Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I don't know if you can copyright a car race, so that can be different.

  Sometimes it feels like what falls and doesn't fall under copyright is
very, very arbitrary.

  For example, if someone plays a tune of 10 notes, that is rather obviously
copyrighted. However, if someone plays a chess game of 50 moves or a go game
of 400 moves, that's *not* copyrighted (anyone can publish the game as they
want). If someone designs a sudoku problem, that *is* copyrighted (as far
as I know). If someone designs a food recipe, that is *not* copyrighted
(well, the text and its formatting is, but not the contents of the recipe).

  With such arbitrary rules, you really need to be a lawyer specialized on
copyright law to be always sure.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> For a work that is displayed in public, on public land 
> 
> http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html
> 
> You can copyright a building. I don't see why you can't copyright a
> piece of sculpture in the public. At least currently in the USA.
> 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000120----000-.html

When in doubt, Wikipedia for the chapter and section of legal code, and
Cornell for the actual words.

17.1 120 (a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.— The copyright in an
architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right
to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures,
paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work,
if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or
ordinarily visible from a public place.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian schrieb:
>> Some galleries want that copyright
>> restriction for as long as the original is in a private gallery, even
>> well past the death of the creator and the expiration of the most
>> lengthy copyright laws.
> 
> Hmm... just found this on http://www.copyright.gov/:
> 
> "Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any
> other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor
> the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership
> of any material object that embodies a protected work
> does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright"
> 
> So no, the galleries have /no/ copyright on the work, i.e. they can
> /not/ prohibit anyone from copying it by virtue of using a camera.
> 
> (They /can/ possibly prohibit use of cameras on their premises, but
> that's another issue...)
> 
> All this valid for the US only of course. And IANAL.

I didn't mean to imply that they did have copyright on the artwork, just
that some have tried to claim that they did. There was a museum or
gallery that sued a publisher for including prints of rather famous
paintings, where the originals of those paintings was in the museum or
gallery. The argument was that the paintings were in their possession,
and that taking pictures without their consent on a 'no cameras allowed'
property either gave them copyright over the pictures or made it illegal
to print them, both of which are rather silly claims.

It went to court anyhow, but I can not find anything on google about it.
 Could be that 'museum painting copyright prints' is just too vague a
search set. I will try later when I am awake.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> 17.1 120 (a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.— The copyrigh
t in an
> architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right

> to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures,
> paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work,

> if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or
> ordinarily visible from a public place.

Kewl. I guess that exception settles it. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian schrieb:
> I didn't mean to imply that they did have copyright on the artwork, just
> that some have tried to claim that they did. There was a museum or
> gallery that sued a publisher for including prints of rather famous
> paintings, where the originals of those paintings was in the museum or
> gallery. The argument was that the paintings were in their possession,
> and that taking pictures without their consent on a 'no cameras allowed'
> property either gave them copyright over the pictures or made it illegal
> to print them, both of which are rather silly claims.

I guess they still sued for violating their "house rules", to get at 
least /something/ out of it.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian schrieb:
> 17.1 120 (a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.— The copyright in an
> architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right
> to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures,
> paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work,
> if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or
> ordinarily visible from a public place.

Hum... then can't we just argue that the sculpture in question is an 
architectural work? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Hum... then can't we just argue that the sculpture in question is an 
> architectural work? ;-)

I think it likely is, yes.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:
>> Hum... then can't we just argue that the sculpture in question is an 
>> architectural work? ;-)
> 
> I think it likely is, yes.

(I fear it actually isn't. Or does it qualify as a "building"?)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Darren New schrieb:
>>> Hum... then can't we just argue that the sculpture in question is an 
>>> architectural work? ;-)
>>
>> I think it likely is, yes.
> 
> (I fear it actually isn't. Or does it qualify as a "building"?)

Oh, sorry. Reading it again, I thought it said "structure" and not 
"building".  So buildings can be copyrighted but not bridges? Odd.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:
> Oh, sorry. Reading it again, I thought it said "structure" and not 
> "building".  So buildings can be copyrighted but not bridges? Odd.

That would appear to be so indeed.

Post a reply to this message

>> IMO once you make something available to the public (ie they can just see 
>> it for free with no restrictions) then you can't really do much about 
>> people copying it.
>
> Of course you can. You can sue them for copying it.

