The Best of The Worst Hollow Copyright Claims (medium.com) 70
tiltowait writes: Slashdot readers should be familiar with most if not all of these, but the list of 20 Hollow Copyright Claims is a somber reminder of the current sorry state of intellectual property laws in the United States--as anyone who's encountered a paywall or a takedown notice (or remembers Slashdot's run-in with Scientology) can attest. It serves as a call to arms that we not lose sight of the benefits to sharing knowledge.
Missed one (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the most disgusting recent copyright stunts was the Anne Frank Foundation extending the copyright on her diary by claiming Otto Frank as a co-author [nytimes.com].
If anything ought to be considered owned by the world as a whole, it's Anne Frank's diary.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't they try to determine her original contribution and simply publish that instead?
Access to original (Score:4, Interesting)
This raises an interesting issue:
If I edit Anne Frank's diary, I have copyright on the edited version. If I carefully set things up and take a high quality photo of the Mona Lisa, I have copyright over that photo. If a monkey takes a selfie with my camera and then I do a bunch of post-processing to "improve" it and publish the improved picture, I have copyright due to the improvements.
In each case, somebody else could read the diaries and publish their own edition, take their own photo of the Mona Lisa, or freely distribute the original unimproved monkey selfie - but only if they have access to the diaries (or facsimile), to the Mona Lisa without plate glass in the way, or the unimproved selfie. When access to the original is restricted, reproductions can effectively exert copyright over the original when the original is out of copyright. (The monkey selfie camera owner missed this trick.)
Re: (Score:2)
Missed another (Score:2)
Historians write a (very dubious) history book. Novelist writes a novel in which this dubious history is true. Historians sue. Historians lose.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ent... [bbc.co.uk]
My analysis: You can't copyright facts. If you present something as a fact (such as in a history book), you lose any copyright over that "fact" (but not over your presentation of it.) Otherwise if you wrote a SF story involving Hawking radiation then Hawking could sue you.
Re:What about the infection nature of the GPL? (Score:4, Insightful)
You are trolling, of course, but the GPL is a license to use the code that somebody else created. One is free to use is as long as they abide by the terms. That is no different than using BSD, MIT or even proprietary code. In short, if you don't want to abide by the copyright owners terms, then don't use their code.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is absurd that including one line of GPLed code incorporated into millions of lines of code causes those lines to be GPLed, and no intelligent and knowledgeable person would ever claim that.
It's doubtful that one line would violate copyright, but let's assume there's enough incorporated to violate the copyright. The overall code then includes copyrighted code, and if it isn't distributed under a GPL it may not legally be distributed. The GPL does not require anyone to do anything, but does have some
The mouse will soon push to make them last longer (Score:4, Insightful)
The mouse will soon push to make them last longer and they also want the right to move stuff in to the vault and take off the market just to have them come back out years later.
Re:The mouse will soon push to make them last long (Score:4, Funny)
The mouse will soon push to make them last longer and they also want the right to move stuff in to the vault and take off the market just to have them come back out years later.
... and now they have The Force on their side...
Dum dum dum da dumdum da dumdum d-
Possible Intellectual Property Violation Detected
no carrier
Steam Boat Willy (Score:1)
Lets be clear that its not Mickey Mouse that is being extended, that is a trademark and does not expire as long as its used.
It's an old black and white cartoon called Steam Boat Willy, in which Mickey appeared. If that went out of copyright, people would be able to make copies of it, and Walt Disney would lose the value of the sale of that cartoon.... which is zero because they don't sell it.
Re: (Score:1)
Man, am I jonesing for seeing Steam Boat Willy being backdoored.
Re: (Score:2)
People could animate Hamlet with a certain mouse as the protagonist (so long as it looks like 1930s Willy not 21st century Mickey.) They could distribute the Steam Boat Willy cartoon modified so that the mouse protagonist is naked and has oversized genitalia - just so long as they never call the mouse protagonist "Mickey". I think these are the sorts of possibilities that give Disney executives sleepless nights.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't use trademark to substitute for copyright. It doesn't matter if Steamboat Willy is trademarked or not, the cartoon could be distributed in original or changed form. You'd be on really shaky ground if you called the mouse Mickey. Any attempt to represent the thing as connected to Disney would probably wind up staring into the wrong side of a trademark infringement suit.
Re: (Score:2)
and Walt Disney would lose the value of the sale of that cartoon.... which is zero because they don't sell it.
...and it's shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets be clear that its not Mickey Mouse that is being extended, that is a trademark and does not expire as long as its used.
It's an old black and white cartoon called Steam Boat Willy, in which Mickey appeared. ...
Not necessarily the full story. Haven't done a full analysis, but, Steam Boat Willy arguably contained other copyrightable elements (Mickey Mouse for instance). Here's an interesting article regarding what happens when a character falls into the public domain: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/copyright-change-leaves-james-bond-up-for-grabs-in-canada/article22606770/ [theglobeandmail.com]
Paywalls not like the others! (Score:3)
The Worst Hollow Copyright Claim: (Score:5, Insightful)
"Author's lifetime plus 70 years"
Re:The Worst Hollow Copyright Claim: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The point of copyright is to have a long enough period to encourage people to make their own works.
