#7254 - 12-17-03 08:55 AM
Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
zeroflux
Administrator
Registered: 03-11-01
Posts: 6175
Loc: Arlington, Virginia
|
Moving this discussion from a different thread. Please post updates regarding potential abuses of Patent, Trademark and Copyright laws in this thread.
A Capitol Grilling Encounter with Patent Law
Hollywood Stock Exchange, owned by Cantor Fitzgerald is a glowing example of how patents stifle creativity.
We were designing a political based exchange for CG that would allow our users to bet on Presidential candidates. The game would use an algorithm to calculate the stock price of candidates based on the volume of trades. After much research, interviewing programmers and even developing the branding, we found out from another political site online that we were looking to partner with that HSX patented any online game that uses an algorithm to calculate and trade stock prices. And my understanding after some research is that their patent applies to any type of algorithm in an online stock-type game, and not simply the specific algorithm they use for HSX.
Needless to say, the project was cost intensive as it was. The prospect of having to pay HSX/Cantor Fitzgerald licensing fees for a rather abstract patent essentially scuttled the project. I didn't even bother contacting them.
I really hate patents. In my opinion, aside from patents for true products such as mechanical parts...etc., patents on workflow ideas and even software do nothing but stifle innovation, or at a minimum, limit the capability to innovate to large firms with lots of venture capital.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#7255 - 12-19-03 07:50 AM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
zeroflux
Administrator
Registered: 03-11-01
Posts: 6175
Loc: Arlington, Virginia
|
Copy Catfight
How intellectual property laws stifle popular culture
On August 19, 1999, in Los Angeles, a mild act of censorship took place. Twentieth Century Fox, the colossus behind the cult series Buffy the Vampire Slayer, sent a letter to Alexander Thompson, a 35-year-old data processor and devoted Buffy fan. Thompson had spent countless hours transcribing each episode of the show, complete with descriptions of the scenery and action, and had posted the results on the World Wide Web, to his fellow fans' delight. Joss Whedon, the show's writer and producer, had praised Thompson for the job he'd done, even autographing one of the transcripts.
Whedon, however, did not own the copyright to his work. Fox did. And Fox, the company told Thompson, "has a legal responsibility...to prevent the unauthorized distribution of its proprietary material."
In other words, Thompson had to remove his transcripts from his Web site or face a lawsuit.
As far as repression goes, this no doubt sounds trivial. Fox is clearly being stupid--Thompson's transcripts were a resource for fans, not a substitute for the show--but the company was within its legal rights as the owner of the Buffy program. What it did was obnoxious, silly, and bad business, but it's hardly a threat to free speech. Right?
- Snip
In theory, a copyright is simply an incentive to create: Compose something original, the Constitution says, and we'll make sure you get a chance to profit from it. Trademark law is even simpler. It's a protection against fraud and consumer confusion, a recognition that Nike shoes are a particular product, and that if I start selling some homemade slippers as "Nikes," I am deceiving my customers.
Copyrights, unlike trademarks, have always posed problems, even if you think they're necessary. They are, after all, government-granted monopolies; as such, they should be strictly limited and carefully watched. If someone wants to extend their reach, he'd better have a compelling argument for doing so, and lawmakers should approach his proposal with due skepticism.
Read Full Article
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7256 - 12-19-03 12:08 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
zeroflux
Administrator
Registered: 03-11-01
Posts: 6175
Loc: Arlington, Virginia
|
I spent 5+ hours last night researching patent, trademark and copyright laws as a result of some pretty amazing stories I encountered in the Cafe Press Shop Owners forums. Its becoming absolutely suffocating having to deal with this stuff to create art, merchandise designs for sale...
For example:
- An instance where a Cafe Press shop was shut down because the apparel had the word "caution" in the design. A person who trademarked the word caution for use on apparel complained, and even though his trademark was for the word by itself used as a brand (like Polo or Nike), he got them shut down (because Cafe Press isn't in the business of defending allegations or litigating on behalf of store owners).
- A shop owner who created an original painting which had a bmw in it... even though the artwork was his, he was shut down because it infringed on the brand. Supposedly, you can't take a photo, or depict a trademarked/patented object without obtaining permission from the brand owner first. So basically, if I were to sell postcards featuring my own digital photography Ansel Adams style say of a table with an mug of coffee, an ashtray with cigarette butts and a crumpled Marlboro box, I need to obtain permission first from Phillip Morris.
- Let's say I'm a museum and I purchase an original painting like a Picasso, and use photos of the painting in brochures, posters...etc. I would be infringing on the copyright of the painter unless he/she signed over reproduction rights when the artist sold the painting. So even though I own the original painting, and took the photos of the painting, its copyright is still owned by the artist for something like 50 years after his/her death.
- If I use fonts, dingbats or clipart as part of my design, even if I modify them, I still have to worry whether they have a commercial use clause and associated fees. More and more font creators are now getting on the commercial use "royalty" fees bandwagon.
- If I do an original abstract painting of a sculpture or toy I purchased, with all of the design being from scratch, I still run the risk of infringing on the trademark of the sculptor for the object.
- A good case in point... Remember those creative photos I took of scenes I created with my Legos? Even if the Lego logo/brand is nowhere to be seen in the photos, I could run the risk of infringing on their brand should I let's say sell postcards with my photos on it...etc.
So you can see where I'm going with this... trying to make money off of original photography, artwork, shapes, words or any combination could be scuttled pretty quickly by a trademark or copyright... and I was under the impression those laws were instituted to encourage creativity, not to stifle it. :rolleyes: 
I'm came across some absolutely baffling stories about the DMCA bill that Congress passed. Its looking like it ranks right up there with the PATRIOT Act. I'll be updating this thread with articles on the topic, including coverage of bills and grassroots advocacy campaigns to try to curtail the monopolies of big business on everything ever sung, painted, scribbled on a piece of paper, animated on a screen...etc.
Here's one interesting article covering the backlash and real threats posed to educators by Patent, Copyright and Trademark laws. A very interesting read:
Copyright as Cudgel
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7257 - 12-19-03 12:59 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
ender
Junior Member
Registered: 09-20-04
Posts: 149
|
I'm came across some absolutely baffling stories about the DMCA bill that Congress passed. Its looking like it ranks right up there with the PATRIOT Act.
The DMCA is horrendous. The senator from disney (hollings-sc-d) was the sponsor. Truly horrific legislation.
The next worst copyright act was the previous senator from disney, sonny bon. his copyright extension act guarantees that no recent copyright work will be released to the public domain in our lifetimes.
truly evil laws.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7258 - 12-19-03 05:00 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
The Unsomnambulist
Member
Registered: 08-03-01
Posts: 1658
Loc: Hollywood, CA
|
Zero:
I've encountered some of these same problems, but in the film world. Fortunately, I know plenty of lawyers at studios... and even more assistants to lawyers at the studios.
I'd venture to guess that most of these problems aren't necessarily legal problems, but the THREAT of legal problems.
For example, CafePress will likely pull a site based on a letter from a lawyer. They don't want to deal with legal suits.
As for using regular use items in court, this is totally legal. Do you think film shoots get the rights to all the cars that get driven and in some case blown up in a movie? No. However, if a brand logo is identifiable, or perhaps a particular brand targeted in a disparaging way (ie, its obvious that all that bad guys drive Fords, while good guys drive Toyotas), there may be a case.
A friend of mine shot a film that parodied all sorts of famous songs. According to lawyers at a major studio he didn't have to get permission to even use the music, since the lyrics were changed, citing it was a parody. This boggled me, since it seemed that the musicians were getting hosed.
And, as in most things, nobody tends to care unless you're making a profit.
