Improper Appropriation: Substantial Evidence Of Paul Goldstein

When we are determining whether others commit plagiarism because not using common knowledge, we are supposed to think from others point of view. As a writer, we could haven already known all the materials in our article because we have done researches; nevertheless, readers might not know. When only both readers and writers know the information without any help of outside sources, we can finally consider this information as common

All evidence must be authentic, meaning it was produced by the learner and must not be someone else’s work, know as plagiarism.

Md. Rule 5-901(b)(4); cf. Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4) (“The appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.” (emphasis added)). Maryland Rule 5-901 illustrates how the internal features of a document can be significant support for establishing the authenticity of that document, so long as there is some extrinsic circumstance that makes those internal features

“We have held that where the works in question are 'so strikingly similar as to preclude the possibility of independent creation, copying may be proved without a showing of access.'" In some cases, the similarities between the plaintiff's and defendant's work are so extensive and striking as, without more, both to justify an inference of copying and to prove improper appropriation. If a plaintiff demonstrates actual copying through proof of a reasonable possibility of access and similarities probative of copying, however, it can prevail on its infringement claim by demonstrating that defendant's work is "substantially similar to that which is original in the plaintiff's expression." With "inexact copies," this assessment proceeds by a comparison of the "total concept and feel of the contested works" as "instructed by common sense.” The court must "analyze the two works closely to figure out in what respects, if any, they are similar, and then determine whether these similarities are due to protected aesthetic expressions original to the allegedly infringed work, or whether the similarity is to something in the original that is free for the taking."

To what degree are two photos similar enough to have both parties get involved in court? This question is asked frequently in the copyright law world, and is the subject of a case involving Esquire magazine’s cover of famous contemporary boxer Sonny Liston in 1963 and if the 1998 cover of Sports Illustrated with the then-popular boxer Evander Holyfield infringed on Time Inc.’s copyright. At face value the image can be copyrighted, but when dissecting the individual elements of the image apart, what remains is a weak argument to justify copyright protection.

A motion for summary judgment is granted when the similarities concern only non-copyrightable elements of an allegedly infringed work or when no reasonable trier of fact could find the works substantially similar. Boisson v. Banian, Ltd., 273 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2001); Castle Rock Entm 't, Inc. v. Carol Publ 'g Grp., Inc., 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998); Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1996); Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir 1986). When the works contain protectable and unprotectable elements, the court applies a more discerning test, extracting the unprotectable elements from the works and asking whether the protectable elements, standing alone, are substantially similar. Knitwaves Inc. Lollytogs Ltd., 71 F.3d 996 (2d Cir. 1995) The discerning ordinary observer test must be applied in conjunction with the total concept and feel after the unprotectable elements are eliminated from consideration. Boisson, 273 F.3d 273. An allegedly infringing work is considered substantially similar to a copyrighted work if the ordinary lay observer unless he set out to detect the disparities, would regard the two works appeal as the same. Boisson 273 F.3d 273; Knitwaves, 71 F.3d 996. In determining whether or not the allegedly infringing work falls below the quantitative

Therefore, the U.S. court system implemented this rule but if one party suspects that the copy or copies have been altered or it’s a fraud than this comes into play for that case.

The Founders of our nation intended to promote the progress of creative works by providing authors with exclusive rights. These exclusive rights protect the creators from plagiarism, which would ultimately slow the production of creative work. The copyright act applies in this case, because an author has a valid copyright to an original work which was infringed by an amateur writer. The court should find under 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., that the plaintiff holds a valid copyright, and actionable copying occurred by the defendant of constituent elements of the work that are original. See Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). Further, the court should find that defendant actually copied, through a third party

The second approach to copyright is the democratic approach. All works of art are ideas built on a foundation of other ideas. The democratic approach advocates that intellectual property belongs to the society and should be available for the general good of the public. If the particular usage is intended to derive financial benefit or any other business-related benefits, it is considered inappropriate usage. If the utilization of factual work were more usable than the use of someone’s creative work, then that would not be fair use. There is no specified edge to the amount of quoted work that can be called “fair use.” The courts exercise common sense to determine if it was too much. If the utilization of the material created market or stirred a competition, and if the fair use diminishes demand for the original product, it is not considered as appropriate use (Crews, 1993).

This prong of the test includes five elements, all of which must be met in order to proceed to the second prong. The five elements needed to prove ownership of a valid copyright are: (1) originality in the author, (2) copyrightability of the subject matter, (3) a national point of attachment of the work, (4) compliance with applicable statutory formalities, and (5) (if the plaintiff is not the author) a transfer of rights or other relationship between the author and the plaintiff so as to constitute the plaintiff as the valid copyright claimant. However, it is important to remember that the owner’s copyright registration certificate from the Copyright Office serves as prima facie evidence of the elements (1) through

|Where there are reasonable grounds for believing that plagiarism or collusion has occurred, this will be reported to the Chief Examiner, who will disallow |

Libel and invasion of privacy are two very important issues dealing with broadcast media. The two are very similar but different from each. Libel deals more with what was actually printed or broadcast, where as invasion of privacy deals with how the information was actually gathered. Both have laws to regulate and influence what kind of information is gathered and, how it is actually obtained.

In today’s society there are rules that define evidence pertaining to a defendant’s trial. These rules are defined as the “The Rules of Evidence” or “The Law of Evidence.” These rules create a safe and orderly environment, promote efficiency, and enhance the quality of evidence that pertain to all criminal trials. These rules restrict what a jury can and cannot hear or see, details of the law, and the importance of the effective performance of the law enforcement officer. Americans are well aware of the rules that govern evidence; but what are they, what do they mean, how do they apply to each case, and how are they broken down.

Fair use is a defense to copyright infringement that essentially asks of any particular use; Is this fair?

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.