Copyright Definition

This blog entry will not be a review about the movie Get Smart, although my experiences with watching the movie and trying to LEGALLY put it on my laptop have shown me something about the movie distributors, production company, the movie industry and its studios, or whoever.

In the last year or so, it’s become more common place, depending on the movie studio, to release DVDs with a legal ‘digital copy’ of a movie to put on your computer or media playing device, provided you go online or through their instructions, and usually provide a password or code they give you in the packaging of the DVD. But the basic idea is if you buy the DVD, you have a legal and “easy” way of putting the file on your computer without having to rip the disc or download the movie from a file sharing program.  A great solution the movie industry thought it had to the whole file sharing and piracy problem, right?

I travel a lot and like having my movies and CDs on my laptop and/or possibly my iPod, and the ‘backups’ are in boxes in my parents’ basement in Canada.  Being on long flights, and many churches increasingly creating video podcasts of their sermons, such a device was also convenient for that purpose. I’ve even gotten in the habit of renting movies in iTunes before going on a long flight, bus or train ride, or just when I’m going to be traveling or doing something that puts a lot of time on my hands.

Well, I come to find that in order to get the digital copy one has to use Windows Media Player, because the movie studio doesn’t co-operate with Apple or iTunes, and I own a MacBook. Now, I know I’m in the minority and that more people use Microsoft-based computers than Apple MacIntosh computers, but to the best of my knowledge, iPod devices and the iPhone make up over 70% of the total market for mp3 players and media sharing devices (this might even be a conservative estimate—I’ve heard much higher). The Microsoft Zune hasn’t even had an accumulated total number of units sold (in over 2 years) of just how many iPods Apple has in the last financial quarter of 2008 alone–for just one competitor’s example.

My point is this: if the big wigs at movie studios want to stop piracy, and have people legitimately buy or legally put their own property (the DVD) on a media playing device, why not give them the option of allowing it to be compatible with whatever device the consumer owns, instead of the one the studio determines? I realize competitiveness and the free market are at play in this situation, but still, this matter is quite stupid, because the very problem they’re trying to solve, they’re actually creating when consumers don’t use the software or the device they’ve made their digital copy compatible with.

What?  I can’t get the digital copy from my DVD of The Dark Knight?  Fine, I’ll just go to bit torrent to get it.

This causes many to go download programs from off the ‘net and just rip the DVD to their hard drive in mp4 format compatible with iPods.

I recently rented Get Smart (a very funny movie) on iTunes, and watched it to relax after work one night before going to bed. I enjoyed it (and recommend it since it was clean and almost no cussing or suggestive stuff, and it was FUNNY as heck). I suggested it to my brother the next day–we both were working together at the same place of employment. He gave me the idea to buy the DVD for him for Christmas, so I picked the one out from Future Shop that had a digital copy for a few dollars more than the normal edition, so I also could benefit from legally owning it as well.  In this case, the digital copy was compatible with iTunes, and with the 2nd disc and a connection to the internet one can download the video to their movie library in under five minutes if they have an iTunes account. This was a smart move on this movie supplier’s side to increase the ease with which consumers can access the digital copy should they want to. However, the DVD my brother bought for me for Christmas–The Dark Knight–is not compatible with iTunes or Apple despite being released by the same DVD supplier. *Sigh*

Why can’t ALL the movie industries out there ‘get smart’ about how they solve the problem of file sharing, torrents, and movie piracy by offering a solution that the average law abiding consumer will WANT to cooperate with, instead of making it so difficult and creating the rules for what devices and media players one has to already have in order to benefit from the digital copy on the disc?

I try abiding by their rules and legalities, but they make it so ridiculous and almost impossible to do the right thing (or just the thing they want) –it’s no wonder many people just go to file sharing and piracy to obtain the movies they’d like to watch! By the way, despite my ranting, it’s worth letting you know that the only movies on my laptop are ones that I’ve purchased in DVD form or had given to me, and the music I listen to is all purchased or from CDs or iTunes gift cards given to me. I’ve run into the same type of snag with the DRM on songs I’ve purchased online in that I can’t make mix mp3 CDs to listen to on my mp3 ghetto blaster at work.

