Comments on: 10 Basics About Copyright Everyone Needs to Know http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/ Content Theft, Plagiarism, Copyright Infringement Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:21:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Plagiarism Sites | Open Bookhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-94382 Plagiarism Sites | Open Book Thu, 13 Mar 2008 04:04:26 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/#comment-94382 [...] You might also visit Jonathan Bailey’s blog dedicated to plagiarism issues. He found ten things you should know about copyright on the US Copyright Office website. http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/   10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/ [...] [...] You might also visit Jonathan Bailey’s blog dedicated to plagiarism issues. He found ten things you should know about copyright on the US Copyright Office website. http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/   10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/ [...]

]]> By: Jonathan Baileyhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-91889 Jonathan Bailey Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:50:11 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/#comment-91889 Michael: There are many reasons why Poor Man's Copyright is not enforced and that is but one. The other is that the postmark on the envelope is not certified in any way so it does not stand up in court. Also, with the discovery process, it is almost impossible to hold on to the unopened envelope until it can be viewed in court since you have to make all evidence reviewable by both sides.The flaws are too many to count, but yours is definitely one of the big ones... Michael: There are many reasons why Poor Man’s Copyright is not enforced and that is but one. The other is that the postmark on the envelope is not certified in any way so it does not stand up in court. Also, with the discovery process, it is almost impossible to hold on to the unopened envelope until it can be viewed in court since you have to make all evidence reviewable by both sides.

The flaws are too many to count, but yours is definitely one of the big ones…

]]> By: Jonathan Baileyhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-121224 Jonathan Bailey Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:50:11 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/#comment-121224 Michael: There are many reasons why Poor Man's Copyright is not enforced and that is but one. The other is that the postmark on the envelope is not certified in any way so it does not stand up in court. Also, with the discovery process, it is almost impossible to hold on to the unopened envelope until it can be viewed in court since you have to make all evidence reviewable by both sides.<br><br>The flaws are too many to count, but yours is definitely one of the big ones... Michael: There are many reasons why Poor Man’s Copyright is not enforced and that is but one. The other is that the postmark on the envelope is not certified in any way so it does not stand up in court. Also, with the discovery process, it is almost impossible to hold on to the unopened envelope until it can be viewed in court since you have to make all evidence reviewable by both sides.

The flaws are too many to count, but yours is definitely one of the big ones…

]]> By: Michaelhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-91835 Michael Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:58:22 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/#comment-91835 Some people may not understand why the Poor Man's Copyright does not work. Simply put, you could mail yourself an unsealed envelope, either empty, filled with blank paper, etc. Once it arrives, you can stuff anything you want into it, long after the post date, seal up the envelope, and then claim copyright to anything therein. So if you wrote something today that someone else likes, they could have an unsealed envelope from last year, print out your work, change the byline, seal it up, and then claim copyright ownership. This is why Poor Man's Copyright should not be enforced. Some people may not understand why the Poor Man’s Copyright does not work. Simply put, you could mail yourself an unsealed envelope, either empty, filled with blank paper, etc. Once it arrives, you can stuff anything you want into it, long after the post date, seal up the envelope, and then claim copyright to anything therein. So if you wrote something today that someone else likes, they could have an unsealed envelope from last year, print out your work, change the byline, seal it up, and then claim copyright ownership. This is why Poor Man’s Copyright should not be enforced.

]]> By: Michaelhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-121223 Michael Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:58:22 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/#comment-121223 Some people may not understand why the Poor Man's Copyright does not work. Simply put, you could mail yourself an unsealed envelope, either empty, filled with blank paper, etc. Once it arrives, you can stuff anything you want into it, long after the post date, seal up the envelope, and then claim copyright to anything therein. So if you wrote something today that someone else likes, they could have an unsealed envelope from last year, print out your work, change the byline, seal it up, and then claim copyright ownership. This is why Poor Man's Copyright should not be enforced. Some people may not understand why the Poor Man’s Copyright does not work. Simply put, you could mail yourself an unsealed envelope, either empty, filled with blank paper, etc. Once it arrives, you can stuff anything you want into it, long after the post date, seal up the envelope, and then claim copyright to anything therein. So if you wrote something today that someone else likes, they could have an unsealed envelope from last year, print out your work, change the byline, seal it up, and then claim copyright ownership. This is why Poor Man’s Copyright should not be enforced.

