Talk:Copyright

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
Top	This article has been assessed as Top-importance on the assessment scale.

	WikiProject Law Enforcement
	Copyright is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

	Copyright is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 27, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept June 6, 2005 Featured article review Demoted May 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed Current Status: Former featured article

	WikiProject Echo      (Indonesian)
	WikiProject Echo has identified Copyright as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Indonesian language Wikipedia.

There is a request, submitted by Chameleon, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Previously requested".

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article has been assessed as Top-importance on the assessment scale.

To-do:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Remove the "as of 1911" reference by fact-checking the related information to determine whether or not it is still true. clearly and early on, give the first theoretical justification of copyright law: compared to having everything in the public domain, the copyright system should result in more creative works, and higher-quality works clearly and early on, give the second theoretical justification of copyright law: that it's only fair that an author should be able to control and profit by his/her creations explore if and how these justifications have played out historically, and where they came from critically evaluate copyright law, citing, for example, cost/benefit studies. is copyright law working? if so, for whom? examine how copyright is perceived by "common people" cover the effects of "piracy", both in the "first world" and in places where enforcement is lax, e.g. China and South America give an example of a typical and/or high-profile copyright enforcement case Add the concept of the "Poor Man's Copyright", and emphasize whether or not it has ever held up in court. Add a 'permission granted by copyright holder to use on wikipedia' template option to the dropdown on the file upload page. (Moved from talk page. Feel free to edit this. It should reflect the consensus of what needs to be worked upon.)
Priority 1 (top)

This page is for discussion of the particular contents of the Copyright article, or for straightforward questions about copyright. This article is not the place for:

1. debates about the merits of copyright. See Talk:Copyright/is copyright worthwhile?.
2. discussion of Wikipedia's copyright policies. See Wikipedia:Copyrights, or, for more informal discussion, see Wikipedia:Copyright issues.
3. Legal advice about copyright. Please see an attorney authorized to practice law in your jurisdiction.

[edit] Information about copyright symbol

Copyright symbol redirects to this article, but there's no information about the symbol here. It would be great to know its history, how to generate it from a keyboard, etc. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The copyright symbol is a typographical symbol. I don't have the knowledge to write the article, though. --lquilter 14:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I do, so I did. --TJRC 02:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

(Indent reverted) How to generate Copyright symbol　is described in article by holding the ALT key while typing the numbers 0169 on the numeric keypad. History for C in circle or "(C)" (is valid instead of C in circle) mark set is told on 6 September 1952, though not clear statement found by myself in English web site(s).

Note: the symbol of a lower case "c" inside of a circle accompanied by the name of the copyright proprietor and the year of first publication placed in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of claim of copyright

The three element, Copyright＋issue year＋Writersname is used quite popular in general, such as "© 2008 Writers-name, All rights reserved. or "Copyright 2008 Writers-name, All rights reserved", however without showing this, Copyright is protected by "copyright law"of each country.

"Copyright 2008-2010 Writers-name, All rights reserved" is very ambiguity against Universal Copyright Convention, because moment of issue year timing is not specified exactly.

Search keywords is/are: the 1952 Convention Copyright (C)

The following web site and description may help you. My English en-2 may not help interpret and edit article correctly.

http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/copyright/html_eng/page1.shtml the 1952 Convention http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/UNTS13444.html 4th paragraph: Have resolved to revise the Universal Copyright Convention as signed at Geneva on 6 September 1952 (hereinafter called "the 1952 Convention"), and consequently, http://www.cni.org/docs/infopols/US.Universal.Copyright.Conv.html

http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/ocl.html [Ref.] International Conventions (Status as of August 2006)

http://www.unesco.org/culture/copyright/html_eng/ucc52ms.pdf

http://www.britannica.co.jp/azbrowse/u/u7.html Universal Copyright Convention

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9074354/Universal-Copyright-Convention --Namazu-tron (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unrelated link

I am removing this link http://info4.juridicas.unam.mx/ijure/tcfed/133.htm?s= because it does not relate to the subject of copyright. This site is about the Mexican "Federal Law of Animal Sanity" ("Ley Federal de Sanidad Animal") Amoscare (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for removing unrelated links, but I just got to know: "Animal Sanity"? There's a Mexican law about crazy animals? (Maybe "Sanitation" is the better translation?)--TJRC (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am removing the link * Against Perpetual Copyright from the external links as it is not directly related to the topic and is an opinion piece. Sbauman487 (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Distinguish US Copyright Law

Perhaps this article could be improved or clarified by separating or distinguishing US copyright law from that of other nations, the WTO TRIPs regime, or the WIPO. The purpose of copyright is subtly different in the US than in parts of Europe. US law, enshrined in the Constitution, is very interested in striking a balance between protecting innovation and delivering "the useful arts" to the people. In Europe, copyright purpose is more geared toward protecting an artist's "moral rights" in his or her work from dilution or use by others. This is a fundamental conceptual difference that's hard to discuss under the monolithic heading of "copyright" that doesn't distinguish between the different purposes of copyright.

However, the US and the world moved closer to more uniform copyright laws after the Uruguay Round of GATT. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) signed into law in the US has made it possible to possess a copyright in a work created without registering it at all (although there are still advantages to registration). The DMCA was also the domestic (US) enabling legislation Congress enacted as part of the US obligation under the Uruguay Round talks of GATT / TRIPs. TRIPs are administered by the WTO. Bkinloch (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Write an article FOR this magazine. What does that really mean?