I appreciate the effort the movie industries, and even the recording industry are trying to make, but it’s really ridiculous, and they need to get smarter about how they want the consumer to play along. I’ve gone and downloaded software to allow me to listen to music I PAID for, the way I want to–that removes the DRM on my songs, and I’ve decided to just resort to ripping DVDs to my computer since less than 1/3 of the DVDs I’ve bought, or had given to me, in the last year are compatible with the devices I use to legally watch them.

I’m sorry movie and music industry, but I’ve played by your rules and you need to get smart if you want most of society to abide by them. I’m sure I speak for many others when I say I’m getting tired of them…

When deciding to protect your logo or design it can be a bit confusing trying to decide how to protect it. After all, your logo is basically the face of your product line or your services so it makes sense that you’d want to do the right thing when it comes to ensuring that you have exclusive rights to it.

The question is should you copyright your logo or trademark your logo? The answer, surprisingly, may be both.

The US Copyright Office states “copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship.” What does this mean exactly?

Each logo or design is going to vary from the next in regard to being eligible for copyright protection, of course, but the key to understanding is learning what is meant by “sufficient authorship.” Logos or designs that fall into any one of the two categories are not eligible for copyright protection:

• “familiar symbols or designs,” e.g. the peace sign, a single arrow, a Latin cross, etc.
• “mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring,” e.g. text in Times New Roman font, Text Using Only Sentence Case, text in purple

An even easier way to think about is to ask yourself one question about your logo - was there any creativity involved at all in designing the logo? If you’re using a symbol you found in Microsoft Word or in a clip art program, then no. If you’re using a logo you or someone else designed for you that contain a degree of creativity and/or uniqueness of some form or fashion, then yes.

Even if your logo does qualify for copyright protection, do not assume it’s the same as trademark protection. Copyrights and trademarks are fraternal twins - obviously related but look nothing alike. Copyrights protect the image itself whereas the trademark protects the image as it is used within the marketplace.

To protect your logo IN CONNECTION with your product line and/or services, a trademark is the way to go. The purpose of having a trademark, be it for a name, logo or slogan, is to obtain exclusive rights to the mark within your particular industry. This ensures that there will not be customer confusion when it comes to your goods/services and another within your industry.

Filing a trademark for a logo is similar to filing a trademark for a name. Comprehensive research is likely needed to ensure that the same or similar design is not already filed. I know what you’re thinking - I know my logo is unique OR I paid for my logo to be designed so I know no one else has it - we hear that a lot. The one thing to always remember about trademarks is that the mark need not be exact to another. If there’s a chance for customer confusion, it can be a problem.

This blog entry will not be a review about the movie Get Smart, although my experiences with watching the movie and trying to LEGALLY put it on my laptop have shown me something about the movie distributors, production company, the movie industry and its studios, or whoever.

In the last year or so, it’s become more common place, depending on the movie studio, to release DVDs with a legal ‘digital copy’ of a movie to put on your computer or media playing device, provided you go online or through their instructions, and usually provide a password or code they give you in the packaging of the DVD. But the basic idea is if you buy the DVD, you have a legal and “easy” way of putting the file on your computer without having to rip the disc or download the movie from a file sharing program.  A great solution the movie industry thought it had to the whole file sharing and piracy problem, right?

I travel a lot and like having my movies and CDs on my laptop and/or possibly my iPod, and the ‘backups’ are in boxes in my parents’ basement in Canada.  Being on long flights, and many churches increasingly creating video podcasts of their sermons, such a device was also convenient for that purpose. I’ve even gotten in the habit of renting movies in iTunes before going on a long flight, bus or train ride, or just when I’m going to be traveling or doing something that puts a lot of time on my hands.

