Or he could’ve taken the “more money than he needs” and bought a life insurance policy to provide for this daughters.
The problem with this is Google and MS honor them regardless. If you are served a DMCA notice on your site, and respond in kind, and are right, there’s nothing you can do. But the company will also serve Google. Google won’t remove your site from the index but won’t count the links. So your site will fall in rankings and a lot of people have been highly critical of Google as it doens’t check to see whether DMCA notices have merit. Most notably it occured when Scientology sent DMCA notices to Google and Anti-Scientology sites tumbled down the Google ranks. In that case Google eventually returned to the status quo.
But that is an exception.
Your site will still come up in Google if the URL is typed in the search, but the ranking and page rank and links become basically “no follows” to Googlebot
This actually has no impact on me, as I don’t give a rat’s ass if Google or anyone else links to my site. In fact, by robots.txt file is set to “disallow all”.
First, note that Mickey Mouse was created in 1928, so that unlike Twain any material containing the Mouse is subject to a different set of guidelines.
Second, note that copyright and trademark are separate bodies of law. Once the first Disney cartoons featuring Mickey passes out of copyright, which will be in 2023, it will mean nothing except that anyone who wants to sell copies of Steamboat Willie (or otherwise use its images) can do so without Disney’s permission. After that each individual cartoon will pass into the public domain as its 95 years end.
Any other use of the Mouse likeness will still be protected by trademark. The monetary effect on Disney will be negligible. I can’t think of any effect on Disney that would be other than negligible.
Why was the copyright term extended by 20 years? Because the EU extended theirs. If it hadn’t been, materials would be in the public domain in the U.S. and protected in its largest markets. Chaos rather than penis would ensue.
Why do people blame Disney for the extension? I guess because it makes a good villain, like Starbucks or Wal-Mart, penalizable for its success. I assure you copyright would have been extended at the same time for the same 20 years if the Disney corporation did not exist.
I suppose the moral is: Never let reality interfere with a good public hating.
(Is copyright the correct length today? No, it’s probably too long. Does that have anything to do with anything when these arguments come up? No.)
I don’t see why that’s a good reason for passing the law. If the term was a good length previously, then leave it as it was. The United States does not generally go out of its way to fall into legislative lockstep with Europe for the sake of convenience; why do it here?
As for Disney, i don’t hate Disney for pushing for the law. They were acting in exactly the way that i expect corporations to act. The blame for this falls on the legislators.
Permanent copyright being a shitty idea is an opinion (of yours). Not a fact. And in regard to your other comment about the ability of anyone to post his works to the Internet, that’s simply not true. Take a look at the autobiography (in hardcover). It’s copyrighted. Putting it on the I-net doesn’t negate copyright.
I’m going to not get all pissy here (as you seem to have gotten pissy enough for both of us). My suspicion is that you’re more of a “legal eagle” than someone who actually understands the intricacies of literature, sarcasm, and other art forms (as mentioned in the citation you bastardized).
Take 'er easy, bro. MT’s comments to Congress were meant to make a point by poking fun at the legal institution taking advantage of artistic expression.
To not have a sense of humor about Twain is like shitting in a house of worship. Not cool.
I’ve got no beef here, I would suggest (to everyone in the whole darned world) that you read as much Twain as you can, and then rethink law in general (not just copyright).
No shit, Sherlock. You’re really awesome at stating the obvious! My opinion about permanent copyright being a stupid idea is, as you say, exactly that: an opinion. Just like Mark Twain’s opinion about copyright.
No, putting something on the internet does not negate copyright, as i’ve already made very clear in this thread.
But neither does placing a copyright claim on a 100+ year old work necessarily mean that the copyright claim is valid. If you have a bit of a look around the internet, you’ll see that the copyright status of the autobiography has drawn quite a bit of comment, with at least some people arguing that the copyright claim is unsustainable for a work that was written over a century ago.
This is especially debatable if the claim is that the new autobiography is a newly-published work, all by itself. The page i linked to earlier notes that, if the date of first publication is after 2002, then copyright on the material expires 70 years after the death of the author. In Twain’s case, this period is clearly up.
Of course, there’s the fact that parts of the autobiography have been published previously, and may thus fall under different rules regarding expiration of copyright. Even the Mark Twain Project’s own page on copyrights concedes that this is a thorny issue with such a large and sporadically-published collection, and that the copyright status of various works must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
One thing that is beyond dispute is that anything published during Twain’s own lifetime is out of copyright, period. Which means that anyone can, in fact, take such texts and reproduce them however they like.
Sure you are. You already have, as your next sentences make very clear.
Who’s pissy now?
I have a great appreciation for Twain’s literary abilities, his sarcasm, and his humor. It’s not really him i have the beef with here, it’s you. You dragged his testimony into this thread as if it has something to tell us about the relevance of copyright law, and then when someone disagreed with you, you put your hands in the air and started whining about literary devices and sarcasm and humor.
I have a considerable sense of humor about Twain. I was just recently chuckling over some of my favorite sections of Roughing It while choosing selections from the book for the California history course i’m currently teaching.
