Jump to content

Talk:Copyright law of the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 15:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

[edit]

As there appears to be no mention of the copyright acts enacted between 1962 and1974 (as plotted on Bell's graph Expansion of U.S. Copyright Term), I added a brief sentence and citation about these acts. MXYXYM (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity in ownership section

[edit]

"Copyright owners are required to actively enforce rights."
I just had a discussion with someone who took it to mean owners lose their copyright if they don't enforce it (which is a rumor I've heard before, but seems complete nonsense). Checking through the history, it seems to be a rewording of
"A person whose copyright has been violated (infringed upon) may pursue relief. These remedies, however, require the copyright holder to actively enforce his or her rights. There is no "copyright police" that enforces copyright without the right holder complaining."
This is not clear at all from the new sentence. Perhaps it could be re-reworded or further explained to prevent such misunderstandings? VDZ (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish clarification help in article and more emphasis on what is legal

[edit]
"The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,"

Is this means all humanists (that is not science) teaching books, videos and DVDs:

psychology, psychiatry, history, religion, politics, sexology, law and all social preaching, language learning materials are not copyrighted also because they are neither art nor science?

[teaching is not art, science is only: math, physic, engineering, chemistry, technology and maybe medical teaching is science but it is at least science of all sciences,]

[art is beautiful music, beautiful objects, beautiful stories even when they are ugly they need to be beauty or in pursuit of beauty, ugly sounds are not art, obscene things are not art. They cannot also be boring or ordinary.]


Object and learning materials that are ergonomic, are neither art nor science this is just putting things in order.


Are gossip material copyright free, even when they are decent because it is neither science, nor art?


Is my understanding of science/art versus humanistic material in line with constitutional law or not?

How constitution/law declares science?

I recall definition of science as discovering NEW laws of nature and NEW ways of utilization of them.

In light of such definition even technology is not science, because it is about utilization of YET KNOWN(to the science) laws of nature and perfecting and developing (by means of engineering) YET KNOWN(to the science) ways of their utilization .

{And CopyRight is given To promote the Progress constituted by Change and involving NEW things.}

Can history, teaching philosophy of evaluating testimonies and evidences in lawsuit and criminology {spiritual thing based on free will} be accounted by extension as science?

Does authority have constitutional right to grant copyright outside of constitution provision?

What if they do it outside constitution provision?

I would like to appeal to Wikipedia authors for such clarification. Especially the detailed use of definitions of science and art.

And what about Videos of sport meeting ?

And by The way: 

"by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right"

Does it allow copyright after death? [no rights for inheritances of such right for progeny of Authors and Inventors] and what if producers are concerns and corporations who never die but only bankrupt or undergo fusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.108.116.149 (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Apparently translations do get copyrighted at least in some circumstances. What are those? Palosirkka (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A translation is one kind of a derivative work, see definition of "derivative work," § 101. To the extent a derivative work amounts to an original work of authorship, it's subject to copyright, § 103. TJRC (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Copyright.gov

[edit]

"While copyright in the United States automatically attaches upon the creation of an original work of authorship"

Here is a source for that statement.

"Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

When is my work protected? Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected? No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created."

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.201.255.48 (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Prof. Robert Gorman's Copyright Treatise for the Federal Judicial Center is an excellent free reference. Teachingaway (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

[edit]

Tag reason: The reference directly contracts this, providing examples of such sound recordings in the PD.--Elvey (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sentence is saying that we can't count on recordings being PD. I have no info on this subject, though. -- AimlessWonderer (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Does Copyright Law of the USA had powerful for any explains of a science ideas in the Wikipedia and in all electronicall nets which had powerful of the Law USA?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COPYRIGHT. The issue has been thoroughly explored, that section describes what's meaningful for Wikipedia editors. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Willful damanges $300,000?

[edit]

According to this source damages range from $750 to $30,000 not $300,000. 17 U.S. Code § 504 - Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits 162.17.205.153 (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a) consult a lawyer
b) That paragraph does not refer to willful violation. See subparagraph (d) lower down where it talks about increasing damages. I don't know if there are additional multipliers available elsewhere or in case law. As I mentioned, consult a lawyer.
Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, there is a clear contradiction of information (perhaps due to misstatement).