Such a funky issue, and indicative that our society is too sue happy, and common sense is losing its place in the world.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7259 - 01-18-04 04:19 AM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
The Unsomnambulist
Member
Registered: 08-03-01
Posts: 1658
Loc: Hollywood, CA
|
...we found out from another political site online that we were looking to partner with that HSX patented any online game that uses an algorithm to calculate and trade stock prices...
...The prospect of having to pay HSX/Cantor Fitzgerald licensing fees for a rather abstract patent essentially scuttled the project.
Zero:
Have you seen these online gaming sites:
Intrade
Where you can bet on everything from who will win the Iowa caucuses, to the verdict in the Kobe Bryant case...
and
The Iowa Electronic Markets
...real-money futures markets in which contract payoffs depend on economic and political events such as elections. These markets are operated by faculty at the University of Iowa Tippie College of Business as part of our research and teaching mission.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7260 - 01-18-04 05:36 AM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Parody/satire is protected.
Unsom, if the music your friend used was actual music from an existing recording, that's a separate license from the copyright mechanical license (which is for the song/lyrics as written, not recorded). Performed music (existing recorded music) is protected under a "performance" license and it should be exempt from parody/satire law. If your friend recreated the music (performed it himself or with musicians he hired), he wouldn't be violating the performance copyrights.
The song copyright (mechanical licenses) are different - that's the copyright to the song itself (as it was written, not recorded). Parody may get blurred here - you could certainly parody lyrics but the music itself would be kind of hard to parody since it would have to be changed in some way to actully be a parody/satire. But since the lyrics/music go together as a mechanical license, it may be protected under the parody/satire copyright law.
As for what appears in films and television shows, I beg to differ with you, Unsom.
There are departments at the studios that deal exclusively with licensing/clearances of indentifiable objects/products used in films. There are also product placement companies and personnel at the studios who cut deals with companies to use their products in a visible way or sometimes exclusively (example: only Coca-Cola company beverages will appear and no other brand).
As for objects, it depends on what it is. If a film uses any artwork in a scene, say a gallery scene, they need to get permission (clearance) to use the art from whoever owns it. If it's an original oil painting that I own, the studio would have to get my permission. If it was a numberd print that I owned, they would have to get permission from the artist who owns the original copyright to the work. Depending on what is negotiated, licensing/clearances can be free (no cost to studio/filmmakers) by giving the copyright/object owner a screen credit or fee with or without a screen credit.
If someone were to use an Ant Farm or a Slinky, the filmmakers or whoever owns the film would most likely have to obtain permission (clearance) from whoever has the trademark/copyright on the Ant Farm or Slinky. I know because I've seen the licensing/clearance deal memos/contracts for all sorts of stuff used in films. And the object doesn't have to have a logo. Just try using a Barbie doll. Mattel's lawyers will send a cease and desist letter faster than you can say Barbie. Even if it's used in a parody/satire.
I went through this with a collection of 12" Barbies and action figures I was going to use in an animated parody/satire series. When I found out I'd get my clock cleaned by Mattel and probably the other toy companies, I contacted various other animation artists/filmmakers who were doing similar projects to see if they'd be interested in purchasing the collection. They had run up against the same problems regarding trademarks. That's why Leno and Conan, etc., have huge legal staff to assist them with licensing/clearances for things they use in skits. Or the other trick to avoid trademark/copyright violations when using Barbies/Action Figures is to sculpt new heads/faces/masks to put on the figures.
The Notorious M.O.I.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7261 - 01-18-04 07:09 AM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
zeroflux
Administrator
Registered: 03-11-01
Posts: 6175
Loc: Arlington, Virginia
|
"If it's an original oil painting that I own, the studio would have to get my permission.
I think this is incorrect as I was thinking of doing some Cafe Press postcards of some original paintings my dad owns. I was a little surprised to find out that even if he owns the artwork, the copyright (and reproduction rights) are owned by the artist and/or artist's estate for 50 years after his/her death.
I don't think filming the painting would be much different than creating posters of it. Either way, the patent/copyright laws are becoming excessive to the point of stifling those of us that don't have large studio/corporate war chests to work with.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7262 - 01-18-04 08:33 AM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
That sounds fuzzy. If you buy an original one of a kind work, it's yours. You own it. You can do whatever you want with it, including reproduce it unless the artist has specifically copyrighted the work and sold it to you with the caveat (in writing) that the work is for single exhibition use only. If the artist hasn't copyrighted the work, then I don't see why you can't copyright it since you are the owner.
What if the work gets destroyed or damaged? If the artist still had a valued interest in the work, then the artist could sue you for potential lost revenues.
An original one of a kind work of art is not like a book or a song or a print which is customarily copyrighted by the artist then is reproduced via publishing and licensing agreements that are negotiated for various distribution mediums. The artst retains the copyright (because they have filed the work as an original work under their name).
With music, the artist can retain the copyright/publishing rights of the song or sell the copyright/publishing to the the record label/music company. Once the artist signs over the copyright/mechanical licensing to the label, the artist is not entitled to anything at that point other than what they may have negotiated in a contract.
For instance, Michael Jackson purchased the Beatles song catalogue. Once the catalogue had been sold, The Beatles were not entitled to any revenues from the mechanical licenses of those songs because Jackson owned them. The Beatles were only entitled to receive royalty revenues from the recordings they made of those songs.
If the artist never copyrighted the works your dad bought, then you may be able to file a copyright with the Library of Congress. Then you can do whatever you want with the art, including licensing it to other people.
You may want to check with a high end art dealer and attorney who specializes in the arts and copyright.
The Notorious M.O.I.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7264 - 01-18-04 12:08 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
Fangue
Member
Registered: 06-27-02
Posts: 1396
|
A few years back I was forced to remove a web site from the internet named 'P-Cubed' (like in PPP).
It was a site dedicated to the Perl programming language and it offered only free content -- tutorials, discussion board, tips etc etc. There was nothing for sale on the site and I never made a penny in profit. It was stricly a vounteer effort on my part to help out beginners with becoming programmers. Needless to say it was a huge hit albeit short-lived.
A company decided they liked the name of my site and trademarked the name 'P-Cubed', leading their lawyers to contact me and tell me to cease and decist with my site -- it was infringing on a trademarked name.
Checking out my legal position showed that although I had used the name first, it was not protected against a trademarked name.
Did I learn a lesson? yes. Would I fall into the same trap again? Yes. Since then, did I create more sites and not trademark the name? yes. Am I a fool? yes.
Well, FWIW, that's my one and only life story about legal ownership.
Fangue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7265 - 01-18-04 12:56 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
Spodbox
Member
Registered: 08-15-02
Posts: 1429
|
Fangue: that was probably easily fightable. If you had registered the website before they trademarked the name, you could countersue for theft of intellectual property. Either that, or you could check to see if the trademark was registered appropriately (there's supposed to be an establishment of consistent recognizability and familiarity - IIRC).
Of course, doing so would cost you tens of thousands in lawyer fees. So not worth the effort. That's why there's a big elephant in the country now that everyone tiptoes around: the threat of litigation. Corporations will not be the death of this country - lawyers will be.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7266 - 01-18-04 01:00 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
WalkerTom
Author
Registered: 07-10-01
Posts: 38328
Loc: Dixie
|
Unsom...if you are OK about my sending you an email, would you email me at walkertom@zensearch.com?
Thanks... 
_________________________
BECK / PALIN / 2012!
CUZ WE DESERVE IT!!!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7267 - 01-18-04 01:04 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
Fangue
Member
Registered: 06-27-02
Posts: 1396
|
Spod
You hit it right on the head. It takes some serious cash to fight this kind of thing. That kinda leaves the little guy out and the big guys know it.
