Talk:Copyright/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Changes to History section of article

Hello everyone,

I am proposing a change to the History section of the article. Under 2.1 Early European printers' monopoly, after the first paragraph, I would like to add a couple of paragraphs that elaborate on the early factors which led to the emergence of copyright law by including the rise of capitalism and the subsequent commodification as factors. I think this is important because the replacement of feudalism with capitalism has been pointed out as an important prerequisite for the development of the very conception of intellectual and artistic work as property. Indeed, without the capitalist property paradigm, the conversation is moot. Alternatively, perhaps this can be put under section 18 Copyright as property right. Specifically, I am thinking of adding the following content, or something very similar, after the first paragraph of section 2.1 unless, as mentioned above, it ends up seeming best in section 18 - I have various sources to verify the below which I will add as footnotes when I make tha actual changes to the page:

Aside from the role of governments and the church, the history of copyright law is in essential ways also connected to the rise of capitalism and the attendant extension of commodity relations to the realm of creative human activities, such as literary and artistic production. Similarly, different cultural attitudes, social organizations, economic models and legal frameworks are seen to account for why copyright emerged in Europe and not in for example in Asia, where capitalism did not emerge until later.

In the Middle Ages in Europe, there was generally a lack of any concept of literary property due to the general relations of production, the specific organization of literary production and the role of culture in society. The latter refers to the tendency of oral societies, such as that of Europe in the medieval period, to view knowledge as the product, expression and property of the collective. There could be no copyright law in this period in Europe just as the conditions for copyright law in other parts of the world did not develop until later, or until Euro-American countries introduced such laws and conceptions through by dint of their colonial powers. Not until capitalism emerges in Europe with its focus on the individual, does the conception of intellectual property and by extension copyright law emerge. The most significant point is that under the capitalist mode of production, patent and copyright laws support in fundamental and thoroughgoing ways the expansion of the range of creative human activities that can be commodified.

... I would appreciate any and or all feedback! Jamila iSchool (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jamila, I think that you have identified an important piece of the story of copyright that was previously left out. This is a valuable contribution to this page. I wonder if Wikipedians (not sure if I can truly count myself as one) would have issue with your statement "Euro-American countries introduced such laws and conceptions through by dint of their colonial powers" as someone could interpret this as having a particular slant. The taking on of laws and concepts could be seen as an adoption by said countries. Nas Khan (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! It is very helpful. I will change the wording on that sentence. I had thought it was a neutral way of talking about the role of colonialism in spreading this knowledge paradigm but that is exactly why it is helpful to get other perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamila iSchool (talk • contribs) 13:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to know the history and feel mislead by the lack of the timeframe established by the law from Anne. The history of copyright should also show the timeframes and their reasoning if known... such as the mickey mouse act in the USA lengthening copyright to protect Mickey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.103.165 (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"copyrighted" is a neologism and not a real word

"copyright" is an adjective. "Copyrighted" can be found all over the place, but it lessens my confidence that the writer actually knows what words mean. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Language evolves. [1], [2]. We humans like our shortcuts. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The OED (my 1933 paper set) gives the verb form of copyright as dating from 1878. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You have the paper set? </jealous> --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's easier to get hold of a paper OED than it is to find the 3' of extra-tall shelf space to put it on. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No doubt. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

For contexts prior to 1978, in the U.S., "copyrighted" makes perfect sense. Prior to 1978, one did actually copyright a work: either by publishing it with a copyright notice (1909 Act, § 10) or by registering a claim of copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office (1909 Act § 12). Post-1978, a work is subject to copyright as soon as it's "fixed in a tangible medium of expression," so, under current law, "copyrighted" doesn't refer to anything more than creating something that is subject to copyright, and not so helpful. But it's still a word, even though it refers to something no longer around, just like it's not meaningless to refer to the Soviet Union.

Note that even the current U.S. Copyright Act itself uses the word "copyrighted," to denote exactly the sense described above:

"Copyright in a work created before January 1, 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for the term provided by section 302."

