Home « Forum « Story Discussion and Feedback

Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

copyright and publishing.

sejintenej

Richard Sagrin posted elsewhere:
"It is faint consolation to Mr. Bywater, but his stories seized by Australian Police are copyrighted by him, even though they haven't been "published"."

robberhands

@sejintenej

That would be true under German copyright law as well.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@robberhands

Doesn't that have implications about how long the stories have before their copyright runs out?

Irrelevant divergence - a quiz question: Who lives at 9 Bywater Street?

AJ

mimauk

9 Bywater street - George Smiley

Replies:   awnlee jawking
Ernest Bywater

@awnlee jawking

Doesn't that have implications about how long the stories have before their copyright runs out?


Not in most countries. Under the Berne convention, which most countries use, you won the copyright from creation until you die, then your heirs own it until 50 years, and later 75 years after your death. I think the USA is the only country that tied the route of a set number of years for copyright to match patents and trademarks. But they now go with 75 years after death, except for those covered under the old copyright laws before it was changed.

BTW Which Bywater street, there are several around the world.

Replies:   Dominions Son
robberhands
Updated:

@awnlee jawking

Doesn't that have implications about how long the stories have before their copyright runs out?

Under German law, the copyright ends seventy years after the death of the holder of rights. So the answer is no.

And I've no idea who lives in 9 Bywater Street. I just hope for the person who lives there, it's the address of some kind of house.

awnlee jawking

@mimauk

9 Bywater street - George Smiley


Correct :)

AJ

Replies:   mimauk
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

But they now go with 75 years after death


Not quite. It's a flat 95 years for corporate authors and for normal authors, copyrights were extended to life + 95 years in the mid to late 1990s (I don't remember the exact year the copyright extension act was passed).

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

Not quite. It's a flat 95 years for corporate authors and for normal authors, copyrights were extended to life + 95 years in the mid to late 1990s (I don't remember the exact year the copyright extension act was passed).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_length

Shows most countries around the world are life +50 or life +70 years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States

shows since 1992 it's been life + 70 years except for work for hire - that's where you get paid to write it for another (say writing a work manual) then the company gets 120 years from creation or 95 years from first publication - whichever is shorter.

In the US anything before 1923 is now clearly public domain, stuff since then is mixed until 1992.

In the US if you write a screenplay you have copyright unless you sell the full rights and it's life + 70. If the studio pays you a weekly wage to write an adaptation the studio owns the full rights to the adaptation for the corporate life span, then they own the filmed version under a different copyright.

Replies:   BlacKnight
mimauk

@awnlee jawking

Just had a "Cold War spy"binge recently. All the Smiley books and TV programmes and films - Alec Guiness the best Smiley. The Len Deighton 'Bernard Sampson' books as well. All good stuff.

awnlee jawking

@mimauk

Alec Guiness the best Smiley


No objections from this quarter.

AJ

BlacKnight

@Ernest Bywater

In the US anything before 1923 is now clearly public domain, stuff since then is mixed until 1992.

Steamboat Willie was released in 1928, so expect another extension of the corporate copyright in the next five years.

Replies:   LonelyDad
LonelyDad

@BlacKnight

Steamboat Willie was released in 1928, so expect another extension of the corporate copyright in the next five years.

It was my understanding that since Walt Disney held the copyright that it is good until 75 years after his death.

Personally, I would be happier with a single copyright period of 25 years for corporate holders, and 10 years after death for personal holders. Walt's been dead for fifty years. If Disney Co. can't come up with some new revenue streams in that time period, they have other problems. Besides, they can argue that the whole concept of Mickey and company is IP, so that the clock restarts every time they produce a new IP with any of those characters.

Crumbly Writer

Hold on a second. From my understanding, copyright is generally identified by the 'date of publication', rather than the 'date of creation' (especially since there IS no single date of creation, as it's an extended process).

Which is the 'legal' definition, and does it vary based upon when you FILE for a specific copyright?

Replies:   robberhands  REP
robberhands
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer

Which is the 'legal' definition, and does it vary based upon when you FILE for a specific copyright?

You gain the copyright of your work regardless of your intention to publish it or not and it also doesn't matter that it's an extended process. Your copyright encompasses everything you have written, the moment you have written it.

ETA: Filing for copyright does not alter the origination date whatsoever.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@robberhands

Filing for copyright does not alter the origination date whatsoever.

In that case, what do you list as the original copyright date? According to Bowker, you list "the first publication date", not the day you first conceived or wrote selected portions.

robberhands

@Crumbly Writer

According to Bowker, you list "the first publication date", not the day you first conceived or wrote selected portions.

Then Bowker probably missed his lesson in copyright law.

Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

In that case, what do you list as the original copyright date? According to Bowker, you list "the first publication date", not the day you first conceived or wrote selected portions.


Most publications only list a year for copyright, so unless creation was a multi-year endeavor it doesn't matter how long creation took.

When is my work protected?

Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.


That is direct from the US Copyright Office.
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer

In that case, what do you list as the original copyright date? According to Bowker, you list "the first publication date", not the day you first conceived or wrote selected portions.


OK, here is where history is important. Under the Berne Convention the copyright applies as soon as you create it, so when I start writing a story that's when the copyright is started. However, under the original US law the copyright was set as the date of first publication. Which is why so many people think you must publish to have copyright - at one time that was true under US law. However, I believe the 1992 change to the US copyright laws brought it in line with the rest of the world as date of creation.

Mind you, if there is a court case over who first created what, evidence of external copies will win the day. Thus the US copyright registration process and publication dates in academic magazines etc. being important in the USA. That's more a proof issue than a copyright issue.

Replies:   Dominions Son
REP
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


Which is the 'legal' definition, and does it vary based upon when you FILE for a specific copyright?


In the United States, unpublished 'Works of Authorship' are copyrighted according to Section 104, see below, of Circular 92, Copyright Law of the United States and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code, December 2016.

Sections 102 defines the categories/mediums that make up 'Works of Authorship' and literary works is one of the categories.

Section 103 indicates only lawfully used content can be copyrighted and only the content produced by the author can be copyrighted.

§ 104 · Subject matter of copyright: National origin29

(a) Unpublished Works.—The works specified by sections 102 and 103, while unpublished, are subject to protection under this title without regard to the nationality or domicile of the author.

(b) Published Works.—The works specified


https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf

Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

However, under the original US law the copyright was set as the date of first publication.


Nope, it was set on date of registraion, prior to the 1976 act you had to register with the US copyright office to have a copyright at all.

However, I believe the 1992 change to the US copyright laws brought it in line with the rest of the world as date of creation.


No, it was the 1976 copyright act that made that change. Under the prior 1909 act, registration was manditory, no registration, no copyright. Registration had to occur prior to publication, however the publishers generally took care of the registration and that is why a lot of authors may think it's the publication date that matters.

Replies:   Joe Long
Crumbly Writer
Updated:

So I guess I need to backdate my copyright information for "The Catalyst" and "Great Death" stories from the first publication dates {2012} to the first creation date {2010)? The first SOL publication date is 2011.

Follow-up: Assuming the above is true, what copyright would I add to a 'box set' of my Catalyst Series, whose 7 books range from 2010 (when I first started work on the series) until 2013, or do I list the date the 'compilation set' was created?

Since I first started the entire Catalyst series back in 2010, I'm assuming I need to list the copyright for the book being published in either 2017 or 2018 as 2010 (I list each individual book's copyright date on the copyright page, plus the publication for the new box set)?

Replies:   hiltonls16  REP
hiltonls16

@Crumbly Writer

I think the only copyright in a box set is the box design and any new covers for the individual volumes. The works collected together still carry their own copyright.

A fairly extreme example is a poetry collection. The compiler holds the copyright in the selection ond order of poems included while the poets' copyrights in their own works are not affected. Indeed the pulisher may be paying reproduction fees to the individual poets for the use of their works.

Crumbly Writer

Alright, let's try working with concrete examples. Which is the better copyright statement for a 'box set' (an entire series, published over several years, in a single volume):

The Catalyst Box Set
COPYRIGHT © 2017 VINCENT BERG, ALL RIGHT RESERVED.

Includes the following copyrighted works:

The Catalyst © 2010, Vincent Berg
An Unknown Attraction © 2011, Vincent Berg
Trying To Be Normal © 2011, Vincent Berg
Normalcy is Harder Than It Looks © 2011, Vincent Berg
Racing the Clock © 2011, Vincent Berg
Touring Under Pressure © 2012, Vincent Berg
Building a Legacy © 2013, Vincent Berg

or simply:

COPYRIGHT © 2010 VINCENT BERG, ALL RIGHT RESERVED.

REP

@Crumbly Writer

So I guess I need to backdate my copyright information


I'm not sure that would be a good idea.

Paragraph 104 of Title 17 stated that a work is - "... while unpublished, are subject to protection under this title ..."

A work may receive protection, but does that mean the work is copyrighted.

I personally wouldn't depend on an unpublished work being copyrighted until a) it is published, or b) until a copyright application is filed; whichever comes first.

Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

Here is what the US copyright office has to say about the copyright notice.

Note: The notice is currently optional.

It was mandatory prior to 1/1/1989 and a work published before that date could lose it's copyright if the notice was omitted or if it was done wrong.

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf

I would suggest that for a box set, each book should keep it's own copyright notice and date, but if you want to put a copyright notice on the box, it would be the year you release the box set, but that copyright would only really cover the box design itself.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
awnlee jawking

@REP

I have a subsidiary question.