Today, I know much more about internet legalities than I did at that time. You're right, I may have had a chance to beat them if I could prove they did not follow the process to the letter of the law.
Have a good one.
Fangue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7268 - 01-18-04 01:11 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
zeroflux
Administrator
Registered: 03-11-01
Posts: 6175
Loc: Arlington, Virginia
|
"If you buy an original one of a kind work, it's yours. You own it. You can do whatever you want with it, including reproduce it unless the artist has specifically copyrighted the work and sold it to you with the caveat (in writing) that the work is for single exhibition use only"
I already researched this. I initially assumed the same thing, but its actually the other way around. Unless the artist specifically sells reproduction rights along with the original work of art, the artist retains the copyright/reproduction rights for the work of art.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7269 - 01-18-04 05:42 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
The Unsomnambulist
Member
Registered: 08-03-01
Posts: 1658
Loc: Hollywood, CA
|
As for what appears in films and television shows, I beg to differ with you, Unsom.
MOI... actually, I think you agree with me. Again, its probably best to get clearances on products that are featured, but stuff that appears in the backgorund will tend to be exempt.
In either case, its only a problem if somebody sues.
Say you're shooting a film in a museum... if you have a shot that clearly shows a particular work, or the characters are in front of it chatting for a few moments... enough time for the audience to really register what it is - get a clearance.
But, say the characters are running through the halls, past lots of paintings... clearances wouldn't be needed on each painting.
None of this is a hard science. Small film productions will likely be less concerned than a major studio who'll already have a staff of lawyers.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7270 - 01-19-04 08:50 AM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anything used in any shot, regardless of how long the shot is, is not exempt if someone owns the copyright/trademark to it.
Hence the reason the studios have an entire department solely devoted to clearances.
So you take your chances when you shoot a scene using things you haven't cleared. I'd be very pissed off if I found out someone was using my work without my permission. Then I'd calm down and call my attorney.
But gee, is it any wonder this stuff happens all the time?
Filmmakers (film,tv, etc.) are egomaniacal pains in the ass because they expect to use everything they can for nothing but expect to get as much money as they can for themselves while trying to avoid having to pay people for using their stuff or locations.
I find it rather amusing to watch them when they come into my hood to shoot and try to spin the inconvenience of production as being "really cool!" Talk about delusions of grandeur. The only thing that would be remotely cool is making them pay me top dollar for the inconvenience.
After all, they keep raising ticket prices because they and their primadona talent expect to get paid millions, why shouldn't the rest of us make them pay us for the inconvenience so they can ultimately live large? It's not like they use local restaurants to cater or businesses, etc. Quite the contrary - they disrupt the flow of traffic into businesses, shut down streets, make noise and are rude on top of it. And I'm talking about the biggest guns and biggest budgets in the business on down to the no budget student productions.
It's a bit different when films or television shows shoot outside of Los Angeles or New York or major cities - they do have a tendency to boost local economies if they are in a relatively small town shooting for several weeks. But back at home, not so user friendly.
I often go and do a "reality check" when there's a production in my hood to gauge the asshole factor because someday I may have to write a book about what a bunch of self absorbed tools so many of these people are. I think I'll call it:
"The Twenty-Five Dollar Bag of Popcorn
or
You're The Suckers Born Every Minute"
But even when they send out their location manager or have studio personnel contact people to "negotiate," they usually offer something like, "I'll give you screen credit in exchange for letting us use your location or work or whatever." If that doesn't fly, they try to nickel and dime the person to death.
Too bad people are so mesmerized and hypnotized by all the bullshite and don't realize that having a stupid acknowledgement at the end of some film is crap. The only time a credit matters is if you actualy work in the industry. And even then, it's relevant to the caliber films or TV shows you worked on. Hence the infamous "Alan Smithee" credit.
I'll take money any day over a stupid "thank you" credit that flies by so fast no one can read it anyway, thank you very much.
The Notorious M.O.I.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7271 - 01-19-04 09:47 AM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
zeroflux
Administrator
Registered: 03-11-01
Posts: 6175
Loc: Arlington, Virginia
|
I disagree with you MOI. I may not be a big fan of the big budget corporations but I think its absolutely ridiculous that anyone would have to get clearance for every object that appears in a scene. That's not "using your work". If anything, you should be paying them for the publicity.
Such excessive regulation never ends up hurting the big dollar productions. They hurt the little guy and they stifle creativity.
Some cities are now going as far as to copyright images of monuments. In other words, I could spend a whole day setting up an "Ansel Adams" type shot of a public monument, and even though the photography is my actual work of art, I wouldn't be able to sell the shot as a postcard without paying fees. Pretty soon, some government or corporation is going to figure out a way to copyright a brook, or stream or sunset, or trademark a certain photography style or angle.
For the most part this madness doesn't exist in the rest of the world. That should be an indication of how excessive the laws here have become.
As a quick exercise: Anyone ever see Americana type coffee table books with photography from around the country? So did the photographer have to track down the artists who painted murals in the street and graffiti appearing in the urban shots? How about photos of the National Zoo entrance with a sculpture outside? What about a barn in the middle of nowhere? The lighthouse in a small town? Does the city own the copyright for that? You can see where I'm going with this...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7272 - 01-19-04 06:25 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
The Unsomnambulist
Member
Registered: 08-03-01
Posts: 1658
Loc: Hollywood, CA
|
Moi:
I have to agree with you for the most part... so long as you're not one of the people who complains that their work has been "outsourced" to Canada because it's cheaper to shoot there. I think if you live in a city, like L.A., where the local economy comes from filmmaking and entertainment - and the added tourism to boot, there is a small price to pay.
That said, I would never, ever, advise anyone to let a film shoot into their home unless its for a very hefty sum and you have a lawyer negotiating a contract.
Zero: I didn't know local governments could own copyrights on public monuments. Is there an article you can cite?
A few years ago I worked as product placement coordinator for low budget ($2 million) film about an old man who travels hundreds of miles on his John Deere tractor to visit his dying brother. The producers spent a lot of money trying to get John Deere's blessing to use their logo and vehicles in the film. They declined, saying that we would be using their vehicles in an unsafe way - one scene was to have the tractor driving down the middle of a rural road.
They also approached David Lynch to finance and executive produce the film, but he declined, saying it wasn't his cup of tea.
As it happened, David Lynch actually found the source material for our film and made Straight Story. He also managed to pay John Deere enough money to use their product and logo, in spite of it being used to drive down the middle of a road.
We ended up using a John Deere with the logo painted over. Alas, our movie sucked, and David Lynch's earned nominations.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7273 - 01-20-04 05:41 AM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Zero, if I own it, and you want to use it to make money, you have to pay me to use it, unless we negotiate something in writing. End of story. If cities can copyright landmarks, maybe they should, if the city has to maintain the cost of the landmark(s), then perhaps it's a way of helping the cities/states to offset those costs. However, if landmarks are considered "public property," then I don't think they'll be able to because the city/state/fed uses tax payer money to build and maintain landmarks.
As for "free publicity," if you use something of mine in your work and your work sucks, you can do more harm to me than good as I will then be associated with your substnadard/sucky product/work. So the "free publicity" is a crock of crap. And I might have to sue you for damaging my reputation for using my work in your crap film or whatever without my permission.
But hey, if you think everything should be free, then I should be able to take your Capitol Grilling logo and make my own T-shirts and swag and turn a profit off them, right? Or use the Capitol Grilling on a computer monitor in a film about a guy who spends too much time on a political message board and then starts killing off all the other posters. Could that negative image connotation do harm to your brand? You bet your ass. Could you sue me. Absolutely.