See 17 U.S.C. § 303(a). TJRC (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"Copyright" has been attested as a verb for over 200 years, "copyrighted" as the past tense nearly that long. Hartboy (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

See Definitions of copyrighted - OneLook Dictionary Search. See also "copyright" at Google Ngram Viewer.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent setback

With deep apologies to those who have been working to repair this article, I'm afraid that User:Puramyun31 restored the copyvio version. You have been working to improve it, instead of the clean copy of this article. I have had to revert back. I will add back your clean content, but it's clear now that we need a revision delete of the text to avoid this kind of thing happening again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I see why this was needed. I looked over all my deleted edits (noted here) and they're all related to edits to deal with OR pushed by since-blocked-user SasiSasi, so no worries here at least - nothing worth restoring, as the content I was working on (and had flagged as copyvio) is, happily, gone. Makes me a bit more sympathetic to the deletionists I often find seemingly hacking carelessly, often throwing out many babies with the bathwater as they do mass image pushes through the deletion process. But only a bit. --Elvey (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for Expert

If anyone is an expert on how copyright law relates to the patent publications, we could use a little help at Copyright on the content of patents and in the context of patent prosecution. Apparently copyright law has changed but none of us patent guys are real experts on it. The question is what notice is needed in order for someone to protect their copyright on published patents and patent applications. --Nowa (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for inclusion

I think it would be worth noting in this article or another article related to copyright either on the English Wikipedia and/or on the Simple English Wikipedia that when getting permission to use copyrighted material, the internal policies and rules set by the management staff of many companies can oftentimes dictate who can get permission for what use. For example, many of the movie companies might not give you explicit permission to exercise a right reserved by the publisher such as making a copy of a movie for yourself, etc. because the rules set by their management staff may prohibit giving such permission.

I feel it would also be worthy of note somewhere in this article or elsewhere that some companies may request a variety of contact methods used for getting permission for copyrighted material including snail-mail and phone contact and that companies may also subject you to other obligations such as phone interviews as a courtesy for giving people such permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumpstartsie (talk • contribs) 01:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

starting with this link will be edited with special account and u should referate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.91.125.17 (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright as piracy or theft

The article contains the sentence, "Piracy is considered to be the illegitimate use of materials held by copyright." To the point where Cluebot is defending against changes to this.

However the notion of copyright infringement as either "piracy" or "theft" is a highly POV statement. It is increasingly common for such alarmist terms to be used by high-profile adverts from FACT / RIAA / MPAA etc, yet the legal definitions of these three terms has not shifted (even in the US, where lobbying has been most effective). Copyright infringement is not theft: this is why a separate legal definition is required for it. This is not one-sided: groups like the PirateBay have equally gone along with this comparison.

It is a trivial citation that "The RIAA describe copyright infringement as piracy" however there is no legal credibility to a view that copyright infringement is piracy, or similarly for theft. WP, with a supposedly neutral standpoint, should not be supporting or promoting this opinion (which is a pretty obvious alarmist technique) that equates copyright infringement with piracy. At most, WP should comment upon the misrepresentation. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right. In this article it should be (mostly?) limited to calling it copyright infringement. There's already an in-depth discussion of the terminology at Copyright infringement#"Piracy". VernoWhitney (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Capitalism?

Copyrights are no more central to capitalism than slavery is. The repeated mentioning of capitalism's is out of place. Just because it requires capitalism doesn't mean it's worth mentioning and we need to keep stating that. The ownership of 'anything' requires capitalism, yet not every such Wikipedia article talks of how people started using it as capitalism advanced. In particular, the addition of

Not until capitalism emerges ... does...

and

...under the capitalist mode of production...

seems pointless. You could add that before almost any statement in any article.

I'll try to fix it. 60.8.123.103 (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

But that's what copyrights are for. It's like removing mention of it's purpose.117.207.236.138 (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Mopney

Long story short

Everything is copyrighted. Read the copyright details although it is not necessary that it will always be there. Related fan material may also be copyrighted. Educational purposes do not exempt automatically from copyright as it does not depend on the user. http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/copy_myths.html. 117.207.236.138 (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Mayne

Altering it also does not exempt you from copyright dues117.207.236.138 (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Mayne

Ancient books may or may not be copyrighted. There are a total of ten myths.117.207.236.138 (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Mayne

Old meaning of Kelilight is Ancient Definitin of קליאור  : strength, Glow ,Delightful light, MISTICAL brightness ,A powerful light,His holliness, a holly place, just the part of light fire that Moses saw; take your sandals off for the land (ONE) of which youre standing is a holly place " behold ye stand before the Holly one:.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.138.225 (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement isn't just downloading

As far as I'm aware, copyright infringement included a pretty wide variety of behavior, yet right now the relevant section of the article is solely about unauthorized downloading. It'd likely be a good idea for someone with appropriate knowledge to expand it to discuss at least some of the other illegal behaviors. Xyzzy☥Avatar (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Concerning this sentence in the article: Copyright is a form of intellectual property (as patents, trademarks and trade secrets are), applicable to any expressible form of an idea or information that is substantive and discrete.[1] Neither the word discrete nor the word substantive appear in the footnoted reference.Zylstra (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Where can I ask about copyright issues on this project?