I've seen some works with multiple copyright statements. I believe VB is constantly updating his stories as readers report typos etc, so I expect the versions on SOL to be slightly different from those available eg on Amazon. Should the stories have different or multiple copyright dates because of those differences?

AJ

Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

I would suggest that for a box set, each book should keep it's own copyright notice and date, but if you want to put a copyright notice on the box, it would be the year you release the box set, but that copyright would only really cover the box design itself.

I still like listing the linked copyrights, even if not necessary, simply to provide a handy listing of books and dates, simply to provide a reason for readers to check the page (to figure out when each book was 'released').

Crumbly Writer

@awnlee jawking

I've seen some works with multiple copyright statements. I believe VB is constantly updating his stories as readers report typos etc, so I expect the versions on SOL to be slightly different from those available eg on Amazon. Should the stories have different or multiple copyright dates because of those differences?

The essential question is, should the copyright date (even though it is optional, list the creation date or the 'publication' date. In either case, the copyright date is NOT the publication date of a particular book, otherwise I'd have a different copyright for each time I published the same book to a different source (Amazon, Smashwords, Createspace, lulu, etc.). Instead, the publication work for a particular story was either it's original creation OR it's first 'publication' (whether that publication was on SOL or as a published book).

Despite the never-ending debate, I still don't feel confident that anyone has an answer on this. However, once again, I have the feeling that no one here really knows, and I should instead ask the 'professional' publishers/published authors/editors/book designers at LinkedIn, since they have more direct expertise in this matter, rather than vague 'hunches' based on the last thing they read (while it works for Presidents (NOT!)), I don't think it has any legal standing).

Crumbly Writer

@REP

A work may receive protection, but does that mean the work is copyrighted.

I personally wouldn't depend on an unpublished work being copyrighted until a) it is published, or b) until a copyright application is filed; whichever comes first.

SOL ate my original response, so here it is, slightly out of chronological sequence:

Grrr! That was my original position, which everyone else convinced me to abandon by quoting chapter and verse of the various copyright acts without separating the protections from the listing of a copyright.

You don't list a copyright because it's legally necessary to protect your work, but because it reminds readers that it IS legally protected, and they can't simply repost it on their own.

While I appreciate you supporting my original claim, seeing as how I've changed my position, it's a day late and a dollar short, as the saying goes. But, see my subsequent/earlier note, I have a feeling no one here really knows what the accepted publishing conventions are for listing copyrights.

Replies:   REP
awnlee jawking

@Crumbly Writer

I have the feeling that no one here really knows


But that doesn't stop us mansplaining it to each other ;)

AJ

Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

I have the feeling that no one here really knows, and I should instead ask the 'professional' publishers/published authors/editors/book designers at LinkedIn, since they have more direct expertise in this matter


You might also consider asking the US Copyright Office. They would be the real authority on this matter.

Switch Blayde

@awnlee jawking

Should the stories have different or multiple copyright dates because of those differences?


I remember reading something about the copyright of "The Diary of Anne Frank." Someone said the copyright expired. Someone else said it didn't because her father edited it years after she died so that's when the copyright started. I don't remember the specifics or the resolution (if there was one).

Switch Blayde

I found many articles on the Anne Frank copyright. It's only applicable in the EU because of the 70 years after death (whereas in the US it's 95 yrs).

Yves Kugelmann, a trustee with the Anne Frank Fonds, the nonprofit established by Otto Frank in 1963 to protect his daughter's legacy, told the New York Times that legal experts consulted by the foundation over the previous six years have concluded that the editing, merging and trimming of entries by Anne's father "created a new work" worthy of it own copyright. "He merged them, he cut them and he changed them. So he created a new book," Kugelmann told Canada's Globe and Mail.


Here's the link to the article: http://www.history.com/news/anne-franks-diary-now-has-co-author-extended-copyright

Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

Someone else said it didn't because her father edited it years after she died so that's when the copyright started.


There are three versions of the diaries out there. The best known, version C was compiled by Ann Frank's father.

The Ann Frank foundation claims that her father should count as a co-author, so the life plus n year copyright term didn't start to run down until after his death in 1980.

Versions A and B weren't published until the 1980s, so they would still be under copyright in any case.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/anne-frank-diary-copyright-public-domain/

REP

@awnlee jawking

Should the stories have different or multiple copyright dates because of those differences?


I am not a lawyer, so all I can give you is my opinion. The copyright applies to the work. Minor changes to the work such as edits to correct typos and grammatical errors would not invalidate the copyright. The copyright would continue to protect the work as long as the changes did not substantially change the work.

REP

@Crumbly Writer

the copyright date is NOT the publication date of a particular book,


Based on the publication date being the milestone for a copyright, the copyright begins the FIRST time the book is published.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@REP

Based on the publication date being the milestone for a copyright

But the first publication date isn't the milestone for a copyright.

Replies:   REP
REP

@Crumbly Writer

As I said, I'm not a lawyer, but based on Title 17 here is my opinion:

We are talking about 2 things: copyright protection and the copyright date. As addressed below, it appears that the copyright date indicates when the copyright protection begins.

Extracted from Title 17:
§ 302 · Duration of copyright: Works created on or after January 1, 19784
(a) In General.—Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death.

For your issue CW, the key is in the phrase "subsists from its creation". According to the definitions contained in Title 17:

A work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.

Personally, I would consider the above to mean:

1. If you are in the process of writing a new story, then the copyright protection begins with you typing the first word and saving it to your hard disk. That version of the story would have the file "Save Date" as the Copyright Date.

2. As you add new content, the copyright protection updates to cover the new material. Each addition to your story would be considered a new version. It is not clear to me if the earlier version would be considered a version since by adding to its file and saving the changes to the same file, the original version no longer exists. Technically, each of those new versions would have a separate copyright date, but practically, your main concern is protecting the final version.

3. The final version would be the version you first publish, so for practical purposes, the copyright date of the story would be either the publication date, or the date when the last edit was made. Generally, the date would not be critical, except for a few legal actions involving copyright violations of two people claiming to have written the exact same story, essentially word-for-word. An impossibility that would raise other issues (i.e., one of the two stole their story from the other).

4. Subsequent publications of the story with no edits or changes would not affect the story's copyright date for the story is not a new version.

5. Updating a story and republishing it would result in a new copyright. However, the new copyright would have no effect on the copyright of the original version.

I don't know if that helps, but that is the way I see the issue.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
REP

@Dominions Son

first publication date isn't the milestone for a copyright.


I agree. But it is the easiest date to prove for legal purposes. For an in-process work, changing the content by addition, deletion, or editing creates a new version of the story and that version's copyright date would be the date the file is saved to CW's hard disk.

We typically aren't concerned with retaining copies of in-process files. Therefore, proving the content of a file once it is modified and saved using the same filename is impossible if a copy of the original content was not saved. Thus the early versions of CW's story be it 1 word in a chapter file or 100,000 words in multiple files is of no practical use. It is the final version of the files that make up the story that count for most practical purposes.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

I remember reading something about the copyright of "The Diary of Anne Frank." Someone said the copyright expired. Someone else said it didn't because her father edited it years after she died so that's when the copyright started. I don't remember the specifics or the resolution (if there was one).

There's always been a LOT of controversy over Anne Frank's diary, as her father NEVER allowed anyone to examine it. It's lot been suggested that her father invented the majority of it, trying to capitalize of his daughter's fame for his own enrichment, and the fact he never let ANYONE look at it strongly suggests that's exactly what happened. (He claims that all he did was proofread and correct spelling and punctuation.)

In either case, I'm not sure I'd use it as an example of copyright done correctly! At the time, there was a huge demand for the story, the government (U.S.) no doubt had a role in shoving it's approval through to cement constructive (to them) opinions about our role in the war.

Crumbly Writer

@REP

1. If you are in the process of writing a new story, then the copyright protection begins with you typing the first word and saving it to your hard disk. That version of the story would have the file "Save Date" as the Copyright Date.

2. As you add new content, the copyright protection updates to cover the new material. Each addition to your story would be considered a new version. It is not clear to me if the earlier version would be considered a version since by adding to its file and saving the changes to the same file, the original version no longer exists. Technically, each of those new versions would have a separate copyright date, but practically, your main concern is protecting the final version.

In other words, every single different book, produced via a different source, would have a completely different copyright date, as opposed to the 'first creation' date. Those two statements completely invalidate each other. Either the work is protected from it's first creation, or each work is copyrighted separately at the time of publication.

Replies:   REP
Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer

CW,

Strictly speaking a boxed set can only relate to printed books because you have a group of related books in a special box and sold as a group set.

Regardless of if you do a print book or e-book the copyright date goes from when you first create the story, so Great Death as you stated earlier would be copyrighted from 2010.

Now, with e-books you can sell the e-books as a group deal (but they aren't really a boxed set) and each book would have its own copyright date from when it was created. You can also put it all together as an anthology or a collection in a single book. Then the each story would have it's own copyright date, but the new book created as the collection or the anthology would be seen to have a copyright date of its own if there is anything in it different to the original works.

Take example of a Catalyst Anthology - just put all the books together in one e-pub as if you stuck each on the end of the one before it and each has it's own copyright date for the story. However, if you also include extra stuff like notes not in the story or a timeline, then the Catalyst Anthology will be seen as a new work with a new copyright date of 2017 while each book in it would also have their original copyright dates. Mind you, under the law, the actual date given isn't going to matter much unless you get challenged on who wrote it when. This is because the copyright date countdown for an individual's works starts on the date of their death, not when it was created.