Anytime you film anyone, or something that someone has created/owns the copyright/trademark to, you need to get a release from them or negotiate a fee. Simply put, you need their permission. It's been like this for years, albeit, a lot of people don't know or give a shit if their stuff is used. But it is common decency and courtesy to ask. When you do, most people will be glad to let you use their stuff in exchange for giving them credit.
Unsom...
Animation has been outsourced overseas for years. The new trend is CGI/SFX. New CGI/SFX outfits are setting up shop in India faster than you can say Silicon Graphics.
The cost of "runaway" production to Canada and elsewhere, isn't going to change. The problem isn't the below the line costs that's driving films and TV shows away, it's the above the line bullshit. If you have a 50 million dollar film and 1/3-1/2 of the budget is just talent fees, not to mention gross (not net) deal points, that's crap.
I wonder if the next trend will be "reality movies" in which the producer/director/studio/distributer just turns the camera on a bunch of self involved attractive people, gives them a little direction and says "action.". Much more cost effective and really, who will care?
I think the days of the big movie stars / celebrities are over, with the exception of the rare occasional GIANT MOVIE. Between CGI and cheap talent, the days of the monster films that don't make back their money are over, unless, like Lord of the Rings or The Matrix, the studios can condense three movies into one long shooting schedule to maximize the cost Vs profit. Or they can crank out another Titanic. Or Nemo.
I love David Lynch's "Straight Story. But then, I'v always like David Lynch films.
I'm a bit surprised that John Deere would pitch a fit about using their lawnmowers since the story is based on a true story about an old man who actually did drive a lawnmower a few hundred miles to visit his brother. Since it actually happened, and was documented in the news (and wasn't there also a documentary?), I don't see why Deere was concerned about misuse/dangerous use of the lawnmower.
But money talks.
The Notorious M.O.I.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7274 - 01-20-04 04:20 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
The Unsomnambulist
Member
Registered: 08-03-01
Posts: 1658
Loc: Hollywood, CA
|
I'm a bit surprised that John Deere would pitch a fit about using their lawnmowers since the story is based on a true story about an old man who actually did drive a lawnmower a few hundred miles to visit his brother.
As you know, it's easier to say no than yes.
Ours was a fictional account of the story. The writer/director didn't pursue the rights to the actual life story because he didn't think it was interesting enough... David Lynch did, and came up with the better movie. Maybe there was more to it - maybe they were already talking to Lynch's people at this time, but couldn't reveal that another like film was in the works.
---
I've lately been fascinated by the show "Airline" - a reality show that documents the ticket agents and flight attendants at Southwest Airlines in Chicago and L.A. The show is mostly disgruntled passengers being appeased by the SW staff... it's amazing how many irate and/or drunk passengers that are on with their faces in full view. I missed last night's episode, but until then only one guy had had his face blurred. One man was told he smelled so bad he couldn't board a flight - his face was unobstructed. Another guy was drunk and picking a fight with a gate agent - he's in the commercials. I'd seen signs up at the Southwest Gate here at LAX, that said they were filming a show, and if you didn't want your likeness to appear to tell a SW employee... anyway, I wonder if they need to get a written clearance from everyone who appears on air. I imagine that anyone who has dialogue recorded needs to sign something - possibly compensated with a flight voucher or cash - and everyone else who appears is covered by the signage.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7275 - 01-20-04 05:06 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
The signage disclaimer is often used in live events like concerts or staged events if the film calls for a concert or sports or some kind of huge "crowd" scene where they use crowd shots in which individuals faces may be distinguished.
There are also tons of "cleared" stock footage shots of generic crowds that are often used. Some of it documentary footage.
But the new trend is to utilize the latest CGI/SFX technology to eliminate the need and the hassle and the expense of organizing some huge event or paying for hundreds of extras just for a few crowd scenes in a film.
You're obviously familiar with the crowd shots in Gladiator (CGI SFX) or many of the scenes in several films that feature marching or charging masses of warriors/soldiers. Films like the Lord of The Rings or the recent Star Wars trilogy or Titanic, etc., have all used this CGI "crowd" effects technology.
Bummer though, that this CGI work is also now being outsourced to India along with thousands of other jobs in various industries (see the list on the Outsourced thread).
The Notorious M.O.I.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7276 - 01-26-04 03:19 AM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
[moved this from the 7 dirty words thread pe Unsom's request...]
Ha... Fair Use my ass...
[moi comments]
http://www.protectfairuse.org/consumers/outtakes.html
The entertainment industry has heralded the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for protecting the work of artists and authors. But, in safeguarding artists' works from unauthorized use, Hollywood executives are leaving your fair use rights on the cutting room floor.
[this is such crap!]
Copyright owners have already used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to whittle away at fair use rights in the digital age:
2600 Magazine was barred from publishing software that unlocks DVDs.
[well, duh. the whole point of putting copyright protection softward on DVD's is to avoid piracy and unlawful duplication]
Princeton Professor Ed Felten was threatened for exposing weaknesses in digital music locks.
[same problem - disabling protects will enable piracy and unlawful duplication]
Programmer Dmitry Sklyarov was indicted for creating a program that decrypts and converts Adobe eBooks into portable PDF files to allow consumers easier access.
[once again, by decrpting protection code, this enables piracy of product and unlawful duplication]
And under the DMCA, your fair use rights are also at risk. Read what Representative Boucher's office found:
An individual buys the text of an electronic book guarded with a protection measure. He would like to apply "text to audio" software to enable him to listen to the text of the electronic book while he is driving his car. But, if he circumvents the technological protection measure to apply the software, he is liable under the DMCA, even though his sole intent is to make personal fair use of material he has lawfully acquired.
[oh bullshit! how stupid are these people? Have they never heard of books on tape? You don't buy a novel and expect to get the book on tape for free with it. If you want the book read to you, you have to read it into a tape recorder yourself OR buy the book on tape. If you are visually impaired, the library has books on tapes or organization for the blind have equipment and media for use]
A student is preparing a multi-media project on the treatment of Native Americans in American film. The student needs to circumvent the protection measure guarding access to DVDs containing these films in order to excerpt small clips from the films for use in the multi-media project. He cannot do that under current law.
[Ha! This student is delusional! You can not use ANY copyrighted material without the permission of the owner. All this student would have had to do is contact the copyright owners of the film and ask for their permission to use film clips. The copyright ownes may give permission for use or not. There are entire businesses devoted to licensing all sorts of footage. The studios also have film footage licensing personnel exclusive for this purpose]
A movie fan purchases a DVD and wants to play it on his home computer that has a Linux operating system. He needs to bypass the technical protection on the DVD for it to play on his Linux-based system. If he does so, even for this innocent purpose, he is liable under the DMCA.
[Wah wah wah... He'll just have to returan the DVD or buy a DVD player. I can't play a DVD on my CD Rom player because it's not CAPABLE OF READING THE DVD. Is that the studio's fault? I think not. ]
Another movie fan needs to bypass the technical protection just to avoid having to see all of the commercials at the start of the movie on a DVD. Again, the DMCA prohibits him from doing so.
[again, that's crap. there are index forward points as well as the FAST FORWARD feature on DVD players.]
There is a fair way to resolve the digital fair rights debate, but the entertainment industry must be willing to meet the consumer half way. It's time to tell Congress that criminalizing consumers for attempting to make fair use of their legally purchased DVDs isn't the answer. Sensible safeguards from piracy and "free use" is certainly a step in the right direction.