Where can I ask about copyright issues on this project? Specifically, a portrait of someone is used either without attribution or as "file photo". MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Media copyright questions could be the place.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright assignment?

Section Transfer and licensing, and assignment doesn't actually explain the concept of copyright assignment. Specifically, what's the difference between copyright assignment and copyright transfer? 156.17.88.253 (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

This page is for discussion of the particular contents of the Copyright article, or for straightforward questions about copyright. This article is not the place for:

1. debates about the merits of copyright. See Talk:Copyright/is copyright worthwhile?.
2. discussion of Wikipedia's copyright policies. See Wikipedia:Copyrights, or, for more informal discussion, see Wikipedia:Copyright issues.
3. Legal advice about copyright. Please see an attorney authorized to practice law in your jurisdiction.

---

There is material on this page that sounds "the end of the story". But is only seeing it from a North American perspective. Bit disappointed the Gods didn't get to this page first. Danja (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Summarizing the purposes of copyright

The philosophy of copyright article makes clear that copyright has multiple purposes, of which economic gain is just one. The economic rationale is an important point of view which should be mentioned, but it should not be unduly elevated in this article to being copyright's sole or core purpose. Copyright was designed to be applicable to non-capitalistic societies just as much as capitalistic ones. For example, the "moral" rights in copyright are about credit, not money, and most countries define copyright in terms of who has license (permission) to use creative works in certain ways, rather than in terms of economic entitlement. As another example, the U.S. Constitution (and supporting SCOTUS text) simply states that copyright exists to promote the "useful arts"; no mention is made of economic incentives at all. This is not an accident and should not be sidestepped, although I agree that it is inappropriate for a general article about copyright to place undue emphasis on one country's founding document.

Therefore, I feel strongly that in this article, if we summarize the many purposes of copyright, we need to be careful not to get too simple. When describing the economic rationale, in particular, we mustn't imply that copyright necessarily creates value or attempts to guarantee compensation to creators, but rather just say that it guarantees that if there is compensation to be derived, it flows only to the creators. In that spirit, the uncited text I removed from the intro today was incorrect when it said that the purpose of copyright was to compensate creators. It is not about whether this statement is right—it is, more or less—but phrasing it so tersely is vastly oversimplifying. Consider that creators can be compensated quite well even when others are profiting from the same work. It is thus better to be more specific and say that what copyright does, economically, is temporarily entitles the creator to be the sole beneficiary of whatever compensation can be derived from certain uses of their work, except by permission. I fear even that's oversimplifying, but it's better than the dumbed-down point of view that copyright is some kind of winning lottery ticket.

It's a bit disheartening that in all the time this article has existed, no one has yet adequately summarized the purposes of copyright, with citations. I feel anyone who attempts to do so should start with the philosophy of copyright article (hot mess that it is) to get a sense of the different perspectives and purposes. We need to ensure that the reader understands that copyright has multiple purposes, not all of them economic. —mjb (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

excellent points--i agree with Mjb. Rjensen (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2015

A good service to file american copyright is https://fastcopyright.org/index Adnan Saleem Sandhila 13:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - we are not here to promote one company over another

I think I will add this quote to the article

what do you all think?

It may be noted that while throughout the British Empire English precedent is naturally followed, the more restrictive American copyright system has unfortunately influenced legislation in Canada and Newfoundland, and in Australia. France, open-handed to authors of other countries, has afforded

precedent for the widest international protection and for the international term; while Spain, with the longest term and most liberal arrangements otherwise, has been followed largely by Latin American countries. The International Copyright Union has reached in the Berlin convention almost the ideal of copyright legislation, and this has been closely followed in the Buenos Aires convention of the Pan American Union. The world over, there seems to have been a general evolution of copyright protection from the rude and imperfect recognition of intellectual property as cognate to other property, for a term indefinite and in a sense perpetual, almost impossible of enforcement in the lack of statutory protection and penalties. Systems of legislation, at first of very limited term and of restricted scope, have led up to the comprehensive codes giving wide and definite protection for all classes of intellectual property for a term of years extending beyond life, with the least possible formalities compatible with the necessities of legal procedure. Unfortunately in the United States of America the forward movement which produced the "international copyright amendment" of 1891 and the code of 1909, conspicuously excellent despite defects of detail, was in some measure offset by retrogression, as in the manufacturing restrictions. Until this policy, which still remains a blot on the 'scutcheon, is abandoned, as the friends of copyright hope may ultimately be the case, the United States of America cannot enter on even terms the family of nations and become part of the United