]]> By: Jonathan Baileyhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-91819 Jonathan Bailey Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:27:31 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/#comment-91819 Carla: That is almost impossible to say. Fair use analysis is done on a case-by-case basis and can only be determined by a judge and/or jury. As I said in the article, it is only a defense against a copyright infringement suit and is not something I could make a blanket statement about here. My advice would be to get the permission from the news companies, something that should be trivial to do if they are local broadcasts.Otherwise, you have to look at the specifics of the use and do an analysis about the likelihood that the use will be deemed fair should the matter get to court. Even then, it is a gamble at best.I hope that helps!Patty: Glad it helped! Please let me know if you have any questions!Cybele: Excellent question! You have a good point there about hotlinking being tantamount to public display. I've argued that possibility before and I certainly feel that hotlinking an image, in addition to being other forms of misuse, is likely a copyright infringement.The limitation, however, is in the DMCA itself. The law separates outs and providers that are "mere conduits" for the information. Since the site hosting the page that is hotlinking the image is not, itself, hosting the image, it would be classified as a mere conduit since the information does not reside on their servers, thus, they have no responsibility to remove the material. Only the company that has the actual file has the obligation to remove or disable access to the work.Is this a strange loophole in the, I think so and I also think it is an unintended consequence of wanting to, rightly, protect companies that make up the backbone of the Web and have little control over the flow of content.So we have a strange situation where the site is engaging in a a likely infringement but, due to the limitations of the DMCA, nothing can be done about it through that means.Possible room for improvement here... Carla: That is almost impossible to say. Fair use analysis is done on a case-by-case basis and can only be determined by a judge and/or jury. As I said in the article, it is only a defense against a copyright infringement suit and is not something I could make a blanket statement about here. My advice would be to get the permission from the news companies, something that should be trivial to do if they are local broadcasts.

Otherwise, you have to look at the specifics of the use and do an analysis about the likelihood that the use will be deemed fair should the matter get to court. Even then, it is a gamble at best.

I hope that helps!

Patty: Glad it helped! Please let me know if you have any questions!

Cybele: Excellent question! You have a good point there about hotlinking being tantamount to public display. I’ve argued that possibility before and I certainly feel that hotlinking an image, in addition to being other forms of misuse, is likely a copyright infringement.

The limitation, however, is in the DMCA itself. The law separates outs and providers that are “mere conduits” for the information. Since the site hosting the page that is hotlinking the image is not, itself, hosting the image, it would be classified as a mere conduit since the information does not reside on their servers, thus, they have no responsibility to remove the material. Only the company that has the actual file has the obligation to remove or disable access to the work.

Is this a strange loophole in the, I think so and I also think it is an unintended consequence of wanting to, rightly, protect companies that make up the backbone of the Web and have little control over the flow of content.

So we have a strange situation where the site is engaging in a a likely infringement but, due to the limitations of the DMCA, nothing can be done about it through that means.