Well, I come to find that in order to get the digital copy one has to use Windows Media Player, because the movie studio doesn’t co-operate with Apple or iTunes, and I own a MacBook. Now, I know I’m in the minority and that more people use Microsoft-based computers than Apple MacIntosh computers, but to the best of my knowledge, iPod devices and the iPhone make up over 70% of the total market for mp3 players and media sharing devices (this might even be a conservative estimate—I’ve heard much higher). The Microsoft Zune hasn’t even had an accumulated total number of units sold (in over 2 years) of just how many iPods Apple has in the last financial quarter of 2008 alone–for just one competitor’s example.

My point is this: if the big wigs at movie studios want to stop piracy, and have people legitimately buy or legally put their own property (the DVD) on a media playing device, why not give them the option of allowing it to be compatible with whatever device the consumer owns, instead of the one the studio determines? I realize competitiveness and the free market are at play in this situation, but still, this matter is quite stupid, because the very problem they’re trying to solve, they’re actually creating when consumers don’t use the software or the device they’ve made their digital copy compatible with.

What?  I can’t get the digital copy from my DVD of The Dark Knight?  Fine, I’ll just go to bit torrent to get it.

This causes many to go download programs from off the ‘net and just rip the DVD to their hard drive in mp4 format compatible with iPods.

I recently rented Get Smart (a very funny movie) on iTunes, and watched it to relax after work one night before going to bed. I enjoyed it (and recommend it since it was clean and almost no cussing or suggestive stuff, and it was FUNNY as heck). I suggested it to my brother the next day–we both were working together at the same place of employment. He gave me the idea to buy the DVD for him for Christmas, so I picked the one out from Future Shop that had a digital copy for a few dollars more than the normal edition, so I also could benefit from legally owning it as well.  In this case, the digital copy was compatible with iTunes, and with the 2nd disc and a connection to the internet one can download the video to their movie library in under five minutes if they have an iTunes account. This was a smart move on this movie supplier’s side to increase the ease with which consumers can access the digital copy should they want to. However, the DVD my brother bought for me for Christmas–The Dark Knight–is not compatible with iTunes or Apple despite being released by the same DVD supplier. *Sigh*

Why can’t ALL the movie industries out there ‘get smart’ about how they solve the problem of file sharing, torrents, and movie piracy by offering a solution that the average law abiding consumer will WANT to cooperate with, instead of making it so difficult and creating the rules for what devices and media players one has to already have in order to benefit from the digital copy on the disc?

I try abiding by their rules and legalities, but they make it so ridiculous and almost impossible to do the right thing (or just the thing they want) –it’s no wonder many people just go to file sharing and piracy to obtain the movies they’d like to watch! By the way, despite my ranting, it’s worth letting you know that the only movies on my laptop are ones that I’ve purchased in DVD form or had given to me, and the music I listen to is all purchased or from CDs or iTunes gift cards given to me. I’ve run into the same type of snag with the DRM on songs I’ve purchased online in that I can’t make mix mp3 CDs to listen to on my mp3 ghetto blaster at work.

I appreciate the effort the movie industries, and even the recording industry are trying to make, but it’s really ridiculous, and they need to get smarter about how they want the consumer to play along. I’ve gone and downloaded software to allow me to listen to music I PAID for, the way I want to–that removes the DRM on my songs, and I’ve decided to just resort to ripping DVDs to my computer since less than 1/3 of the DVDs I’ve bought, or had given to me, in the last year are compatible with the devices I use to legally watch them.

I’m sorry movie and music industry, but I’ve played by your rules and you need to get smart if you want most of society to abide by them. I’m sure I speak for many others when I say I’m getting tired of them…

There’s a lot of finger pointing going on these days.  Newspapers, recording companies, photographers and other businesses are simply going out of business.  Some of these companies have been in business for over 100 years!  What happened?

Well, there’s a lot of finger pointing towards the Internet as the problem.  From my perspective that’s a lot of bull or just plain shortsightedness on the finger pointers part.  The Internet may well be one of the greatest innovations known to man.  Once you know how to use it and you’ve also developed a good filter system for information, you’ve basically tapped into all the knowledge in the Universe as we know it.