It may satisfy your sense of self-worth to believe that disagreeing with you means that i cannot appreciate Twain, but it simply ain’t the case.
Is this really correct?
IANAL, but I’ve seen this point being discussed before. And the point is that the image is still protected by copyright.
The Mona Lisa, for example, is out of copyright. There is nothing to prevent you painting an exact copy and selling it. You may go to the Louvre and take a photo of it. And you own the copyright on your photo. If you post your photo on the internet, and someone copies it, they are violating your legal rights.
Likewise, while the original daguerreotype is out of copyright, any digital reproduction would be a new image, (derivative work, possibly?) and protected by copyright.
Or so I’ve heard.
You have heard incorrectly.
While there is no definitive controlling case on this issue, the most relevant case is the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation case, decided in the Southern District of New York in 1999.
In that case, the court found that a slavish copy of a two-dimensional artwork does NOT allow for a new claim of copyright, because it lacks any of the creative spark that copyright was designed to protect. The court noted that the plaintiff in the case had specifically sought to reproduce the out-of-copyright artwork as accurately as possible, and noted that while making a scan or a photographic reproduction might take some effort and technical skill, it does not require any originality or artistic ability.
Note that the same cannot be said for a photograph of a three-dimensional artwork like a sculpture, because the picture you take will depend on framing, angle, etc. etc. But in cases where a 2-D artwork is simply copied in order to show what it looks like, there court determined that this process is insufficient to support a claim of new copyright.
As i said, this is not a controlling case, As Gfactor (who is a lawyer) has previously explained on these boards, the fact that it was decided in a District Court means that courts in other jurisdictions are not bound by the decision. But most legal scholars and copyright lawyers seem to be of the opinion that this issue has not been taken to trial again in the period since 1999 precisely the Bridgeman v. Corel decision was correct and reflected the intention of copyright law.
Here’s some of the text of the decision:
Regarding your example of the Mona Lisa, your ability to assert copyright over the image would depend upon exactly what your picture contained. For example, if it were something like this, in which the painting itself was only part of a wider photograph, that you composed from a distance, you definitely have copyright over the image.
But if you get close enough to take a picture that looks like this, you’re pretty much out of luck regarding copyright.
Okay, ignorance fought. Thanks for your answer.
To be fair, the idea that you can claim copyright on a direct copy of a two-dimensional artwork is one of the most widely-held misconceptions, and you’ll find plenty of people on the internet claiming exactly the same thing. In the absence of a controlling decision, the best we can say is that it’s an unsettled issue, but that most legal scholars believe that Bridgeman v. Corel was the proper decision.
Regarding Mickey Mouse, I think it was completely reasonable for Disney to want to keep control over characters they designed and that they still make revenue from. What I don’t understand is why they didn’t just extend the copyright for film companies or for logos; instead they stretched the copyright for authors to ridiculous lengths.
Gone With the Wind, for example, will enter public domain in 2031, 95 years after it’s creation and 82 years after the death of Margaret Mitchell. It will benefit the distant descendants of Margaret Mitchell’s brother (i.e. people the author never knew and wouldn’t realistically have cared to provide for). In Australia it entered public domain in the 1990s due to their “life + 50 years” laws and has a bestselling (obviously non-authorized) sequel that can’t be sold in America.
Disney themselves were sued by descendants of Victor Hugo over Hunchback of Notre Dame when the film played in France, though I’m not sure how that suit came out.
All of this is particularly ridiculous when you realize that books like Gone With the Wind that are still in print generations after they were published represent less than 1% of 1% of all books. The vast majority of all books will be out of print within years and that doesn’t even mean they were failures- some were runaway bestsellers even- but their lifespan is limited. However, under current laws if you wanted to use an excerpt from a 1924 U.S. history textbook you’d have to track down the copyright holder who like as not would be great-grandchild of the author and next to impossible to find and probably with little to no idea that their great-grandpa wrote a book.
Without repeating what mhendo wrote well, I think the key difference is US versus UK. In the UK, “sweat of the brow” creates copyright, which IMO and that of many legal scholars which I’ve read is an incorrect way to interpret copyright, but there you go. IIRC you live in the UK? Which may be why you are confused - in the US, sweat of the brow does not create copyright for 2D works because it is not creative.
Furthermore, the landmark Bridgeman case has been cited in numerous other cases which have affirmed its principles in the (see Wikipedia for more information).
This does not prevent millions of cases of false claims of copyright from being made on the Internet and in hardcopy publication, because there’s no real liklihood of any penalty being enforced over a false, negligent, or fraudulent claim of copyright. Most all of the large public domain sites out there put “copyright me, me, ME!” on every page and every work, and many promise dire “consequences”. Some who are well aware of Bridgeman post long, rambling, pseudo-legalese scarecrow text (or real legalese) which has fooled people on this message board (who have posted about it). If I had my way a negligent or fraudulent claim of copyright would be punishable by a $10,000 fine per work so labeled, as false claims of copyright dilute the value of the works of the true artists, authors (like myself), photographers, and others who are out there actually creating new, creative works.