Much older USA works, say pre 1992 will have different concerns due to the previous US laws, and those where you write something for hire will have a different date due to being corporate copyright and not individual copyright.

Dominions Son
Updated:

@REP


I agree. But it is the easiest date to prove for legal purposes.


Not necessarily. One tactic for proof of creation date that has been used in the past is to mail yourself a copy of the final manuscript and keep the sealed envelope. The date on the post mark would be very solid proof of date in a court of law. If you want even stronger proof, mail it to your self via certified mail.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Geek of Ages

@Crumbly Writer

There's always been a LOT of controversy over Anne Frank's diary, as her father NEVER allowed anyone to examine it.


Only among Holocaust-deniers. The original manuscript (that is, the diary written by Anne Frank) is in the hands of Dutch scholars, and they have done rigorous analysis on the handwriting, paper, book glues, et cetera; the unequivocal finding is that the diary is genuine.

However, when published, it was edited down, and translated. Perhaps there's controversy there I've not heard of.

Switch Blayde

@Dominions Son

Not necessarily. One tactic for proof of creation date that has been used in the past is to mail yourself a copy of the final manuscript and keep the sealed envelope. The date on the post mark would be very solid proof of date in a court of law. If you want even stronger proof, mail it to your self via certified mail.


I was told that won't stand up in court. I forget why. Maybe because you can mail yourself an empty envelop and then put your manuscript in it. But I don't remember why. It came up in a discussion on wattpad.

Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

It's lot been suggested that her father invented the majority of it, trying to capitalize of his daughter's fame for his own enrichment,


Most of the earnings goes to the foundation he set up to remember Anne Frank's legacy. That money goes to children around the world.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Dominions Son
Updated:

@Switch Blayde


I forget why. Maybe because you can mail yourself an empty envelop and then put your manuscript in it. But I don't remember why. It came up in a discussion on wattpad.


Unless the person who said it was a lawyer, I'd take anything they said with a grain of salt.

The mail it to yourself scheme is actually mentioned on the copyright offices website. It wasn't enough to protect a work back when registration was required, but using it for proof of date under current law would be something entirely different.

Note: the limit weight limit for a letter size envelope for first class mail is only 3.5 ounces. 13 ounces for a an 8.5x11 flat envelope.

A novel sized manuscript would have to be sent as a package, and packages get weighed. Also, it's much harder to send a package empty, open it to put something in and then re-seal it.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde
Updated:

@Dominions Son


The mail it to yourself scheme is actually mentioned on the copyright offices website.


Hmm, from Slate: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/history_of_innovation/2014/05/poor_man_s_copyright_mailing_something_to_yourself_doesn_t_work.html


It's a nice idea, but the problem with the poor man's copyright is that it doesn't work. The humorless federal copyright office explains on its website, "The practice of sending a copy of your own work to yourself is sometimes called a 'poor man's copyright.' There is no provision in the copyright law regarding any such type of protection, and it is not a substitute for registration."


ETA: from Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/legal/postmark.asp


CLAIM: You can effectively establish U.S. copyright protection of your work by mailing a copy of it to yourself, then retaining the sealed, postmarked envelope as proof of the date of your authorship.

STATUS: NOT IN THE U.S., BUT IT MIGHT BE OF SOME ASSISTANCE IN BRITAIN.


ETA2: from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_man%27s_copyright

In countries with no central copyright registration authority, it can be difficult for an author to prove when their work was created. The United Kingdom Patent Office says this:

"... a copy could be deposited with a bank or solicitor. Alternatively, a creator could send himself or herself a copy by special delivery post (which gives a clear date stamp on the envelope), leaving the envelope unopened on its return. A number of private companies operate unofficial registers, but it would be sensible to check carefully what you will be paying for before choosing this route.

It is important to note, that this does not prove that a work is original or created by you..."


Note the last sentence. And then it continues with:

There is no provision in US copyright law regarding any such type of protection. Poor man's copyright is therefore not a substitute for registration.

Dominions Son
Updated:

Correct, the self mail does not establish copyright and it is not a substitute for registration.

However:

I did not suggest it for such purposes, only for establishing a date for when you wrote it.

Registration is no longer necessary.

Under current law, it could be useful to establish when you wrote something in certain circumstance, such as a copyright dispute on copying between two authors one claiming the second author copied his work.

It would be a perfectly valid defense if the second author could establish he wrote his book first even if the first author's book was published first.

Absolutely nothing in anything you quoted goes against using the self mail simply to establish a date provenance for a work that is not published immediately.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Ernest Bywater

@Geek of Ages

However, when published, it was edited down, and translated. Perhaps there's controversy there I've not heard of.


Yes, there was a major controversy over the edited and published version because the copyright based on when she wrote the diary and it was first published was up many people wanted to put it into the public domain, which the original published version subsequently was. However, the later edited and expanded versions with material from the diary not in the original version isn't in the public domain.

Switch Blayde

@Dominions Son

such as a copyright dispute on copying between two authors one claiming the second author copied his work.


But the articles said stuff like:

It is important to note, that this does not prove that a work is original or created by you..."

Replies:   Dominions Son
mimauk
Updated:

Somebody with the poster name 'Malathay' has just posted 60 posts in alt.binaries.e-book with a few hundred XXX stories from all over the web, including Nick Scipios Summer Camp series and stories under the Dorsai name.

He says he has collected them from various sites and as far as he knows they are free to be posted there as they are not for his financial gain.
EDIT - he has acknowledged the original authors names

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Geek of Ages

However, when published, it was edited down, and translated. Perhaps there's controversy there I've not heard of.

The controversy was never over whether she wrote the original, it was over HOW MUCH of the completed work was actually hers, and how much was her father's creation entirely. Although the Dutch group examined it, they've consistently refused to allow anyone else access to it (obviously for fear they'll attack it's legitimacy, which is exactly what the controversy is about in the first place).

Her father also chopped out (literally) any portions in the original that referenced boyfriends, periods or anything remotely referencing her 'growing up', which many feminists have attacked over the years, as it essentially turns her voice into a mere puppet of her father's outdated idealized view of his daughter.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

I was told that won't stand up in court. I forget why. Maybe because you can mail yourself an empty envelop and then put your manuscript in it. But I don't remember why. It came up in a discussion on wattpad.

One argument you hear all the time is that someone could 'steam' it open. They key here, is that you either afix a wax seal, or something which reveals whether it was ever opened. It can be done, but it's generally no longer considered viable.

I must say, I don't keep a history of every single change I've ever made to my stories, but I can identify WHEN I created each version by examining the file folder and looking for the earliest file (typically the story notes), which marks when I started working on the concept).

While that's not proof a court may recognize, the fact I publish quickly clearly establishes that I published before anyone else did, as this protection carries over to anyone posting to SOL too.

Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

Most of the earnings goes to the foundation he set up to remember Anne Frank's legacy. That money goes to children around the world.

"Capitialize" doesn't mean "ONLY" financial, it simply means they want to gain something from it for themselves. Gaining attention, notoriety or a better view (of yourself and your daughter) in history is a clear motive in this case (i.e. in wanting to portray her as an 'innocent' young girl, not 'corrupted' by her budding womanhood).

Crumbly Writer

@mimauk

Somebody with the poster name 'Malathay' has just posted 60 posts in alt.binaries.e-book with a few hundred XXX stories from all over the web, including Nick Scipios Summer Camp series and stories under the Dorsai name.

He says he has collected them from various sites and as far as he knows they are free to be posted there as they are not for his financial gain.
EDIT - he has acknowledged the original authors names

This needs to be posted, on a separate thread, in the "Author's Forum" so each individual author can track the current status of the efforts to correct the postings. For those posting to SOL alone, it may not matter, as long as their names are attached, but as many (like me) also publish them commerically, I don't appreciate anyone passing them out for free.

I choose when to post my stories for free, which doesn't grant the downloaders universal reposting protections!

Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

Her father also chopped out (literally) any portions in the original that referenced boyfriends, periods


When I was in junior high school, we read "The Diary of Anne Frank." I remember people were asked to read sections out loud to the class. And I remember the embarrassment when they read the section about her first period.

So it was in the book I read.

Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

But the articles said stuff like:


Again, I only suggested it as a means of proving when it was created, noting else.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

But the articles said stuff like:

Again, I only suggested it as a means of proving when it was created, noting else.

The key in these instances, isn't fighting other authors trying to appropriate your work, but with publishing houses trying to steal your idea and hand it to other authors, who they feel 'have the technical ability but can't write a decent story to save their lives'.

For those instances, when you NEED to submit to a publisher, but know better than to trust them, it's problematic. A decent solution for that (at least for independent publishers), is when you file for an ISBN, you can list your ORIGINAL text, which they promote as a way of 'protecting your work' is a conflict ever arises. However, I have no clue how they protect the text (i.e. who has access to it), or whether you might face a problem where the various 'was this term paper copied' software packages might report that YOU didn't write it, because they found it online on ISBN.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

The key in these instances, isn't fighting other authors trying to appropriate your work


The situation where you are most likely to need to prove when you wrote something (prior to publication) is not fighting another author trying to appropriate your work, but rather fighting another author who is claiming you appropriated his work.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

The situation where you are most likely to need to prove when you wrote something (prior to publication) is not fighting another author trying to appropriate your work, but rather fighting another author who is claiming you appropriated his work.

In most cases, those fights are over specific passages, usually when the same 'did this student copy his homework' software catches similarities. In that case, you can't prove when you wrote the particular phrase, all you can do is show you developed the book independently, and it's all about the specific wording of each instance.