So how can something so good be so bad for many?  One of the things the Internet brought with it was a “consolidation of the media”.  Rather than going to a record store to get your music and a newspaper stand to get your paper you had a new option to get it all from one place, the Internet.  Placing an ad was no longer a pain and you could also get instant results from the Internet.  Need a nice image to put in your email to your girlfriend or boyfriend?  Surf the web until you see one you like and just take it.  “Save as” and it’s yours.

So the examples just given were all examples of multimedia and its branches.  If these different branches of multimedia would have seen themselves as one and had they gone to Congress with the purpose of establishing a statutory rate on all multimedia downloads from the Internet, (easily measurable) my instincts tell me they would have been a huge success.  Why?  Because Congress would have loved to keep it so simple and still achieve such huge positive results for those concerned.  Let those concerned bang out the particulars.  Let’s, (Congress) do our part in providing growth potential via the Internet for these multimedia industries and move on to other things.

Instead we got this quagmire of confusing amendments to old rules, new rates that take a degree in quantum physics to figure out, new fragmented copyright rules that benefit some and piss off the rest of us and all because the multimedia branches still refuse to see themselves as one!

The day will come when that perspective will prevail.  The wireless industry gets it.  Let’s subscribe to their lead and start righting the wrongs that came about because we were too selfish and fragmented in trying to monetize media from the Internet.

We are at a similar benchmark moment with data infrastructures, data applications and data products that we were at in the middle 90’s with the Internet.  This time, can we, (multimedia players) all get along?  Can we unite?

If we do, we will thrive.  If we don’t, we will not survive.  http://datarevenue.org

What is a copyright?

A copyright is a type of legal protection afforded to creators of original works, including literary, musical, dramatic, choreographed, and architectural works, motion pictures, sound recordings, and works of art, such as paintings, and sculptures.

Copyright protection prevents another individual from copying, performing or using the piece of work without the express consent of the author or creator and establishes the ownership of the piece of work. Protection is available to both published and unpublished works. To be able to be copyrighted, a work must be original and must have already been written or recorded. This is because a copyright does not protect an idea or plan; instead, it protects the expression of that idea or plan.

Can a website be copyrighted?

Any original work or authorship appearing on a website can be protected under copyright law. This may include any text or articles, digital artwork, photographs and animation to appear on the website. Because a website cannot be sent to the Copyright Office in the mail, the procedures for registering the contents of a website are different than a standard document or photograph.

A key aspect of a website that cannot be copyrighted is the website’s domain name. Responsibility for domain names falls under the jurisdiction of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a nonprofit organization located in California that has assumed the responsibility for assigning domain names by means of accredited registers.

Who can obtain a copyright?

Copyright protection exists from the time a piece of work is created. A copyright is obtainable by the author or creator of a piece of work or, in the case of work made for hire, the employer or contractor.

The authors of a joint piece of work are co-owners of the copyright unless there is an agreement to the contrary. Mere ownership of a piece of work does not give that owner the copyright. Transfer of ownership does not automatically transfer the copyright to the individual who received the piece of work.

While minors may claim a copyright, many state laws regulate the business dealings involving the copyrighted work own by the minor.

This blog entry will not be a review about the movie Get Smart, although my experiences with watching the movie and trying to LEGALLY put it on my laptop have shown me something about the movie distributors, production company, the movie industry and its studios, or whoever.

In the last year or so, it’s become more common place, depending on the movie studio, to release DVDs with a legal ‘digital copy’ of a movie to put on your computer or media playing device, provided you go online or through their instructions, and usually provide a password or code they give you in the packaging of the DVD. But the basic idea is if you buy the DVD, you have a legal and “easy” way of putting the file on your computer without having to rip the disc or download the movie from a file sharing program.  A great solution the movie industry thought it had to the whole file sharing and piracy problem, right?

