is not only a matter of copyright, it's also a matter of trademark, and there are different laws that apply to trademarks.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
|
However, since it is not yet 2048, that rule hasn't really taken effect yet, except for works by authors who died between January 1, 1933, and July 26, 1935, if those works were not published prior to December 31, 2002 and were not copyrighted prior to January 1, 1978.
For works published or copyrighted before January 1, 1978, the rules regarding who owns the copyright after 28 years are more complicated, but it really boils down to a simple number: 95 years from the original copyright date.
posted
Elan, I believe you fail to understand the meaning of "corrupt." The best intentions can become corrupt beyond recognition, and often have. That does not mean that copyright in and of itself is a bad idea. As I said up above, the original intention of copyright law, which was to protect an artist's work so that they could make some money off of it and therefore have the means to continue creating, is a very good idea.
But it went corrupt. That means that rich people paid off senators and representatives to look after their own interests in this matter. They went and extended copyrights past the lifetime of the artist in question, which has no purpose except to make more money for certain individuals who wanted that money. People who are not artists, writers, or musicians. People who do not create but make money off the people who do.
Original idea fine. Current implementation corrupt.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited July 27, 2005).]
posted
> Unless, of course, the estate has renewed the copyright.
No. The original copyright term was 28 years. The renewal term was for 67 years (and under the act, the renewal occurs automatically for works in their first term on January 1, 1978.) That means that for things published or copyrighted before 1978, the maximum term is 95 years from the original date of publication or copyright. It's also possible that the copyright expired after only 28 years, if it was not renewed before 1978.
If it's been 95 years since publication, you can safely assume it's in the public domain. Less than 95 years, and you have to investigate.
posted
I think that the point being made is that copyright doesn't actually provide any practical protection to a copyright holder except where the copyright holder already has a great deal of money.
Think about this. What if someone wealthy did rip off your work, and you could prove it? What would you do? You don't have the options (army of lawyers, friendly senators, substantial media access) that are normally associated with defending a copyright in this day and age. Basically, you can become a sideshow crank--the person that claims to have created X--or you can get over it.
We can agree that this is not how copyright law is supposed to work, but it is how it works now.
Me, I don't have a problem with it. But I can see how it hurts a lot of artists and hurts creativity.
By the way, there is a third option. If someone is trying to steal your material, you can provide it free to everyone in the world. It would make an interesting test case. You'd be more than a crank, at least. You might end up being a criminal. Just because you can prove that you are the original creator, that doesn't necessarily mean that you can distribute material that someone else has claimed as intellectual property. Just because the accused is presumed innocent, that doesn't give the accused the legal right to publicly claim to be innocent. Particularly if the prosecution can't prove guilt. You can go to prison for that sort of thing.
posted
What about translations? If I'm going to quote from an ancient work like Plato's Symposium or the Bible, would I need to find a translation > 95 years old?
Do the same rules apply to poetry? If I start a chapter with 2 lines of a poem, name the poem and give credit to the author, would I still need to pay the origional publisher for the right to do so?
posted
> What about translations? If I'm going to > quote from an ancient work like Plato's > Symposium or the Bible, would I need to > find a translation > 95 years old? > > Do the same rules apply to poetry? If I > start a chapter with 2 lines of a poem, > name the poem and give credit to the > author, would I still need to pay the > origional publisher for the right to do so?
Here you're getting into the question of how much use is "fair use," which is a rather different topic.
If you do use a translation more than 95 years old, then you're safe as far as U.S. copyright law. You can quote the entire King James Bible without paying a royalty to the British monarchy. You can quote entire Shakepeare sonnets without paying any royalties. Anything published over 95 years ago is in the public domain now.
posted
Fair use is complicated. I'm not entirely sure of it's scope but I know that, for example, a student can quote a capyrighted work in a school paper (with proper citation) without having to pay to use it.
Theoretically, what copyright is concerned with is that the artist/author/musician has sole right to make money off of their creation. Copyright enforcement is concerned, mainly, with people using the work for profit. So, when you write a novel and quote someone else's song lyrics therein, if you sell the novel and make money off of it you owe the songwriter some money for that. But if you're not making money, if you're just using it as a referenc ein an academic paper, saw, then that's fair use.
posted
Afterthought: Until and unless you actually publish a short story/novella/novellette/novel with the aforementioned song lyrics or other copyrighted material, do you actually have to pay for having them in your private copy that, as far as anyone is concerned, may be a simple hobbyist putting some words together. Wouldn't it only be when you get to the point of publication that these copyrights matter?
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
posted
You want some off-topic material? Well let me tell you...
In Australia it is illegal to make copies of songs even from those CDs you have legally purchased. You can't buy music MP3s legally here either. When you go to iTunes and other providers you get a 'Due to copyright laws, we do not service your country' sort of dialogue box. If you want to legally play music publicly you need a license. Even shopping centres need to purchase one of these licenses for the music they pipe through the aisles.
Now, if you happen to want to legally run a dance and the DJ turns up with just a hard-drive...
posted
> If you want to legally play music publicly > you need a license. Even shopping centres > need to purchase one of these licenses for > the music they pipe through the aisles.
posted
Thanks to Elan for putting me head back on for me. I went and forgot the promised link. *Smacks forehead* OUCH!
Posts: 1672 | Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted
You're welcome, dakota! *blows smoochies to you*
And yes, hoptoad, the laws are the same in the US. If you are playing music on your 'hold' music, you are SUPPOSED to be paying royalties and can be fined if you are caught.
Another challenge with using the CD boom box with the multiple disk changer to play illicit music for your customers on "hold"... a friend of mine worked for a company that was using CDs that the staff brought in for their hold music. I called to talk to him one day and got put on "hold." The music playing was a James Taylor LIVE CD, and I'm sitting there listening to the music and suddenly I hear the singer sing, "You mother f***ers!" I was, to say the least, stunned. When my friend got on the phone I told him he'd better check his music source. Good thing I wasn't a customer! But a better story I've heard is someone who's boss called into the office and the hold music was "Take This Job and Shove It."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