States of the world.

— R. R. BOWKER

Thewhitebox (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. First, the source is not clear. Second, it is clearly opinionated - so is the author or issuing party an authority? Third, it provides a lot of country-specific information that is otherwise unfortunately lacking.

Kdammers (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Corporate persons

I came here looking for information on the length of copyright for a book that was written by someone using a corporate pseudonym, as is common in a lot of pulp fiction. If, say, Grosset & Dunlap keeps giving out Hardy Boys stories to authors to write under the byline of Franklin W. Dixon, when does the copyright on the early ones (e.g., "The Tower Treasure," originally copyrighted 1927, by a perhaps now-unknown and surely long dead author) expire if ever? I got no help from the article. Kdammers (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an article on copyright in general, it tries not to go into too much detail of any particular countries' copyright laws. There's a box "Copyright law by country" at the bottom where you can investigate the status in the country you're interested in. For example, for the US, check out Copyright law of the United States. TJRC (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Copyright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.google.com/books?id=dMYXq9V1JBQC&dq=statute+of+anne+copyright&lr=&as_brr=3&source=gbs_navlinks_s
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140209043040/http://www.unesco.org/culture/copyright/html_eng/ucc52ms.pdf to http://www.unesco.org/culture/copyright/html_eng/ucc52ms.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2015

[ALT] + NumPad[0] + NumPad[1] + NumPad[6] + NumPad[9] → ascii © Martora99 (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: thank you for the tip, but I don't see a place where this could be added to the article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Copyright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.google.com/books?id=dMYXq9V1JBQC&dq=statute+of+anne+copyright&lr=&as_brr=3&source=gbs_navlinks_s
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140209043040/http://www.unesco.org/culture/copyright/html_eng/ucc52ms.pdf to http://www.unesco.org/culture/copyright/html_eng/ucc52ms.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Move

Will Someone Move This To CopyProtection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.125.171 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Exclusive Rights

If The Creator Has A Friend, Can They Mess Around With It? Just Curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.125.171 (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2015

[ALT] + NumPad[0] + NumPad[1] + NumPad[6] + NumPad[9] → ascii © Martora99 (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: thank you for the tip, but I don't see a place where this could be added to the article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, it's covered in Copyright symbol. TJRC (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Galleries in display, game boards, and copyrights.

A game board, is purely and merely a display gallery, where the author has used the overal context of writ, paint and available items to generate a work of art accorded their own mind.

These quote characters unquote, are not in the public domain, can not be changed nor used, and have a herent copyright attached that is purely onto the nomer of the person, and not on the nomer of the corporation, game show host/hostess, or any other.

Changing parts of the characteristics, using those characteristics, providing those characteristics of character for use to others, is a violation of international copyright and international authorship.

The only remedy for the corporation, is to remove the totality of the authors art from display, wrap this art and return this art to the copyright holder. In terms of characters, castles, in games, the totality must remain as it is, in display, or it must be removed in it's totality from display, and can not be subletted, nor changed, without the express permission of the copyright holder, which in those terms is not the corporation itself.

You need to add this to copyright specifications, there being quite a few corporations whom presume that the art of a player imbedded in its character, name, nomer, type and style, belongs to the corporation whom merely places the gallery for it's display. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.93.189.29 (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2016

Fix typos in the "Criticism" section

Discuissions include Free Culture ===> Discussions include Free Culture

The precieved inability to enforce ===> The perceived inability to enforce

Dustinmetzgar (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Done KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 16:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

US centric Article

(Revived from archive 3 as still relevant)

