Pub Date : 2019-03-01DOI: 10.29085/9781783304257.004
G. Cornish
This section looks at what rights authors and owners of copyright enjoy under the law. What is the difference between authorship and ownership? Authors and owners may, or may not, be the same person. They enjoy different rights, so the distinction is important. As authors are defined differently for different types of work, they will be dealt with separately under each heading. However, despite some variations, their moral rights are similar in most circumstances so they will be covered in this section. This section then sets out who the owner is and what the owner is entitled to do exclusively in law. The rights enjoyed by authors are called ‘moral rights’ and are generally very weak in UK law. On the other hand, owners enjoy a whole range of rights which are economic in nature. The limitations to these rights are then dealt with in Section 4. Moral rights What are moral rights? Moral rights are designed to protect the idea that anything created contains an element of ‘self’ in it. Therefore the author ought to be able to protect certain aspects of a work. Although the law is complex in this area and most library services may not think they have major concerns with moral rights, the growth of electronic information sources, Open Archives, Creative Commons and similar systems makes an understanding of moral rights important for all information services. What are these rights? Essentially they give the author the right to protect their work from being abused or their reputation from being sullied. What specific rights do authors have? Basically, authors have a right to prevent their work being distorted by additions, deletions or changes to its meaning. They also have the right not to have works they did not create attributed to them and prevent anyone else claiming to be the author of their work. They also have the right to prevent their work being used in a way that would bring their reputation into disrepute. What about making sure their name is included in a work? Rather surprisingly, this is not an automatic right of the author. It applies in certain contexts only and will be dealt with under each type of copyright material in the following sections. In summary, it applies only to authors of monographs, producers and directors of films and artists whose work is to be exhibited in public.
{"title":"Rights and limitations","authors":"G. Cornish","doi":"10.29085/9781783304257.004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304257.004","url":null,"abstract":"This section looks at what rights authors and owners of copyright enjoy under the law. What is the difference between authorship and ownership? Authors and owners may, or may not, be the same person. They enjoy different rights, so the distinction is important. As authors are defined differently for different types of work, they will be dealt with separately under each heading. However, despite some variations, their moral rights are similar in most circumstances so they will be covered in this section. This section then sets out who the owner is and what the owner is entitled to do exclusively in law. The rights enjoyed by authors are called ‘moral rights’ and are generally very weak in UK law. On the other hand, owners enjoy a whole range of rights which are economic in nature. The limitations to these rights are then dealt with in Section 4. Moral rights What are moral rights? Moral rights are designed to protect the idea that anything created contains an element of ‘self’ in it. Therefore the author ought to be able to protect certain aspects of a work. Although the law is complex in this area and most library services may not think they have major concerns with moral rights, the growth of electronic information sources, Open Archives, Creative Commons and similar systems makes an understanding of moral rights important for all information services. What are these rights? Essentially they give the author the right to protect their work from being abused or their reputation from being sullied. What specific rights do authors have? Basically, authors have a right to prevent their work being distorted by additions, deletions or changes to its meaning. They also have the right not to have works they did not create attributed to them and prevent anyone else claiming to be the author of their work. They also have the right to prevent their work being used in a way that would bring their reputation into disrepute. What about making sure their name is included in a work? Rather surprisingly, this is not an automatic right of the author. It applies in certain contexts only and will be dealt with under each type of copyright material in the following sections. In summary, it applies only to authors of monographs, producers and directors of films and artists whose work is to be exhibited in public.","PeriodicalId":29901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Copyright Society of the Usa","volume":"119 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87029590","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article critiques US jurisprudence, commentary and industry practice suggesting that fictional literary characters constitute separate copyright works distinct from the literary works in which they are situated. The scholarship on this jurisprudence tends to lament the ambiguity of the courts’ character delineation standards, and the inconsistency of court decisions applying them, but rarely, if ever, questions the legitimacy and coherence of the character-as-work doctrine. The paper will argue that the doctrine is fundamentally misconceived. It evolved from the fragile foundation of a casual obiter comment in an infringement analysis and morphed confusedly into an entrenched, though misunderstood, principle. The article will explain the unstable foundation of the character-as-work doctrine with reference to the concept of a ‘work’ in copyright law and its relationship to the fixation doctrine. The article argues that the nature of literary characters precludes them from being clearly and consistently identified and thus perceptible in a copy for the purposes of fixation. It explains how the character-as-work doctrine ignores the nature of literary characters; confuses subsistence standards; fosters illusory rights, rights hyperextension and lazy infringement analyses; and encourages character ‘evergreening’ beyond the copyright term.