You can't copyright a story idea, no matter how much you might want to. But, if you beat someone to the punch by publishing a similar story before they do, there's not much they can do about it other than bitch and moan.

Generally, if someone claims you 'stole' a particular phrasing, your safest solution is to substitute different phrasing, proving you don't NEED to rely on their single phrase, as you're perfectly capable of writing your own words. The problem only arises when 30% of your book is the exact same 'phrasing' as their books is.

REP
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


Those two statements completely invalidate each other. Either the work is protected from it's first creation, or each work is copyrighted separately at the time of publication.


The work is protected from its first creation. However - Let me give you an example:

1. You get the idea for a story and start typing on May 25, 2017. When you save what you typed to a file on your hard disk, you have placed the story content in what Title 17 calls a "tangible medium of expression" (i.e. a file on your hard disk), and that portion of the story is copyrighted and the copyright date would be May 25, 2017.

2. The next day you open the file and add to it. The updated file is still copyrighted, but you changed it so its new copyright date would be May 26, 2017.

Note: This is going to the extreme, but if you were to save each days updates to a new filename without changing the prior days file, you would have multiple versions of the story file each of which would be copyrighted with its filesave date as the copyright date.

3. You finish the story on June 24, 2017 and save it to your hard disk; it is complete with all edits included. Its copyright date is June 24, 2017, which is what you placed on the Copyright page.

4. Let's say you publish the story on July 5, 2017. The copyright date of June 24, 2017 does not change because the content has not changed. Of course if you wished, you could modify the file by putting July 5, 2017 on the document as its copyright date.

5. It is now March 5, 2019. You decide to make a number of modifications to the story and release it as a revised version.

6. You finish the revised version of the story on May 15, 2019 and save it to your hard disk; it is complete with all edits included. Its copyright date is May 15, 2019, which is what you placed on the Copyright page.

7. You publish the revised version a couple of days later.

8. You now have 2 versions of the story. The original version with a June 24, 2017 copyright date and the revised story with a May 15, 2019 copyright date. Creating the revised story does not affect the original story or its copyright date.

At least that is what I get out of reading Title 17.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@REP

REP, a number of problems with your interpretation. While that thinking might work with 'traditionally published' works (where the book is printed once, and the copies sold for years, and reprints are churned out without any changes, but in the modern age of independent publishers and POD books, it gets tossed on it's ear.

According to you, each time I correct a type, I'd need to reissue my book, changing the copyright date and issuing an entirely new ISBN (not a cheap option for a one or two word change).

Contrast this with what copyright does. It protects a story based on when it was written, not when the last change was printed in book form. Thus you want to establish when the copyright protection starts from, not when 'every other version loses their copyright protection on'.

For me, and from my discussion with publishers, professional authors, book designers and editors, you list the published date (which on SOL is the first posting date), simply because that's how traditionally published books listed it (it's more form over function, more usage than protection), which is why I insist on using the publication date, regardless of when I last updated the story, or how many different versions (and different ISBNs) I use for the same story. Each version of the book uses the EXACT SAME copyright date, which is the 'first publication' date.

You can argue that the copyright date should be when the story was first created, but the copyright protection predates that, taking into account when you wrote each individual chapter (i.e. did you write the story before someone else using the same text segments). Thus the copyright date really has NO effect on the legal protections that copyright protection affords.

All that said, that's why you really don't need to specify a copyright date at all. However, when you do, it's typically to list when the story was first published, so readers can identify where the story fits in with your overall work (i.e. was it a crude early attempt, or an example of your latest works).

Replies:   Ernest Bywater  REP
Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer

According to you, each time I correct a type, I'd need to reissue my book, changing the copyright date and issuing an entirely new ISBN (not a cheap option for a one or two word change).


Nor sure how it works in the USA, but for the most of the world the copyright date is when you first create the material. Thus when I started writing my current story that's with the final proof editor it has a copyright of 2016, but because it was finished and editorial changes since then it has an Edition date of October 2017. This has been a common practice in the print industry for over 100 years. Some minor changes (often to fix typesetting errors, and the book is released as a 2nd edition or a revised edition etc. The edition date doesn't affect the copyright date.

REP

@Crumbly Writer

I provided you with an example of my interpretation of Title 17. What happens in the real world doesn't always match up to Title 17.

Your comment is about what you do as a result of the court decisions relating to Title 17. We all know the courts don't get it right all of the time. A court hears a case which is defined by the circumstances and evidence presented by the lawyers, and then the court considers the law in reaching a judgment. If the lawyers did a poor job in presenting evidence and connecting it to the circumstances and the law, then the court's hands are tied and a court will have to return a judgment based on the lawyers' legal skills, not the law.

According to my understanding of Title 17, if you change an existing story by changing the content of the electronic file(s) that contain the story's content, then you have created a new version of the story and that results in the modified story having a different copyright date from the prior version of the story. In practical terms that means if you open an existing story file, modify its content in any manner, and save the modified content using the same filename, you created a new version of the story. Since saving the modified content using the same filename destroyed the prior version, its copyright protection and date become a moot point. It is the copyright protection and date of the updated file that is important to you.

When you create a new version of a story, it has copyright protection and the prior version does NOT lose its copyright protect as long as the prior version is still set in a medium defined by Title 17. The day you set a new version of a story in a medium defined by Title 17 is the version's legal copyright date per Title 17.

You can tell us about what you do and about how you view your actions. That doesn't mean what you do is correct per Title 17. It doesn't mean that what publishers do is correct, either. One of the things you fail to mention, is that according to Title 17 different versions of a story each have different copyright dates and all versions have copyright protection. You can place the copyright date of the original version on the modified version of the story, but per Title 17 the original version's copyright date is NOT the legal copyright date of the new version.

According to Title 17, the date a version is published is NOT the copyright date. You and others typically use the publication date as the copyright date, but Title 17 defines the legal copyright date as the creation date and it is not the publication date. Your placing a different date on your publication does not mean what you place on what you publish is the legal copyright date.

Then there is the issue of in-process versions of a story versus the final version of the story. If you retain copies of your in-process story files, each file's content has copyright protection and each file's content can have a different copyright date (i.e. its file save date). Normally only the most recent version of a file gets published. That is why publication date is not the story's legal copyright date.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@REP

When you create a new version of a story, it has copyright protection and the prior version does NOT lose its copyright protect as long as the prior version is still set in a medium defined by Title 17. The day you set a new version of a story in a medium defined by Title 17 is the version's legal copyright date per Title 17.

I just can't picture a world where each typo correction requires the publication of an all new edition with a separate copyright date. That just doesn't make sense (and I believe there's a specific limit on the amount of changes before it's considered a 'new edition').

All you're arguments are just convincing me that listing copyrights mean nothing at all—which was my point—since I'm listing it principally so readers can figure out when each book was written in my literary canon.

In short, there are conventions for listing a copyright date, but there are NO legal requirements concerning what date you list!

Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

All you're arguments are just convincing me that listing copyrights mean nothing at all—which was my point


The main purpose under current law is so that people know who the copyright owner is and who to contact for a license to use the work or create derivative works.

Yes, the date is legally meaningless.

Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

I just can't picture a world where each typo correction requires the publication of an all new edition with a separate copyright date.


No, not each typo correction, just each point where accumulated revisions are fixed in a tangible medium.

In the digital age, that means each time you save a modified version of the story.

Nothing in the law requires that you actually publish a revised edition.

Reference works and academic textbooks that are frequently revised generally list multiple copyright dates. This is because technically, the copyright in the revised edition only covers the revisions.

AFIK publishing revised editions of works of fiction is fairly rare, even in the e-book world.

Replies:   REP
REP

@Crumbly Writer

In short, there are conventions for listing a copyright date, but there are NO legal requirements concerning what date you list!


I keep stating that I am commenting on my understanding of what Title 17 defines as the current US Copyright law. I have also stated that there is a difference between what the law defines, and what authors and the publishing industry do.

Assume for the moment that you are updating a story that is on your hard disk as a single file - an electronic file is an approved medium per Title 17. The update is done over a period of two weeks. The first thing you do every day is open the most recent version of the file and save it using a new filename. By the end of you update period, you would have about 14 story files on your hard disk. According to Title 17, each of those files is a different version of the story with different copyright dates and all 14 files are protected by copyright law.

In the real world, you wouldn't 'publish' all 14 of the Title 17 versions you created because your goal was to create a final updated story file. When you decide to publish, you would only publish the most recent version of the story file. If you finalized the story on March 10 and know you won't publish it until March 15, you can put March 15 on your copyright page before you save the file. The published copy will indicate March 15 as the copyright date. The Title 17 copyright date is March 10; the date you 'created' the published version of the story and placed it in an approved medium.

I agree in that I am not aware of any legal requirements concerning what date you place on a story as its copyright date. Personally, I would use the earliest possible date if I were publishing commercially, especially for a new story.

REP

@Dominions Son

This is because technically, the copyright in the revised edition only covers the revisions.


I would disagree in that Title 17 indicates the copyright protection is for the entire revised edition and the copyright date is the date the revised edition was fixed in a tangible medium.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@REP

I would disagree in that Title 17 indicates the copyright protection is for the entire revised edition and the copyright date is the date the revised edition was fixed in a tangible medium.


So what do you think happens in this scenario:

There is a significant time gap between the original edition and the revised edition. The original copyright has expired but the copyright on the revised edition has not.

Since they are supposed to be separate copyrights on separate "works", can someone republish the original edition or make derivative works from it or not? Is the original edition in the public domain?

awnlee jawking

@Dominions Son

Elements of Style by Strunk is now in the public domain. A revised version, Elements of Style by Strunk and White is still under copyright.

