Copyright: Difference between revisions
imported>Meg Taylor m (spelling: millenium -> millennium) |
imported>Sandy Harris (add section on Statute of Anne) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Copyright law invariably includes exemptions for what US law calls "fair use", though the terminology and details vary from country to country. It does not violate copyright to quote a work in a review or scholarly study, or to parody it, for example. In some countries, things like photocopying newspaper articles for use in a classroom are covered by this; in others, they are not. | Copyright law invariably includes exemptions for what US law calls "fair use", though the terminology and details vary from country to country. It does not violate copyright to quote a work in a review or scholarly study, or to parody it, for example. In some countries, things like photocopying newspaper articles for use in a classroom are covered by this; in others, they are not. | ||
== The original copyright law == | |||
Britain enacted the first copyright legislation, the Statute of Anne, in 1710. | |||
{{quotation| WHEN Parliament decided, in 1709, to create a law that would protect books from piracy, the London-based publishers and booksellers who had been pushing for such protection were overjoyed. When Queen Anne gave her assent on April 10th the following year—300 years ago this week—to “An act for the encouragement of learning” they were less enthused. Parliament had given them rights, but it had set a time limit on them: 21 years for books already in print and 14 years for new ones, with an additional 14 years if the author was still alive when the first term ran out. After that, the material would enter the public domain so that anyone could reproduce it. The lawmakers intended thus to balance the incentive to create with the interest that society has in free access to knowledge and art. The Statute of Anne thus helped nurture and channel the spate of inventiveness that Enlightenment society and its successors have since enjoyed. | |||
<ref>{{citation | |||
| journal = The Economist | |||
| title = Copyright and wrong: Why the rules on copyright need to return to their roots | |||
| date = April 8th 2010 | |||
| url = http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15868004 | |||
}}</ref>}} | |||
Since then, the term of copyright has been extended considerably in various jurisdictions. Many nations, including Canada and most of Europe, now use 50 years from the death of the author, and the US has even higher limits. | |||
===United States=== | ===United States=== | ||
Revision as of 08:29, 9 April 2010
- See also Copyrighting
Copyright is a form of intellectual property law that exists fairly uniformly around the world. Copyright is a property grant on creative works granted to authors of those works for a period set by law, after which the work is no longer protected by copyright and becomes public domain. The term length and conditions for copyright vary.
Copyright law invariably includes exemptions for what US law calls "fair use", though the terminology and details vary from country to country. It does not violate copyright to quote a work in a review or scholarly study, or to parody it, for example. In some countries, things like photocopying newspaper articles for use in a classroom are covered by this; in others, they are not.
The original copyright law
Britain enacted the first copyright legislation, the Statute of Anne, in 1710.
WHEN Parliament decided, in 1709, to create a law that would protect books from piracy, the London-based publishers and booksellers who had been pushing for such protection were overjoyed. When Queen Anne gave her assent on April 10th the following year—300 years ago this week—to “An act for the encouragement of learning” they were less enthused. Parliament had given them rights, but it had set a time limit on them: 21 years for books already in print and 14 years for new ones, with an additional 14 years if the author was still alive when the first term ran out. After that, the material would enter the public domain so that anyone could reproduce it. The lawmakers intended thus to balance the incentive to create with the interest that society has in free access to knowledge and art. The Statute of Anne thus helped nurture and channel the spate of inventiveness that Enlightenment society and its successors have since enjoyed.
Since then, the term of copyright has been extended considerably in various jurisdictions. Many nations, including Canada and most of Europe, now use 50 years from the death of the author, and the US has even higher limits.
United States
In the United States, the law continues to evolve. As a result of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), copyright lasts for the life of the author plus seventy years (or 95 years for works of corporate authorship).[2] Copyrightable works generally include books, audio recordings, film and video, drawings and sometimes works of architecture.
History of U.S. Copyright
A major revision in 1976 clarified many issues, addressed the issues of copyright in new media, and established the Copyright Tribunal for judging disputes.
The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act [3], passed in 1998, increased the duration of most US copyrights. Previously, it was 50 years after the death of the author, but the act raised this to 70 and added various special types with longer duration. Critics called it the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act [4].
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 dealt with a number of issues, especially of concern to entertainment companies. [2]
In 2009, the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act (H. R. 801) was proposed to increase access to scientific publications in academic journals and scientific journals.
References
- ↑ "Copyright and wrong: Why the rules on copyright need to return to their roots", The Economist, April 8th 2010
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Cooley Godward Kronish LLP (1 December 1998), The Digital Millennium Copyright Act and Other Recent Copyright Law Changes
- ↑ http://www.keytlaw.com/Copyrights/sonybono.htm
- ↑ Lawrence Lessig (2001), "Copyright's First Amendment", UCLA Law Review