Sentences with phrase «even copyrighted works»

In addition to criticisms of the quality of e-books being self published, meanwhile, there have also been complaints about an increase in e-book «spam» in the Amazon Kindle store, including books that are clearly just cobbled together from bits and pieces of public domain titles or even copyrighted works (Reuters reported recently that there are DVD instruction manuals that tell users how to write and publish dozens of e-books a day without having to write anything).

If you've added enough of your own creativity to the new work, you can even copyright the work, although protection will only extend to the new material, not any words copied directly.

Not exact matches

While some rights holders have argued that the standard for a substantial is very low (the National Post recently argued in a case that «even the reproduction of a small number of words in a newspaper article can be an impermissible reproduction»), the Copyright Board says that its preliminary view is that «copying of a few pages or a small percentage from a book that is not a collection of short works, such as poems, is not substantial.»

It offers an oppor - tunity to study systematically the interaction of several copyright issues: including the rights (or lack thereof) of exclusive licensees as plaintiffs in parallel import situations, the distinction between exclusive licensees and assignees, the nature of works of authorship, the characteristics of copy - right infringement, the status of copyrightable works when used as trade - marked logos, the limits (if any) of concurrent copyright and trade - mark protection, and even the distinction between trade - mark, copyright, and patent as autonomous yet related legal regimes.

One of the things that got to us the most was reading «This is MY recipe for XXX» on her site... And even though I don't believe anyone can copyright a recipe, this is OUR work.

It seems to me you've got a prior claim with your books and educational courses, no matter if you've never sued for infringement before, with the new copyright laws, your copyrights (even unpublished works) last about 140 years.

And this particular work — it was authored in 1823; any work authored prior to 1923 is available as «fair use» to the public (free to use without permission); even according to current copyright laws and as for any work, copyright expiration occurs 70 years after the author's death — in this case the author died in 1863, meaning his copyright would have expired (if applying current laws) in 1933.

This announcement coincides with Lulu's presence at Book Expo America May 24th - 26th at the Javits Center in New York, where Lulu will empower even more creators to publish for free with complete creative and copyright control over their works, while keeping 80 percent of the profits when their books sell.

I don't see them caring, not one bit, about the fact that the vast majority of eBook formats eradicate a user's right to space - and sometimes even time - shift copyrighted works.

Perhaps I speak from experience, but some of the writers I've worked with exhibit hesitancy about sharing their work; and that's even AFTER a contract has been signed expressly protecting them and their copyrights.

While copyright is meant to give authors control of how and on what terms others can use their works, publishing agreements tend to be negotiable only around the edges, and even then only by well - represented authors.

You own the copyright in your work as soon as you put it into tangible form, such as a piece of paper or a computer hard drive, even a Smartphone memory chip.

While some think we could, or even should, release our work with some kind of copyright notice, instead Standard Ebooks dedicates the entirety of each of our ebook files, including markup, cover art, and everything in between, to the public domain.

One step that Kenneally recommends is for authors to put a copyright symbol on their work, even when posting it online.

Now, all my print - only books are ebooks on pirate sites, even though Amazon told me that it never sold any of the illegally created «ebook» versions of my work (except to me) if Amazon lied to me, and if Amazon allows people who illegally bought illegal copies of my works which were created in violation of my copyrights (and for which I was never paid any royalties) do you think those re-sales will be legal?

So you are not allowed to significantly change work and publish it even if the commercial copyright has expired.

«PUBLISHING RIGHTS» — Even if the clause relating to copyright says: AUTHOR HOLDS RIGHTS, watch out for any language or a clause later that says something like: «Publisher has exclusive rights to publish this work in any form / format...»

Ever since 1989 in the United States, even if your work is already published and you don't have a copyright notice in it, you still have the copyright (unless you have sold or given it away).

There is as enormous body of copyrighted works for which nobody knows who the owners are, so even if the books are good, no sane publisher would dare try to republish them against the risk that some cousin or great grandchild would hear about it and sue.

Of course, works which are in the public domain in Australia may remain copyrighted in other Countries, even for several decades.

Fanfiction writers are perceived by many to have no rights over their fanfic stories (although there is an argument for «fair use» (see this interview with Rebecca Tushnet, a legal advocate for the Organization for Transformative Works), and thus there is an assumption that they will leap at the chance to earn 35 % royalties, even if they sign away all rights beyond basic copyright.

DRM is usually discussed in the context of copyright and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, which makes circumvention of measures that control access to copyrighted works a civil offense (in some cases even a federacopyright and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, which makes circumvention of measures that control access to copyrighted works a civil offense (in some cases even a federaCopyright Act of 1998, which makes circumvention of measures that control access to copyrighted works a civil offense (in some cases even a federal crime).

