An example of the intent of copyright, as expressed in the United States Constitution, is “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.”[1]
Copyright has been internationally standardized, lasting between fifty to a hundred years from the author’s death, or a shorter period for anonymous or corporate authorship. Some jurisdictions have required formalities to establish copyright, but most recognize copyright in any completed work, without formal registration. Generally, copyright is enforced as a civil matter, though some jurisdictions do apply criminal sanctions.
“Piracy” is a slang term for copyright infringement, the unlawful reproduction of the work of another, often for the purpose of re-distribution and profit. Modern day “pirates” can make perfect digital copies of songs, videogames or software. Copyright holders worry that customers will buy the infringing copy of the work for less, or get it for free, and then the profits will go to the infringer and not to the legitimate owner. As a result they police the Internet, sending cease and desist letters to web sites that report on piracy or distribute software that can be used to copy MP3s or movies. If someone can download songs, games or other material that may be copyrighted from or through your website then you might be accused of piracy or “contributory copyright infringement.”
Just look at Wikipedia’s entry on Shakespeare here.
The movie is based on The Taming of the Shrew.
It is an example of Read/Write Culture. This is how culture is made. We quote other work, we reference, allude to and are influence by other work that came before us.
What is Remix?
* Political Remix Videos are critical or satirical works of art focusing on political, social, cultural or economic topics and created by remixing corporate intellectual property and/or appropriated footage generally without the permission of the copyright holder. A key component of Political Remix Video work is that it’s frequently highly critical of the source content and source media itself. As such, many Political Remix Videos “should” be classified as Fair-Use in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. (McIntosh)
These tools of creativity have become tools of speech. It is a literacy for this generation.
Lawrence Lessig, Stanford University Law Professor, “Remix is a Cultural Right”, November 2008
“We have to recognize something about our kids – that they are different from us. We made mixed tapes they remix videos. We watched TV, they make TV. It is technology that has made them different. We can’t kill the instinct technology produces, we can only criminalize it. We can’t stop our kids from using it, we can only drive it underground. We can’t make our kids passive again, we can only make them ‘pirates’.”
Copyright law has several features that permit quotations from copyrighted works without permission or payment, under certain conditions. Fair use is the most important
of these features. It has been an important part of copyright law for more than 150
years. Where it applies, fair use is a right, not a mere privilege. In fact, as the Supreme
Court has pointed out, fair use keeps copyright from violating the First Amendment. As
copyright protects more works for longer periods than ever before, it makes new creation
harder. As a result, fair use is more important today than ever before.
In fact, the cultural value of copying is so well established that it is written into the social bargain at the heart of copyright law. The bargain is this: we as a society give limited
property rights to creators, to reward them for producing culture; at the same time, we
give other creators the chance to use that same copyrighted material without permission
or payment, in some circumstances. Without the second half of the bargain, we could all
lose important new cultural work just because one person is arbitrary or greedy.
Did the unlicensed use “transform” the material taken from the copyrighted work by using it for a different purpose than that of the original, or did it just repeat the work for the same intent and value as the original?
Was the material taken appropriate in kind and amount, considering the nature
of the copyrighted work and of the use?
COmmON FaIR Use myThs IF I’m NOT maKING aNy mONey OFF IT, IT’s FaIR Use. Noncommercial use is indeed one of the considerations for fair use, but it is hard to define. If a work is going public, it is good to be able to rely on the rationale of transformativeness, which applies fully even in
“commercial” settings.
FaIR Use CaN’T Be eNTeRTaINING. A use is no less likely to qualify as a fair one
because the film in which it occurs is effective in attracting and holding an audience.
IF I TRy TO lICeNse maTeRIal, I’Ve GIVeN UP my ChaNCe TO Use FaIR Use.
Everyone likes to avoid conflict and reduce uncertainty, and a maker may choose to
seek permissions even in situations where they may not be required. Later, a maker
still may decide to employ fair use. The fact that a license was requested—or even
denied—doesn’t undercut an otherwise valid fair use claim. If a rights holder denies
a license unreasonably, this actually may strengthen the case for fair use.
I Really NeeD a laWyeR TO maKe The Call ON FaIR Use. Fair use is a part of the
law that belongs to everyone. A lawyer usually works for a client by reducing risk; in copyright law, that often means counseling purchase of rights for all uses of copyrighted
material. If clients tell lawyers that they want to assert their rights (something that has
a very low risk, if they understand what their rights are) then lawyers can recommend
appropriate policies; but lawyers need to be told what their clients want.
Question: What are the counter-notice and put-back procedures?
Answer: In order to ensure that copyright owners do not wrongly insist on the removal of materials that actually do not infringe their copyrights, the safe harbor provisions require service providers to notify the subscribers if their materials have been removed and to provide them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed. [512(g)] If a subscriber provides a proper “counter-notice” claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual’s objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]
A proper counter-notice must contain the following information:
* The subscriber’s name, address, phone number and physical or electronic signature [512(g)(3)(A)]
* Identification of the material and its location before removal [512(g)(3)(B)]
* A statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification [512(g)(3)(C)]
* Subscriber consent to local federal court jurisdiction, or if overseas, to an appropriate judicial body. [512(g)(3)(D)]
If it is determined that the copyright holder misrepresented its claim regarding the infringing material, the copyright holder then becomes liable to the OSP for any damages that resulted from the improper removal of the material. [512(f)]
An example of the intent of copyright, as expressed in the United States Constitution, is “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.”[1]