I travel a lot and like having my movies and CDs on my laptop and/or possibly my iPod, and the ‘backups’ are in boxes in my parents’ basement in Canada.  Being on long flights, and many churches increasingly creating video podcasts of their sermons, such a device was also convenient for that purpose. I’ve even gotten in the habit of renting movies in iTunes before going on a long flight, bus or train ride, or just when I’m going to be traveling or doing something that puts a lot of time on my hands.

Well, I come to find that in order to get the digital copy one has to use Windows Media Player, because the movie studio doesn’t co-operate with Apple or iTunes, and I own a MacBook. Now, I know I’m in the minority and that more people use Microsoft-based computers than Apple MacIntosh computers, but to the best of my knowledge, iPod devices and the iPhone make up over 70% of the total market for mp3 players and media sharing devices (this might even be a conservative estimate—I’ve heard much higher). The Microsoft Zune hasn’t even had an accumulated total number of units sold (in over 2 years) of just how many iPods Apple has in the last financial quarter of 2008 alone–for just one competitor’s example.

My point is this: if the big wigs at movie studios want to stop piracy, and have people legitimately buy or legally put their own property (the DVD) on a media playing device, why not give them the option of allowing it to be compatible with whatever device the consumer owns, instead of the one the studio determines? I realize competitiveness and the free market are at play in this situation, but still, this matter is quite stupid, because the very problem they’re trying to solve, they’re actually creating when consumers don’t use the software or the device they’ve made their digital copy compatible with.

What?  I can’t get the digital copy from my DVD of The Dark Knight?  Fine, I’ll just go to bit torrent to get it.

This causes many to go download programs from off the ‘net and just rip the DVD to their hard drive in mp4 format compatible with iPods.

I recently rented Get Smart (a very funny movie) on iTunes, and watched it to relax after work one night before going to bed. I enjoyed it (and recommend it since it was clean and almost no cussing or suggestive stuff, and it was FUNNY as heck). I suggested it to my brother the next day–we both were working together at the same place of employment. He gave me the idea to buy the DVD for him for Christmas, so I picked the one out from Future Shop that had a digital copy for a few dollars more than the normal edition, so I also could benefit from legally owning it as well.  In this case, the digital copy was compatible with iTunes, and with the 2nd disc and a connection to the internet one can download the video to their movie library in under five minutes if they have an iTunes account. This was a smart move on this movie supplier’s side to increase the ease with which consumers can access the digital copy should they want to. However, the DVD my brother bought for me for Christmas–The Dark Knight–is not compatible with iTunes or Apple despite being released by the same DVD supplier. *Sigh*

Why can’t ALL the movie industries out there ‘get smart’ about how they solve the problem of file sharing, torrents, and movie piracy by offering a solution that the average law abiding consumer will WANT to cooperate with, instead of making it so difficult and creating the rules for what devices and media players one has to already have in order to benefit from the digital copy on the disc?

I try abiding by their rules and legalities, but they make it so ridiculous and almost impossible to do the right thing (or just the thing they want) –it’s no wonder many people just go to file sharing and piracy to obtain the movies they’d like to watch! By the way, despite my ranting, it’s worth letting you know that the only movies on my laptop are ones that I’ve purchased in DVD form or had given to me, and the music I listen to is all purchased or from CDs or iTunes gift cards given to me. I’ve run into the same type of snag with the DRM on songs I’ve purchased online in that I can’t make mix mp3 CDs to listen to on my mp3 ghetto blaster at work.

I appreciate the effort the movie industries, and even the recording industry are trying to make, but it’s really ridiculous, and they need to get smarter about how they want the consumer to play along. I’ve gone and downloaded software to allow me to listen to music I PAID for, the way I want to–that removes the DRM on my songs, and I’ve decided to just resort to ripping DVDs to my computer since less than 1/3 of the DVDs I’ve bought, or had given to me, in the last year are compatible with the devices I use to legally watch them.