AJ

REP

@Dominions Son

If the revised edition is relatively minor changes to the original and the person creating the revised edition was the original creator or had the right to create the revised edition, I would say No.

My reasoning is the revised edition is based on and contains the same basic content as the original version with perhaps a few edits or minor rewrites for clarity and perhaps a new scene or two. The copyright on the revised edition covers all of the edition's content and is still active, so anyone using the original version as a basis for their work of art would be violating the copyright protection granted to the creator of the content of the revised edition.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

So what do you think happens in this scenario:

There is a significant time gap between the original edition and the revised edition. The original copyright has expired but the copyright on the revised edition has not.

Copyright expiration is based on the death of the author, not the original copyright date.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Crumbly Writer

@REP

My reasoning is the revised edition is based on and contains the same basic content as the original version with perhaps a few edits or minor rewrites for clarity and perhaps a new scene or two. The copyright on the revised edition covers all of the edition's content and is still active, so anyone using the original version as a basis for their work of art would be violating the copyright protection granted to the creator of the content of the revised edition.

With copyrights only expiring 75 years after the death of the author, it's meaningless to record updates to a novel every week for an entire year. What's more, as was mentioned earlier, if you're going to list any copyright date, you'd list the earliest date. Also, copyrights are specified by year, no month-day-year-second and millisecond.

We're making this a hell of a lot more complicated than it actually is.

(By the way, I'm using your post to respond to DS.)

Replies:   REP
Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

Copyright expiration is based on the death of the author, not the original copyright date.


It's a fixed term for a corporate author and the revisions might not be by the original author.

That's how Strunk & White's The Elements of Style has been done. Strunk wrote the original, then White who was a student of Strunk did all of the later revisions.

Ernest Bywater

One common practice with author copyright where multiple revisions are involved is to have it show the first and last dates:

Copyright 2015 to 2017

Otherwise just show the first date, and have an edition date. What i do now is:

Copyright © 2016 by Ernest Bywater

October 2017 Edition

Now the thing to keep in mind is the above is for author held copyright where the countdown starts on the author's death.

........................

Copyright for something created as work for hire is a different matter and it usually goes from the publication date.

..........................

The easiest way to think about the difference between the two is:

Author copyright - I write the story and then sell it to Magic Movies Company for them to make into a film. I retain the copyright of the story, but they bought permission to use it for the film and own the film copyright.

Work for Hire or Corporate Copyright - Magic Movies approach me and we sign a contract for me to write a screenplay for them based on a story concept they provide. They own the copyright on the screenplay and the film.

A second, and more common, Work for Hire Copyright - Super Slick Software ask me to write a users manual for their latest accounting software package. The company owns the copyright.

REP

@Crumbly Writer

Also, copyrights are specified by year, no month-day-year-second and millisecond.


Year only may be the proper way. I have seen month and year and I have a vague recollection of seeing month day year.

Capt. Zapp

@Switch Blayde

I remember reading something about the copyright of "The Diary of Anne Frank."


Interestingly enough, my son came home today with his assigned reading for a book report. "Anne Frank The Diary of a Young Girl"

richardshagrin

When the Xerox machine screws up, you have a copy wrong.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@richardshagrin

When the Xerox machine screws up, you have a copy wrong.


Open Source and Creative Commons licenses have been referred to as copyleft.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

Open Source and Creative Commons licenses have been referred to as copyleft.

And plagiarism is copywrong.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

And plagiarism is copywrong.


Unless you are plagiarizing clothing designs, then it's copythong. :)

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

Unless you are plagiarizing clothing designs, then it's copythong.

Unless you plagiarize the wrong design, then it's copywrongthong. If it's men's wear, it would be copywrongdongthong.

We can do this all day.

robberhands
Updated:

Since the original thread seems to have run its course, I want to ask your opinion in terms of copyright concerns about something else. Imagine following story synopsis:

I have downloaded the Seven Books written by JK Rowling, and while listening to the unabridged audio recording, I corrected and added to each of the stories. Here we go...

The Harry Potter Anthology by XXX

What do you think about it?

Edited a second time, to formulate it as a theoretical question.

Switch Blayde

@robberhands

You're violating Rowling's copyright. She owns the characters and the world she built as well as the books she wrote.

awnlee jawking

@Switch Blayde

Didn't Anne Frank's father violate her copyright by editing her diary without her permission?

AJ

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@awnlee jawking

Didn't Anne Frank's father violate her copyright by editing her diary without her permission?


No, she died as a juvenile, so her parents inherited everything she had and the rights to it.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
robberhands

@Switch Blayde

You're violating Rowling's copyright. She owns the characters and the world she built as well as the books she wrote.

I never read a book of the 'Harry Potter' series and have no particular knowledge of the hypothetical 'Harry Potter Anthology' by XXX, but I agree with you, it looks like a copyright infraction. 'Fan fiction' sometimes is tacitly tolerated by copyright holders but I don't think this work would be permitted if discovered.

Switch Blayde

Here's a really good article on copyright and public domain:
http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/PublicDomain.html

Whenever you rely on the PD status of a work, it is important to make sure that the particular version you want to use is actually in the public domain. Later versions or adaptations (e.g., translations, revisions, annotated and illustrated editions) of PD works may be protected by a separate copyright. Copyright in later versions or adaptations, relates to the fresh layer of creative material added by the second author. To avoid legal entanglements it is important to use only the original PD version -- not any later copyrighted version that may contain editorial interventions. While Shakespeare's Hamlet is in the public domain, the New Folger Library Edition of Hamlet is not.


They refer to "when it was created" as to the starting point of the copyright period. But although you own the copyright as soon as you write it, I believe they're talking about publication date when they say "created."

Conclusion
If you are trolling the public domain for works to adapt, reuse, or republish, be aware that there are many traps for the unwary. If you are unfamiliar with the intricacies of copyright law, you should consider hiring an intellectual property attorney or qualified rights clearance expert. While there are many PD gems out there – including classic films and unheralded works waiting to be discovered -- be aware that all that glitters may not be gold. As suggested by this article, licenses may still be needed from rights holders as well as identifiable persons.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

Here's a really good article on copyright and public domain:

I continually troll the internet for 'reference material', include quotes, photos and other details. However, when I do, I'm well aware of what I'm allowed to use, for my private use, and that I'm not allowed to either share or make a profit off of it. On the other hand, it is virtually impossible to get anyone—even professional authors trying to promote their works on photo sharing sites—to respond about inquires about using their works. That's why I like giving out my contact info whenever I release stories.

Switch Blayde
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


It is virtually impossible to get anyone—even professional authors trying to promote their works on photo sharing sites—to respond about inquires about using their works.


Tell me about it. I wanted to use the 1st six lines of Lionel Richie's song "Endless Love" in my novel. I somehow tracked down the copyright owner of the lyrics (different than the song itself for recording). It was Alfred Publishing.

I had to complete a form on their site. A lot of it was N/A or unknown because I didn't have the information (like how many copies of the book would be sold). I never heard from them. So I took the lines out of my novel. Screw them. It wasn't needed anyway.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer  Joe Long
helmut_meukel
Updated:

@robberhands

I think XXX is again violating Rowling's copyright. His ongoing story "AFTER THE BATTLE OF HOGWARTS" has already 12 Chapters.

HM.

Replies:   robberhands
Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

even professional authors trying to promote their works on photo sharing sites


Why would professional authors be trying to promote their works on photo sharing sites?

Replies:   Joe Long  Crumbly Writer
richardshagrin

@sejintenej

Richard Sagrin

I spell the last name Shagrin. Maybe it would be easier to remember if you combine Shag with grin?

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@richardshagrin

I spell the last name Shagrin.


Ah, I wasn't sure if it was Richards hag rin or Richards ha grin (as in funny smile) or Richard sha grin (as in arab royalty smile).

Replies:   awnlee jawking
robberhands
Updated:

@helmut_meukel

The hypothetical story by XXX I mentioned was hypothetically removed from SoL. It was a more blatant copyright infraction but I agree with you, "After the Battle of Hogwarts" represents most likely a copyright infraction, too.

ETA: Are you listening Lazeez?

awnlee jawking

@Ernest Bywater

Or a phonetic spelling of chagrin ;)

AJ

awnlee jawking

@Ernest Bywater

Surely the clock for the expiry of the copyright of her version starting ticking when she died. Any changes the father made resulted in a new version and a new copyright but shouldn't have affected the copyright on her original.

AJ

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@awnlee jawking

Surely the clock for the expiry of the copyright of her version starting ticking when she died. Any changes the father made resulted in a new version and a new copyright but shouldn't have affected the copyright on her original.


My understanding from researching the copyright fight over the diary it wasn't published before her death, but selected parts were posted soon after her death. The copyright on the original edition has expired, but since there's a lot more in the diary than was in that edition a later edition with commentary by her father and more of the diary was published.

Thus the copyright on the original edition is expired while the copyright on the two later editions with more of the diary entries listed and commentary are still under copyright and are copyrighted to the person who did the commentary - one by her father, but not sure who did the commentary on the latest edition.

Joe Long

@Dominions Son

No, it was the 1976 copyright act that made that change.


My first copyright was obtained in 1978, after filling out applications and some back and forth with a bureaucrat in DC, but finally I got "permission" to state copyright on my publication (and a copy of my work on file with the Library of Congress)

Joe Long

@Switch Blayde

I was told that won't stand up in court. I forget why. Maybe because you can mail yourself an empty envelop and then put your manuscript in it. But I don't remember why. It came up in a discussion on wattpad.


