"Happy Birthday"'s copyright was recently overturned and it is now in the public domain.Part of the problem with debating the question is that we have all lived our lives in the age of patents. Therefore, hard to even imagine the world otherwise. Whereas people suggest no one would have the desire to invent things, we actually do have the wheel, the lever, writing, movable type, and control of fire, to name some obvious inventions that occurred without patent law.
My argument is complicated further that we are not just born in the patent era, but we are also born in the era when the "object of humanity" has been distorted into being economic entities. As such, it comes natural to assume that the foundation of life is economic.
There of course was a decent argument for patents and copyright. But, like all economic laws, it is quickly perverted, distorted and used as a lever for the purpose of moving capital upwards into vast piles that can't be accessed by humanity as a whole. Warner Brothers owns the copyright to "Happy Birthday" and charges rather large fees for it's commercial use. The copyright was extended to 95 years.
IP laws (copyright and patents) now control the simple human endeavor of "entertainment." I find that to be so ridiculous as to not need much explanation. But, in case it does, as every human interest and endeavor enters into economic contracts, freedom of expression dies a little bit. Until we have this atomized population sitting in front of screens watching an illusory image and entertainment world for which they MUST WORK MANY HOURS to pay for.
Currently, patents are being used in medicine to bankrupt the population. A rather clear abuse of the intent. The entire IP system is clogging courts, costing humanity valuable equity in the world they inhabit, and creating ever more hording of capital.
It's pretty hard to argue that the song "Happy Birthday" is more important to humanity that the "wheel".
were the photographs in question even copyrighted ( registered at the copyright office )?
he should have emailed them and had them put a by line on the work so he at least got credit for the image.
grab and go is the way of the world .. oh well.
it probably is more important than the wheel
IDK
i am related to or know of people who invented things or are connected to people who invented things that are used every day on every corner of the globe.
and some of them had their ideas taken from them and others took credit for it
and others were working for someone who reeped the benefits of their work. that's the way of the world ..
would it have been the same thing if there were no patents? uh huh, people with
money and power pretty much do what they want whether there are patents or copyrights.
i had a large company grab images that were mine and copyrighted and publish them without consent and i got didly swat .. should have asked for a by line ..
SSDD
==
nodda the glass is 1/2 full !
A lawyer will always take your money but if he knows intellectual property law he will advise you to register you work before continuing. I still like my sandwich on a plate analogy.hk darkroomike
if you have to hire a lawyer/go to court they won't see you without a copyright registration.
in years gone by you could mail yourself an envelope with images and have it postmarked
and not open the envelope when it arrived "poorman's copyright" not valid anymore
putting the copyright symbol next to things, claiming things are copyrighted at inception and everything
else people "say" ... is a leaky sack that won't hold water in a court of law and no lawyer will take the case because
no registration and all that other stuff is not cut and dry...
sure you can register after the fact but after the fact is pretty much a waste of time if you
have someone/something using work without expressed consent.
gang registration of visual arts is cheap as dirt ( form VA ) last i checked it was under $50 and can be done online
and from what i remember there is no limit, so if someone has 10,000 images to copyright its still 50 clams.
he will advise you to register the work becauseA lawyer will always take your money but if he knows intellectual property law he will advise you to register you work before continuing. I still like my sandwich on a plate analogy.
In your ideal world with no patents, why would any drug company pay a billion dollars (that is what is required to bring a new drug to market) if a competitor would just copy it. Why would a movie studio pay $100,000,000 to create a movie if a competitor could just copy it the first day and release it for half price.
What I have said is that the world would be better off had IP laws not been invented.
Please stop feeding the troll.
Copyrights do not need to be registered to be enforced. There are three kinds of copyright.
You can also still register a copyright after you notice infringement but before you issue a cease and desist. In American law this means your damages are less, no punitive damages, but you can still get satisfaction.
- Implicit copyright, a bit like having a sandwich on a plate, if I turn my head away is it OK to steal my sandwich?
- Explicit copyright, a bit like putting up a sign that says, "This is my sandwich, go make your own!"
- Registered copyright. "A bit like putting up the same sign with a p/s that Mom is watching your actions vis a vis my sandwich.
That makes tons of sense!Signed prints are where the action is, not low res digital images. C'mon, they are nothing
My overwhelming impression of the decision referenced in the story is that neither the judge or the counsel appearing before the judge understood much about copyright law.
Now if the judge had decided that the appropriate measure of damages was $1.00, then the decision would make sense.
And as for an "Open Source" approach to intellectual property, good luck getting the cash needed to either effectively use or distribute the fruits of innovation.
"Open Source" only works if you have a distribution network that someone else pays for.
That being said, there certainly is room for improvement in the systems that balance societal needs and the encouragement of and reward for innovation. The screwed up pharmaceutical industry is evidence of that.
If it gets there, which is exceedingly unlikely.All of which points to the decision being overturned on appeal.
“To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
...There are any number of writings available to destroy the idea of "intellectual property."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?