I’m sorry movie and music industry, but I’ve played by your rules and you need to get smart if you want most of society to abide by them. I’m sure I speak for many others when I say I’m getting tired of them…

This blog entry will not be a review about the movie Get Smart, although my experiences with watching the movie and trying to LEGALLY put it on my laptop have shown me something about the movie distributors, production company, the movie industry and its studios, or whoever.

In the last year or so, it’s become more common place, depending on the movie studio, to release DVDs with a legal ‘digital copy’ of a movie to put on your computer or media playing device, provided you go online or through their instructions, and usually provide a password or code they give you in the packaging of the DVD. But the basic idea is if you buy the DVD, you have a legal and “easy” way of putting the file on your computer without having to rip the disc or download the movie from a file sharing program.  A great solution the movie industry thought it had to the whole file sharing and piracy problem, right?

I travel a lot and like having my movies and CDs on my laptop and/or possibly my iPod, and the ‘backups’ are in boxes in my parents’ basement in Canada.  Being on long flights, and many churches increasingly creating video podcasts of their sermons, such a device was also convenient for that purpose. I’ve even gotten in the habit of renting movies in iTunes before going on a long flight, bus or train ride, or just when I’m going to be traveling or doing something that puts a lot of time on my hands.

Well, I come to find that in order to get the digital copy one has to use Windows Media Player, because the movie studio doesn’t co-operate with Apple or iTunes, and I own a MacBook. Now, I know I’m in the minority and that more people use Microsoft-based computers than Apple MacIntosh computers, but to the best of my knowledge, iPod devices and the iPhone make up over 70% of the total market for mp3 players and media sharing devices (this might even be a conservative estimate—I’ve heard much higher). The Microsoft Zune hasn’t even had an accumulated total number of units sold (in over 2 years) of just how many iPods Apple has in the last financial quarter of 2008 alone–for just one competitor’s example.

My point is this: if the big wigs at movie studios want to stop piracy, and have people legitimately buy or legally put their own property (the DVD) on a media playing device, why not give them the option of allowing it to be compatible with whatever device the consumer owns, instead of the one the studio determines? I realize competitiveness and the free market are at play in this situation, but still, this matter is quite stupid, because the very problem they’re trying to solve, they’re actually creating when consumers don’t use the software or the device they’ve made their digital copy compatible with.

What?  I can’t get the digital copy from my DVD of The Dark Knight?  Fine, I’ll just go to bit torrent to get it.

This causes many to go download programs from off the ‘net and just rip the DVD to their hard drive in mp4 format compatible with iPods.

I recently rented Get Smart (a very funny movie) on iTunes, and watched it to relax after work one night before going to bed. I enjoyed it (and recommend it since it was clean and almost no cussing or suggestive stuff, and it was FUNNY as heck). I suggested it to my brother the next day–we both were working together at the same place of employment. He gave me the idea to buy the DVD for him for Christmas, so I picked the one out from Future Shop that had a digital copy for a few dollars more than the normal edition, so I also could benefit from legally owning it as well.  In this case, the digital copy was compatible with iTunes, and with the 2nd disc and a connection to the internet one can download the video to their movie library in under five minutes if they have an iTunes account. This was a smart move on this movie supplier’s side to increase the ease with which consumers can access the digital copy should they want to. However, the DVD my brother bought for me for Christmas–The Dark Knight–is not compatible with iTunes or Apple despite being released by the same DVD supplier. *Sigh*

Why can’t ALL the movie industries out there ‘get smart’ about how they solve the problem of file sharing, torrents, and movie piracy by offering a solution that the average law abiding consumer will WANT to cooperate with, instead of making it so difficult and creating the rules for what devices and media players one has to already have in order to benefit from the digital copy on the disc?

I try abiding by their rules and legalities, but they make it so ridiculous and almost impossible to do the right thing (or just the thing they want) –it’s no wonder many people just go to file sharing and piracy to obtain the movies they’d like to watch! By the way, despite my ranting, it’s worth letting you know that the only movies on my laptop are ones that I’ve purchased in DVD form or had given to me, and the music I listen to is all purchased or from CDs or iTunes gift cards given to me. I’ve run into the same type of snag with the DRM on songs I’ve purchased online in that I can’t make mix mp3 CDs to listen to on my mp3 ghetto blaster at work.