{Yes, the fair way to resolve getting something for nothing from these lazy ass complainers is for them to NOT rent DVD's. Maybe they should try reading a book or going to a cultural exhibit once in a while. If the entetainment has learned anything from the rampant downloading of music, they know that people will do whatever the can to download films for free because for some weird reason, people think that they are entitled to steal entertainment media]
The Notorious M.O.I.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7277 - 01-26-04 03:42 AM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
The Unsomnambulist
Member
Registered: 08-03-01
Posts: 1658
Loc: Hollywood, CA
|
Thanks for reposting, MOI...
2600 Magazine was barred from publishing software that unlocks DVDs.
[well, duh. the whole point of putting copyright protection softward on DVD's is to avoid piracy and unlawful duplication]
I'm one with the hacker credo that information should be free... at least in this case. If I want to play with my property, and manipulate it to do something new, why can't I share that knowledge with someone else? I have a problem with people selling dubs, but have nothing wrong with an individual making one.
That said, I agree with your views on every other aspect. People should know what they're buying. And the student who wants to use clips needs to learn to be more resourceful. (in high school i produced a morning news broadcast for the closed circuit school network and used the Total Recall theme to start it each day... our teacher required us to get a permission... it sounded intimidating, but we learned a great deal through the process, and easily received free clearance from the studio)
The industry, however, needs to keep up with hackers and prosecute people trying to illicitly profit off of individual works. If I own something, I should be able to do what I please with it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7278 - 01-26-04 08:50 AM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
MOI sez: This student is delusional! You can not use ANY copyrighted material without the permission of the owner.
(MOI, your ignorance on this topic is astounding. As is your laziness in not simply looking up the "fair use" laws at the US Copyright Office. These cover situations where someone is allowed to reproduce a copyrighted work above and beyond for their own personal use. The "delusional" student is clearly and specifically allowed to copy excerpts for nonprofit educational purposes:
US Copyright Office - Fair Use Policy
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. ...
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7279 - 01-26-04 03:27 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Again, Ants, you are an insect with a tiny brain to match...
Fair use restricts the amount of usage a person can use of original copyrighted material.
For example, you are NOT allowed to photocopy the contents of any copyrighted material. You have to purchase your own copy of the work. Ask the staff at Kinkos.
Same at libraries.
You can take notes, write down portions of said work, and include it in a work, but if you use a substantial portion of the original work, you will need to permission. And you have to cite the sources (attributions). Otherwise, it's plagiarism.
I know someone who worked at a film clip/stock footage licensing outfit. And believe me, no student on the face of the earth could use a second of their material without first paying a license useage fee or gettng permission to use it at no cost. In writing. On a contract.
You're probably one of those people who would excerpt entire passages from books, and then put your name on the work as an "original" work by you.
Universities are cracking down on people like you now. Expelling students for plagiarism.
Why do people think that because they buy a book or a DVD they have the right to alter the original content? The only thing they are getting the rights to is to VIEW the content or READ the book in it's original formatted content.
There are copyright laws about altering original work too.
The Notorious M.O.I.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7280 - 01-26-04 03:47 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
The Unsomnambulist
Member
Registered: 08-03-01
Posts: 1658
Loc: Hollywood, CA
|
Why do people think that because they buy a book or a DVD they have the right to alter the original content? The only thing they are getting the rights to is to VIEW the content or READ the book in it's original formatted content.
Again, there is common sense and spirit of law that also comes into play.
Teachers routinely copy entire articles or chapters for a class to read... maybe "against the law", but nothing that a copyright holder will sure for.
Small clips from films are often used in news progams - some do and some don't get permissions, depending on context.
(There's also that video that features only sex and nude scenes from major films - I doubt rights were obtained for those, but would love to learn more).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7281 - 01-26-04 04:01 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Some copyright info:
§ 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general26
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works36
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works36
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
§ 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity37
(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art —
(1) shall have the right —
(A) to claim authorship of that work, and
(B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create;
(2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and
(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right —
(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and
(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.
(b) Scope and Exercise of Rights. — Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright owner. The authors of a joint work of visual art are coowners of the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work.
(c) Exceptions. — (1) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of the passage of time or the inherent nature of the materials is not a distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3)(A).
(2) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of conservation, or of the public presentation, including lighting and placement, of the work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3) unless the modification is caused by gross negligence.
(3) The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work in, upon, or in any connection with any item described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of the definition of “work of visual art” in section 101, and any such reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a).
(d) Duration of Rights. — (1) With respect to works of visual art created on or after the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term consisting of the life of the author.
(2) With respect to works of visual art created before the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, but title to which has not, as of such effective date, been transferred from the author, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall be coextensive with, and shall expire at the same time as, the rights conferred by section 106.
(3) In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term consisting of the life of the last surviving author.
(4) All terms of the rights conferred by subsection (a) run to the end of the calendar year in which they would otherwise expire.
(e) Transfer and Waiver. — (1) The rights conferred by subsection (a) may not be transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such instrument shall specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to which the waiver applies, and the waiver shall apply only to the work and uses so identified. In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, a waiver of rights under this paragraph made by one such author waives such rights for all such authors.
(2) Ownership of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art is distinct from ownership of any copy of that work, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright in that work. Transfer of ownership of any copy of a work of visual art, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright, shall not constitute a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a). Except as may otherwise be agreed by the author in a written instrument signed by the author, a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art shall not constitute a transfer of ownership of any copy of that work, or of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive right under a copyright in that work.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
§ 108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives39
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if —
(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;
(2) the collections of the library or archives are (i) open to the public, or (ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field; and
(3) the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright that appears on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section, or includes a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section.
(b) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to three copies or phonorecords of an unpublished work duplicated solely for purposes of preservation and security or for deposit for research use in another library or archives of the type described by clause (2) of subsection (a), if —
(1) the copy or phonorecord reproduced is currently in the collections of the library or archives; and
(2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not otherwise distributed in that format and is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives.
(c) The right of reproduction under this section applies to three copies or phonorecords of a published work duplicated solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen, or if the existing format in which the work is stored has become obsolete, if —
(1) the library or archives has, after a reasonable effort, determined that an unused replacement cannot be obtained at a fair price; and
(2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives in lawful possession of such copy.
For purposes of this subsection, a format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or device necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.
(d) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to a copy, made from the collection of a library or archives where the user makes his or her request or from that of another library or archives, of no more than one article or other contribution to a copyrighted collection or periodical issue, or to a copy or phonorecord of a small part of any other copyrighted work, if —
(1) the copy or phonorecord becomes the property of the user, and the library or archives has had no notice that the copy or phonorecord would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research; and
(2) the library or archives displays prominently, at the place where orders are accepted, and includes on its order form, a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.
(e) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to the entire work, or to a substantial part of it, made from the collection of a library or archives where the user makes his or her request or from that of another library or archives, if the library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that a copy or phonorecord of the copyrighted work cannot be obtained at a fair price, if —
(1) the copy or phonorecord becomes the property of the user, and the library or archives has had no notice that the copy or phonorecord would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research; and
(2) the library or archives displays prominently, at the place where orders are accepted, and includes on its order form, a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.
(f) Nothing in this section —
(1) shall be construed to impose liability for copyright infringement upon a library or archives or its employees for the unsupervised use of reproducing equipment located on its premises: Provided, That such equipment displays a notice that the making of a copy may be subject to the copyright law;
(2) excuses a person who uses such reproducing equipment or who requests a copy or phonorecord under subsection (d) from liability for copyright infringement for any such act, or for any later use of such copy or phonorecord, if it exceeds fair use as provided by section 107;
(3) shall be construed to limit the reproduction and distribution by lending of a limited number of copies and excerpts by a library or archives of an audiovisual news program, subject to clauses (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a); or
(4) in any way affects the right of fair use as provided by section 107, or any contractual obligations assumed at any time by the library or archives when it obtained a copy or phonorecord of a work in its collections.
