Copyright Enlistment

The duration of copyright determines the length of protection. Limitations on this length exist to ensure works enter the public domain. Therefore, the length of protection is one of the most relevant and debated issues regarding copyright law. The proponents and opponents of copyright term extension make compelling arguments, but both sides agree that copyright law should encourage creativity and innovation. If Disney is successful in once again lobbying for an extension of duration, a substantial number of works will fail to enter the public domain in a timely manner. This will, consequently, lead to a stifling of creativity and a suppression of innovation that could be detrimental to progress in the realms of science and the useful arts.

One of the most common, yet controversial, issues of First Amendment law is the subject of copyright and infringement. Although the subject may not seem major at first, many different issues and controversies have risen and become more common than ever over the years. The issues that have become pertinent to this subject are endless, including trademark infringement, piracy, theft, fraud, plagiarism, and many more. With the coming of age and advancement of technology, these cases have become more common and appear more often than ever before. Government officials have always been strict about copyright rulings, and have tried to deliver fair and just rulings for both parties involved under First Amendment rules. Because the owner’s work and material is protected under the First Amendment, it gets tricky when involving another party that can claim the same work of art. In short, the definition of copyright has always been cut and dry: allowing owners of creative works the right to control and profit from their creations. It is basically recognized as a form of property ownership.

The law must come to terms with the difference between artistic intent and economic intent. Artistic freedom is more important for the health of society than the supplemental and extraneous incomes derived from private copyright fees. They create art of police and control, since no matter how the original intent of the copyright laws are, today, they are subverted to censor resented works that suppress the public’s need to reuse and reshape

The idea of employee rights involves many complex issues. An employee’s right to a workplace free of discrimination and harmful environmental factors is obvious. Yet, other issues surrounding privacy, personal expression, and communication monitoring are not

Copyright is the legal right, to an inventor to perform, print, publish, film, or record artistic, literary, or musical material, and to allow others to do the same. Copyright law was developed to provide the creators and inventors of any works with powerful and effective rights of exclusivity over their creations (Patterson & Lindberg, 1991). Over the past, these rights were almost unlimited. People would use existing developments as if they were their own without any regard of the creator’s exclusive rights. The need to balance and limit such rights arose, and governments established these limits for the general good of the public.

For example, many pictures or written documentation can be altered with just a stroke a button. Two years ago, I knew a friend of mind that decided that he want to get back at his girlfriend because she had left him for another man. He decided to scan a picture of her online. He altered her picture by putting her face in a body of another female that was posing nude online; he then decided to e-mail the picture to her parents. This may sound bizarre, but stories like this one happen on a regular basis. In conclusion, I feel that copyright laws are very important, especially now that the internet give us virtually access to the world. I feel that protecting the work of people is just as important as protecting our first amendment rights. Each and every day the copyright laws get harder to implement the upsurge of better and faster technological advances.

One needs to have a basic understanding of the purpose behind copyright laws as the founding fathers had intended. As stated in the “Constitution. Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall have the

Copyright laws in the United States are very important because it protects your work from someone claiming that it’s theirs. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), The main reason why intellectual property laws exist is because it protects the progress and well-being of humanity by creating and inventing new works in the areas of technology and culture. Second, the legal protection promotes innovation. Lastly, the promotion increases jobs, increases technological advancements, and spurs inventions. So this means that if you worked tirelessly to complete a research paper on a doctoral thesis for a method to reduce the risk of cancer in humans, you should be credited for that work. A random person cannot go and copy your work and claim it as their own. At the same time, if a photographer spent months traveling around the world taking pictures of beautiful places, things, people, etc. the photographer is protected from someone taking their photographs and using it for themselves, without giving the photographer credit. Unfortunately, people go even further with copyright in the photographer’s example, by taking the photographers pictures and putting it on a canvas or enlarging it, and sell it to people to make money, which is traditionally called piracy. Copyright covers both using someone’s work for an assignment and someone stealing your photographs and using it for themselves to make a profit, but I believe that piracy is greater of the two evils.

With over three billion people in the world utilizing the internet there is great danger for copyright infringement to occur (Internet Live Stats). Copyright law protects the creator of an original piece of work exclusive rights to the work. Many people who use the internet are sharing files that do not belong to them and are guilty of copyright infringement. Copyright law needs to be tightened up in the digital space to protect the creator of their unique work.

The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 established that copyright terms now expire 70 years after the creator’s death, which is a 20-year extension from the previous copyright law in 1976 that established term expiration 50 years after the creator’s death. The Act applies equally to future works and works with existing copyrights. The court in Eldred v. Ashcroft upheld the CTEA as a rational exercise of congressional authority in that the copyright extension creates a significant benefit: encouraging copyright authors to produce more creative works. However, the extension has little influence on the motivation of authors to create and it constructs roadblocks in the creation process. Overall, the expected outcome of the 20-year copyright term extension is a reduction in the number of works being created and copyrighted in the future due to the increased costs of production. Without works entering the public domain, the copyright owner monopolizes their work, creating social costs associated with a monopoly market failure. The CTEA should be struck down as it is inconsistent with the ultimate goal of copyright law, which is to promote the

Current copyright protection is entitled to provide the essential mechanism for the insurance of the success viability of creative industries by rewarding and incentivising the creators of original works relating to films, music and broadcasts. The Copyright Act 1968 is initially designed to protect although, despite this, the advancement of technology has led to abuse of the Act, subsequently to withhold its dexterity, the Act has required modification, through; case and statute law. While acknowledging this, it must be understood that the codes; Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), Copyright Regulations 1969 (Cth), Copyright Tribunal Procedure Regulations 1969 (Cth) and the Copyright International Protection Regulations 1969 (Cth) are applied automatically once the work has been published in an accessible format; provided that the author/s are current citizens or residents of Australia. Throughout this report, the Copyright Act 1968 will be analysed in depth to provide a detailed understanding of whether it is possible for the law to be proactive with regards to future technologies. In a developing world of rapid changes and advancements in technology and human behaviour, there is no specific measure that can completely eliminate online copyright infringement.

As technology grows and information has become a critical asset companies currently are devoted their resource and money to protect their data as important as their finance and human resource assets.

Copyright protection extends to expressions and not to ideas . Originality is the threshold standard of requirement of copyright. The case Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539 expounded the three essential elements (labour, skill and judgment ) of originality. The court adapted to sweat of brow test with no element of creativity require to make the work original. Copyright can be granted if a work is created through the effort of an individual despite the work containing statement of facts and no creative input by an author.

An alternative emerging approach for licensing music, software, research paper and many other resources on the internet, creative common sharing copyright, is introduced.

The United Sates and other nations especially from Europe over the past few years have been waging battle over how copyrighted work should be protected. Primarily, copyright duration has been one of the most important points in the extensive negotiation between nations such as United Sates and the European countries (Cox 2017). The current Copyright Act signed by President Clinton referred to as the Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extend the copyrights of protected documents and works by writers. The issue on whether the copyrights extension should take place has been a contagious problem in the United States attracting criticism from both sides the opponents and proponents. Personally, I believe that the copyrights are too long and they should be shortened. Copyrights last too long and mostly it is a scheme by organization to make money as little or no revenue passes to the creator of the content.