How about taking the manuscript to a notary who'll give their seal and date it?

Joe Long

@Dominions Son

Why would professional authors be trying to promote their works on photo sharing sites?


An author I know uses one of those sites (Pintarest?) to post photos that are inspired by one of their books - such as photos of actors they think could play the parts, or of landscapes and setting featured in the book, or even of things such as wardrobe if it's a period piece.

Dominions Son

@Joe Long

An author I know uses one of those sites (Pintarest?)


It's Pintrest ( https://www.pinterest.com/ ) and strictly speaking, Pintrest is not a photo sharing site, it's more a social media site like facebook.

Replies:   Joe Long  Crumbly Writer
Joe Long

@Dominions Son

Pinterest (we were both off a letter)

I'm not positive if that was the site this particular author was using, but the aim was to post photos that would help drive interest in the written word.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son
Updated:

@Joe Long


but the aim was to post photos that would help drive interest in the written word.


Except true dedicated photo sharing sites are mostly populated by amateur photographers looking to show off and share their work. They might actually be put off by someone trying to use the site to generate interest in a book.

The author you refer to is probably using one of the social media sites.

Also, most of the true photo sharing sites have rules that prohibit posting anything that isn't completely your own original work.

sejintenej

Just received the latest T and C from a major hard and software company.
1. They require you to establish an account with them.

2. "You hereby grant ******** a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, nonexclusive licence to use the materials you submit ......" elsewhere it is stated that "materials" are "such as comments, pictures, videos, and podcasts (including associated metadata and artwork)

Seems like a company to avoid - they can sell all your family photos, novels you write .....etc. to whomever they wish at any time

Ernest Bywater

@sejintenej

Seems like a company to avoid - they can sell all your family photos, novels you write .....etc. to whomever they wish at any time


Correct, and you can't stop them, even after your account is terminated. Amazon has had terms like that for years, and so do a lot of other groups - most of them changed their terms to read like that after being acquired by Amazon.

Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

Tell me about it. I wanted to use the 1st six lines of Lionel Richie's song "Endless Love" in my novel. I somehow tracked down the copyright owner of the lyrics (different than the song itself for recording). It was Alfred Publishing.

Typically, you're restricted to the number of lines (stanza's in a song) as a percentage of the total. Six lines may be pushing the limit (depending on how long the total song is). Trimming how much you quote may get you under the limit, though.

But, of course, the RIAA has been particularly problematic, stretching the limits of what's not allowed by extensive litigation and political contributions.

Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

Why would professional authors be trying to promote their works on photo sharing sites?

It's a powerful media platform. They typically alternate picture quotes (literary quotes imposed on various photo backgrounds), cover photos and random dictionary quotes of off-beat words. They key is, they keep the material fresh enough so readers/fans keep checking in, and the activity causes many to check out the books in question. Those viewers may not purchase your book, but it at least boosts your search ratings, which make your books appear more popular than they actually are on their own.

I've actually been considering it (mainly since I have such a large collection of books, book covers, literary quotes and other material. But once again, those who engage in this type of promotion end up working on their platforms, rather than writing. It's the death knell of many promising authors (like blog posts).

Crumbly Writer

@Joe Long

An author I know uses one of those sites (Pintarest?) to post photos that are inspired by one of their books - such as photos of actors they think could play the parts, or of landscapes and setting featured in the book, or even of things such as wardrobe if it's a period piece.

That's a little more difficult, as you (the author) have no rights over the photos you gleamed from the internet. Most won't sue over pictures already readily available on the internet, but you're risking potential lawsuits by ignoring the law entirely.

On the other hand, like with most fanfiction, the key is not making a profit from the usage and a willingness to take it down as soon as a complaint is filed. Few will go beyond those initial measures.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

It's Pintrest (www.pinterest.com) and strictly speaking, Pintrest is not a photo sharing site, it's more a social media site like facebook.

I was specifically thinking of Flickr and 500 (the actual name is 500 followed by the infinity symbol).

Crumbly Writer

@sejintenej

2. "You hereby grant ******** a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, nonexclusive licence to use the materials you submit ......" elsewhere it is stated that "materials" are "such as comments, pictures, videos, and podcasts (including associated metadata and artwork)

We've debated this endlessly before. Those generic clauses are intended to cover the use on the site only, not the ownership and copyright of the original photos. That prevents their having to delete the photos from everyone who copies it from the site after it's posted. They've generally never attempted to claim the ownership of photographs ownership claims.

However, Ernest is a strict "if it's in a contract, they can do whatever the fuck they want with it" fanatic, so base your own decision on each of our perspectives on this question.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer

However, Ernest is a strict "if it's in a contract, they can do whatever the fuck they want with it" fanatic, so base your own decision on each of our perspectives on this question.


CW,

A few points to keep in mind.

1. No one puts something in a contract unless they see a need to have it there, even if it's just to cover some obscure legal issue.

2. If it's in the contract they can use it and you have no recourse against them.

3. Not everyone in the industry has these clauses in their contract, so why do they feel they need it?

4. Existing laws on retail sales means they don't have to recall things sold after you cancel the account. What the clause means is they can continue to sell the items after you cancel the account and you can't stop them.

5. If you were correct about your claim it doesn't cover any other usage, you need to ask a lawyer about it. Perpetual means forever, and royalty-free means they don't have to pay you. That alone is enough to tell you not to use them.

However, if you're happy to give someone the permanent right to use and sell your stuff without paying you, feel free to use them, just don't complain when they shaft you.

Replies:   sejintenej
Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

the key is not making a profit from the usage and a willingness to take it down as soon as a complaint is filed. Few will go beyond those initial measures.


I remember reading about one that did. Someone used an image on her blog. She got sued and had to pay.

Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

It's a powerful media platform.


Yeah, it's a social media site, NOT a photo sharing site.

richardshagrin

@Crumbly Writer

But once again, those who engage in this type of promotion end up working on their platforms, rather than writing.


There is an author who does this on his site with photographs of nude or partially clad young women (all over 18) and he now posts a chapter in the 4th book of his main story about twice a year. He indicates in a blog entry that patreon has changed his output and he writes more than he posts, but we on SOL see new chapters infrequently.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
sejintenej

@Ernest Bywater

However, if you're happy to give someone the permanent right to use and sell your stuff without paying you, feel free to use them, just don't complain when they shaft you.

This looks like it refers to my post; what I didn't include is that what gets on to their site is all your emails and other documents (like that letter to your lawyer about them). As far as I know they are not an ISP - it is simply that the stuff goes through one of their programmes

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@sejintenej

it is simply that the stuff goes through one of their programmes


Some years ago a certain company came up with a piece of fancy software to help you create documents for publication for use on their fancy systems, however, just using the software meant you agreed to give them total control over whatever you create in their software. Not a nice idea.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@richardshagrin

There is an author who does this on his site with photographs of nude or partially clad young women (all over 18) and he now posts a chapter in the 4th book of his main story about twice a year. He indicates in a blog entry that patreon has changed his output and he writes more than he posts, but we on SOL see new chapters infrequently.

Yet he has time to post a new 'nude picture of the day', each and every day for several years, but writing new chapters simply doesn't rate as 'important enough' for a so-called author to warrant the time. That's partially why I gave up on following him, because I followed his many picture posts (they're quite funny), but they don't make him a better author, and never will (especially if he never writes again)!

Crumbly Writer
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

Some years ago a certain company came up with a piece of fancy software to help you create documents for publication for use on their fancy systems, however, just using the software meant you agreed to give them total control over whatever you create in their software. Not a nice idea.

The company, Apple, created such outrage over that initial offering (and their subsequent 'removal' of books and music users had legitimately purchased, that they recanted and changed their policy (though I believe the original wording remains largely intact).

The point is, if they expect to continue selling products, they can't afford the draconian actions you're suggesting. That said, I continually have issues with Apple 'erasing' my purchases from their system anytime I lose my internet connection. But that's more of a 'systems usage' design failure, rather than a 'malicious intent' failure.

Also, the 'fancy software' they came up with was never intended for use for fiction, but was intended for 'multimedia works' (i.e. children's electronic books which had virtual 'pop-up' video displays). They weren't trying to restrict the use of the text in those displays, as much as they didn't want their 'content creators' taking the software ideas and transferring them to other devices (an effort which has largely failed, mostly because Apple's 'Author' program NEVER caught on)!

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer

The point is, if they expect to continue selling products, they can't afford the draconian actions you're suggesting.


CW,

If they felt that was true they'd reword the section to remove the draconian aspect. The telling part is they have, in the past, stated they wouldn't misuse the wording while they keep it there. If they have no intention of misusing it, why keep it at all. What they really mean by having it is - we want to really use this, but aren't yet sure we can get away with it, but hang around, we will use it in the future when wet hink we can get away with it.

Replies:   JohnBobMead
JohnBobMead

@Ernest Bywater

Ernest clearly has a very cynical view of the world.

However, I think he's absolutely correct in this, if they didn't at least consider someday make use of the clause, they wouldn't have it in the contract.

They may never actually enforce that clause. But it says something about them, that they thought seriously enough about it that they added it to their standard contract. That's why he keeps harping on Amazon's contract terms; sure, they haven't implemented them to date, but why are they there in the first place? Non-standard clauses don't find their way into contracts by accident.

Ernest Bywater

@JohnBobMead

Ernest clearly has a very cynical view of the world.