I responded to a newspaper ad that advertised a position as journalist. The editor asked me to write a 300 word article for the publication she sought a journalist for. I sent the article through via email on the deadline. Although I came in subsequently for another test, they told me that they found a journalist for the position.

Months later the publisher called me to offer me a job, not as a journalist, but advertising sales person. I took the job, and discovered my article in one of their magazines. They had printed it for publication without my consent, without giving me credit, and without paying for the article.

Their argument was that they asked me to write an article FOR this publication. The editor said, she did not know it was my article when it went to print, and she was unwilling to pay me for it. Have they acted illegally / unlawfully according to South Africn copyright laws? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inktaps (talk • contribs) 12:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the best place to go for legal advice. You should really ask a South African copyright attorney. · jersyko talk 13:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creatrix?

"Creatrix" is not really a word, is it? Perhaps in theology, but hopefully not in the context of copyright law? I believe that "creator" applies equally to males and females. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.153.132 (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Life of the Author"

Could someone clarify what the life of the author plus 50 or 70 years means? Does it mean the date of death and 50 or 70 years or something else? Thanks.--Gramy! 17:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't read the rest of the section. I get it now. If someone else was confused by this, then you should probably change it.--Gramy! 17:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is best resolved by example to avoid confusion - e.g. John wrote a book when he was 30 and it was published immediately after he wrote it. He died when he was 80. Copyright would end either 50 or 70 years AFTER he died (depending on the specific copyright term for books). I believe for books the duration is 70 years (i haven't checked this, but am pretty sure). Hence copyright on the book would end 70 years after his death and 120 years after John initially wrote it. Hope this clarifies any issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToyotaPanasonic (talk • contribs) 07:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

User:RJurden is currently recording or editing an audio version of this article. See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information. This notice is dated 2008-03-31 . If a significant amount of time has passed, please check with User:RJurden to see if he or she is still working before removing this message.

[edit] Recieving Copyright

Can you please describe how to get the copyrights? Is it something any particular organization provides it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.34.231.233 (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How to indicates that that is guide, and this is different per country :Sterremix (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

If I had created a compilation CD, would I be able to put it on Last.fm? I don't mean like uploading the tracks, just the tracklist. Would that be copyright or not? Tcatron565 (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Seek help elsewhere. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 16:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transfer and Licensing

I feel like there should be a separate page for discussion of Transfer and Licensing, discussing types of contracts, exclusive vs. non-exclusive licenses, and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.228.75 (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV in "Justification" section

The "Justification" section is an interesting essay, but it's largely opinion. I share much of the opinion expressed here, but it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I've stricken one paragraph that was pure editorial. The rest could still use some edit. 20:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutionality of term extensions

Absent from this discussion, at least as far as US Copyright Law, is the defacto notion that copyright extension is itself unconstitutional, being in direct violation of the specific Constitutional statements regarding the inability of Congress to produce "no ex post facto bill of attainder", that is, to change the rules in play. Alterations to copyright laws can alter the copyright length of newly produced material after the law has been altered, but changing the length of copyright is tantamount to extending the length of your sentence for a crime after you've already been convicted and sentenced for that crime. That no one has yet challenged this is probably due to the need for a large war chest to fight Disney's deep pockets on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.219.28 (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason no one's challenged this is more likely that it's a fringe theory that has no chance of succeeding. There have been some substantial challenges to the copyright term extension, on theories with more substantial foundation; See, for example, Eldred v. Ashcroft. The idea that challenges are not being brought doesn't match reality.

Setting aside that a bill of attainder and an ex post facto law are two different things, not an "ex post facto bill of attainder," this article wouldn't be the right place for a discussion of that theory. This article is a discussion of copyright in general, and the idea you propose is limited to one specific facet (term) of on jurisdiction's (US) copyright law. If it would go anywhere, an appropriate place might be a line or two in an article like Copyright Term Extension Act; but only if there are reliable sources that discuss it. TJRC (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I've noticed that even now, unregistered users still mess up this topic. I would like to propose a semi-lock on this topic to protect it from future spamming. Adam Hillman (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wordwide view: copyright/author's rights

There are fundamental differences between the common law concept of copyright and the civil law author's rights. This article quite obviously isn't aware of this and anglocentrically treats copyright in the common law sense as if it were universal. But since the article author's rights exists, it shouldn't be too difficult to fix this. It should be noted in this article that in a large part of the world—the larger one, in fact—"copyright" takes on the different form of author's rights, which is a fundamentally different concept, although the effects are largely, but not completely, the same. "Author's rights" should be linked and at least be shortly defined. They comprise moral rights and property rights. The moral rights are personality rights. Therefore, while the property rights are transferable, the moral rights are so only in case of death—to the heirs. This also explains why author's rights come to existence together with the work, without any need to claim them.

It might also be helpful to know that the Berne Convention is founded on author's rights. On the other hand, the expression "intellectual property" is closely linked to copyright and remains somewhat alien to civil law, although it is now used there widely, too. German legalese for example prefers to speak of "Immaterialgüterrecht". Now don't make me translate that. --88.67.45.138 (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)