Copyright

[Glenn NK]

[QUOTE=davidedric;437690][QUOTE]So if you accidentally drop your camera (God forbid!) and the shutter button was accidentally pressed in the process (impossible to happen but you'll never know...), the world owns the copyright if it happened to be that good of a shot?

Not quite. Clearly, dropping your camera was an act of God, so it follows that.........

Not so quick - what if the camera was insured - does the insurance company have any legal right to the image too? I suppose it depends on the exact time when the shutter was activated - if you pressed the shutter just as it the camera was falling it could be yours - if the shutter was pressed as the camera hit the ground and broke, the insurance company may technically be the owner of the camera and . . . . . we'll see you in court.

G

[Inkanyezi]

You didn't answer my question about whether a copyright is an intellectual right.

But why do you ask such an obvioius thing? Quite clearly copyright is an intellectual property right, but you tore out one part of a sentence from a paragraph, orphaning it, and added [Copyright], which did not appear in that paragraph. The paragraph distinctly stated that rules are different in different countries. The obfuscated quote was misleading and did not convey what was in that paragraph.

[Mike Buckley]

But why do you ask such an obvioius thing? Quite clearly copyright is an intellectual property right,

If had been obvious or quite clear to me, I wouldn't have asked. Just because something is obvious and clear to you doesn't make it obvious and clear to everyone else and it's insulting and very rude to suggest that it should be.

This is the end of my discussion with you.

[John 2]

Mike, rights like copyright, design rights etc. are all Intellectual Property and like all property, can be owned and like all property, can be sold, leased (licenced) or signed away under contract. In the UK, intellectual property developed by a company using it's employees is owned as of right by the company. Where it commissions work from a third party, including contract labour, the author can technically retain some rights. However, where this is the case, it is normal for the commissioning contract to include agreement that the rights in any original work will either vest in the company commissioning the work or that the company will have a licence to use the work FOC in its business. This isn't greed, its just recognition that the commissioned work will probably be incorporated into a much larger body of work and the last thing that a company can allow is that one or more other people have part control of their marketable designs. - and if this isn't clear I'm not surprised but at least you will now know why patent lawyers all drive around in expensive cars.

[Mike Buckley]

That makes sense, John. Thanks much for taking the time to explain it.

Based on that, I gather that when an author not employed by the publisher writes a book and the publisher owns the copyright, the transfer of copyright from the author to the publisher happened by way of an agreement between the two parties. If I've got that wrong, please let me know.

[Glenn NK]

Mike:

I think you have it right.

There are many music composers that are dead and the copyright to their music has been transferred to others (usually large music publication companies). Good examples are Richard Rogers, Oscar Hammerstein, George Gershwin, and the list goes on. Unfortunately for Beethoven and his heirs, there was no such thing in his time - I think it would have been priceless.

But ensuring one has the copyright of one's creations is another matter, and another matter for discussion. With music, there are several method of ensuring ownership. The most effective is covered in this link:

http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/2013/0...ht-your-music/

And for photos:

http://photosecrets.com/how-do-i-copyright-my-photos

The laws of the US and Canada vary slightly but in essence they work the same way. And being in Canada, I cannot use the intellectual musical property of a musician that has copyrighted his/her work in the US without repercussions.

Glenn

[John 2]

Mike I think that it depends on circumstance and I guess where you live. In the UK, popular author may well own the copyright in the story but UK law differentiates between that and for instance an edition of the book. So that a publisher may well have rights in a folio edition that has been illustrated and morocco bound (to quote Messrs' Hope and Crosby). Similarly, if a publisher commissions a text book that is only an assemblage of public domain information, then it is probably the way in which it is presented to the reading public that is the IP and the publisher will almost certainly retain the rights in it. None the less, I would be surprised if the commission contract doesn't ensure that this is the case. A few words of warning though. 1. - Things might be slightly different in the US. 2. - I'm getting rusty on the subject in my old age. 3. - nothing is certain in the world of civil law and......see my final comment in the previous post.

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you to John and Glenn. All of that makes sense.

[revi]

That makes sense, John. Thanks much for taking the time to explain it.