I'm going to nit pick this, but don't take it personally because I think you get it, but the overwhelming majority don't. Whenever people say/write this I think they believe its the exclusivity itself that is the motivator for artists to create works. I totally reject this idea. Read this sampling [upvenue.com] of how musicians feel about online "piracy."
My take away from it are that the artists either don't care or are encouraged by it. To them, their art is an experience. It's either the experience of going to a
Re: (Score:1)
Sarcasm? Hard to tell.
Anyhow, the point is that Carol's work has, for better or worse, become part of our culture. Like Shakespeare or Dickens, it has moved from "story written by some guy to make money to pay the rent" to "important part of the story-telling canon of the human species". Sure that means you'll get dubious versions made - just think of all the oh so serious but god-awful Shakespeare "adaptions" put on by two-bit theater companies with more enthusiasm than acting ability - but it also mean
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright for lifetime of author plus short period is fine and dandy: author's should have a chance to make money from their work, and their family should have some transition time to find alternative sources of income after they die, but past that... no. Just no.
Of course this whole extension thing started with Mickey Mouse. I mean those poor suffering Disney family members, err shareholders. Whatever would they have done without the extension?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It all started with Noah Webster in the 1830's
But it was the Disney decision that extended it the time period because they were about to lose the rights to Mickey Mouse.
Re:The Worst Hollow Copyright Claim: (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm an author, and I have no problem with this. In fact, I encourage it. Why should a generation find a means to profit off my work, changing it, manipulating it, doing whatever they want with it, soon after I pass? What a disgrace that could be.
Parent is totally right. After all, the copyright clause does read:
To promote the Agrandizement of Creative Egos, by securing for extreme Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Re: (Score:2)
To allow and promote the entire creativity of humanity and assigned to corporate publishers until the end of time. Now M$ will be stealing that right off your hard disk drive with windows 10 the very second you sign them those rights by signing off on the ever changing EULAs.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm an author, and I have no problem with this. In fact, I encourage it. Why should a generation find a means to profit off my work, changing it, manipulating it, doing whatever they want with it, soon after I pass? What a disgrace that could be. Have you seen how far removed these new Alice and Wonderland movies are? Gawd, completely off the point. Now people think of Lewis Carrol as an author and cartoonist, not the brilliant methmetician he was. There's also the drug/hippie flower-power relationship that was never intended.
Why would you even care? You'll be dead.
Also, if you don't like the current Alice movies you're probably not a child, which is the intended audience, as far as I can see.
I resent the fact that Mick Jagger's children will be living off continued royalties for their entire lives.
Re: (Score:3)
I know, it's outrageous that my employer stops paying ME after I die, let alone not paying my children! I mean, I worked hard today, surely that continuing deserves payment to my descendants long after I'm dead. Why would I bother working tomorrow if I know I'm only going to get paid for 1 DAY!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, copyright law is based on one passage in the Constitution, and can't be based on any other. The purpose of patents and copyrights are to encourage people to produce more stuff. If the copyright is long enough to give you incentive, it's long enough. Personally, I can't see any person or company doing something creative because they thought they'd rake it in thirty years later, so I consider the 14+14 of my youth pretty much ideal.
How many brilliant mathematicians of the Nineteenth Century a
Re: (Score:2)
The worst part with the bit about the Tolkien Estate is that they have so little actual control over Tolkien's works. A different group (the Saul Zaentz Company) owns rights to the movies, games, and merchandise. The Tolkien estate did sue about the games part, but only because Saul Zaentz Company was expanding that to include casino games. So who should own the rights, the descendants or some sleazy Hollywood holdings company?
I don't get #17 (Score:2)
What's the big deal? Those pictures look like they were taken by some monkey with a camera [wikipedia.org].
If you're opposed to our current IP law (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget the comic book movies... (Score:3)
Missed Another (Score:1)
After the failure of the publishing industry to ban [huffingtonpost.com] international books for domestic resale, they have hit upon another venture. Access codes, which can only be used once. This makes used books obsolete when professors "require" that a student use the publisher's online garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
How the bleep do you copyright that? If something's copyrighted, IIRC there should be a copy in the Library of Congress. You're talking about copyrighting a "routine". You can copyright a line of patter if you write it down, but not actions. Teller could have patented the process, in which case it would be generally available for everyone to read about, or kept it a trade secret.
Disney (Score:5, Informative)
Mark Twain (Score:2)
Human behavior (Score:1)
What I mean is:
1) You retain copyright only until your product or idea is made available to a public (to prevent someone from copying your idea before you release it). Otherwise you would go against the normal human way to relate with reality called use - understand - improve (which we exhibit from the day we are born).
2) A copyrighted item holder can retain copyright until he is alive and point 1 does not apply. Once you a
comment subject (Score:2)