The Copy-Rights Law : The Laws Of Copy Rights Laws

When The Copyright Act of 1976 was enacted works created after January 1, 1978, are automatically given statutory copyright protection for life of the author plus 70 years. (Miller R. J., 2011, pp. 125-126) For someone to go against the rules of a copyright this is called a copyright infringement. A copyright infringement occurs if a substantial part of a copyrighted product has been reproduced. (Miller R. J., 2011, p. 127) Damages can vary from case to case of copyright infringement. Based on the type of damage caused it will be classified as actual damages or statutory damages. Actual damages are based on the harm caused by the copyright holder by the infringement. (Miller R. J., 2011, p. 127) Statutory damages may not exceed $150,000. Criminal proceedings may result in fines and/or imprisonment. There is a notable way to waive the copyright by

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.

There are claims made suggesting that copyright is a direct violation of our freedom of speech. Within the general foundation of protection and enjoyment of those protections, rest limitations, because of the real connection between authorization and copyright law. The goal of research is to investigate and unearth specific facts about the history of intellectual property in relation to old and contemporary court cases. The M. Whitmark & Sons v. Pastime Amusement Decree states that copyright is an indivisible and cannot be split up and partially assigned, as to time, place, rights and privileges (298 F. 470, 1924). Does this case contradict the Digital Millennium Act? Are the copyright rules in violation of any rights concerning our right to free speech? If so, how are those rights violated? The Statute of Anne in eighteenth century Europe, was set up to prevent the unauthorized composition of works that had

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.

This law allows the owners of the work they created to copyright it so know one can copy the work.

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.

An Introduction to the Law and Economics of Intellectual Property Author(s): Stanley M. Besen and Leo J. Raskind Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Winter, 1991), pp. 3-27 Published by: American Economic Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1942699 . Accessed: 24/11/2011 08:39

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

Copyrights are more limited in scope than patents. They protect the original works of authorship, not the ideas they contain. In the United States, original works include literary, drama, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. A computer program, for example, is considered a literary work and is protected by copyright. A copyright gives its owner the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute the material or perform or display it publicly. However, copyright law does permit limited reproduction of copyrighted works without the owner 's permission for “fair use” such as criticism, teaching, and news reporting. In the United States, a published work must have a copyright notice, the name

Copyright is any expression recorded in any physical form, published or unpublished in any medium whether it is music, books, artworks or newspaper articles. Federal publications, facts and ideas are not copyrighted (www.honolulu.hawaii.edu). The very first copyright law that was established was known as the Statute of Anne, which was authorized in England in 1710 (history of copyright, 2005). The newly founded constitution allowed secure rights to its creators. An act very similar to the Statute of Anne was passed by congress in 1790 as the first American copyright law (history of copyright, 2005). As more and more books were produced and were becoming more accessible domestically and internationally in Europe and North America, it became

Authors and publishers believe that the book industry will disintegrate through the implementation of a “fair use” system on copyright material. Authors, publishers and booksellers instigate that if recommendations for “fair use” were enacted, there would be negative ramifications on Australia’s creative content and will discourage local investment. In the Sydney Morning Herald’s article “Writers and publishers voice opposition to new copyright proposals”, Steger (2016) states ‘removal of restrictions will cut prices and accelerate supply. The so-called "fair use" system allows use of some material without payment to copyright holders’. Steger (2016) emphasises that the implementation of a copyright reform to adopt the US system of “fair use” would promote a potential fall in jobs in the sector and discourage investment. Steger (2016) also goes on to highlight the economic instability Australia’s creative content may face, instigating that a ‘fair use’ system would “destabilise an industry that contributes $7.4 billion to the Australian economy” (Appendix 2).

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.

Intellectual property represents ideas created by minds of humans that require certain rights for their use. Intellectual property gives companies a competitive advantage and attracts the attention of other business partners and investors (Lee, 2016). With such importance, it is necessary for the law to protect these ideas from being used by unauthorized individuals. To shield from this, trade secrets, patents, and copyrights are used to protect the ownership of intellectual property (Legal Information Institute).

The enduring fascination for people is that they want law to be flexible in the matter of copyright. This was clearly expressed by Ed Mayo, Chief Executive of Consumer Focus quoting "UK copyright law is the oldest, but also the most out of date. Before addressing the question it’s important to look at the history and definition of UK Copyright law. It has grown from this beginning to form the main legal basis for the international publishing industry, which contributes so much to literature, learning and culture not only in the UK but it has crossed different nation’s borders.

In 1774 free culture was made because copyright was stopped in the case called Donaldson versus Becket in the House of the Lords in England. In 1710 the copyright was limited to 14 years. Donaldson was allowed to reprint Shakespeare despite other publishers were trying to stop him and demanded a common copyright law that would be forever.