Can you really make something that is visible to the public and then sue 
them for taking photos of it?  That seems bizarre.  *IMO* if you put 
something on display for the public to see you have no right to stop people 
taking photos and doing what they want with those photos.

> Heck, you think broadcast TV shows aren't copyrighted?

Oh I know they are, but *IMO* if you give something to the public you 
shouldn't expect to be able to keep control of it after that.  I mean if you 
publically broadcast *for free* to the whole population some TV show, 
doesn't it seem a bit wrong that two weeks later you then go and try to sue 
someone for making a copy?  Anyway I don't think that happens, at least in 
Europe a lot of the major TV stations seem to putting online all their 
previous programs, so you can do it totally legally now without resorting to 
bitTorrent.

> That would be license law, not copyright law. That's not even the same 
> jurisdiction in the USA.

But I think if the person has explicity agreed to some condition it is 
easier to prosecute them, rather than having to get involved with whether 
what they did actually broke copyright law or not.

Post a reply to this message

scott schrieb:
> Can you really make something that is visible to the public and then sue 
> them for taking photos of it?  That seems bizarre.  *IMO* if you put 
> something on display for the public to see you have no right to stop 
> people taking photos and doing what they want with those photos.

Well, it's not /that/ far-fetched: You're carrying your face around all 
day in public, too - still, if anybody wants to publish a photograph of 
that particular face taken in public, strictly they'd still need your 
agreement.

> Oh I know they are, but *IMO* if you give something to the public you 
> shouldn't expect to be able to keep control of it after that.  I mean if 
> you publically broadcast *for free* to the whole population some TV 
> show, doesn't it seem a bit wrong that two weeks later you then go and 
> try to sue someone for making a copy?

Now, imagine a simger-songwriter, doing a beneficial puplic gig 
somewhere. Would that entitle people to just copy his songs and not pay 
him any royalties?

Also note that although TV stations don't charge the public for their 
broadcasts, they do charge for it in a sense: They get their money from 
companies advertising in the breaks and between the shows. So they're 
not really giving away stuff for free - they're making money out of it.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Can you really make something that is visible to the public and then sue 
> them for taking photos of it?  That seems bizarre.

Can you really give software away for free and then sue someone for not 
providing the source with the object code?  Can you really broadcast a movie 
over radio waves then sue someone for selling tapes they made of the broadcast?

> Oh I know they are, but *IMO* if you give something to the public you 
> shouldn't expect to be able to keep control of it after that.

Well, if you're arguing about "should"s rather than "can"s, I have no comment.

>> That would be license law, not copyright law. That's not even the same 
>> jurisdiction in the USA.
> 
> But I think if the person has explicity agreed to some condition it is 
> easier to prosecute them, rather than having to get involved with 
> whether what they did actually broke copyright law or not.

Sure, but then we're no longer talking about copyright. Indeed, having a 
copyright on something can actually *reduce* the things you can sue over. 
For example, if you copyright a picture, then have a contract that someone 
signs before you let them see it saying they're not allowed to do something 
with it that fair use allows, that part of the contract is unenforcable. (Or 
at least was before DMCA - now I don't know.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:
> Sure, but then we're no longer talking about copyright. Indeed, having a 
> copyright on something can actually *reduce* the things you can sue 
> over. For example, if you copyright a picture, then have a contract that 
> someone signs before you let them see it saying they're not allowed to 
> do something with it that fair use allows, that part of the contract is 
> unenforcable. (Or at least was before DMCA - now I don't know.)

That appears to make no sense to me, as copyright /always/ exists on a 
copyrightable work.

Maybe the mechanism is as follows:

(1) You officialy /register/ your copyright, which requires you to 
publish the work (in the register).

(2) From that publication, anyone can freely exercise "fair use" rights.

Versus:

(1) You refrain from officially registering your claim to the copyright

(2) Instead of making the work /publicly/ available, you only present it 
to people willing to waive their rights to "fair use".

(3) If they nonetheless copy the work without your consent, they 
automatically make their access to the work illegitimate; and as "fair 
use" copying requires legitimate access to the work, they're screwed.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> That appears to make no sense to me, as copyright /always/ exists on a 
> copyrightable work.

