Persistence of Copyright

Iirc the change in US law from 50 years to 70 years was made retroactive too.
But when it was done here in Oz (as part off an FTA) it wasn't.


Now however our government is talking of practically removing it.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Q: How do you determine that your use of a piece of a work is fair use?

A: You don't. Fair use is a defense you can present if you get sued, and the judge gets to determine if it's fair use. There are some principles and guiding decisions, but it's an affirmative defense, not a right.

IP law is a morass. And IP lawyers are well paid to navigate it for you. The first rule is do not mess with Disney.

kzt wrote:Q: How do you determine that your use of a piece of a work is fair use?

A: You don't. Fair use is a defense you can present if you get sued, and the judge gets to determine if it's fair use. There are some principles and guiding decisions, but it's an affirmative defense, not a right.

IP law is a morass. And IP lawyers are well paid to navigate it for you. The first rule is do not mess with Disney.

You really don't want to mess with the House of Mouse.

I have friend who got arrested for shoplifting a T-shirt at Disneyland and the shirt was printed with a Disney World motif. Now how does a person get busted for shoplifting a shirt made and purchased in Florida get shoplifted in California? They wanted her to produce the receipt for a purchase two years before.

This discussion is quite US centric. The US doesn't rule the world (yet), and other countries have different views, plus we don't have as litigating a culture.
A very small example is a current dispute about Ugg boots. These are sheepskin boots that are ugly and unfashionable yet comfortable. They have been available in Australia from many small suppliers for about 50 years, and the term is considered to be generic like riding boots. An American firm has now trademarked the term and is trying to sue small Australian manufacturers who are in the third generation of making them. The mood here is basically go elsewhere and fornicate. US law shouldn't have any bearing here.
Unless the US has managed to dominate copyright law up to the current Honorverse, I would imagine that it will be closer to the Chinese approach (if it looks good, copy it cheaper).

Daryl wrote:This discussion is quite US centric. The US doesn't rule the world (yet), and other countries have different views, plus we don't have as litigating a culture.
A very small example is a current dispute about Ugg boots. These are sheepskin boots that are ugly and unfashionable yet comfortable. They have been available in Australia from many small suppliers for about 50 years, and the term is considered to be generic like riding boots. An American firm has now trademarked the term and is trying to sue small Australian manufacturers who are in the third generation of making them. The mood here is basically go elsewhere and fornicate. US law shouldn't have any bearing here.
Unless the US has managed to dominate copyright law up to the current Honorverse, I would imagine that it will be closer to the Chinese approach (if it looks good, copy it cheaper).

As with many things it comes down do you have the ability to enforce your claims of ownership against other parties.

Daryl wrote:This discussion is quite US centric. The US doesn't rule the world (yet), and other countries have different views, plus we don't have as litigating a culture.
A very small example is a current dispute about Ugg boots. These are sheepskin boots that are ugly and unfashionable yet comfortable. They have been available in Australia from many small suppliers for about 50 years, and the term is considered to be generic like riding boots. An American firm has now trademarked the term and is trying to sue small Australian manufacturers who are in the third generation of making them. The mood here is basically go elsewhere and fornicate. US law shouldn't have any bearing here.
Unless the US has managed to dominate copyright law up to the current Honorverse, I would imagine that it will be closer to the Chinese approach (if it looks good, copy it cheaper).

Parts of it are. But the US was actually quite late to the automatic copyright and a term of life + 50+ year. Those appear to have been established in the 1976 Copyright Act. But they'd long been a part of the international Berne Copyright Convention (1886), which the US didn't sign until a century later in 1988.

Though the particular twist of retroactively extending the terms of existing copyrights was (AFAIK) a US specific absurdity.

Jonathan_S wrote:

Daryl wrote:This discussion is quite US centric. The US doesn't rule the world (yet), and other countries have different views, plus we don't have as litigating a culture.
A very small example is a current dispute about Ugg boots. These are sheepskin boots that are ugly and unfashionable yet comfortable. They have been available in Australia from many small suppliers for about 50 years, and the term is considered to be generic like riding boots. An American firm has now trademarked the term and is trying to sue small Australian manufacturers who are in the third generation of making them. The mood here is basically go elsewhere and fornicate. US law shouldn't have any bearing here.
Unless the US has managed to dominate copyright law up to the current Honorverse, I would imagine that it will be closer to the Chinese approach (if it looks good, copy it cheaper).

Parts of it are. But the US was actually quite late to the automatic copyright and a term of life + 50+ year. Those appear to have been established in the 1976 Copyright Act. But they'd long been a part of the international Berne Copyright Convention (1886), which the US didn't sign until a century later in 1988.

Though the particular twist of retroactively extending the terms of existing copyrights was (AFAIK) a US specific absurdity.

What if it isn't absurd but necessary to protect the credit worthiness of truly monolithic works whose "worth" is not completely fleshed out until many decades long after the author has been dead and buried - because of its quite cerebral and unprecedented nature.

Case: Einstein's works.

One thing is the long shelf life of profitability a media property can have. If your family is still getting good sizes royalty checks for something you great granddad wrote you would want to keep it that way.

Meaningless comparison:

a) ideas are not subject to copyright to start with

b) likely the only copyright Einstein held was in his letters - academic papers are copyright by the journal that publishes them, not the author[s]

cthia wrote:What if it isn't absurd but necessary to protect the credit worthiness of truly monolithic works whose "worth" is not completely fleshed out until many decades long after the author has been dead and buried - because of its quite cerebral and unprecedented nature.

Case: Einstein's works.

Louis R wrote:Meaningless comparison:

a) ideas are not subject to copyright to start with

b) likely the only copyright Einstein held was in his letters - academic papers are copyright by the journal that publishes them, not the author[s]

cthia wrote:What if it isn't absurd but necessary to protect the credit worthiness of truly monolithic works whose "worth" is not completely fleshed out until many decades long after the author has been dead and buried - because of its quite cerebral and unprecedented nature.

Case: Einstein's works.

Not quite. Einstein also held over 50 patents. Why would you think that he didn't hold any copyrights - when he worked at the patent office itself?
https://www.quora.com/How-many-patents- ... stein-have

Besides, just the title of his works could have been copyrighted. Since to qualify for copyright protection, a work needs only to possess “a significant amount of original expression”— and although book titles does not generally qualify. Einstein's subject matter may have.

Besides, I cited Einstein as an example of monolithic works, not as a patent and copyright holder - though he is.

Dammit Shannon!... forgot to post this link...
http://press.princeton.edu/einstein/copyright.html

Probably should be posted as well...
http://www.albert-einstein.org/archives13.html