Possible room for improvement here…

]]> By: Jonathan Baileyhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-121222 Jonathan Bailey Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:27:31 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/#comment-121222 Carla: That is almost impossible to say. Fair use analysis is done on a case-by-case basis and can only be determined by a judge and/or jury. As I said in the article, it is only a defense against a copyright infringement suit and is not something I could make a blanket statement about here. My advice would be to get the permission from the news companies, something that should be trivial to do if they are local broadcasts. <br><br>Otherwise, you have to look at the specifics of the use and do an analysis about the likelihood that the use will be deemed fair should the matter get to court. Even then, it is a gamble at best.<br><br>I hope that helps!<br><br>Patty: Glad it helped! Please let me know if you have any questions!<br><br>Cybele: Excellent question! You have a good point there about hotlinking being tantamount to public display. I've argued that possibility before and I certainly feel that hotlinking an image, in addition to being other forms of misuse, is likely a copyright infringement. <br><br>The limitation, however, is in the DMCA itself. The law separates outs and providers that are "mere conduits" for the information. Since the site hosting the page that is hotlinking the image is not, itself, hosting the image, it would be classified as a mere conduit since the information does not reside on their servers, thus, they have no responsibility to remove the material. Only the company that has the actual file has the obligation to remove or disable access to the work.<br><br>Is this a strange loophole in the, I think so and I also think it is an unintended consequence of wanting to, rightly, protect companies that make up the backbone of the Web and have little control over the flow of content.<br><br>So we have a strange situation where the site is engaging in a a likely infringement but, due to the limitations of the DMCA, nothing can be done about it through that means. <br><br>Possible room for improvement here... Carla: That is almost impossible to say. Fair use analysis is done on a case-by-case basis and can only be determined by a judge and/or jury. As I said in the article, it is only a defense against a copyright infringement suit and is not something I could make a blanket statement about here. My advice would be to get the permission from the news companies, something that should be trivial to do if they are local broadcasts.

Otherwise, you have to look at the specifics of the use and do an analysis about the likelihood that the use will be deemed fair should the matter get to court. Even then, it is a gamble at best.

I hope that helps!

Patty: Glad it helped! Please let me know if you have any questions!

Cybele: Excellent question! You have a good point there about hotlinking being tantamount to public display. I’ve argued that possibility before and I certainly feel that hotlinking an image, in addition to being other forms of misuse, is likely a copyright infringement.

The limitation, however, is in the DMCA itself. The law separates outs and providers that are “mere conduits” for the information. Since the site hosting the page that is hotlinking the image is not, itself, hosting the image, it would be classified as a mere conduit since the information does not reside on their servers, thus, they have no responsibility to remove the material. Only the company that has the actual file has the obligation to remove or disable access to the work.

Is this a strange loophole in the, I think so and I also think it is an unintended consequence of wanting to, rightly, protect companies that make up the backbone of the Web and have little control over the flow of content.

So we have a strange situation where the site is engaging in a a likely infringement but, due to the limitations of the DMCA, nothing can be done about it through that means.

Possible room for improvement here…

]]> By: cybelehttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-91814 cybele Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:03:03 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/#comment-91814 I noticed this in #2: "it also provides the copyright holder with a sole right to publicly display a work".A couple of months ago there was a discussion thread in the legal forum on the Performancing site where you noted that there was no legal precedent to using DMCA to get someone to remove a hotlinked image. Wouldn't this apply to someone displaying your photo/artwork? I noticed this in #2: “it also provides the copyright holder with a sole right to publicly display a work”.

A couple of months ago there was a discussion thread in the legal forum on the Performancing site where you noted that there was no legal precedent to using DMCA to get someone to remove a hotlinked image. Wouldn’t this apply to someone displaying your photo/artwork?

]]> By: cybelehttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-121221 cybele Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:03:03 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/#comment-121221 I noticed this in #2: "it also provides the copyright holder with a sole right to publicly display a work".<br><br>A couple of months ago there was a discussion thread in the legal forum on the Performancing site where you noted that there was no legal precedent to using DMCA to get someone to remove a hotlinked image. Wouldn't this apply to someone displaying your photo/artwork? I noticed this in #2: “it also provides the copyright holder with a sole right to publicly display a work”.

A couple of months ago there was a discussion thread in the legal forum on the Performancing site where you noted that there was no legal precedent to using DMCA to get someone to remove a hotlinked image. Wouldn’t this apply to someone displaying your photo/artwork?

]]> By: Patty Hankinshttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-91803 Patty Hankins Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:40:22 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/28/10-basics-about-copyright-everyone-needs-to-know/#comment-91803 Thanks for the great summary of copyright basics. It's going to be a great reference to send people to when they have copyright questions Thanks for the great summary of copyright basics. It’s going to be a great reference to send people to when they have copyright questions

]]>