"Statutory damages can be awarded by the court within the range of $750 to $30,000" "Statutory damages range from $750 per work to $150,000 per work" and then for Willful damages: "... the range is $750 to $300,000 per work"

Why are these sources being used when the source number [46] clearly points toward the actual 504 statute?

"(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000." http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504

So then Willful damages are 750 - 150k, and the next section of clause (2) of 504 states that it can be reduced as low as 200 for unknowingly infringing copyrights. I'll adjust the page accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.101.248 (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US treatment of foreign copyrights (or vice versa)

[edit]

I'm looking for information on how copyrights from one country are treated by other countries, or more specifically, how copyrights from other countries are treated in the US.

I've looked at the article List of countries' copyright lengths: but that didn't help me answer my question.

More specifically, the question I'm trying to address is like this: suppose there is a magazine published (monthly) in the UK from 1900 to the present, with each issue copyrighted in the UK at the time of publication. (I don't know if it matters, but, iiuc, there were / are subscribers in the US who received copies mailed from the publisher.)

Which issues (by date) are in the public domain in the US?

Is there an article on Wikipedia which addresses this issue? If not, should it at least be covered somewhat in this article (even if it is to say that the issue is not covered and you probably need a lawyer (which doesn't seem like the right approach for Wikipedia))?

(Maybe a section titled "Treatment of Foreign Copyrights"?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhkramer (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

intro

[edit]

the current intro paragraph is crap.

i REALLY don't feel like "fighting it out" over a reword right now, but somebody (else) really should de-cruft it, & make it more on-topic for the actual subject; as per mos.

Lx 121 (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Copyright law of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does publication mean?

[edit]

In this context exactly? Seems like a critical piece of information. Palosirkka (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Copyright law of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

update re music modification act of 2018?

[edit]

Is anyone working on updating this page (or the history of copyright page) with regard to the Copyright Music Modernisation Act of 2018? I might be able to help unless someone else is doing it already...been a while since I've been active but this might interest me.

Saltwolf (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Table for "Duration of copyright" section

[edit]

To make it easier for people to understand upcoming copyright changes, I was wondering if we should add a table to the "Duration of copyright" section. Here is my first stab at it. By no means is this the only way to do it. We can use this as a starting point to discuss and maybe others can post their alternate table ideas. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Year original
copyright began		 up to 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934
Most Works
fall into public domain		 1998 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Audio & Music *
fall into public domain		 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
  • Note - Audio and Music includes lyrics and compositions.
Sorry but I don't see any advantage of your proposed table over the current chart. The current chart is sufficient and fully in line with the article context - i.e. The chart explains not only term years but also the history of copyright act revisions. Would you please explain why you need a new table? --ProfessorPine (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1) I never said "replace", notice the word add. 2) The first sentence says "To make it easier for people to understand upcoming copyright changes". • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. However, I still disagree with your idea. Graphical images (charts, tables or pictures) should be used to support text messages. The current chart is fully in line with the context. And I do not see any additional value if we insert your table into the context. The context explains the history of copyright act revisions. And the horizontal and vertical axes of the chart are set properly (i.e. how long, and which act revisions affect to which year of works). If you think it is hard to understand, you probably had better first change the writing instead of the chart. --ProfessorPine (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
oh my, you are still missing the point. My last reply. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Now that 2019 has arrived, I suggest that the following amendments should be made: - 1. Duration of copyright "Copyright protection generally lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. If the work was a "work for hire", then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter. For works created before 1978, the copyright duration rules are complicated. However, works created before 1924 (other than sound recordings) have made their way into the public domain. 2. Works created before 1978 - 3rd paragraph "All copyrightable works published in the United States before 1924 (other than sound recordings) are in the public domain"

Thoughts? Alekksandr (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now done, so far as not already done.Alekksandr (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

0580229508

[edit]

ZaNhh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:CE0:2001:2150:516E:9072:89F4:D23B (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question (lack of information in the article)

[edit]

Are there also individual legal bases for copyright that apply only in the individual states of the USA, but not in the entire state of the USA? 109.90.26.254 (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Copyright is federal only. lethargilistic (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Copyright_law_of_the_United_States&oldid=1263563791"