(g) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section extend to the isolated and unrelated reproduction or distribution of a single copy or phonorecord of the same material on separate occasions, but do not extend to cases where the library or archives, or its employee —
(1) is aware or has substantial reason to believe that it is engaging in the related or concerted reproduction or distribution of multiple copies or phonorecords of the same material, whether made on one occasion or over a period of time, and whether intended for aggregate use by one or more individuals or for separate use by the individual members of a group; or
(2) engages in the systematic reproduction or distribution of single or multiple copies or phonorecords of material described in subsection (d): Provided, That nothing in this clause prevents a library or archives from participating in interlibrary arrangements that do not have, as their purpose or effect, that the library or archives receiving such copies or phonorecords for distribution does so in such aggregate quantities as to substitute for a subscription to or purchase of such work.
(h)(1) For purposes of this section, during the last 20 years of any term of copyright of a published work, a library or archives, including a nonprofit educational institution that functions as such, may reproduce, distribute, display, or perform in facsimile or digital form a copy or phonorecord of such work, or portions thereof, for purposes of preservation, scholarship, or research, if such library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that none of the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) apply.
(2) No reproduction, distribution, display, or performance is authorized under this subsection if —
(A) the work is subject to normal commercial exploitation;
(B) a copy or phonorecord of the work can be obtained at a reasonable price; or
(C) the copyright owner or its agent provides notice pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Register of Copyrights that either of the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) applies.
(3) The exemption provided in this subsection does not apply to any subsequent uses by users other than such library or archives.
(i) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section do not apply to a musical work, a pictorial, graphic or sculptural work, or a motion picture or other audiovisual work other than an audiovisual work dealing with news, except that no such limitation shall apply with respect to rights granted by subsections (b) and (c), or with respect to pictorial or graphic works published as illustrations, diagrams, or similar adjuncts to works of which copies are reproduced or distributed in accordance with subsections (d) and (e).
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribution and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, request Circular 40, “Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts.”
It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a "compulsory license" under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further information about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or write to the Copyright Office.
WHAT WORKS ARE PROTECTED?
Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:
literary works;
musical works, including any accompanying words
dramatic works, including any accompanying music
pantomimes and choreographic works
pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
motion pictures and other audiovisual works
sound recordings
architectural works
These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works"; maps and architectural plans may be registered as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works."
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright act (title 17, U.S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
FL-102, June
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
The Notorious M.O.I.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7282 - 01-26-04 05:22 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
TheNotoriousMOI sez: Fair use restricts the amount of usage a person can use of original copyrighted material.
(Good! You're learning. Quite a change from a few posts ago where you said: "You can not use ANY copyrighted material without the permission of the owner".)
TheNotoriousMOI sez: For example, you are NOT allowed to photocopy the contents of any copyrighted material.
(Wrong. You can photocopy copyrighted material within the bounds of "fair use". See the response to your library comment below.)
TheNotoriousMOI sez: You have to purchase your own copy of the work. Ask the staff at Kinkos.
(Wrong. Kinko's will not copy copyrighted material for you, but you can copy it yourself (at your own legal risk) on their machines.)
TheNotoriousMOI sez: Same at libraries.
(Wrong. Libraries have a specific exemption under Section 108 of the copyright law. For example,
Q. May a DAAP professor reproduce an entire article from a scholarly journal owned by the University Libraries?
A. Most uses are considered fair use. Guidelines established by educators with the publishers allow photocopying without the publisher's prior permission if standards of brevity, spontaneity and cumulative effect are met.)
TheNotoriousMOI sez: You can take notes, write down portions of said work, and include it in a work, but if you use a substantial portion of the original work, you will need to permission.
(Correct! Woo-Hoo! The key word is "substantial". If you are copying within the bounds of "fair use" you don't need permission. For example, people who cut-and-paste excerpts from articles for public comment here on CG (like you yourself have done many times!) are operating within the bounds of "fair use".)
TheNotoriousMOI sez: And you have to cite the sources (attributions). Otherwise, it's plagiarism.
(Plagiarism is entirely separate from copyright violation. It is not a violation of copyright law to copy material within the bounds of "fair use" without citing the source. For example, if a news show runs a tape showing Times Square, they don't have to cite a source for every single copyrighted sign that they broadcast.)
TheNotoriousMOI sez: I know someone who worked at a film clip/stock footage licensing outfit. And believe me, no student on the face of the earth could use a second of their material without first paying a license useage fee or gettng permission to use it at no cost. In writing. On a contract.
(Nowadays, many students include "fair use" clippings of copyrighted materials in the multimedia presentations they prepare for class. Film libraries are outdated in that respect, because so much content is available for download on the internet. For example, it is within the bounds of "fair use" to use a frame from a LOTR trailer as your screen saver.)
TheNotoriousMOI sez: You're probably one of those people who would excerpt entire passages from books, and then put your name on the work as an "original" work by you.
(Wrong.)
TheNotoriousMOI sez: Universities are cracking down on people like you now. Expelling students for plagiarism.
(Again, plagiarism is a separate issue from copyright violation.)
TheNotoriousMOI sez: Why do people think that because they buy a book or a DVD they have the right to alter the original content?
(Because they do. As long as it is for their own personal use, or within the bounds of "fair use".)
TheNotoriousMOI sez: The only thing they are getting the rights to is to VIEW the content or READ the book in it's original formatted content.
(Wrong again. Sigh. If you buy a book, you can cut it up, rearrange the sentences, and then read it that way if you want. As long as it is for your own personal use, or within the bounds of "fair use".)
TheNotoriousMOI sez: There are copyright laws about altering original work too.
(Those chiefly apply to one-of-a-kind original artworks, such as original paintings. They do not apply to reproducible materials, such as books, DVDs, CDs, etc.)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7283 - 01-26-04 05:51 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
You are not learning.
Read the above. Again. It clearly says...
(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and
(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.
This applies to ALL copyrighted work. Just because a DVD you purchase is one of many DVD's of the same film, you do not have the right to alter/mutilate, etc., the content.
The ONLY people who hae a right to duplicate the CD or alter it from it's original source are the copyright holders (or those persons who the copyright holder has contractually handed over certain rights).
If you look at your DVD, it says that it's protected under copyright law.
Sure, you can smash the DVD itself (the physical medium) with a hammer or draw on it, but you can't alter or duplicate the contents of the DVD without permission from the copyright owner(s).
And, libraries have very exclusive and limited rights for archival and research use only. As do scholarly use. But again, using LOTR as your screen saver is still violating the copyright law. Not that anyone would care UNLESS you are offering this as a download on your website.
But altering a film to distribute via the Clean whatever groups -- no fucking way. That's a clear violation of the copyright laws and, as stated above, violates the artists rights regarding altering/mutiliating the work.
And like I said, it's illegal to make copies of anything copyrighted. That's why Kinko's staff won't. That's why they leave up to you to violate the copyright laws at your own risk BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL.
What part of that don't you get?
The Notorious M.O.I.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7284 - 01-26-04 06:07 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
The Unsomnambulist
Member
Registered: 08-03-01
Posts: 1658
Loc: Hollywood, CA
|
Wow. I didn't know Ants and MOI were lawyers.
Again, I think you have to apply some common sense to ANY law. Libraries have photocopiers for Christ's sake!
Even the laws above can be interpreted in many different ways. Does it even specify what can or can't be construed as an archive? Whats to keep someone from copying and collecting books, records, etc., and claims they're adding them to their archive?
