Not exact matches
Much as it is possible for someone to get rewarded for performing a work — as opposed to writing it, which involves
copyright — publishers would get to command fees for the stuff their writers write, based their own (new) rights
rather than the
copyright held
by the journalist.
Assuming there is actually willingness to try to mend
rather than end NAFTA,
copyright term extension and criminalizing the circumvention of TPMs (technological protection measures) for commercial purposes will certainly be key demands presented
by the US side in the NAFTA negotiations.
Some technologies are protected
by copyright rules
rather than traditional patent rules.
In the past,
copyright was a limited boon, designed not to enrich a creator and their children's children a hundred years from now, but
rather to allow a creator to profit
by granting a temporary monopoly on reproduction, in exchange for their work to be returned to the public after a few years.
However, more and more images are being issued
by rights holders under Creative Commons
rather than traditional
copyright.
But his emphasis upon that argument — strongly seconded
by Acting Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, arguing for the federal government as amicus — led Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and others to suggest that the remedy should be an «active inducement» claim,
rather than a secondary
copyright infringement claim.
The significant question is whether such a statement as «no
copyright infringement intended» will be viewed
by the courts as evidence to suggest innocent infringement or
rather as evidence to support willful infringement.
If you're self - publishing, it's probably a good idea to discuss this and other legal issues (such as
copyright registration) with a lawyer, since doing all those things
by yourself can get
rather complicated.
Again, since
copyright protects expression and not ideas, if in the course of writing a program you discover a clever algorithm for doing something (
rather than dividing
by the nth power of 2, shift right n), that knowledge is not protected
by copyright, and it is to be expected that if you learn how to solve a problem once, you can re-invent the solution again (and it will strongly resemble the earlier solution).
Rather than have radio stations, for example, negotiate multiple rights every time a song is played on a radio, a tariff is set
by a neutral party — the
Copyright Board — that makes it easier for users to pay and for authors to collect money.
There is an exception to the usual rule that a
copyright holder has complete control over derivative works that applies to music and allows non-
copyright holders to make cover versions of a song
by paying a royalty set
by a tribunal which is established
by statute to the
copyright holder
rather than a negotiated license fee determined in advance of publication.
The case I wish to highlight in this post is the Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen in Case C - 5 / 11 Donner, concerning a
rather crafty and ingenious attempt
by Mr. Donner to circumvent the application of certain German
copyright laws.
The amendment currently being debated in the Lords deals with injunctive powers to block content
rather than the current practice where YouTube removes
copyright infringing content when given notice
by the
copyright owner.
By creating an End User License Agreement
rather than a sale, you are able to define the terms and the limits of the use of the
copyrighted software.
In the 1908 Supreme Court case White - Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co., the Court decided,
rather oddly, that songs encoded on the rolls of paper used to drive auto - playing pianos (but for which the original song creator was not compensated) didn't constitute a
copyright violation because the rolls were not human - readable; this ruling was effectively overturned by The Copyright Act
copyright violation because the rolls were not human - readable; this ruling was effectively overturned
by The
Copyright Act
Copyright Act of 1909.