Welcome to the English language. Words have multiple senses based on context. E.g., the verb “raise”: does it mean make something higher, rear a child, what?
Context sometimes makes things clear. Sometimes it doesn’t. Saying “raise” shouldn’t be used as a verb due to ambiguity would be a ridiculous statement.
It’s a verb, get over it. If you are unhappy about the lack of context, then state that.
So you’re really just arguing for your right to remain ignorant.
I’m not telling you that the word “copyright” as a verb doesn’t exist in the English language. I’m telling you that in the context (see, there’s your context) of copyright law, it has no precise meaning.
How often are you going to discuss copyrights when copyright law is irrelevant?
And I’m telling you that so long as you use “copyright” as a verb, you will not understand how copyright law works. Citing to dictionaries won’t change that.
I’ll note that you have failed to offer any meaningful answer to the question of mine that you quoted.
You are asking someone else for clarification. I am pointing out that the reason you give for clarification is fallacious. The person who is (maybe) confusing you is the person who should provide clarification, if needed. But first, restate the reason. Second, don’t be so weirdly picky.
Citing a dictionary is a whole lot more exact than the claims of a random person posting to a message board.
Copyright has been a verb for over 200 years. Time to maybe get used to that?
I think the point is that it’s not meaningful in a legal sense. It would be the same as pointing to the dictionary definition of “theory” in an evolution-creationism debate. Common usage and technical usage aren’t the same and when dealing with some issues (be it science or legal) it’s important to use the right terminology.
You can use someone else’s copyright material “with permission”.
So the question is, having given a “blanket permission” to everyone, can the owner revoke it unilaterally?
I suppose technically it’s not a contract; but it can be argued, if I republish a copy of your book under a free permission, I am essentially giving you “free publicity” which in itself is a benefit - especially f you benefit materially from that publicity - i.e. your value on the lecture circuit may have gone up due to the publicity from a hundred publishers selling copies of your work.
(The similar argument is made over “free music”, that those marginal artists who give away their recordings on their websites may generate the buzz to increase concert attendance, land more concert gigs, etc.)
You have asserted that, but you haven’t shown that.
You STILL have not even suggested what precisely “to copyright” is supposed to mean in this discussion.
If you can’t even venture to propose a meaningful definition, let alone a definition that advances the conversation or the understanding of the concepts that are being discussed, then maybe you have come across a word that exists, but has no usefulness. Which is exactly my point.
I have stated the reason every time I have replied and I have restated in different ways.
Weirdly picky? Is that what you think this is about? Yes almost as if you haven’t actually read anything I’ve posted.
So do you think I am lying when I’m trying to explain copyright law, or inventing it from whole cloth? In that case why even bother to read my posts or reply to them?
What does this even mean? Why do you cling so passionately to using a word in a legal discussion when it has no clear legal meaning? What do you propose I do? Just arbitrarily assign it a meaning and pretend that everyone understands it?
But his point is valid. OK, let’s agree that “to copyright” is a perfectly fine construction, grammatically. He’s not arguing grammar. He’s asking you what it means when you say, “Bob copyrighted the book he wrote.”
Under our current law, Bob copyrighted the book by writing it. He didn’t have to call a lawyer or send a postcard to the USPTO or Library of Congress.
So when you say that someone copyrighted material, what do you mean, if you don’t mean that he just plain wrote it? If you do mean he just plain wrote it, then why would you say he copyrighted it? Why not just say he wrote it? If you mean to say he did something in addition to just plain writing it, what exactly did he do?
This is why Asencray is complaining. Not because verbing weirds language, but because copyright as a verb doesn’t explain anything.
Right. Registering a copyright gives you three benefits, in the US:
A copyright registration (like a real-estate deed and certain other specific legal documents that are registered with authorities) is assumed by the court to be valid. It is entered into the record without testimony. (Any other documents are merely “evidence” and have to be presented via testimony, which is one reason why the “mail to self” copyright is BS: who’s going to testify of its legitimacy?)
You can’t sue for infringement unless you’ve registered.
If the infringement was after you registered, you can be awarded additional (punitive) damages and attorneys’ fees.
I agree. It confuses the subject. The more useful concepts are:
Act 1 implicitly grants you a copyright.
Note that “copyrighted” is a useful adjective. “Is that work copyrighted?” The answer could be “no” in these cases:
The work hasn’t been recorded or written by the author.
It was created before [some date] and not registered by [some date]. (Sorry, don’t remember the dates, but they’re in the first half of 20th century.)
I disagree. Just wait until the copyright on Mickey Mouse is due to expire, and see what Disney does: they’ll try to extend it again. They were successful last time. Corporate interests are definitely at stake. Otherwise, why did they lobby to get it extended from 50 years to 70 years (after the author’s death) back before 1998?
I meant to say, “is assumed by the court to be valid unless proven otherwise.” Practically speaking, that might not amount to as much as it sounds.