Based on that, I gather that when an author not employed by the publisher writes a book and the publisher owns the copyright, the transfer of copyright from the author to the publisher happened by way of an agreement between the two parties. If I've got that wrong, please let me know.

That's exactly how it happens: I wrote some scientific articles, and one of the accompanying documents the publishers require is a transfer of copyright, which gives the publisher the exclusive right to publish the articles (i.e. even the original authors have to ask permission to e.g. re-use a figure). I guess the same happens to books.

[Inkanyezi]

It is all a maze really, but I think some clarification might be in place regarding transferred rights.

The copyright expires 70 years after the author's death, no matter what agreement has been made. A publisher's copyright then also expires, so any work where the original author has been dead more than 70 years is free. The expiry time was changed in 1996, as Bayern wished to retain rights to the works of Adolf Hitler, but it is under dispute whether this could be used retroactively. Here in Sweden, the book was withdrawn for fear of processing. Anyway it will be moot in 2016.

Hence all intellectual property, where the author died before 1944 (or 1646) is free, whether a publisher has an agreement or not.

When the original author is unknown to the public, rights expires 50 years after the first publishing date.

So there are conditions for a publisher when using the rights of another, and the intellectual right in most cases remains by the original author; it cannot be sold or transferred in most of the world. There are three different traditions of author's rights, and two of them apply in Europe, the English and the French traditions. The USA has its own ways as usual, ans US copyright within the USA is a rather special case. Outside of the USA, US law on copyright apply to the definition of the right. Whenever there is a transgression, local law in the country where the infringement took place applies. Even if fantasy figures for repair can be acquired in US court, this is not possible in most of the world. US law representatives in many cases haven't recovered expenses when suing in foreign courts, even when cases are won.

[dabhand]

That's exactly how it happens: I wrote some scientific articles, and one of the accompanying documents the publishers require is a transfer of copyright, which gives the publisher the exclusive right to publish the articles (i.e. even the original authors have to ask permission to e.g. re-use a figure). I guess the same happens to books.

It's also equally true when you make your graduate / post-graduate submissions and/or papers to the majority of universities - and to the point revi makes, yes as an original author of the above generally does have to ask permission, though publishing an extract / summary is typically allowed - especially if it points to a url for a paid for complete document

Equally if a corporate body, individual etc commisions work to a third party, they would generally include an ownership statement such that copyright was vested in the commissioning body and not the authors - else authors would be free to multi-sell that work.

This is also why, if copyright was available in Beethoven's time, he may not have benefitted too greatly as most of the works of artists in those days were undertaken as commissions - eg: his 3rd & 4th symphonies were commissioned by Count Franz von Oppersdorff, the 9th by The Royal Society etc.

steve

[Inkanyezi]

This is also why, if copyright was available in Beethoven's time, he may not have benefitted too greatly as most of the works of artists in those days were undertaken as commissions - eg: his 3rd & 4th symphonies were commissioned by Count Franz von Oppersdorff, the 9th by The Royal Society etc.

It should be noted that "copyright" never existed in any of those countries where Beethoven worked. So even if commissioned, if author's rights were applied as in Europe, he would have retained his rights.

There is a sharp line between economic rights, that can be transferred by licensing according to an agreement between parties, and the author's intellectual rights, which in most of Europe are not transferrable. A company may have acquired the right to use work of an author, but will never assume authorship of same work. Depending on licensing conditions, signed by parties, author and company, the rights of the company will depend entirely upon what agreement was made. There are also laws in several countries limiting what can be agreed upon and how, so an agreement under certain conditions might be void.

It seems to be a common misunderstanding about copyright and author's rights, and that the same rules might apply internationally. It is not so. Copyright for an author's work may be acquired by a company in those countries where copyright is legally recognised. There might be rules for that right that differs, depending on country. The author's rights are inalienable, but recognised to different degree in different countries. Generally, economic rights are transferrable, while intellectual rights are not. And transferred rights always can be limited by the contract between parties.

[dan marchant]

.....and the intellectual right in most cases remains by the original author; it cannot be sold or transferred in most of the world.

