Talk:Copyright law of the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

2019?

whered you get the 2019 number? recordings made in 1905 should be public domain now, yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.245.163.1 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 1 December 2004 (UTC)

Works produced by state, county and city government

What is the copyright status of non-federal government works? Does it vary by state/county/city? -- Kjkolb 02:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The Copyright Act just says that works of the federal government are public domain. Its silence regarding works of state and municipal governments means that they are copyrighted, absent that local government expressly releasing its works into the public domain. However, due process has to put some limit on this regarding local laws and other official information that citizens must be able to have free and easy access to. Postdlf 03:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Postdlf. Are you aware of any states, or large counties or cities, that have released their works into the public domain? I encounter an enormous amount of copyright violations while wikifying and I'd hate to have public domain material deleted unnecessarily. Thanks, again -- Kjkolb 04:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

This page is a confusing mess

I'm going to take a small stab at making it a little more easy to follow, or at least better organized. Bobak 17:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly and have been trying to do the same. The article is also burdened with some rather technical details that I suspect is not of interest to non-lawyers, or even to lawyers not in the IP field. I've been a little reluctant to remove them. Maybe later I will. I believe some of those hypertechnical details need to be removed to shorten the article and make room for a section on exceptions and limitations of copyright - things such as Braille allowance, covering someone's song, etc. Haonhien 17:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Other Countries plus comments

Is there anyone who can expand on the law in other countries, in particular the situation in the countries of the European Union. One interesting difference is that one does not have to formally register a work anywhere for it to be protected by copyright.

I'm not a lagal expert so am looking for a volunteer. Also an exposition of rights of paternity would be useful. Lastly the article entitled "Dispargement" - should it be disparagement"? Chevin 11:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I know little about EU copyright law. However, regarding the point about registration, it is not required in the US either for protection to attach. Does this article give the impression that it is required? Also, this article is called "United States copyright law," perhaps the copyright article (or another I'm unaware of) is the one you're looking for in regard to the laws of other countries. - Jersyko·talk 13:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I hadn't spotted that page. I had thought, like most people, that Copyright in America had to be registered with the Library of Congress. Indeed in the UK most people believe a product has to be "registered" with the British Library. (It is of couse a legal obligation to send a copy of any published written work to the BL (except advertising literature) but that does not of itself confer copyright).

The paragraph on UK law does point out that in the UK right to a work exists from the moment it is published, in other words the first time it is shown to somone. Is this universal?

There is a point about an author being commisioned by a publisher to produce work, or if the author is an employee of the publisher, in which case the rights belong to the publisher.

On the difference between an idea and its execution, there has recently been a rather interesting case in the British Court regarding Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. Chevin 08:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Renewal checking

How does one check to see if a copyright issued between 1923 and 1963 has been renewed? --Blainster 03:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

See U.S. Copyright Office Circular 6. Physchim62 (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

United States vs. Berne

I have removed the following sentence from the "Treaties" section because it was unreferenced and it seemed both weaselly and prima facie untrue.

Some legal scholars question whether the U.S. is fully in compliance with TRIPS or Berne requirements, particularly given the far reach of the fair use defense.

A comparison of US fair use versus Berne Convention exceptions is given below: the US is not obviously way out of line! Now on moral rights, that would be another matter... Physchim62 (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

But the U.S. is way out of line with Berne on a number of other issues. Formalities (notice required for certain damages, for instance), moral rights, the limited protection for sound recordings, etc. Check out 17 USC § 104(c). Plus, VARA is very clearly out of line with the moral rights of Berne Art 6. One might argue, however, that Berne is not a bad thing to be out of line with. LH 22:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

17 U.S.C. §107 (Copyright Act of 1976)

Berne Convention (Stockholm Act of July 14, 1967)

Limitations on exclusive rights: fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, 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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. [The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.] (Paragraph inserted by Pub. L. 102-492 of 1992)