The laws have changed over the years. Before the Bourne convention, for 
example, this was not a true statement. You had to actually put a copyright 
mark on the work for it to be copyrighted.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:17:03 +0200, "scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:

>Can you really make something that is visible to the public and then sue 
>them for taking photos of it?  That seems bizarre.  *IMO* if you put 
>something on display for the public to see you have no right to stop people 
>taking photos and doing what they want with those photos.

That's what I thought.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> Can you really give software away for free and then sue someone for not 
> providing the source with the object code?

Assuming it was completely for free (ie you didn't make them sign or agree 
to some specific license) then I hope you can't sue them.

> Can you really broadcast a movie over radio waves then sue someone for 
> selling tapes they made of the broadcast?

Again, assuming the public are legally allowed to receive that radio 
frequency freely, then that transmission is already "released" to the 
public.  You shouldn't be then allowed to try and control what the public 
does with your transmission.  If you want to control your work, don't 
release it for free to the public.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Can you really give software away for free and then sue someone for 
>> not providing the source with the object code?
> 
> Assuming it was completely for free (ie you didn't make them sign or 
> agree to some specific license) then I hope you can't sue them.

I don't have to agree to any license at all to obtain GPL software. It is 
completely free for me to obtain it.

> You shouldn't be then allowed 

There's that word "should" again.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> If you want to control your work, 
> don't release it for free to the public.

I guess you lose your copyright if you give your book to the library to loan 
out?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

>> Assuming it was completely for free (ie you didn't make them sign or 
>> agree to some specific license) then I hope you can't sue them.
>
> I don't have to agree to any license at all to obtain GPL software. It is 
> completely free for me to obtain it.

Then you should be free to distribute it further without worrying.  How is 
distributing it further any different from distributing the link if it is 
completely free to download?

>> If you want to control your work, don't release it for free to the 
>> public.
>
> I guess you lose your copyright if you give your book to the library to 
> loan out?

If you put limitless free copies of your book in the library and nobody had 
to sign up for anything then yes, I don't think you would have much claim to 
people making further copies of it when it is freely available anyway. 
Exactly what have you lost, as the author, by people making their own copies 
when you are giving away your copies for free?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>>> Assuming it was completely for free (ie you didn't make them sign or 
>>> agree to some specific license) then I hope you can't sue them.
>>
>> I don't have to agree to any license at all to obtain GPL software. It 
>> is completely free for me to obtain it.
> 
> Then you should be free to distribute it further without worrying.

Hey, welcome to copyright!

> How 
> is distributing it further any different from distributing the link if 
> it is completely free to download?

Because you don't own the copyright.

>>> If you want to control your work, don't release it for free to the 
>>> public.
>>
>> I guess you lose your copyright if you give your book to the library 
>> to loan out?
> 
> If you put limitless free copies of your book in the library

Oh, now we're up to "limitless"?

> I don't think you would have much 
> claim to people making further copies of it when it is freely available 
> anyway. 

OK, I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree. I'm talking about 
how the situation works right now, and you're talking about how you think it 
ought to work.

 > Exactly what have you lost, as the author, by people making
> their own copies when you are giving away your copies for free?

The copyright. The right to prevent other people from making copies without 
your permission.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:
> I don't have to agree to any license at all to obtain GPL software. It 
> is completely free for me to obtain it.

You may be completely free to /obtain/ it, but if you also want to /use/ 
it (for anything other than wasting hard disk space), then you have to 
agree to the GPL - the "GNU Public License".

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Darren New schrieb:
>> I don't have to agree to any license at all to obtain GPL software. It 
>> is completely free for me to obtain it.
> 
> You may be completely free to /obtain/ it, but if you also want to /use/ 
> it (for anything other than wasting hard disk space), then you have to 
> agree to the GPL - the "GNU Public License".

No you don't.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:22:26 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Darren New schrieb:
>> I don't have to agree to any license at all to obtain GPL software. It
>> is completely free for me to obtain it.
> 
> You may be completely free to /obtain/ it, but if you also want to /use/
> it (for anything other than wasting hard disk space), then you have to
> agree to the GPL - the "GNU Public License".

Nope:

GPLv3, section 9, states:

"You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a 
copy of the Program."

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a 
> copy of the Program."