{"title":"Works of Fiction: The Misconception of Literary Characters as Copyright Works","authors":"Jani McCutcheon","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3263155","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3263155","url":null,"abstract":"This article critiques US jurisprudence, commentary and industry practice suggesting that fictional literary characters constitute separate copyright works distinct from the literary works in which they are situated. The scholarship on this jurisprudence tends to lament the ambiguity of the courts’ character delineation standards, and the inconsistency of court decisions applying them, but rarely, if ever, questions the legitimacy and coherence of the character-as-work doctrine. The paper will argue that the doctrine is fundamentally misconceived. It evolved from the fragile foundation of a casual obiter comment in an infringement analysis and morphed confusedly into an entrenched, though misunderstood, principle. The article will explain the unstable foundation of the character-as-work doctrine with reference to the concept of a ‘work’ in copyright law and its relationship to the fixation doctrine. The article argues that the nature of literary characters precludes them from being clearly and consistently identified and thus perceptible in a copy for the purposes of fixation. It explains how the character-as-work doctrine ignores the nature of literary characters; confuses subsistence standards; fosters illusory rights, rights hyperextension and lazy infringement analyses; and encourages character ‘evergreening’ beyond the copyright term.","PeriodicalId":29901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Copyright Society of the Usa","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78357129","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-09-27DOI: 10.1093/wentk/9780199941148.003.0002
N. Netanel
One cannot follow the debates over copyright’s present and future without understanding copyright’s key doctrines and concepts. This chapter provides that understanding. The copyright law of the United States is a product of over two hundred years of judicial decisions and congressional legislation. It spans...
{"title":"Copyright: what it is and what it is not","authors":"N. Netanel","doi":"10.1093/wentk/9780199941148.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/wentk/9780199941148.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"One cannot follow the debates over copyright’s present and future without understanding copyright’s key doctrines and concepts. This chapter provides that understanding. The copyright law of the United States is a product of over two hundred years of judicial decisions and congressional legislation. It spans...","PeriodicalId":29901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Copyright Society of the Usa","volume":"57 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72531636","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-09-27DOI: 10.1093/wentk/9780199941148.003.0003
N. Netanel
As we have seen in Chapter I, copyright law reflects a delicate balance. Copyright law provides authors with a set of exclusive rights to copy and disseminate their creative expression. But copyrights are also punctuated by significant exceptions and limitations. These include fair...
{"title":"The Battles Over Copyright: Overview","authors":"N. Netanel","doi":"10.1093/wentk/9780199941148.003.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/wentk/9780199941148.003.0003","url":null,"abstract":"As we have seen in Chapter I, copyright law reflects a delicate balance. Copyright law provides authors with a set of exclusive rights to copy and disseminate their creative expression. But copyrights are also punctuated by significant exceptions and limitations. These include fair...","PeriodicalId":29901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Copyright Society of the Usa","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81083955","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-09-27DOI: 10.1093/wentk/9780199941148.003.0007
N. Netanel
Copyright markets are global in scope. U.S.-based copyright industries (some of which are multinational conglomerates) earn a significant share of their revenues from exports. Social media also transcend national borders. So do notorious file-sharing sites like Pirate Bay. United States copyright industries complain bitterly that...