Intellectual property rights certainly can be sold/transferred/licensed in most any country that is a signatory of the Berne Convention. There is one element of Intellectual Property rights that exists in some (but not all) countries and is known as Moral Rights - the right to be identified as the author of a work (regardless of who owns the copyright). In some countries (France is one) you can sell/license copyright but can not be made to give up your moral rights.

[Inkanyezi]

Of course I have not made myself perfectly clear, but that would take more space than most would care to read, and many people are unable to parse such amounts of text, suffice to say that reading only one of those laws from one country is often too much.

But there has been a few hints.

The fact that one party has a right to use the work of another, does not automagically imply other rights than using it under certain conditions. In any case where the intellectual rights proprietor has been careful not to give away too much, i.e. granting exclusive and unlimited rights of usage, there will be no right for the licensee to persecute usage of the intellectual property by other parties, neither will it imply that the licensee's usage is unlimited.

Therefore, neither registering copyright, nor stating that someone owns it, implies that there is an exclusive right for that party of publishing the material. It is all in the contract between parties, and to successfully persecute purported infringements, the contract between the "copyright" holder and the natural intellectual property owner must be presented.

True, that most intellectual rights may be transferred - by a contract between parties - but the conditions of that contract are crucial, regarding the rights of the licensee. Any claims by a licensed party regarding purported infringements, must be supported by those contract conditions, in order to successfully persecute someone else's usage of the intellectual property. There are literally billions of stated "copyrights" that are not even worth the bits that carry the message, as those rights can be severely limited, and many companies have been disappointed that intellectual property they think they have bought, does not belong to them - whether it was commissioned or not in the first place. There are cases of transgression where a licensee has misunderstood the conditions, believing that commissioning the work in the first place would imply exclusive rights and rights for unlimited usage.

Infringements can be of different kinds; either infringements of the author's rights or breach of contract. If the intellectual property owner breaks the agreement with a licensed party, it is not a matter of intellectual property infringement regarding the work, but regarding the contract between them. And if someone else uses intellectual property that has been licensed to one party, the infringement is against the intellectual property owner, who is not necessarily the licensed party. Only when the licensee has exclusive right to use the property will that be the case. Licensed rights may be limited in various ways, as number of publishing instances, time when the work may be used, or other contract conditions.

Wikipedia has rather authoritative article about copyright and copyright registration, and in the USA, registration has some legal implications, although it does not prove that any rights of the registered work belong to the party that has registered.

[John 2]

We have to be careful not to misuse terminology.

- COPYRIGHT, amongst many others, is an INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
- Under the Berne convention, OWNERSHIP of copyright automatically accrues to the author. For a period, the US required registration for this to be true but I believe that this is no longer the case.
- The owner has control of the property (RIGHTS in the property) including the right to allow someone else to use that property, usually under specific conditions (a LICENCE giving a USER RIGHT). The owner also has the right to transfer the OWNERSHIP of the IP to another party under contract which in the UK, is known as an ASSIGNMENT.
- Where an original owner transfers ownership, he/she loses all control of the IP except that he/she may retain a "Moral Right". This allows the original owner to be recognised as the author and can prevent use of the transferred IP in an unsuitable way e.g. turning your innocent story into a porn movie (perhaps).

I would be surprised if the above is not true in any country that subscribes to the Berne convention. I suspect that where differences exist, they will be in the way that IP is transferred or licenced. For example the rules governing sales contracts in England differ from those in Scotland and since Scottish Law has more in common with the Law applied in continental Europe, the same differences may be true of say Germany, France, Spain and Italy. However, US law has some roots in English Law and I would expect some similarities. I'm not sure about Scandinavia.

Finally, because the creator of an original work automatically owns the copyright, the use of the copyright symbol ("c" in a circle), the use of the phrase "All Rights Reserved" or registering your copyright (UK/US +??) are not necessary for ownership but are effective ways of putting the world at large on notice that you own the IP and more importantly, that you don't intend to allow free use of it. They protect agains the IP inadvertently falling into the Public Domain (another subject) and stops anyone claiming that they "didn't know" that a copyright exists.