In part because that's how copyright works. You can't really impose 
restrictions on someone via copyright, other than basically not copying.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:40:30 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run
>> a copy of the Program."
> 
> In part because that's how copyright works. You can't really impose
> restrictions on someone via copyright, other than basically not copying.

Yep; that's why a lot of software companies moved to using a license 
agreement instead.  In some localities, though, they treat the license 
agreement as nothing more than copyright; I understand in Germany, a 
software company cannot impose restrictions on the use of software 
(including how you may or may not resell it or whether - IIRC - you can 
reverse-engineer it).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I understand in Germany, a 
> software company cannot impose restrictions on the use of software 
> (including how you may or may not resell it or whether - IIRC - you can 
> reverse-engineer it).

In the USA before the DMCA, a license couldn't prevent you from doing things 
allowed by fair use. Particularly because copyright law is federal and 
license law is state-level.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:02:31 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I understand in Germany, a
>> software company cannot impose restrictions on the use of software
>> (including how you may or may not resell it or whether - IIRC - you can
>> reverse-engineer it).
> 
> In the USA before the DMCA, a license couldn't prevent you from doing
> things allowed by fair use. Particularly because copyright law is
> federal and license law is state-level.

Yep, I remember that from an earlier discussion. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson schrieb:
> "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a 
> copy of the Program."

Ah okay... another point I obviously didn't read properly...

Post a reply to this message

> The copyright. The right to prevent other people from making copies 
> without your permission.

All I'm saying is that I don't see how you can keep that right when your 
work is freely available in the first place.  And I mean completely freely 
available, no signing anything, no agreeing to terms, no having to give your 
address, no joining a waiting list etc.

If it went to court in such a situation, how would the judge decide how much 
money the author had lost by this "unlawful" copying of the work?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> The copyright. The right to prevent other people from making copies 
>> without your permission.
> 
> All I'm saying is that I don't see how you can keep that right when your 
> work is freely available in the first place.

It seems pretty easy to me. Mine is the only server it may be served from. I 
have to authorize the printer to make more copies of the book. If I stop 
broadcasting it, no more copies are created.  You're not allowed to 
photograph my outdoor statue. (I'll grant that last one would be really hard 
to enforce, but by no means impossible or incomprehensible.)

> If it went to court in such a situation, how would the judge decide how 
> much money the author had lost by this "unlawful" copying of the work?

That's irrelevant. In any case, if you made money distributing it yourself 
(say, selling postcards of the outdoor statue), the amount I could win would 
seem easy to calculate.

However, it's irrelevant, because the question isn't "how much am I 
damaged." The question is "how can you copyright an outdoor artwork."

How much is someone damaged if I take a GPL program that's freely available 
without me having to agree to anything, I add features to it, and I 
distribute the new executable without releasing the source?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 05:44:53 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run
>> a copy of the Program."
> 
> Ah okay... another point I obviously didn't read properly...

Or perhaps it's not present in v2, I didn't look. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run
>>> a copy of the Program."
>> Ah okay... another point I obviously didn't read properly...
> 
> Or perhaps it's not present in v2, I didn't look. :-)

I just did: GPL v2 Section 5 can be interpreted that way, but it's not 
as obvious.

Post a reply to this message

> That's irrelevant. In any case, if you made money distributing it yourself 
> (say, selling postcards of the outdoor statue), the amount I could win 
> would seem easy to calculate.

Yes, zero, because you were giving it away for free in the first place.  If 
you had some evidence that at a certain point in time you would cease giving 
it away for free and start selling stuff then ok, you could probably claim 
some losses.  But without any evidence of that I don't see how you can claim 
some fictitious loss of earnings of whatever.

> How much is someone damaged if I take a GPL program that's freely 
> available without me having to agree to anything, I add features to it, 
> and I distribute the new executable without releasing the source?

Zero dollars.

Post a reply to this message

scott schrieb:
>> That's irrelevant. In any case, if you made money distributing it 
>> yourself (say, selling postcards of the outdoor statue), the amount I 
>> could win would seem easy to calculate.
> 
> Yes, zero, because you were giving it away for free in the first place.  
> If you had some evidence that at a certain point in time you would cease 
> giving it away for free and start selling stuff then ok, you could 
> probably claim some losses.  But without any evidence of that I don't 
> see how you can claim some fictitious loss of earnings of whatever.