----
And backtracking on the subject of product permissions from films, my buddy in legal at a major studio (winner of a number of Golden Globes last night) wrote:
if a car is being used for it's intended use, we don't have to clear it. same w/ pretty much everything else. but if it's the focus of the scene (car chase on a Yamaha motorcyle, some one jacking off to a bowl of Wheaties...well, yeah, it needs to be cleared).
For fear of a lawsuit, a studio may clear EVERYTHING... but in reality they do not. A legal department will review the films and red flag certain items, but they aren't legally required to.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7285 - 01-26-04 07:26 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
TheNotoriousMOI sez: Read the above. Again. It clearly says...
(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and
(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.
(Uh, MOI, read it again. You'll notice that (A) and (B) are incomplete sentences. You left off the beginning of the sentence, which reads:
"Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art — "
Section 107 is the "fair use" section, so the clauses you (incompletely) cite apply only with the provisions allowing for personal or fair use.)
TheNotoriousMOI sez: This applies to ALL copyrighted work. Just because a DVD you purchase is one of many DVD's of the same film, you do not have the right to alter/mutilate, etc., the content.
(Wrong. You forgot to read the clauses following the ones you (incompletely) cited:
"The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work in, upon, or in any connection with any item described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of the definition of “work of visual art” in section 101, and any such reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a)."
The ban against mutilating "visual art" only applies to the original, not to any reproductions.)
TheNotoriousMOI sez: The ONLY people who hae a right to duplicate the CD or alter it from it's original source are the copyright holders (or those persons who the copyright holder has contractually handed over certain rights).
(Wrong again! You can fold, spindle, mutilate, and copy your own personal copy of any copyrighted work, as long as it is for your own personal use, or falls under "fair use". For example, you can intentionally create a bonfire of your own books, DVDs, CDs, whatever. You can paint mustaches on your own personal reproductions of the Mona Lisa. You can erase every other word from Rush Limbaugh's books to see if they sound any funnier. You can make backup copies of your CDs. And you can remix your CDs as long as it is for you own personal use.)
TheNotoriousMOI sez: If you look at your DVD, it says that it's protected under copyright law.
(Exactly. Which gives the copyright holder, and you, certain rights. One of the rights you get is the right to do whatever you want with your own personal copy, so long as it is for your own personal use or covered by "fair use".)
TheNotoriousMOI sez: Sure, you can smash the DVD itself (the physical medium) with a hammer or draw on it, but you can't alter or duplicate the contents of the DVD without permission from the copyright owner(s).
(Still wrong! You can alter or duplicate the contents without permission as long as it is for your own personal use, or falls under "fair use". For example, a movie reviewer is allowed to show brief clips of a movie on their TV show without asking permission.)
TheNotoriousMOI sez: And, libraries have very exclusive and limited rights for archival and research use only. As do scholarly use.
(Whew! Finally correct about something.)
TheNotoriousMOI sez: But again, using LOTR as your screen saver is still violating the copyright law. Not that anyone would care UNLESS you are offering this as a download on your website.
(Oops, back to wrong! If you've legally obtained a DVD or clip of LOTR, then you can legally do anything you want with it (for example, use a frame from it as your screensaver), as long as it is for your own personal use, or falls under "fair use".
Allowing other people to download it from your website, however, is clearly a violation of copyright law, so you'd need to get permission before doing that.)
TheNotoriousMOI sez: But altering a film to distribute via the Clean whatever groups -- no fucking way. That's a clear violation of the copyright laws and, as stated above, violates the artists rights regarding altering/mutiliating the work.
(It's almost painful to see how wrong you can be in one post! If it is a clear violation of the copyright laws, then you'd better run and tell the courts because they don't think so. And as for altering/mutilating the work, as we mentioned above you had that wrong because that only applies to the original and not to any copies.)
TheNotoriousMOI sez: And like I said, it's illegal to make copies of anything copyrighted. That's why Kinko's staff won't. That's why they leave up to you to violate the copyright laws at your own risk BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL.
(Ouch, you're so wrong we are now literally in pain! You can make copies of any copyrighted material you've legally obtained, as long as it is for your own personal use, or if it falls under "fair use".)
TheNotoriousMOI sez: What part of that don't you get?
(Your post was so wrong, there was very little left to get.)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7286 - 01-30-04 03:51 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
The Unsomnambulist
Member
Registered: 08-03-01
Posts: 1658
Loc: Hollywood, CA
|
NFL puts damper on Vegas Super Bowl party
News 4 Local News, NBC
Big screen TV's are causing a problem for a Las Vegas casino planning a Super Bowl party.
The NFL has sent a letter to the Palms Hotel Casino over an advertisement.
The Palms planned a super-sized party for Super Bowl Sunday, with the game to be shown on theater-sized big screens. But the NFL is barring the casino from showing the game on the big screens.
Jim Hughes is the General Manager of the Palms Hotel. He says it is all about copyright laws. "Copyright laws that the National Football League is quoting allows us to show it on big screen TV's up to 55 inches in diagonal. However, forbids showing it on any kind of a screen larger than that or any kind of commercial screen."
More than 600 tickets had been sold for the Palms Super Bowl party. The hotel is now refunding the money and offering a free Super Bowl party to those who had tickets, with the game on 130 regular-sized screens.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7287 - 03-08-04 11:14 AM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
zeroflux
Administrator
Registered: 03-11-01
Posts: 6175
Loc: Arlington, Virginia
|
I've been using the Electronic Frontier Foundation to send letters on issues that are important to me to various representatives. I highly recommend EFF's advocacy center. Its very easy to use.
The Public Domain Needs Your Help!
Creative works are supposed to end up in the public domain, where anyone can use them without fearing lawsuits from copyright holders. This freedom makes it possible for Shakespeare to be the world’s most performed playwright, and it allowed Disney to create films like Sleeping Beauty and Snow White. However, some powerful copyright holders have stopped works from entering the public domain by repeatedly lobbying Congress to extend the length of copyright terms. This abuse of the law locks people out of their cultural heritage and puts an unfair tax on creativity.
Join the growing chorus of creators, archivists, bloggers, librarians, teachers, and citizens demanding that Congress restore balance to US copyright law by supporting the Public Domain Enhancement Act (PDEA). If passed, PDEA would require a small registration fee - as low as $1 - in order to retain copyright in a work. This would allow unexploited works to enter the public domain while removing ambiguity about a work's copyright status. PDEA already has 8 co-sponsors in Congress, but it needs many more. Let your representative know that this balanced, practical approach to copyright reform is crucial to the spread of knowledge and culture.
Take Action!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7288 - 03-08-04 06:00 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
The Unsomnambulist
Member
Registered: 08-03-01
Posts: 1658
Loc: Hollywood, CA
|
If passed, PDEA would require a small registration fee - as low as $1 - in order to retain copyright in a work. This would allow unexploited works to enter the public domain while removing ambiguity about a work's copyright status.
Huh? By copyrighting more works for a cheaper price this will allow more properties to enter the public domain? The EFF is a good group, so I'm sure there's logic here... but can you explain it to me?
(this post (c) 2004 Unsomnambulist Studios)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7289 - 03-31-04 08:35 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
Heartland
Rhymes with Rich
Registered: 09-09-01
Posts: 5440
|
I suppose most of you have heard by now about Trump planning to trademark the “you’re fired” phrase. I think the whole thing is nuts. Reminds me of Fox and their “fair and balanced” lawsuit against Franken.
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03312004/business/152673.asp
Potter says 'You're fired' is not Trump's
snip-
CHICAGO -- Donald Trump doesn't know Susan Brenner but he will soon. The Northbrook, Ill., woman could put a wrench in Trump's plans to trademark the phrase "You're fired."