I appreciate the effort the movie industries, and even the recording industry are trying to make, but it’s really ridiculous, and they need to get smarter about how they want the consumer to play along. I’ve gone and downloaded software to allow me to listen to music I PAID for, the way I want to–that removes the DRM on my songs, and I’ve decided to just resort to ripping DVDs to my computer since less than 1/3 of the DVDs I’ve bought, or had given to me, in the last year are compatible with the devices I use to legally watch them.

I’m sorry movie and music industry, but I’ve played by your rules and you need to get smart if you want most of society to abide by them. I’m sure I speak for many others when I say I’m getting tired of them…

HOME::Legal/Copyright   X

‘;
}
s0 = ‘

‘ + s0 + ‘

‘;

if(document.getElementById(’ad-3′)) {
document.getElementById(’ad-3′).innerHTML = s0;
}
}

if(google_ads.length > 3) {
var s1 = ”;

s1 += ‘

Ads by Google

‘;
for(i = 3; i = google_ads.length) { break; }
s1 += ‘

‘ +
” + google_ads[i].line1 + ‘
‘ +
” + google_ads[i].line2 + ‘ ‘ + google_ads[i].line3 + ‘
‘ +
‘‘ + google_ads[i].visible_url + ‘

‘;
}
s1 = ‘

‘ + s1 + ‘

‘;

if(document.getElementById(’ad-4′)) {
document.getElementById(’ad-4′).innerHTML = s1;
}
}
}

What EXACTLY are Copyrights?

I will begin with a basic description of copyright law with a brief example. A Copyright is best described as a set of rights granted by the government for the expressions of ideas or information.

Quite literally, it is the set of rights the owner has to allow copies of the expression to be made.

Copyright law only covers these eight types of works:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.

What rights does a copyright owner have?

“[T]he owner of copyright … has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

(A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.)

Works created on or after January 1, 1978 have a copyright that lasts generally for 70 years after the life of the author. That means that the copyright expires 70 years after the author’s death. In the case of a joint work, the 70-year time period is measured after the last author’s death. In works that are made for hire, the term is 95 years from the date of its first publication, or 120 years from the date the work was created.

What is a “work for hire”? A work for hire is a work that falls under the copyright statue whose owner is not the person who created it. A work for hire must be made within the context of a written agreement that states the work is made for hire. Control and responsibility of the final version of the work rests not with the artist, but the person to whom control is ceded.

Now that you’re happy I cut-and-pasted straight from the Copyright Statute, let me give you an example - viral marketing. Any copyright owner is allowed to hold on to these rights as tightly as the owner wants to. The copyright owner can let any of these rights go, also.

What is a Viral Marketing campaign? Simple, it is a campaign where someone’s work is allowed to spread as much as possible (like a virus) so that people become interested in the work and then follow the work to the source. It is, basically, a free sample. It can be listening to 30 seconds of a song and telling friends to go hear the song. It can be one video being passed along so that people then go to the source of the video (a website that hosts that video and others or, for example, a TV show). This is something we are all familiar with. The earliest example I can think of is “South Park.” When I was in college, the video clip called “The Spirit of Christmas” was passed along from student to student via the Internet.

In a Viral Marketing campaign, the owner of the copyright in the work(s) has allowed some rights in the copyright(s) to be let go. Generally, it is allowing copies of the work to exist elsewhere and allowing others to distribute the work. All of this is done for no compensation, only to hope that compensation comes down the road in another form.

-Anthony M. Verna III Law Firm of Anthony Verna http://www.NYCTrademarks.com http://www.NYCCopyrights.com 14 Wall Street, 20th Floor, NY, NY P: 212-618-1210 F: 212-618-1705 Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Anthony_Verna

Read more

Posted in Copyright Definition | No Comments »

« Previous Entries