Wrongo.
Suppose the artist intended selling postcards of the object himself.

You just ruined that business model, by having flooded the market alread 
with /your/ postcards.

Post a reply to this message

>> Yes, zero, because you were giving it away for free in the first place. 
>> If you had some evidence that at a certain point in time you would cease 
>> giving it away for free and start selling stuff then ok, you could 
>> probably claim some losses.  But without any evidence of that I don't see 
>> how you can claim some fictitious loss of earnings of whatever.
>
> Wrongo.
> Suppose the artist intended selling postcards of the object himself.

Then if he really wants a monopoly on the postcard selling market (maybe he 
doesn't), he shouldn't put the object in a public place (where anyone is 
free to make their own postcard with a camera and printer).

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:17:59 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>>> "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or
>>>> run a copy of the Program."
>>> Ah okay... another point I obviously didn't read properly...
>> 
>> Or perhaps it's not present in v2, I didn't look. :-)
> 
> I just did: GPL v2 Section 5 can be interpreted that way, but it's not
> as obvious.

That explains the clarity of wording in v3. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> That's irrelevant. In any case, if you made money distributing it 
>> yourself (say, selling postcards of the outdoor statue), the amount I 
>> could win would seem easy to calculate.
> 
> Yes, zero, because you were giving it away for free in the first place.  

It doesn't work that way.

>> How much is someone damaged if I take a GPL program that's freely 
>> available without me having to agree to anything, I add features to 
>> it, and I distribute the new executable without releasing the source?
> 
> Zero dollars.

It doesn't work that way.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Then if he really wants a monopoly on the postcard selling market (maybe 
> he doesn't), he shouldn't put the object in a public place (where anyone 
> is free to make their own postcard with a camera and printer).

It doesn't work that way.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>>> "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run
>>>> a copy of the Program."
>>> Ah okay... another point I obviously didn't read properly...
>>
>> Or perhaps it's not present in v2, I didn't look. :-)
> 
> I just did: GPL v2 Section 5 can be interpreted that way, but it's not 
> as obvious.

You're never required by copyright to agree to a license before you can 
receive or run a copy of a program. Not in the USA at least.

Copyright controls copying, period. Loading a program from a disk into 
memory, being an essential step in using the program, is not copying, any 
more than bouncing light off a page to form an image on your retina is.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

>> Then if he really wants a monopoly on the postcard selling market (maybe 
>> he doesn't), he shouldn't put the object in a public place (where anyone 
>> is free to make their own postcard with a camera and printer).
>
> It doesn't work that way.

Any examples where people were successfully prosecuted for doing stuff with 
publically available works and making money from it?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Any examples where people were successfully prosecuted for doing stuff 
> with publically available works and making money from it?

Not offhand, but feel free to look it up yourself.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Any examples where people were successfully prosecuted for doing stuff 
> with publically available works and making money from it?

Oh, actually, yeah. Bands performing music in public. Bars broadcasting 
radio. Even music-on-hold taken off the radio. All kinds of stuff like that.

And the Sony v Betamax suit wasn't won on the grounds that the content was 
broadcast over the air, but that it was fair use. If you started 
distributing those tapes, you'd be in trouble.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>>> Then if he really wants a monopoly on the postcard selling market
>>> (maybe he doesn't), he shouldn't put the object in a public place
>>> (where anyone is free to make their own postcard with a camera and
>>> printer).
>>
>> It doesn't work that way.
> 
> Any examples where people were successfully prosecuted for doing stuff
> with publically available works and making money from it?
> 
> 

Yes, http://www.webcitation.org/5iZbZU3o9 or any of the lawsuits against
file sharing websites.

In the USA, and elsewhere*, just because a work is available does not
mean it is okay to copy it. Let's start with an easy example, a book.

Alice the Author writes a book, sells the manuscript to a publisher,
Bob, who buys the right to print that book. That may be in straight
cash, or part of the profit, doesn't matter really. Alice still has his
copyright, because she wrote the book on her time and not as part of a
"work-for-hire". So, now that Bob's company has permission to print that
book, they do. Bob starts selling those books, expecting to make a
profit. Alice might even do a reading from the book for a promotional
tour, or books on tape.

