A Lot More About Copyright Law Than You Wanted to Know
January 31, 2005Thanks to interbiznet.com, I located an interesting posting about copyright laws.
Written in an easy to read style, the concepts discussed here are highly useful to anyone (e.g., bloggers) who might consider using (in the broad sense of the term) materials created by others (or, even their own materials they wish to protect).
Here are a couple of myths that are considered and shattered in the posting:“If it doesn’t have a copyright notice, it’s not copyrighted.”
The website can found here.
“If I don’t charge for it, it’s not a violation.”
Related Posts
You’re Too Young: New Changes in Child Labor Laws
On the Importance of Being a Good Host (Interviewer): Some Tips for Leaving a Good Impression on Job Candidates
I’m calling about a reference for a prospective employee….
Illegal Sears Tower workers arrested in crackdown arising from security concerns
Creating A Blogging Policy: Suggestions For Companies
This entry was posted
on Monday, January 31st, 2005 at 12:42 pm and is filed under General.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
2 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
If you want to leave a feedback to this post or to some other user´s comment, simply fill out the form below.
Comment by George
I fear that worrying too much about copyright litigation could be very stifling to free exchange of information in the blogosphere. So could ignoring it altogether. I’d stretch fair use a bit. Credit and links should be given, and quotation marks and ellipses used. Some original commentary should be added, and the quoted material should represent only a portion of the original work. That’s what I try to do. Remember, we’re quoting something people are giving away to the whole world for free by putting it out in cyberspace.
To keep it all in perspective, here’s the most important point in the article, though I don’t know if I’m allowed to quote it:
“While copyright law makes it technically illegal to reproduce almost any new creative work (other than under fair use) without permission, if the work is unregistered and has no real commercial value, it gets very little protection. The author in this case can sue for an injunction against the publication, actual damages from a violation, and possibly court costs. Actual damages means actual money potentially lost by the author due to publication, plus any money gained by the defendant. But if a work has no commercial value . . . the actual damages will be zero. Only the most vindictive (and rich) author would sue when no damages are possible, and the courts don’t look kindly on vindictive plaintiffs, unless the defendants are even more vindictive.”
Note the self-referential nature of my use of that quote. Is it a violation or fair use? By using it to ask that question have I turned it into commentary and thus fair use?
Comment by Anonymous
For your info, this is a new free service to take notes: http://www.klogger.com