Sentences with phrase «know about copyright»

If you are creator or publisher of original creative works, you will want to know about copyright law.

Thirty years ago the ordinary lawyer did not need to know about copyright save perhaps in the trite phrase «Copyright protects the form in which an idea is presented but not the idea itself».

TechNewsWorld interviews Robert J. Kasunic, principal legal advisor at the U.S. Copyright Office, on what businesses need to know about copyright law and the Internet.

This is the second of a three part series, entitled «What every romance author should know about copyright law online.»

The important things to know about copyright are why it is necessary and how to secure it.

Jessica Parker Senior Publishing Consultant How much do you really know about copyright?

How much do you really know about copyright?

Writer and lawyer Helen Sedwick will explain what every writer needs to know about copyright: what it means, how to protect it, and how to license their work without losing control.

If you're a blogger or author, then make sure that you know about copyright.

What marketers need to know about copyrights, rights to publicity, and other common social media legal pitfalls.

The trial court ruled that the Salesperson was an innocent infringer because the copyright symbol had been removed from the Photos and there was no other evidence that the Salesperson knew about the copyright.

Not exact matches

An Excerpt From: Startin'the Fire Everything you need to know about starting a competition BBQ team (except the recipes) By George Hensler Published by Rio Grande Books Copyright 2010 100 Pages $ 12.99 ISBN 978 -1-890689-14-8 Available on Amazon.com here Chapter 1 Competitive cooking, is it a sport?

You know, I think I've modified the recipe enough that I don't have to worry about copyright violations.

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courses, no matter if you've never sued for infringement before, with the new copyright laws, your copyrights (even unpublished works) last about 140 years.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, in hopes that you'll actually rethink providing a free printable; — RRB -... I know a bit about copyright law!!

As ever, if there is doubt as to whether the images / sounds are subject to copyright, the no - profit, educational purposes and no - charge - advertising / no - charge - product - placement arguments apply: it's not about how much teachers should pay so much as it is about how much they should charge.

And if you're wondering about the name and whether it infringes the copyrights of any well - known MP3 players, fear not — the car's key functions are all controlled via an Apple iPhone.

I know you own the copyright when you create work but I'm wondering about copyright protection, maybe including a copyright page at the front (as it suggests on this website in Self - Publishing Basics).

If you'd like to know more about copyright or how to maximise the rights and licensing potential attached to your IP then why not drop us a line at [email protected].

I didn't know the part about recipe copyrighting; anyone can change instructions to make something «theirs.»

You'll not only learn exactly what you need to know about book design, but also about things specific to book publishing, such as title and copyright pages, ISBN and bar code, page count for printing, marketing considerations, plus how to choose the best type of printing for your book.

Jeff John Roberts posted an insightful piece for paidContentthat enlightens on a subject not many may know about: copyright law, more specifically, the part of copyright law that gives authors the rights to their books back after thirty - five years.

Although it's easy, I found the copyright website from the government a bit intimidating and difficult to find the information you need (especially, if, like me, you don't know about the nuances of copyright) which is why I put it off for so long (going on three years since I published my first book).

It's insulting and demeaning to be called a liar and a thief by readers who don't know anything about the processes of publishing, copyright law or professional ebook production, and yet are certain of both their facts and their moral high ground.

Any changes in copyright regulations we ought to know about?

They know about contracts and royalties and copyright.

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.

I also wondered about the copyrights work on that, since y ’ know, it's «online» and all that jazz.

I'm especially intrigued to hear / read more from Samatha Holman, as in almost every recent conversation about the now and future of publishing, copyright law in the global and digital age is the one thing that no one knows enough about.

Samantha knows so much it's scary, but exceptionally useful, because as you say, the conversation tends to happen in a void of knowledge about what can legally happen and when the copyright law of a particular jurisdiction is headed!

I know people are going to moan about piracy, but the real problem in Russia is that the technology comes, is embraced, but no one's set up a legal market and dealt with all the trademarks, copyrights, and patents deals that involves, so black markets spring up.

One of the things I happen to know a decent amount about is the state of the law regarding copyright online (in the United States).

Honestly, all snark aside, I know / teach some youngsters who grew up in a «post-piracy» world (to the extent that they've grown up with things like the VC, Steam, and Netflix in the 00s, so downloading ROMs or TV shows or whatever doesn't hold enough allure / necessity to overcome wariness of getting in trouble or guilt about breaking copyright laws), but who have engaged with the fandom, talk of the game in hushed tones, and have been waiting with bated breath to play it.

know that whatever you do is already copyrighted and is not to worry about.

A federal judge in Manhattan has ruled against the artist Richard Prince in a closely watched copyright case, finding that Mr. Prince — who is well known for appropriating imagery created by others — violated the law by using photographs from a book about Rastafarians to create a series of collages and paintings.

This says nothing about what the law says, however at using them in this way is a probable trademark infringement, and definite copyright infringement, and the licence says no, then I would say NO as welno, then I would say NO as welNO as well.

I would hope most bloggers understand enough about copyright law to know that it is improper to reprint an entire article without the copyright owner's permission.

More likely, they are violations but the copyright owner does not know about the violation or has decided that pursuing the violation is not worth the effort.

I'm finishing up contacting former law clients to let them know about the breach (though, since my practice was primarily copyright law, I didn't often handle truly sensitive info).

Regarding copyright and laws, one thing that on a personal level has bothered me since I found out about it, is how provincial governments will enact laws that incorporate by reference standards published by a non-governmental entity, so that to know and comply with the law (and there are penalties for non-compliance) requires purchasing a copy of the standard (e.g. electrical code, building code, etc.).

I really don't know anything about trademark or copyright so I'm asking: can I have issues if I use that name to release my application on various store (NB: there's no «conflicting» app with the same name) and / or if I want to protect / register my application / application name legally speaking?

Legal Satyricon Professor Mark Randazza agrees, writing that «at least one of the candidates doesn't know the difference between copyright and trademark — and certainly knows nothing about either field.»

From the little I know about U.S. copyright law, I can't just copy information straight from an encyclopedia and then place my resultant work for sale.

I think we were talking about an original A, a work B derived from A (the creator of A has shared copyright of B), and C derived from B, and it is not known whether C has anything in common with A.

Users can search for a book, see what others have said about its copyright status, and add what they know.

Another rhetorical aspect here is the nature of the audience: photographers and media managers might not be lawyers, but they are repeat players in the business of using photographs and thus could be expected to know and care about technical copyright issues on an ongoing basis.

Infringement is not defined in terms of what you know or believe about the copyright status of work.

If you don't distribute those copies, though, it could be quite difficult for the copyright holder to know anything about it.

If I'm infringing somebody's copyright on an ongoing basis, and the copyright owner knows about this but does nothing, can they still decide at some point to sue me?

Copyright seems to hold some water here: if I write a letter, I have copyright in the form of words used, which would enable me, in theory at least, to stop unauthorized copying; but we all know how powerful the laconic © assertion is nowadays, and, besides, it's usually the information and not the exact language that the sender is worriCopyright seems to hold some water here: if I write a letter, I have copyright in the form of words used, which would enable me, in theory at least, to stop unauthorized copying; but we all know how powerful the laconic © assertion is nowadays, and, besides, it's usually the information and not the exact language that the sender is worricopyright in the form of words used, which would enable me, in theory at least, to stop unauthorized copying; but we all know how powerful the laconic © assertion is nowadays, and, besides, it's usually the information and not the exact language that the sender is worried about.