{"title":"Copyright in the International Arena","authors":"N. Netanel","doi":"10.1093/wentk/9780199941148.003.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/wentk/9780199941148.003.0007","url":null,"abstract":"Copyright markets are global in scope. U.S.-based copyright industries (some of which are multinational conglomerates) earn a significant share of their revenues from exports. Social media also transcend national borders. So do notorious file-sharing sites like Pirate Bay.\u0000 United States copyright industries complain bitterly that...","PeriodicalId":29901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Copyright Society of the Usa","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83339453","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-09-27DOI: 10.1093/wentk/9780199941148.003.0008
N. Netanel
What is copyright reform? The term “copyright reform” connotes a significant modification or full-scale revision of the Copyright Act. Congress typically entertains the possibility of copyright reform when new technologies for disseminating creative expression have rendered the existing Copyright Act inadequate or obsolete. Our current...
{"title":"“The Next great Copyright Act”","authors":"N. Netanel","doi":"10.1093/wentk/9780199941148.003.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/wentk/9780199941148.003.0008","url":null,"abstract":"What is copyright reform?\u0000 The term “copyright reform” connotes a significant modification or full-scale revision of the Copyright Act. Congress typically entertains the possibility of copyright reform when new technologies for disseminating creative expression have rendered the existing Copyright Act inadequate or obsolete.\u0000 Our current...","PeriodicalId":29901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Copyright Society of the Usa","volume":"49 4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78406831","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-09-27DOI: 10.1093/wentk/9780199941148.003.0004
N. Netanel
Lying just under the surface of the debates that surround copyright law are sharp disagreements about what are the justifications, if any, for recognizing and protecting copyrights. Some observers and interested parties argue that copyrights need no policy justification because authors have an inherent right...
{"title":"Why Have Copyright Law?","authors":"N. Netanel","doi":"10.1093/wentk/9780199941148.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/wentk/9780199941148.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"Lying just under the surface of the debates that surround copyright law are sharp disagreements about what are the justifications, if any, for recognizing and protecting copyrights. Some observers and interested parties argue that copyrights need no policy justification because authors have an inherent right...","PeriodicalId":29901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Copyright Society of the Usa","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91228369","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-09-27DOI: 10.1093/wentk/9780199941148.003.0006
N. Netanel
Does file sharing really harm authors and copyright industries? The copyright industries insist that file sharing (via both downloading and streaming) poses a major threat to their future viability. Underlying that concern, the industries—and many observers—posit that individuals who can freely enjoy music and video...
{"title":"Current Controversies","authors":"N. Netanel","doi":"10.1093/wentk/9780199941148.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/wentk/9780199941148.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"Does file sharing really harm authors and copyright industries?\u0000 The copyright industries insist that file sharing (via both downloading and streaming) poses a major threat to their future viability. Underlying that concern, the industries—and many observers—posit that individuals who can freely enjoy music and video...","PeriodicalId":29901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Copyright Society of the Usa","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86089252","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-08-27DOI: 10.29085/9781783304257.015
Steven Fleming
{"title":"Useful Sources of Information","authors":"Steven Fleming","doi":"10.29085/9781783304257.015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304257.015","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Copyright Society of the Usa","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88217110","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper considers the effectiveness of judicial licensing in copyright law. The main argument advanced in the paper is that judicial licensing is neutered by its exclusion from unpublished works and the serious problems associated with transformative uses of copyright works.
{"title":"The Effectiveness of Judicial Licensing in Copyright Law","authors":"Patrick Masiyakurima","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1005172","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1005172","url":null,"abstract":"This paper considers the effectiveness of judicial licensing in copyright law. The main argument advanced in the paper is that judicial licensing is neutered by its exclusion from unpublished works and the serious problems associated with transformative uses of copyright works.","PeriodicalId":29901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Copyright Society of the Usa","volume":"6 1","pages":"799-828"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90198714","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：