The right response here is: for the state to leave this alone and let the companies involved work out whatever contractual terms they wish, whether agency model, wholesale model, or some hybrid; stop employing antitrust law against even nominally private companies; stop enacting and enforcing laws that give rise to monopoly prices and oligopolies and corporatism and crony capitalism in the first place, such as copyright law, antitrust law, pro-union legislation, minimum wage, taxation in general, inflation and the business cycle, and other business regulations.

If you self - publish, can you include a copyright page in your work even if you haven't registered it with the copyright office?

The Copyright Office proposal would have a disproportionately negative, even catastrophic, impact on the ability of painters and illustrators to make a living from selling copies of their work... It is deeply troubling that government should be considering taking away their principal means of making ends meet — their copyrights.

Organized by Claire Gilman, the show included nearly eighty drawings, including works based on paintings by Bruegel, prints by Hogarth, photos by nineteenth - century pornographers, and even the cover of a Dover paperback of «copyright - free» animal figures.

Many works of art fall under copyright protection; the Spiral Jetty is no different even though it is situated in the landscape, not secured in a museum.

Copyright in musical works extends to the composition itself, not just to the sheet music (as you notice, there may not even be any sheet music).

A school with such a policy might also be able to claim ownership rights in student copyrights for any literary or artistic works that they create and even the profits from advertisements that run on students» blogs.

Even with the advent of Creative Commons, a «nonprofit that offers a flexible copyright for creative work,» basically creating an open - source environment for art of all kinds, it's amazing how many people are sloppy or even scurrilous about tucking someone else's work anonymously into their Even with the advent of Creative Commons, a «nonprofit that offers a flexible copyright for creative work,» basically creating an open - source environment for art of all kinds, it's amazing how many people are sloppy or even scurrilous about tucking someone else's work anonymously into their even scurrilous about tucking someone else's work anonymously into their own.

artistic, literary or dramatic work — even just a paragraph can be subject to copyright.

Like trademarks, copyrights may be registered — in this case, with the US Copyright Office — but works are protected by copyright even if they are not reCopyright Office — but works are protected by copyright even if they are not recopyright even if they are not registered.

For example, «scanlations» (which are fan driven translations of entire manga series using scans of the original Japanese or Korean language graphic novels, photoshopping out the original dialog, and then inserting translated dialog, prepared without compensation by the translators and made available on the web), were silently tolerated for many years by the publishers of those works, even though they are clear and obvious copyright violations as derivative works.

Books, as well other types of creative works listed at 17 USC § 102, are automatically protected by copyright even without a copyright notice.

Does this right mean that one who cracks a TPM to access computer code (which is a protected copyrighted work under the Act) is liable even if it is done for a purpose unconnected to an act of copyright infringement?

She continued: «On the first point, it is sufficient for copyright infringement even if the work is a subconscious derivation and the infringer does not consciously realise that they are copying the work.

Your entire first paragraph seems irrelevant, with respect to any pre-existing «literary work», since the copyright of the movie itself automatically includes the exclusive right to make a derivative work, including a literary work, even if the movie had no script of its own.

Even if you don't file an official copyright request, you can keep others from using your work by sending Cease and Desist Letters and filing proper suit.

Blonde Muffin shepherds us through all of last week's top stories, such as Professor Volokh's response to Captain Copyright, a Canadian educational Web site that misstates the law on copyright and the continuing attempts by James Joyce's descendants to limit access to Joyce's works even for research purposes, as noted in OverCopyright, a Canadian educational Web site that misstates the law on copyright and the continuing attempts by James Joyce's descendants to limit access to Joyce's works even for research purposes, as noted in Overcopyright and the continuing attempts by James Joyce's descendants to limit access to Joyce's works even for research purposes, as noted in Overlawyered.

Before using any material you believe is in the public domain, you should investigate the copyright status of the work, at least to establish whom to credit even if formal permission is not required.

Thus, even though the two works have the same story as their subject, they are not «substantially similar» as that phase is used in copyright jurisprudence.

The copyright owner would have to prove copying happened (even via an intermediary, like work B).

There were no orphan works through the mid 19th century while copyright lasted 14 or 28 years, or even when the term doubled into the 20th century.

Technically, if the work is copyright protected, it's illegal to do so, even if you own it.

Talking about fair use often means talking about your right to re-use existing copyrighted works in the process of making something new - to make remixes and documentaries, parodies, or even to build novel Internet search tools.