Talk:Copyright/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I didn't know where to put Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.
Generally if people want to write a new article, they just find a way to work the title into another, existing one; and if the connection isn't obvious someone comes along and makes it so. Putting it on a Talk page is fine for the short term, but links to new articles should probably go in a main articles instead, as the talk pages are frequently edited, cleaned up, or eliminated completely, and not everyone reads them anyway. --KQ
I have reorganized this article to seperate it into a general section and a US specific section. -- Simon J Kissane
The copyright article is but good but has flaws: it portrays copyright as the government granting someone the right to copy a work whereas most laws formulate the right by making unauthorised copies (and the act of making them) illegal. It should point out that modern copyright originally came about in order to protect the printers' businesses.
There is no discussion of moral rights (the most important one being the right to be identified as the author of a work). In some countries, France I believe, the moral rights are strong enough to control the use of original work. For example, I may not be able to place a painting by artist A in a context that is offensive to the reputation of artist A (this may include simply being placed next to another work). (contradicts last sentence of 1st para)
Not all countries have something exactly analogous to copyright. It is common in Europe for countries to have a right that would be better translated as "author's rights".
There is also public lending right (right to be recompensed when ones work are publicly lent). (contradicts last sentence of 1st para)
The author is not always the first owner of copyright (often it is the employer). This is pointed out later on in the article, but it contradicts para 3.
This is something I am currently researching (particularly with regard to IT). I may revise the head article at some point. Sorry this isn't very constructive yet.
Surely US sopyright law simply belongs in another topic?
Removed this:
- Copyright law has been attacked for some time, especially in reference to computer software. Proprietary software sealed under copyright law is considered the antithesis of the open source movement by many.
- Copyrights are the spawn of the devil.
Stuff about open source may belong in open source article. Stuff about computer software is simply not true (copyright law has been attacked, and for many of its aspects, of which digital books/music are especially visible lately).
Can't we claim non-profit educational exemption? Lir 06:43 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)
- See the fun world of Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. Short answer: fair use has limits, try to be reasonable. --Brion 06:51 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)
from village pump
How long does copyright last? At what point can I quote large chunks from a book first published in 1934? -- SGBailey 19:30 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
- It depends on the law of the country to which the author had the closest connection.
- The general international rule is Life + 50 years and it would apply of the author was Canadian or Australian.
- If the author was an EU citizen the rule is life + 70
- If the author was American it would go into the public domain on Jan. 1, 2030. If, however, the author failed to renew his copyright in 1952, it is already in the public domain.
There are some variations. Eclecticology 21:19 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
I have an obscure copyright question: If I embroider a commercial kit, and then take a photo of my finished product, does publishing the photo infringe copyright? Thanks for any help - Sannse 10:56 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)
- I'm no expert, but I think that if you published the picture it would. Judging from cross-stitch magazines etc. most kit manufacturers actually like having photos of their kits displayed. If you give details of the kit you are giving them a free advert, so I doubt that they would object. If in doubt write to them and ask for permission, they will probably be delighted. -- Chris Q 12:06 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)
I believe that your photo does not infringe on the copyright. The company would have rights to the pattern, but I don't think you can apply copyright to a finished embroidery product. I'll ask isis for her informal opinion... -- Stephen Gilbert 14:26 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks both. As you suggested Chris, I've mailed DMC (an embroidery company) to get their view, but the more info I can get the better so isis's opinion would be a help too - Sannse 18:10 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)