Ariticle 2bis (1) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to exclude, wholly or in part, from the protection provided by the preceding Article political speeches and speeches delivered in the course of legal proceedings. (2) It shall also be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the conditions under which lectures, addresses and other works of the same nature which are delivered in public may be reproduced by the press, broadcast, communicated to the public by wire and made the subject of public communication as envisaged in Article 11bis(1) of this Convention, when such use is justified by the informatory purpose. (3) Nevertheless, the author shall enjoy the exclusive right of making a collection of his works mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. Article 9 (1) Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form. (2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author. (3) Any sound or visual recording shall be considered as a reproduction for the purposes of this Convention. Article 10 (1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries. (2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union, and for special agreements existing or to be concluded between them, to permit the utilization, to the extent justified by the purpose, of literary or artistic works by way of illustration in publications, broadcasts or sound or visual recordings for teaching, provided such utilization is compatible with fair practice. (3) Where use is made of works in accordance with the preceding paragraphs of this Article, mention shall be made of the source, and of the name of the author if it appears thereon. Article 11 (1) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction by the press, the broadcasting or the communication to the public by wire of articles published in newspapers or periodicals on current economic, political or religious topics, and of broadcast works of the same character, in cases in which the reproduction, broadcasting or such communication thereof is not expressly reserved. Nevertheless, the source must always be clearly indicated; the legal consequences of a breach of this obligation shall be determined by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed. (2) It shall also be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the conditions under which, for the purpose of reporting current events by means of photography, cinematography, broadcasting or communication to the public by wire, literary or artistic works seen or heard in the course of the event may, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose, be reproduced and made available to the public.

Re-worked entire remedies section

I moved the former contents of "Relief available for infringement" to a new article, United States civil copyright enforcement procedure. I thought that contents was too much procedural minutae, but I didn't want to just delete it. Somebody obviously spent a lot of time on it. (If you're the person who put it in, please see the new article.) In its place I re-wrote an entire new section that describes all the relief available for infringement: Injunctions, actual damages and profits / statutory damages, attorney's fees, and a short section on criminal penalties. Haonhien 07:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the new procedure article, United States civil copyright enforcement procedure should be combined with Copyright_infringement, along with putting in the appropriate wiki cross links? Yellowdesk 18:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes. That would be one place to put it. The problem is United States civil copyright enforcement procedure is U.S.-specific whereas Copyright_infringement is global. And United States civil copyright enforcement procedure is still too much minutae and it would clutter up Copyright_infringement. If someone can simplify that material, it can be placed as a U.S.-specific section in Copyright_infringement. Haonhien 04:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Defenses & Exceptions?

There ought to be a defenses & exceptions section, that would briefly review Sections 107 onward, with links to relevant subpages (like "Fair use"). -- LQ 15:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

getting protection ...

Hi! I read in the article that copyright registration is not necessary for copyright protection. Apparently registration is necessary for collecting statutory damages, but because of the Berne Convention it is not a requirement.

Is there a way one can secure copyright protection without registering? If so, how? Can I mail content to myself and assure myself exclusive rights to it?

Hope this isn't too beyond the scope of the article. Seems like it should be in some article, though.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by the burning bush (talk • contribs) 22:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There is such a section; it is the "Registration of copyright" section. The answer to your question is that registration is not needed to have copyright protection in the US. However, registration is useful for people who wish to commercially distribute their work, since it permits statutory damages for infringement and enables people who wish to license the work to get in touch with the copyright holder more easily. --LQ 22:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! So I can mail it to myself to get protection? The burning bush 00:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)protection

Mailing it to yourself is not the same thing as registering it. You register it at the Copyright Office. --LQ 00:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

True, and plus, Berne is not binding; Berne does indeed probably disallow registration as a requirement for statutory damages, however Berne is not U.S. law. See 17 usc 104(c). Go to the copyright office's website if you want to know more about registration. You don't need to register to have protection, though. Copyright, since 1978, is automatic.LH 22:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This page has some good information in various parts, but the organization is very bad. Also, there's telescopic detail on some issues, and very little on others. The other problem is that some of the technical information is wrong. Some gets corrected, but non-legal writers are occasionally making statements in imprecise language that are technically false.

Also, a formal citation system would be nice. The copyright act is self-contained in Title 17. Reference to statutory provisions would help with the technical problems discussed above.

The starting point, however, is there needs to be an organized structure. Here's a starting suggestion. Divide the article into

• Introduction
• History
• What's protected (what copyright covers)
• How it's protected (duration, infringement, fair use)
• Effect of infringement (remedies, damages, penalties)

LH 22:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)