The Rights Of The Copyright And Licensing

Have you ever heard about how an artist gets his work copied by another artist? It could either be a popular artist who has their work plagiarized by another lesser-known artist.

I don’t think this invention can be a copyright since it’s not an artistic creation or printed matter like literary, dramatic, musical work.

As for Masterpieces claim that they had a right to delegate the duties to Build them

The copyrightable element of the 1963 image should be covered under American copyright law, but the content of the image, including originality and use that need to be defined. Elements that should be protected include the photograph itself. This includes “selecting and arranging the costume, draperies, and other carious accessories in said photograph, arranging the subject so as to present graceful outlines (Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 45, 48 (4 S.Ct. 1884)).” In the 19th century, this declaration was the first time the question of a photograph’s inherent copyright was explained, and is now a standard in the Copyright Act of 1976, where all “two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, and prints…that can identify separately from the utilitarian aspects.” (17 U.S.C. § 101) are considered pictorial works and protected under copyright.

If the image is no longer unique and exclusive, the art object, the thing, must be made mysteriously so,” (Berger 44). Therefore, the final step in the exploitation of power is mystification of its origins. Over time a concept will build its image and solidify its strength through results, showing the public its value until it becomes integrated and thus, hidden within society. There are several examples of power that has become formally accepted or internalized by the public and it is difficult to see how they exploit power because their origins are mystified. For the concept of originality in art, we can see how its status may have risen because of the definition we give to “originality” rules that have commercial purposes or vice versa. Some examples include companies that have copyright issues to protect names and identities that belong to them, or schools that incorporate rules about plagiarism. The idea of originality has already become internalized within our society that assigning a market meaning with it, just seems natural. If our judicial system has already incorporated ideas of “originality”, then not many people will see any problems with it. However, it is important to look at the origins and realize how a power came to be to prevent it from being exploited. Another covert concept integrated within society

The creators of works protected by copyright, and their successors (generally referred to as “right holders”), have certain basic rights under copyright law. They hold the exclusive right to use or authorize others to use the work on agreed terms. The right holder of a work can authorize or prohibit: its reproduction in all forms, including print form and sound recording, its public performance and communication to the public, its broadcasting, its translation into other languages, and its adaptation, such as from a novel to a screenplay for a film. Similar rights that the right holders may hold are: fixation (recording) and reproduction are granted under related rights. Many types of works protected under the laws of copyright and related rights require mass distribution, communication and financial investment for their successful disseminations (for example, publications, sound recordings and films). Hence, creators often transfer these rights to companies better able to develop and market the works, in return for compensation in the form of payments and/or royalties (compensation based on a percentage of revenues generated by the work). The economic rights relating to copyrights are of limited duration as provided for in the relevant World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties beginning with the creation and fixation of the work, and lasting for at least 50 years after the creator’s death. National laws may establish longer terms

To acknowledge my team members about the Australian copyright law and how it effect to their work, as a management steering group I will explain it through presentation or meeting the basic Australian copyright law plainly to my team members so they have a knowledge or basic information about the law and this things will definitely change or affect their work because it increases their awareness and it will affect their work for example the team members will use their creativity rather than just copying from the other

Copyright laws must be flexible in addressing and supplementing the needs of Australia’s modern society. However, the failure of the existing, and outdated Copyright Act 1968 (Cwth) in fulfilling the needs of the Australian public has triggered the need for copyright reform. Copyright reform aims to reconsider the relationship between copyright, innovation, technology, research, and economic growth, where it would provide flexible laws fundamental to the broad dissemination of knowledge. Copyright laws should strike a balance between the interests of the creator and the Australian public in terms of access to knowledge, culture and education. Copyright reform aims to

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.

1: A copyright is a form of protection given to authors or creators of “original works of authorship” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic and other intellectual works.

In the article "When Stealing Isn't Stealing" the author explains that an individual’s original work should be lawfully protected.

The right to ones own thoughts, own ideals and inventions is inherent to anyone. Although if we look at the society around us we find multitudes of examples of mimicked ideas, a side from the right out copying of an others work. Parodies are a prime example of such, the author takes the work of another and picks fun at the piece. (i.e. Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" and H. T. Johnson's “The Black Man’s Burden”) The Copy right was instituted to protect these ideas, they combated the outright copy of such ideas. I couldn't go out today and without the permission of Disney start producing Mickey Mouse shorts for profit.

Where parties have meaningfully collaborated on a work, “it is hard to imagine” that such work is “unaccompanied by the requisite intent.”

Copyright notices—often just a simple statement on the work itself of the year protection was acquired and by whom—are not always a good indication of whether or not a work is protected because most countries do not require such formalities, and so lack of notice does not mean lack of protection. Courts may also subsequently decide in the context of an infringement suit that the work did not meet the minimum criteria for copyright protection, even if the work had been previously registered by a government copyright agency. However, copyright notices give at least some indication of who to contact if permission is

It is important to note - since the work is still authenticated by its audience, art still