Nn
Why? You’re a lawyer, as I recall, and you should be able to follow the tangled path as well as I. A short account refers to two major changes before 1998. One was the U.S. adopting the Berne Convention in 1989 and the other was the extension of copyright in the EU. The rationale for their doing so is normally assigned to the feeling that Mein Kampf should not be in the public domain. Attitudes have changed since that time. Germany has been moving toward allowing publication. In any case, it enters the public domain on Jan. 1, 2016. Even so, I don’t see any organized push toward extension there.
The U.S. was under immense pressure to coordinate its copyright dates with those of the huge European market. I’m sure Disney played a part - that’s what they pay their lawyers for. But European publishers, who were big then and now own most of U.S. houses, were crazy over the thought that works could enter the public domain in the U.S. 20 years before they did in Europe. It’s a prime example of globalization: getting one set of rules everywhere - or at least in all major markets - is critical for global corporations. Authors were not exactly unhappy at this either.
The bottom line is that there was pressure for an extension long before it happened. January 2016 is a mere 19 months away. If the EU is going to act you’d think there would be signs everywhere by now. If they don’t act, then any extension from the U.S. would put the two markets out of alignment. Nobody wants that. Would the U.S. do it anyway and try to force Europe to go along? Maybe. Who knows what Congress will ever do. But you don’t do something like that quietly.
That’s why I asked earlier for any evidence that a push for an extension is in the works. Not “corporations are evil.” Real world evidence.
And if you’re going to make a claim, get your facts straight. The “copyright on Mickey Mouse” is NOT “due to expire.” The copyright on the first Mickey Mouse film is due to expire. Disney will still own every other copyright, and all the important ones, and crucially, it will still own the trademark on the Mouse and all-Mouse related products. Which is worth [del]literally[/del] figuratively billions of times more.
But the OP refers to anything 1923 or after so “copyright” for this thread means taking the steps needed to obtain/renew a copyright given the laws at the time. It’s all well and good to talk about fixation in 2014 but suppose I find a recording from 1937 and no copyright was registered for it. Can I now get a copyright for it because that is pretty much what happened with Happy Birthday to You and IIRC Mbube aka The Lion Sleeps Tonight by Solomon Linda .
You’re going to claim you wrote it in 1937?
I guess that’s the question - is there a grandfather clause allowing copyright under the old method for old works? If not, what do you do with an old work? I’m guessing the answer is “tough bananas, too late”.
I just want to point out that although the first sentence is correct, as a practical matter it is highly unlikely that one could ever succeed financially in a lawsuit over an unregistered copyright. When a copyright is properly registered, the law provides for statutory penalties of up to $150,000 per infringement, which goes some way towards making the filing of a suit and paying lawyers worthwhile.
Without registration, all you can sue for is actual damages, which, unless you’re talking about a huge hit song or something, is unlikely to be worth the trouble. You can pay a lawyer out of your own pocket, and as Acsenray suggests, you may prevail if you have the evidence, but it will be a symbolic victory: you will have spent a fortune that you will not be legally entitled to recover.
On the other hand, if the infringement is ongoing then you very well might be able to prove actual damages.
according to Wikipedia, TLST was based by Pete Seeger on a song by Solomon Linda that Pete originally assumed was folk song. When contacted by the music publishers in South Africa, Seeger’s publishers lied to him and came to a deal with the SA company. (He told them to send his share to Mr. Linda, instead they did a deal with the SA company and ignored both artists.) Under commonwealth law, the recording reverted to Solomon’s estate 25 years after his death; at which point they discovered just how ripped off they were (thanks to a Rolling Stone article) and sued.
The original copyright was and always was in effect from 1939, the holder(s) were just being cheated by the middlemen - not unlike “Hollywood accounting”.
Likely what happened with “Happy Birthday” was the same situation as with The Lion Sleeps Tonight. Wiki for TLST says that the publishers were in the habit of taking traditional songs, making minor changes to them, then registering the copyright (in the case of TLST) under fictitious names for lyrics and tune to capture any future cover royalties. Apparently sufficient changes to a traditional song was enough to establish copyright on the new version, and good enough lawyers helped enforce it.
No, my father is a retired patent attorney, and we’ve discussed patent/trademark/copyright issues many times. Also, as an amateur musician/composer, I’ve studied the US gov’t copyright website (full of useful info) and paid attention to forum discussions. So, I know just enough to be dangerous.
First, thanks for the clarification about Mickey: excellent point.
Second, I’ll have to gather my facts and consider your position about the Berne convention being the reason for the extension. If you are correct, then the guy who created Creative Commons is all worried over nothing, which could be the case.
The history (which I probably won’t get quite right) for HB is that a schoolteacher and her pianist sister came up with it using a common traditional melody at the time (but not exactly) and providing the words, for the kids to sing. Much later, a publisher notated it and published it, obtaining a copyright for that purpose.
In my opinion, the original copyright should have covered the sheet music but not the composition. However, it’s been interpreted as covering both for a long time. The cost for a license is low enough that producers either pay it or omit the song rather than fight it, but someone is currently fighting it.
IIRC, the original words aren’t quite the same as we sing it today.