Nah, just a shit load of experience with contract law where I saw a lot of what look like idiot clauses actually being applied in the contract performance - people stick them in for a reason.

One that comes to mind is the famous band who had a term about coloured sweets in their contracts, along with a lot of stuff about the stage set up and safety. They had the sweets in there because it gave them a quick check on if the contractor had really read the contract and acted on it, which saved them time checking all aspects of the stage and safety set ups. They felt if they got the sweets right they would likely have the rest right. - A weird clause that had a reason that wasn't obvious to all.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

Nah, just a shit load of experience with contract law where I saw a lot of what look like idiot clauses actually being applied in the contract performance - people stick them in for a reason.


Yes, but even for the ones you have specifically complained about on these forums, that reason was not necessarily malicious.

However, just because it wasn't put there for malicious reasons, doesn't mean that a subsequent change in corporate leadership won't end up using it for malicious ends, particularly if a company ends up in bankruptcy.

That is the real problem with a lot of the funky clauses in EULAs and web site terms of services.

Finbar_Saunders

@mimauk

The BBC audio series with Simon Russel Beal were excellent too.

JohnBobMead

@Dominions Son

yeppers to that.

While those who initially insert a funky clause may not have diabolical intent, management changes. Thus, the existence of a funky clause should be questioned/challenged even if you trust the people inserting it, because what will their successors be like? The very existance of a clause open to abuse invites the deliberate takeover by someone intending to abuse the clause. While it offends my view of the world, some people _are_ by their very nature evil, and one should acknowledge that when establishing policies.

sejintenej

Just occasionaly clauses are put in contracts to keep the customer on the straight and narrow. I had a standard clause that if the customer did not pay up on due date (by another clause at the customer's option payment before was OK) then we would make a charge to cover our resultant expenses. de facto the courts would consider that a fine and only the courts could impose a fine so the clause was actually meaningless but the customers never tested that out. (If I tried to impose that clause I would be imprisoned!)

Replies:   REP
REP

@sejintenej

to keep the customer on the straight and narrow. ... a charge to cover our resultant expenses. de facto the courts would consider that a fine


All contracts written by a business are to define what the business will do and what the customer must do.

I don't know about the law in England, but in the US there is a major difference between a charge for providing additional services (service charge) and a fine (a punitive action).

Replies:   sejintenej
sejintenej
Updated:

@REP


I don't know about the law in England, but in the US there is a major difference between a charge for providing additional services (service charge) and a fine (a punitive action).


There is a narrow line between the two. We COULD say that the customer has to pat all our recovery costs resulting from the non-payment of the debt but we would have (on demand) to prove the exact amount charged.

However, since we would be borrowing in order to support the customer's overdue debt we could not impose or increase interest over and above the contractural rate prior to due date on the amount for the overdue period.
We could not even put in the original contract that we would charge (say) 2% per annum compounded monthly on overdue sums; that would be considered "contempt of court" for which we could be imprisoned for as long as the judge decided and without limitation

That said everything is up to the judges in each case and a few did agree that we could make an overdue charge based on the amount which we thought it would cost us to recover the debt and the other costs involved .

We can, of course, cite precedents (just as you can in the USA) and I did on one occasion cite a case under Illinois law in the preliminaries to a UK case. I cannot remember what the situation was - it just appealed to my sense of the ridiculous

Replies:   REP
REP

@sejintenej

There is a narrow line between the two.


We may be thinking of two different things for to me it is not a narrow line.

In the US, a business can charge a monthly fee for the accounting costs incurred in maintaining the customer's account, which is called a service charge. The fee can be a flat rate charge, a percentage of the balance owed, or a combination of both. When interest is charged on the outstanding balance, it is to reimburse the business for their capital being tied-up and these details are spelled-out in the contract. That is different from the business taking-out a loan, and then charging the customer with the loan's interest.

In the US, a business can define in the contract that the customer will be liable for legal costs incurred by the business if they have to take the customer to court. However, they cannot directly charge the customer for those costs. The court will order the customer to pay the outstanding balance, legal costs, and interest if appropriate.

Crumbly Writer

@JohnBobMead

However, I think he's absolutely correct in this, if they didn't at least consider someday make use of the clause, they wouldn't have it in the contract.

I've mentioned before, the wording for the clause also covers their 'borrowing' of books. Amazon has a history of keeping books (both print and electronic) in their warehouses, so they can 'ship if immediately' whenever anyone orders it, without paying authors. The payment occurs when the order is made, instead of when Amazon produces their own internal copies without notifying the author. Thus their 'we can continue selling' covers these 'internal borrowed copies', rather than their plans to sell discontinued books.

I tend to be very cynical too, but I also put more weight on a person's/company's actions than I do on their words.

In this case, I prefer their actions (borrowing books in order to sell more of my books), so I simply choose to not worry about other alternative fears.

Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

However, just because it wasn't put there for malicious reasons, doesn't mean that a subsequent change in corporate leadership won't end up using it for malicious ends, particularly if a company ends up in bankruptcy.

That is the real problem with a lot of the funky clauses in EULAs and web site terms of services.

That's always a problem. But at this point, there's little chance of Amazon going bankrupt any time soon!

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

That's always a problem.


Yes, it's always a problem, but it's most likely to happen when a company is in bankruptcy and is under court pressure (and possibly a receiver) to come up with as much cash as possible for the creditors.

Joe Long
Updated:

@Switch Blayde


I wanted to use the 1st six lines of Lionel Richie's song "Endless Love" in my novel.


My WIP was previously at AFF. Their site rules were that any lyrics had to be credited, whether as a footnote or in the story itself.

I open with a quote from Demon Hunter, with the name of the band directly underneath. In the story lyrics are mentioned, along with mention of the artist's name, by Kansas, Moody Blues, Boston, The Knack, Billy Joel (perhaps some other) You're allowed to guess when the story is set.

For example, here the first reference to a Kansas song in Chapter 2

As I stood Hannah extended her hand and replied, "Okay - help me up?"

It felt soft, warm and slightly moist to my touch. I wanted so much to keep holding her hand the whole way home, our fingers laced together as we strolled down the street - but after she got to her feet I looked down as I let her hand go, letting mine dangle at my side, just inches away.

The Wall. Again. The lyrics from the Kansas song began taunting me as they echoed inside my head.

It rises now before me,

A dark and silent barrier between,

All I am, and all that I would ever want be

It's just a travesty


It didn't matter how easily Hannah and I talked about stuff or shared a laugh, I was once again at that wall where I'd have to ask, the point at which I would have to confess, 'I want you as more…'


That was a setup to the final chapter, where his girlfriend brings it up in discussion.

When we got in the car Jenny asked, "What did you think?"

"It was good."

"Anything in particular."

"Well, when he said about sitting among people who have found it to be just that simple."

"Do you know the Kansas song 'The Wall'?"

I nodded. "Yeah, I like that one."

"Do you remember what the wall is?"

"Yeah, it's the, um...the dark and silent barrier. The symbol and the sum of all I am."

"You see? All the fear, the anger, or whatever's holding you back – it doesn't own you."

"What do you mean?"

"All the things you've done, everything that's happened to you – let them go. Start again."

"But..."

She squeezed my hand. "No buts. If you're seeking the riches, you must tear down the wall. Give it up. You're not too weak."

"But..."

"There. Is. No. Loss."

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Joe Long

My WIP was previously at AFF. Their site rules were that any lyrics had to be credited, whether as a footnote or in the story itself.


Credited or not, unless it falls under fair use, which use in a published story probably would not, it's still technically a copyright violation unless you have a license from the owner of the copyright on the lyrics.

*Important note on music copyrights, not always, but often, the lyrics and music for a song are under separate copyrights.

Switch Blayde

@Dominions Son

*Important note on music copyrights, not always, but often, the lyrics and music for a song are under separate copyrights.


That's what I found.

Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

Credited or not, unless it falls under fair use,


In most countries copyright Fair Use allows you up to 10% of a work or chapter for any purpose, but you should attributed it properly.

For songs and other music there's usually three copyrights involved:

1. Lyrics - to the writer;

2. Music - to the composer;

3. The performance recording - to the performer or the company who made the record.

So when you quote lyrics from a song you should be attributing the lyricist, and not the band who performed it. In Playball I list Ned Miller who wrote the words, because it's the words I use when I quote whole verses. However, in other stories I only quote a few lines, so that comes under Fair Use and I don't have to attribute it properly - Star Performance is a good example of that.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Joe Long
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

In most countries copyright Fair Use allows you up to 10%


US law is not that simple. There is no fixed % for fair use.

How much of a work can be used is dependent on the nature of the work itself and the use to which it is being put.

Reproduction of an entire art photo or painting for a news story or critique of the work would be fair use.

On the other hand, a single sentence from a novel used for commercial purposes would not be fair use.

Replies:   Capt. Zapp
Capt. Zapp

@Dominions Son

On the other hand, a single sentence from a novel used for commercial purposes would not be fair use.


There were cases back in the 60's and 70's where 'songs' came out formatted as news reports where the 'reporter' would ask a question and the reply was a clip of music from real songs. These were deemed to be 'fair use'.
Watergate 1973
Energy Crisis '74
Mr. Jaw's 1975
Mr. President (unknown)

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Capt. Zapp

There were cases back in the 60's and 70's where 'songs' came out formatted as news reports


New reporting is generally given more leeway in the US in regards to fair use.

Replies:   Capt. Zapp
Capt. Zapp

@Dominions Son

New reporting is generally given more leeway in the US in regards to fair use.