As the case with so many other Articles this piece talks of copyright law as if it exist only in United States. Whereas one can understand the economic significance of copyright law in the US since RIAA MPAA and many huge corporations rely soley on these laws for their major source of revenues, it does not warrant filling up of copyright law article substantially with US copyright legal regime. The Article goes into details US copyright law in nitty gritty when there exists another separate article on US copyright law. It only makes a passing refernce to other common law countries and to very less extent to civil law copyright system. I hope this inherent bias running across various Articles, and discussion pages (talking only of US situations) could be neutralized by doing research on other countries around the world. I do not object to giving more bytes to US if it is justified in the context of the Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.120.65 (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a historic problem, and a common one as well. Many contributors to the English Wikipedia are from the US and my impression is that to start with many articles were written from a US perspective for US readers. Many articles are now being "globalised" as per wikipolicy (it takes its time), see tag below.

--SasiSasi (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Duration/expiry outside USA

Still a problem, eg Copyright#Duration says US content prior to 1923 is now out of copyright, but does not mention eg UK, Canada, Australia. perpetual copyright says "The Donaldson v Beckett ruling [in 1774] confirmed that a large number of works and books first published in Britain were in the public domain, either because the copyright term granted by statute had expired, or because they were first published before the Statute of Anne was enacted in 1709." Has that changed since 1774 ? (I'm trying to find out if UK publications (eg anon contributions in encyclopedias) from 1910s and 1920s are still in copyright.) - Rod57 (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you interested in UK copyrights as applied in the UK or UK copyrights as applied in the US / elsewhere? The US considers all content published before 1923 to be in the public domain in the US, regardless of the copyright's duration in country of origin. Dragons flight (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You might want to consult the article Copyright law of the United Kingdom (which deals with past and present copyright laws) and the one on the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (which is the current main law on the topic).

Also note when did the original creator of the work die, as it has an effect on the copyright status of a published work per European Union law. To quote 2016 in public domain: "With the exception of Belarus, a work enters the public domain in Europe 70 years after the creator's death, if it was published during the creator's lifetime." Among the authors whose work supposedly enters the public domain this year are Anne Frank and Adolf Hitler, because they died over 70 years ago.

If you simply want a comparison of copyright laws by country, consult List of countries' copyright lengths. Dimadick (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2016

see Nimmer on copyright doctrine, the International leader on copyright law see Mellville Nimmer David Nimmer

216.4.88.194 (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2016

Just a slight adjustment to the first sentence in the History section:

"Copyright came about with the invention of the printing press and with wider literacy."

This sentence is misleading because the printing press was invented in the 1450s (or thereabouts) and copyright (ie author's rights did not come about until 1709 with the Statue of Anne. A better start would be:

"Copyright came about in the early-18th century following the development of the printing press in the mid-15th and the consequent rise in literacy."

Some might still disagree, but it's better than what's there now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.41.171 (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2016‎ (UTC)

Do you have a reference?--Nowa (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The sources are on wikipedia already

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press

"The printing press was invented in the Holy Roman Empire by the German Johannes Gutenberg around 1440"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

"The Statute of Anne, also known as the Copyright Act 1710 (cited either as 8 Ann. c. 21 or as 8 Ann. c. 19),[1] is an act of the Parliament of Great Britain passed in 1710, which was the first statute to provide for copyright regulated by the government and courts, rather than by private parties.

Prior to the statute's enactment in 1710, copying restrictions were authorized by the Licensing of the Press Act 1662. These restrictions were enforced by the Stationers' Company, a guild of printers given the exclusive power to print—and the responsibility to censor—literary works"

The licensing acts were not "copyright" as we think of it today, they reserved the ability to run printing presses to a certain group (the Stationers Company) - this was a form of control/censorship over print reproduction, nothing really to do with copyright. Real copyright only came into being in 1710 when rights of ownership were given to authors, rather than the right to run a press given to "stationers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.41.201 (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Nowa for response. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I like pointing out the delay between invention of the printing press and the Statute of Anne. It seems well referenced by the other Wikipedia article. I would import that reference from the other article.Nowa (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

duration of copyright

"This is usually only for a limited time." signing Elinruby (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC) needs source and reality check vs Sonny Bono law. Suggest "copyright expires at some point" or better yet, "copyright has a finite duration, which has however in some cases been extended a time or two". Elinruby (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Copyright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.google.com/books?id=dMYXq9V1JBQC&dq=statute%20of%20anne%20copyright&lr=&as_brr=3&source=gbs_navlinks_s
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625003242/http://www.unesco.org/culture/copyright/html_eng/ucc52ms.pdf to http://www.unesco.org/culture/copyright/html_eng/ucc52ms.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unesco.org/culture/copyright/html_eng/ucc52ms.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005014901/http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-claim/c-register.htm to http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-claim/c-register.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150226112433/http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm to https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Copyright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170702033641/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf to https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130816113145/http://copysouth.org/en/documents/csdossier.pdf to http://copysouth.org/en/documents/csdossier.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"work for hire" citation could be a better example