Now, Eve else comes along, buys a copy of the book and takes it to her
own publishing house. She makes some quick copies of the book, and puts
them back on the market at a much lower price. Maybe she makes a
different book on tape, reading the words herself instead of using the
recording of Alice. When Eve got caught doing this, the fines would fly.


What you are describing, the object being publicly available, does not
suddenly invalidate Alice's right to determine how her work is used.
That is what copyright really is. And this works for radio broadcasts as
well. The musician (or copyright house) owns the music, and they are
allowing the station to broadcast it. They are not giving anything away,
but allowing the listeners to hear it without paying a fee.

*I don't know much about international copyright, or copyright laws in
other countries.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:01:00 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> Alice the Author writes a book, sells the manuscript to a publisher,
> Bob, who buys the right to print that book. That may be in straight
> cash, or part of the profit, doesn't matter really. Alice still has his
> copyright, because she wrote the book on her time and not as part of a
> "work-for-hire".

Except that at least in my experience, the contract for the publishing 
rights includes a transfer of the copyright to the publisher for the 
duration of the print cycle.  That's to prevent the author from going to 
a second publisher and assigning publishing rights to them.

If a publisher makes an investment for publishing a book, they want to 
protect that investment.  Rights (again in my experience) revert to the 
author only when the book is declared out of print by the publisher.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:01:00 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> 
>> Alice the Author writes a book, sells the manuscript to a publisher,
>> Bob, who buys the right to print that book. That may be in straight
>> cash, or part of the profit, doesn't matter really. Alice still has his
>> copyright, because she wrote the book on her time and not as part of a
>> "work-for-hire".
> 
> Except that at least in my experience, the contract for the publishing 
> rights includes a transfer of the copyright to the publisher for the 
> duration of the print cycle.  That's to prevent the author from going to 
> a second publisher and assigning publishing rights to them.
> 
> If a publisher makes an investment for publishing a book, they want to 
> protect that investment.  Rights (again in my experience) revert to the 
> author only when the book is declared out of print by the publisher.
> 
> Jim

I was making up a story where a vague contract, which in my mind
transfered the rights to the work (not the copyright) as a time-limited
exclusive, non-exclusive after some time limit, sub-licensable, and I
didn't even consider if it was a transferable license. The story didn't
need it. I haven't actually seen a contract that was worded such that
complete copyright was transfered from one party to another and then
returned at a set future time. Rights to a copyrighted work, sure, but
never the actual copyright.

So it depends on the contract. In photography, and at the art department
of a certain university, copyright transfers are very rarely done. While
in the engineering departments, students sign a form before enrolling in
freshman classes stating that any code they write for assignments or
using substantial amounts of university equipment is considered
derivative work or is assigned to the school. Every field has it's own
expectations.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:16:08 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:01:00 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> 
>>> Alice the Author writes a book, sells the manuscript to a publisher,
>>> Bob, who buys the right to print that book. That may be in straight
>>> cash, or part of the profit, doesn't matter really. Alice still has
>>> his copyright, because she wrote the book on her time and not as part
>>> of a "work-for-hire".
>> 
>> Except that at least in my experience, the contract for the publishing
>> rights includes a transfer of the copyright to the publisher for the
>> duration of the print cycle.  That's to prevent the author from going
>> to a second publisher and assigning publishing rights to them.
>> 
>> If a publisher makes an investment for publishing a book, they want to
>> protect that investment.  Rights (again in my experience) revert to the
>> author only when the book is declared out of print by the publisher.
>> 
>> Jim
> 
> I was making up a story where a vague contract, which in my mind
> transfered the rights to the work (not the copyright) as a time-limited
> exclusive, non-exclusive after some time limit, sub-licensable, and I
> didn't even consider if it was a transferable license. The story didn't
> need it. I haven't actually seen a contract that was worded such that
> complete copyright was transfered from one party to another and then
> returned at a set future time. Rights to a copyrighted work, sure, but
> never the actual copyright.

Now I need to find my contract, if I still have it.  The first book was 
published in 1994 and declared out of print in 2002 (IIRC), so I may not 
have it any more.  I do remember that there was specifically a clause 
that addressed this issue, because the rights reverted to us (my coauthor 
and I) on declaration by the publisher about it being out of print.