They were not actual news reporting, but parodies of news where the 'reporter' would as a question (The shark from Jaws in 'Mr. Jaws') and the questions would be answered using a clip from a song.
From near the end of 'Mr. Jaws'

Reporter: "Mister Jaws! Why are you biting my hand?"
Mr. Jaws: (Sound clip from Melissa Manchester's "Midnight Blue") Wouldn't you give your hand to a friend?

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Capt. Zapp

Parody also gets extra leeway in fair use issues.

Joe Long
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater


So when you quote lyrics from a song you should be attributing the lyricist, and not the band who performed it.


I believe that in the vast majority of cases the general public knows the band but not the lyricist, unless they make a habit of reading the liner notes. In my cases the character mentions a song, the artist, and a bit of the lyrics in places where they relate to the story.

I have a scene that's a teenage beer party. Back in the late 70's, it was mandatory to at least once play Billy Joel's Piano Man, and everyone would link arms in a circle, swaying back and forth while belting out the lyrics. I also mention that when the song by The Knack was on, everyone would stop what they were doing to shout out "My Sharona" when the lyrics go to that point. It's accurately setting the scene, and other than perhaps Bernie Taupin, damn few people knew any lyricist's names.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Joe Long

I believe that in the vast majority of cases the general public knows the band but not the lyricist,


A search engine on the word 'lyrics' and the song title will soon find you a website with the lyrics and ti will have the name of the lyricist on it.

Having the name of the lyricist is the legal requirement for the written words, having the name of the band is a requirement for when playing an audio version of the song they recorded.

You can get away with saying "The radio played Billy Joel's version of Piano Man," and you're OK. However, the moment you quote more than a few lines of the song you need to name the lyricist. In Playball I quoted whole verses at different points, so I named the lyricist, while in Star performance I only had a one or two lines of a verse I could got away with naming the song title only. The more of the song you quote, the higher the requirement to do it right the legal way.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

Having the name of the lyricist is the legal requirement for the written words, having the name of the band is a requirement for when playing an audio version of the song they recorded.


In what jurisdictions?

Under US law, attribution is not a controlling factor in determination of fair use and is irrelevant if you have an explicit license unless the license explicitly requires attribution.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

In what jurisdictions?


Want to be sure in your area, go ask a local lawyer.

The generally accepted fair use rules for most countries are in the Berne Convention as 10% of a work or 10% of a chapter of the work. The US courts usually accept that as a basic starting point and then let people argue, unless the local laws state otherwise.

Joe Long

@Ernest Bywater

Want to be sure in your area, go ask a local lawyer.


Much as we talk a lot here about Lazeez's implementation of the age rules, my story was previously at AFF where they were a stickler for attribution. My story was not posted until I had properly put in the name of the artist to the editor's satisfaction.

Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

The US courts usually accept that as a basic starting point and then let people argue, unless the local laws state otherwise.


Local law has squat to do with it. Copyright law is strictly federal.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

The generally accepted fair use rules for most countries are in the Berne Convention as 10% of a work or 10% of a chapter of the work.


The text of the Berne Convention is here.
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=283698#P144_26032

It does not anywhere use the term fair use and when it talks about free uses, it provides no specific percentage. You are simply mistaken.

Certain Free Uses of Works:
1. Quotations; 2. Illustrations for teaching; 3. Indication of source and author

(1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries.

(2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union, and for special agreements existing or to be concluded between them, to permit the utilization, to the extent justified by the purpose, of literary or artistic works by way of illustration in publications, broadcasts or sound or visual recordings for teaching, provided such utilization is compatible with fair practice.

(3) Where use is made of works in accordance with the preceding paragraphs of this Article, mention shall be made of the source, and of the name of the author if it appears thereon.



Article 10bis
Further Possible Free Uses of Works:
1. Of certain articles and broadcast works; 2. Of works seen or heard in connection with current events

(1) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction by the press, the broadcasting or the communication to the public by wire of articles published in newspapers or periodicals on current economic, political or religious topics, and of broadcast works of the same character, in cases in which the reproduction, broadcasting or such communication thereof is not expressly reserved. Nevertheless, the source must always be clearly indicated; the legal consequences of a breach of this obligation shall be determined by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed.

(2) It shall also be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the conditions under which, for the purpose of reporting current events by means of photography, cinematography, broadcasting or communication to the public by wire, literary or artistic works seen or heard in the course of the event may, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose, be reproduced and made available to the public.

Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

The US courts usually accept that as a basic starting point and then let people argue, unless the local laws state otherwise.


This is simply not true. The US Supreme court as explicitly rejected any bright line standards what extent of copying qualifies as fair use.

Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

Local law has squat to do with it.


Local law has everything to do with it - if you live in the USA, as some here do, then the local law on copyright is the US Federal Law on it. But, if you live in Inner Outer Mongolia then the local laws there won't have anything to do with any US Federal law.

Fair Use, Fair Dealing, Approved Usage - there are a dozen terms used, but Fair Use is the one most people understand.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater


f you live in the USA, as some here do, then the local law on copyright is the US Federal Law on it.


No, here in the US, with our multiple layers of government, "local law" has a very specific meaning. It refers to State law or municipal ordinances, never to federal law.

Replies:   helmut_meukel
helmut_meukel

@Dominions Son

No, here in the US, with our multiple layers of government, "local law" has a very specific meaning. It refers to State law or municipal ordinances, never to federal law.


From the POV of international treaties all other law – may it be federal, state, county or municipal – is local law.

So Ernest is right by calling any US law as local.

HM.

Replies:   richardshagrin  REP
richardshagrin

@helmut_meukel

law as local.

All laws are low calorie, because they are hard to swallow. (this observation relies on lo-cal meaning low calorie.)

REP

@helmut_meukel

So Ernest is right by calling any US law as local.


When you exclude regions other than the US, as was done in prior comments, then the definition of 'local law' does not include US Federal law.

EB was correct in that US Law (i.e., Federal Law) takes precedence over 'Local Law'. While US Law applies to all levels of government below the National Level, the laws are not part of the laws passed by the lower levels of government.

In other words, 'Local Laws', such as a set of laws passed by a State, are a set of legal code that is separate from, but subordinate to, the laws passed by the US Government.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@REP

EB was correct in that US Law (i.e., Federal Law) takes precedence over 'Local Law'.


Any law that applies to you in your area is a local law - but you can also have Local Laws that are made by Local Legislative forces at any level.

The problem of late is some people are trying very hard to over specify what things means.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Joe Long  REP
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

The problem of late is some people are trying very hard to over specify what things means.


No, this isn't something we are just making up. "Local Law" has a specific LEGAL meaning in US created by our courts, and that is how most people in the US will interpret the term.

If you refuse to acknowledge this, you will only sow confusion when trying to communicate with a US audience.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

you will only sow confusion when trying to communicate with a US audience.


The only one introducing confusion is yourself. I said local laws to mean the laws in your local area and you automatically claim it as Local Laws as made by Local Authorities using capital letters I didn't use. and If you want to claim the words local laws means anything beyond what is applied in your area as against my area then you should be restricting it to the city or county laws and not the state laws.

Joe Long

@Ernest Bywater

Any law that applies to you in your area is a local law - but you can also have Local Laws that are made by Local Legislative forces at any level.


I agree with DS.

Local law, state law, federal law - all refer to who created the law. We are subject to all, but with supremacy lower laws must be consistent with higher ones.

Replies:   richardshagrin
richardshagrin

@Joe Long

lower laws must be consistent with higher ones.

Except for federal laws prohibiting Marijuana sales, which some states are now allowing and taxing.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son
Updated:

@richardshagrin


Except for federal laws prohibiting Marijuana sales, which some states are now allowing and taxing.


Technically those laws are not really inconsistent with federal law. The states mostly have their own drug laws, because the feds don't have the resources to enforce their own laws everywhere and they don't have the authority to require states to enforce federal law.

In fact they don't have the authority to give a willing state jurisdiction to enforce federal law.

The feds could step in and crush the marijuana industry in states that have decriminalized it, but it would require taking federal drug enforcement resources away from all of states that are still cooperating to focus on the few states that have decriminalized.

This would raise significant complaints from the states that have not decriminalized marijuana.

The feds are sitting back and doing nothing to stop state decriminalization because many surveys are now showing that there is majority support among voters for national decriminalization of marijuana (it's around 45% even for Republican voters).

Between the lack of resources, and popular support for marijuana decriminalization, the feds are sitting on their asses to avoid creating even more momentum for federal decriminalization.

REP

@Ernest Bywater

Any law that applies to you in your area is a local law


International Copyright Laws and US Federal Laws apply to me, but I would NOT call them Local Laws because they affect more than my local area.

In McIntyre v. Clarkson, 254 N.C. 510 (N.C. 1961), the court held that, "the phrase local law means, primarily at least, a law that in fact, if not in form, is confined within territorial limits other than that of the whole state, or applies to any political subdivision or subdivisions of the state less than the whole, or to the property and persons of a limited portion of the state, or to a comparatively small portion of the state, or is directed to a specific locality or spot, as distinguished from a law which operates generally throughout the state."


https://definitions.uslegal.com/l/local-law/

helmut_meukel

@REP

Just proofing the ignorance of most Americans.
There is a whole world outside the USA. Ignoring it will bite you in your back eventually.

HM.

Ernest Bywater

@REP

International Copyright Laws and US Federal Laws apply to me, but I would NOT call them Local Laws because they affect more than my local area.


again, I say, not the capital status of the first letter of each word, then take a microsecond to think about what that means.

Back to Top