Twain’s autobiography is already out of copyright. Any new copyright notice on a hardcopy book can only apply to such items as an added introduction, forward, annotations, and other new creative works from those who wrote in the modern era. But Twain’s words are now public domain - so says Project Gutenberg, which has actually done the legal research due diligence. Please pay attention to the cites people have posted in here with respect to copyright law.
Now you’re the one being pissy to mhendo. Cut it out.
Yes
So, a photo of a painting, or a daguerreotype *would *be copyrighted under UK law? Is that correct?
I did not know that! Thanks for making the distinction.
I also didn’t realize that Peter Morris is in the UK; i was, of course, speaking only in terms of my own knowledge about the United States.
Photography is a strange thing as well. When I lived in Milledgeville GA some photo company (i.e. a company that sells photographs for use in books/documentaries/etc.) was offering pictures of the interior of this house that belonged to Flannery O’Connor’s mother and where she spent most of her childhood and teen years and occasional periods of time thereafter.* They were immediately hit with a c&d when the owners of the home (cousins of O’Connor) learned of their existence. They had no choice but to comply since the pics were made inside the home without the owner’s permission.
To complicate matters: the house was unoccupied and mostly unfurnished, but it was well guarded with security systems and a private security company that did occasional drivebys of the place. There was never any sign of a burglary or alarm set-off, so clearly whoever took the pics was allowed in, and as these were classified as b/w “art photography” with furniture deliberately arranged for lighting and dramatic effect it was clear that whoever took them probably had all the time in the world and professional training. It was generally assumed they were made by local professional photographers or photography students who either were let in by a security guard (the security service hired a lot of students) or by one of the cousins who had access and either didn’t realize the photographer planned to profit or that the family would have such strong objections or was cut in on the money.
ANYHOO, the photographs were taken down, the negatives (they were made on film, not digital) were sent to the O’Connor heirs, and an apology was posted. I am guessing the fact there was trespassing involved is what made these actionable since you can take all the pics you want of the outside of the house without anybody’s permission.
At the same time, if a paparazzi standing on a far away cherry picker takes zoom lens pics of Miley Cyrus and Ed Asner skinnydipping in the lovenest they share it’s apparently completely legal for them to sell it to the tabloids the same as if the celebs had been walking naked on their front lawn, even though all reasonable precautions for privacy were taken (e.g. on their own property, privacy hedges and fencing, etc.). For that matter if a celeb is walking around inside of their own house and again nobody could see them unless they happened to be standing on a rooftop half a mile away shooting through a telescopic zoom lens, it’s apparently not considered and invasion of privacy, yet if they used a device that greatly amplifies sound to record a celeb on their own property talking to their drug dealer then it IS considered invasion of privacy.
Very complicated field.
*Flannery fans may know of Andalusia, the family plantation; it’s about 8 miles from this place.
Not to be pissy, but… from the copyright page of the Autobiography…
“Autobiography of Mark Twain, Volume 1 Copyright© 2010, 2001 by the Mark Twain Foundation. All Rights Reserved. Transcription, reconstruction, and creation of the texts, introduction, notes, and appendixes Copyright© 2010 by The Regents of the University of California. The Mark Twain Foundation expressly reserves to itself, its successors and assigns, all dramatization rights in every medium, including without limitation, stage, radio, television, motion picture, and public reading rights, in and to the Autobiography of Mark Twain and all other texts by Mark Twain in copyright to the Mark Twain Foundation.”
So… “no shit, Sherlock,” as has been said.
It may be, depending upon the circumstances (i’m not trying to be wishy-washy, just trying to not overextend my knowledge of UK copyright law).
Not to be pissy back, but so what? Cites were posted earlier in this thread as to whether or not something Mark Twain wrote can be copyrighted. If you reject those citations, then please post your citation of the law in the United States which says that they have a valid copyright. All of Twain’s works published in his lifetime were before 1923. His autobiography was published in 1924 by Harper & Brothers publishers.
Using the Table linked to by Exapno Mapcase, we see that the copyright term is “Author’s life + 702 (§ 302(a))” This means 1980, since Twain died in 1910. There is a footnote to that which reads “2. No works enter the public domain by expiration of copyright between 01 January 1998 and 31 December 2018.” Since the work expired in 1980, the footnote does not apply.
Next, see this analysis of the work for more information - the author here essentially repeats what I said, which was that the only parts which could be copyrighted are:
Just because “The Mark Twain Foundation” alleges copyright does not mean they have any copyright at all. ANYONE can claim copyright over something in the public domain with no real legal repercussions for doing so. If what they did was take Twain’s notes and re-arrange and edit them, then yes, they may have some claim of copyright on the edited works. But then, those works aren’t Mark Twain’s words anymore, it’s what someone creatively interpreted them to be.
The claim you posted by the Mark Twain Foundation that:
…is very cleverly worded. See that bolded part? They’re just saying they have all rights to anything copyrighted by them - that’s different from saying they hold copyright over Mark Twain’s works.
Let’s stop this fussin’ and feudin’ - if you reject the evidence that the copyright claim is false or misleading at best then please post your counter-citation. If you’re just uncertain and don’t know who is correct then I respect that too.