The statement "The original holder of the copyright may be the employer of the author rather than the author himself if the work is a 'work for hire'" cites the court case U.S.C. § 201(b); Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989), which overturns a work for hire court decision. So, the reference mentions the possibility that work for hire can mean that the employer gets the copyright, but the result of the case is the opposite. If someone knew of a case where work for hire was upheld, it might make a better example. 167.249.181.222 (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The file En-Copyright.ogg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Misleading intro

Copyright is not, as the first sentence would have it, "a legal right". This is a widespread misconception. Rather, copyright is a bundle of legal rights.

There are very specific rights, such as the right to perform or the right to transmit. These are enumerated in the "Rights granted" section.

However, it would help readers to better understand the matter at hand if the first sentence were changed to "Copyright is a bundle of legal rights created by law,...".

Also, the "country" part should be left out, because it may be laws enacted by other entities than a country, for example a supranational entity such as the European Union, or a US-state, all of which have their own separate copyright laws (in addition to federal laws). Ds77 (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

OK how about "jurisdiction" instead of "country"; and how about set instead of bundle? Mike Spathaky (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. However jurisdiction probably is not well understandable for a common wp reader. How about state? EU Directives have to be implemented by the Member-States.

Checked first few references, almost all seem below the standard. Gave it some thoughts. Re-composed first sentence, tried to grap the essential, basic thing in copyright. Did also add/remix some words in other sentences of the intro, explaining (groups of) countries (states) make mutual agreements to deal with crossing border situations. Added some lines to explain that not only states, but also companies create their own copyrights. Feel free to make it better, discuss. 178.4.79.203 (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright on hundreds years old manuscripts

Some but especially British libariers claim copyright on old manuscript (scans). I like to read how they justify such claims but this context is missing. Plz add chapter or discus subject (collect sources?). Perhaps related to Cultural_heritage . Random exmaple of this copyright see top pix 99.90.196.227 (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, there's two possibilities with that. One, they could mean that the photograph of the manuscript is copyrighted, and photograph copyright is mentioned in the article. Two, the article could be confusing copyright, the ability to restrict copying, with attribution, stating where the information came from. The original manuscript, being 750 years old, is not copyrighted. One way we could incorporate this sort of idea into the article is to talk about the dynamic of how/why photographs of public domain things can be copyrighted, but I suspect that might be better suited for Photography and the law#Copyright. lethargilistic (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"... industrial property rights, which are used for inventions ..."

See Talk:Intellectual_property#"..._industrial_property_rights,_which_are_used_for_inventions_...". Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

About copyright

Hi ! So i’m The new user on Wikipedia, I didn’t much about copyrights. Now I just know only that we have to use a picture that you didn’t own with the permission by the owner of the pics I know only this. Today i use a picture of the American Actress without Permission . Someone who knows about copyright please explain me. Thank you for reading my discussion.

I deeply appreciate

Iamcryingbaby Iamcryingbaby (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Misstatements on US copyright in "Conception" section

The article currently says in the "Conception" section, that: In the US, the Constitution protects the rights of authors and the legislature, Congress, can create national copyright laws but must exercise their power within the scope of the Constitution. This is not correct. Congress is empowered by the copyright clause to protect the rights of authors, but is free not to do so. Copyright is not constitutionally protected -- Congress could abolish it if it chos to do so, although this i highly unlikely. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That same section mentions the US copyright acts of 1790, 1906, and 1976. But it omits the significant act of 1802. (I will need to check my source for the exact date, but it is close to that.) That act was the one in force in the US for over 100 years, and made significant changes to the 1790 act. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That same section says authority was granted to the states to protect authors’ unpublished works. Again not quite correct. Ther was no Constitutional grant of authority to the US States over copyright, and to the best of my understanding there were no state-level copyright statutes. State courts did undertake as part of the existing common law, to protect rights to unpublished works. This ended with the Act of 1976, which extended federal copyright protection to works at the moment of fixation, and preempted all state copyrights. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyright enforcement in non-U.S. countries/copyright enforcement for various forms of media

Would this be a topic worth fleshing out in this article? I know that Japan has a very different attitude towards regulating fan works than the U.S. does (i.e. passively lets most fan works be sold for money, even if they are popular, most of the time v.s. as soon as a fan-work is popular, especially if it's making money, the cease-and-desist hammer will be used). DriftWrench2k (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be :). Finding a reliable source to cite for that information that meets Wiki standards might be difficult, though..i am not really sure how one would go about searching for that.