The reason it sticks in mind was that the contract actually had an error 
in it and we had to have a lawyer review it, because the second book was 
being published through a new publisher.  The contract was intended to 
say that if we did another book on the same topic, the original publisher 
had to have the right of first refusal.  But the actual contract didn't 
list our topic, but "Windows 95" (which isn't what our book was about).  
So we didn't inform the first publisher (whom we were unhappy with 
because they didn't do the marketing they said they would) and selected a 
new publisher.  The day the new book was released, we both got a letter 
from the first publisher - declaring the first book out of print.

We were concerned they might try to take legal action against us, but our 
lawyer said that they messed up the original contract and signed it, so 
it's their own fault and they'd have no case, because a contract is all 
about what's written into the contract, not what was *intended* to be put 
in there but wasn't.

> So it depends on the contract. In photography, and at the art department
> of a certain university, copyright transfers are very rarely done. While
> in the engineering departments, students sign a form before enrolling in
> freshman classes stating that any code they write for assignments or
> using substantial amounts of university equipment is considered
> derivative work or is assigned to the school. Every field has it's own
> expectations.

That makes sense to me, and would clearly be a different situation 
entirely. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> Yes, http://www.webcitation.org/5iZbZU3o9 or any of the lawsuits against
> file sharing websites.

Lawsuits against file sharing websites are when the original authors/owners 
explicity do NOT give away their work for free.  Of course they are going to 
sue when people then go ahead and copy it.

> In the USA, and elsewhere*, just because a work is available does not
> mean it is okay to copy it.

I meant completely freely available, with the permission of the author.  eg 
when a band or author authorises their song/book/whatever to be distributed 
via the internet or bitTorrent or whatever with no charge/contract.  In that 
case I don't think they would be able to (successfully) sue if someone 
wanted to charge for copying the works.

> Alice the Author writes a book, sells the manuscript to a publisher,
> Bob, who buys the right to print that book. That may be in straight
> cash, or part of the profit, doesn't matter really. Alice still has his
> copyright, because she wrote the book on her time and not as part of a
> "work-for-hire". So, now that Bob's company has permission to print that
> book, they do. Bob starts selling those books, expecting to make a
> profit. Alice might even do a reading from the book for a promotional
> tour, or books on tape.
>
> Now, Eve else comes along, buys a copy of the book and takes it to her
> own publishing house. She makes some quick copies of the book, and puts
> them back on the market at a much lower price. Maybe she makes a
> different book on tape, reading the words herself instead of using the
> recording of Alice. When Eve got caught doing this, the fines would fly.
>
> What you are describing, the object being publicly available,

I meant when the object is publicly available *for free*.  Using your 
example, if Alice decided she would give away free copies of her book to 
anyone who wanted them, or if it was an eBook, freely downloadable from any 
website.  Then Eve comes along and makes her own version (maybe printed in a 
different way, or on a website with some support contract etc) and *sells* 
it for money.  In that case Alice can't go to court and say that she is 
being damaged financially by Eve's actions.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> I meant completely freely available, with the permission of the author. 
> eg when a band or author authorises their song/book/whatever to be
> distributed via the internet or bitTorrent or whatever with no
> charge/contract.  In that case I don't think they would be able to
> (successfully) sue if someone wanted to charge for copying the works.
> 

That is not how I understood the argument you were making. I read the
postcard argument up thread as duplicating the postcard itself by means
of a camera and printer. That would be a copyright violation, since you
are copying their picture directly.

I only thought that because you had suggested that radio broadcasts were
being displayed to the public and should have no copyright. Same as a
postcard on display in a public place.

Upon re-reading the discussion, I take it that you meant someone going
out and taking a picture of the same statue. In that case the
photographer could, I think, sell the picture, at least in the USA. US
Code title 17, chapter 1, section 120 covers the copyright of
architectural works that are visible from public spaces. Section 113
covers sculptures or other visual work sold or displayed to the public.
I can't parse 113 this early in the morning to work out all the fine
details, but first glance tells me that is how it works.

IANAL, TINLA

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> I meant completely freely available, with the permission of the author. 
> eg when a band or author authorises their song/book/whatever to be
> distributed
> via the internet or bitTorrent or whatever with no charge/contract.  In
> that case I don't think they would be able to (successfully) sue if
> someone wanted to charge for copying the works.

There is a LOT of freeware software that is non-redistributable. Or can only
be redistributed if you follow certain terms.

Post a reply to this message