The Idea Expression Dichotomy

Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 – protects the rights of the creators of literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, recordings and broadcasts. Copyrighted material can only be copied with the copyright owner’s permission, which includes books, music, photographs, drawings, diagrams, etc;

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

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.

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

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 plaintiff claims that Mr. Faden is guilty of copyright infringement, from the mash up of numerous disney productions for the use of educational purposes of copyright and how the law works. I'm here today to defend Professor Faden, because i can prove that he is in fact innocent.

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).

Anyone accused of copyright infringement is protected under the claim of Fair use as long as they stayed within the fair use guidelines; the borrowed work must be used for the following reasons: Education, Critique, Parody or commentary. Professor Faden has been wrongly accused of Copyright infringement over his “Fair(y) Use Tale” video by Disney, accusing him of stealing their Intellectual Property for his own personal gain. This paper will prove Professor Faden’s innocence and why his video should be allowed to stay online.

Along with the development of a file format (MP3) to store digital audio recordings, came one of the new millennium’s most continuous debates – peer-to-peer piracy – file sharing. Internet companies such as Napster and Grokster became involved in notable legal cases in regards to copyright laws in cyberspace. These two cases are similar in nature, yet decidedly different. In order to understand the differences and similarities, one should have an understanding of each case as well as the court’s ruling.

Identify and discuss these copyright challenges in the modern digital economy using examples from case law.

There is such a legal concept as "intellectual property". Intellectual property is defined as the creation of any intellectual innovation by an individual such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. The law provides him exclusive rights to this innovation and is strictly against theft or plagiarism in any way. Innovators can safeguard their property by one or more of the following: copyright, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and in some jurisdictions trade secrets.. Copyrights, patents, and trade secrets are each authored by different Offices. Each is based on the Laws of Commerce. (LII. Intellectual property). Cultural attitudes, in fact, esteem words and knowledge above that of certain other property, since knowledge is something that cannot be as easily duplicated as, for instance, an article of common furniture can. To illustrate the veneration that contemporary society accords intellectual invention, software is more expensive and valuable than hardware sink the

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.

This paper analyzes the conflicts between the need of technology for creativity and innovation versus the legal aspect of copyright.

Many infringement claims involve simple cases of copyright infringement where the copying is obvious. Others, however, are more difficult to resolve because copyright protection is not limited to exact copying. It is inevitable that creative and commercial works will take inspiration from the culture at large, and it is often challenging to determine when this "inspiration" has crossed the line into infringement. There also may be a question of whether the allegedly infringed work is even protected by copyright. Unprotected works may include, for example, compilations of facts that lack the requisite creativity to be covered by copyright, or those works that are in the public domain because the copyright term expired.