Those two words have gained new popularity as the show-stealing line uttered at the end of each episode of NBC's hit TV show "The Apprentice." Last month, Trump filed a trademark application for the phrase.
As it happens, Brenner owns a ceramics studio and pottery store in north suburban Glenview by the same name. A friend suggested the name when she opened the store seven years ago, and Brenner thought it was a catchy pun.
snip-
"People are associating her with Donald Trump and want to know why she's using his mark," said her attorney Marvin Benn of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein in Chicago.
"All the money she spent on advertising, all that good will be taken away from her."
One problem: Brenner never registered the name of her business with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. That doesn't matter, according to Benn, who says Brenner still has legal rights to "You're fired," particularly in the Chicago area and other parts of the Midwest where the store has a following.
Brenner may not be the only small-business owner with a claim on the "You're fired" brand. There are other pottery and craft stores across the country using the moniker "You're Fired."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7290 - 11-17-04 12:02 PM
Re: Copyright, Patent & Trademark Laws
|
zeroflux
Administrator
Registered: 03-11-01
Posts: 6175
Loc: Arlington, Virginia
|
After contemplating creating some postcards and posters using some of my object photography scenes (using Legos and Galoob Toys as props) I decided to try researching the topic again to see if I can find a more comprehensive resource discussing the copyright ramifications. I found this article pretty informative among the scarce results for the search. Its a good read, although it doesn't doesn't delve as deeply as I'd like into the subject matter.
I was a bit surprised to read the statement about buildings designed after Dec 1, 1990 being copyrighted. Talk about needing a legal degree simply to take photographs in public areas...
Photography: Travel Photography and the Law
Do I Need Permission?
By Dianne Brinson for PhotoSecrets.
Before you take that photo, you may need permission for the following: Photographing buildings, works of art, or other copyrighted items; Photographing people; Photographing on public or private property. In this short article, attorney Dianne Brinson briefly discusses when permission may be required.
Copyright
Under current U.S. law, copyright protection arises automatically when an "original work of authorship" is "fixed in a tangible medium of expression". A work is "original" in the copyright sense if it owes its origin to the author. For example, a photograph of Yosemite's Bridalveil Fall is original so long as it was created by the photographer, even if it's the zillionth photo to be taken of that scene. Only minimal creativity is required to meet the originality requirement, no artistic merit or beauty is required.
Works of art - sculptures, paintings, and even toys - are protectable by copyright. Furthermore, buildings created on or after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright. A copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted work, and photographing a copyrighted work is considered a way of reproducing it. Thus, you may need permission to photograph a building or an art work.
Here are some guidelines:
Buildings
Only buildings created after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright. Fortunately for photographers, the copyright in an architectural work does not include the right to prevent others from making and distributing photos of the constructed building, if the building is located in a public place or is visible from a public place. So you don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a public building. You don't need permission to photograph a public building from inside the building (although you may need permission to photograph separately-owned decorative objects in the building, such as a statue). You don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a private building such as a church or a house.
This "photographer's exception" to the copyright-owner's rights applies only to buildings, a category which includes houses, office buildings, churches, gazebos, and garden pavilions. The exception does not apply to monuments (protectable as "sculptural works") or other copyrighted works, such as statues and paintings.
Art
You may need permission to photograph a copyrighted work of art, for example, a statue in a public park, or a painting in a private collection or art museum. And getting permission can be tricky, because, according to copyright law, you need permission from the copyright owner, not from the owner of the work of art itself. In copyright law, ownership of the copyright in a work is distinct from ownership of the copy (the tangible item).
For example, suppose that you are taking photographs of a painting in an art collector's private home collection. The art collector probably does not not own the copyright in the painting, the artist does. Unless your photograph of the painting is "fair use" (discussed later) you need permission from the artist.
Read More
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#147544 - 03-07-07 11:25 AM
Patent Law
[Re: zeroflux]
|
zeroflux
Administrator
Registered: 03-11-01
Posts: 6175
Loc: Arlington, Virginia
|
Hopefully, it will reduce the ability of corporations to file patent applications for everything under the sun unchallenged. I'm of the opinion that the patent process in the past years has stifled innovation rather than protected it.
Open Call From the Patent Office
The government is about to start opening up the process of reviewing patents to the modern font of wisdom: the Internet.
The Patent and Trademark Office is starting a pilot project that will not only post patent applications on the Web and invite comments but also use a community rating system designed to push the most respected comments to the top of the file, for serious consideration by the agency's examiners. A first for the federal government, the system resembles the one used by Wikipedia, the popular user-created online encyclopedia.
"For the first time in history, it allows the patent-office examiners to open up their cubicles and get access to a whole world of technical experts," said David J. Kappos, vice president and assistant general counsel at IBM.
It's quite a switch. For generations, the agency responsible for awarding patents, one of the cornerstones of innovation, has kept its distance from the very technological advances it has made possible. The project, scheduled to begin in the spring, evolved out of a meeting between IBM, the top recipient of U.S. patents for 14 years in a row, and New York Law School Professor Beth Simone Noveck. Noveck called the initiative "revolutionary" and said it will bring about "the first major change to our patent examination system since the 19th century."
Read Full Article
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#147552 - 03-07-07 11:56 AM
Re: Patent Law
[Re: zeroflux]
|
Catz
Member
Registered: 09-19-04
Posts: 46566
Loc: New Port Richey, Florida
|
Do you think this will lead to claims of stealing patents?
_________________________
Liberals are a dying breed
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#153549 - 04-02-07 01:03 AM
Lego Patent Expired
[Re: zeroflux]
|
zeroflux
Administrator
Registered: 03-11-01
Posts: 6175
Loc: Arlington, Virginia
|
I meant to post this a while back. There are several new brands of bricks on the market, such as Mega Bloks. I don't think they are the same quality as Lego, but it is refreshing to see competition in the marketplace. I think Lego was overreaching by trying to extent patent protection beyond its expiration.
Mega Bloks wins SCOC ruling on Lego trademark
Canada's highest court ruled unanimously Thursday that Mega Bloks does indeed have business in the playrooms of the nation, along with Lego.
The Supreme Court of Canada decision marks the end of a long-running trademark battle between the Montreal-based Mega Bloks and Denmark's Lego.
The ruling means that Montreal-based Mega Bloks (TSX:MB) can continue to sell its products in Canada.
Lego Canada and Lego holding company Kirkbi AG first took Mega Bloks to court in 1996 over the bumps on the blocks, alleging Mega Blok's products were infringing on Lego's trademark.
Lego sought an injunction and damages from Mega Bloks. Lego believed it had a trademark on the look of the knobs on its blocks.
Read Full Article
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#153550 - 04-02-07 01:05 AM
Patenting the Laws of Science
[Re: zeroflux]
|
zeroflux
Administrator
Registered: 03-11-01
Posts: 6175
Loc: Arlington, Virginia
|
Originally posted by Toxteth O'Grady
This is an issue that actually sprang out of a Federal court decision that ruled that a diagnosis technique based on recognizing high levels of homocysteine in a sample (actually, even considering the techique for diagnosing patients) could be patented by a lab. The question - can the laws of physics and nature be patented by their discoverers? The Courts say yes, but the Supreme Court may have the last word. Science Magazine discussed the issue in an news article a couple of weeks back; think of the mayhem possible if Euclid had patented geometry and sold it to Time Warner...
When Patents Threaten Science
Patents should not be used to protect laws of nature, products of nature, or mathematical formulas...
Controversy Brews over Patenting Laws of Nature
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Lei
|
|