Firejuggler86 (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Needs Explaining

"However, Parc argues that contrary to prevailing beliefs, imitation and copying do not restrict cultural creativity or diversity but in fact support them further. This argument has been supported by many examples such as Millet and Van Gogh, Picasso, Manet, and Monet, etc"

How do these famous long dead artists support the argument? Are they being copied? Did they copy when they were alive? The footnote links to a page that does not contain the explanation or requires an account to see the explanation. No good for those of us who don't have an account. Please provide more explanation. Or delete the sentence mentioning these artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjnwood (talk • contribs) 23:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Fix citation link to copyright.gov circ

"United States copyright law does not cover names, titles, short phrases or listings (such as ingredients, recipes, labels, or formulas).[69]"

Reference 69 currently links to https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.pdf which discusses registering copyright for multiple works. Instead, it should link to https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf which is titled "Works Not Protected by Copyright".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.38.60.4 (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"Owner" vs. "holder"

The article's text oscillates between the terms "(copyright) owner" and "(copyright) holder". I guess they are synonyms, but I'm not sure. If anyone can confirm this, I'll make the text consistent by choosing one of them and add a sentence explaining that they are synonyms. —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 17:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

include the copyright logo once in the entire logo, preferably in the opening sentence.

yes, there is a redirect. but hilariously there is zero additional mentions of it in the article.

just put that snazzy C on the first line of the article, or IN the redirect...

"some people use a logo to signify their right. AND THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, click link for full article" that's totally a thing on wikipedia.

Zero mention of the logo is just weird. pathological compartmentalization is surely not healthy for a project representing the sum of human knowledge. extensive crosslinking is how brains function.

23:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)23:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)23:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)23:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)23:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)23:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)2406:5A00:CC0D:3300:283F:8892:1641:DCF1 (talk)

1. • There is a mention of the symbol, in section 2.6. It starts: "Before 1989, United States law required the use of a copyright notice, consisting of the copyright symbol (©, the letter C inside a circle)..." CitationsFreak (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Right to direct/manufacture

User Donovyegg, who has previously insisted on making dubious changes to copyright articles, has edited this article to say that to "direct and manufacturer" [sic] are among the exclusive rights of the CR holder. AFAIK neither of these are distinct rights. Directing a work falls under copyright insofar as the people who work for the director perform or play it, while manufacturing is merely a case of copying. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Self-enforcement measures

@Justlettersandnumbers: Greetings! Regarding this revert...was there anything in particular you found undersourced? The content there should mostly just be a summary of the linked articles. It seems like those things should be mentioned, even if it's without that context. -- Beland (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair use isn't limited to USA

I can't edit bacause of protection. Retardproof (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

US or UK?

The talk page header says to use American twice, but the actual article is tagged with British. Which one is actually supposed to be used? IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 20:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Good catch (to both). The article template was only added in July--this definitely should be in American English. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Continental law

In many jurisdictions of the European continent, copyright laws did exist in history but did change under Napoleantic rule into another legal concept: "authors' rights" or "creator's right". The German, Austrian and Swiss jurisdiction know the creator's right (Urheberrecht), other jurisdictions know the authors' rights. Authors' and creators' rights in general are absolute owner (or property) rights, that one doesn't have to apply for, the rights apply by the operation of law. No copyright symbol needed. Some people think the wording "copyright" can be used for a description of the continental law concepts and vice versa, but that is a misunderstanding. Both legal concepts differ pretty much. I'll start a paragraph on continental law, as a "stub". Please native english speakers, help improve it, for instance by summarising the given sources in correct english. Thanks. -VanArtevelde (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Example

I think it's a good idea to put Steamboat Willie in this article, with the following caption, put in italic below:

The copyright status of early works such as the 1928 film Steamboat Willie in the United States and in other nations has been subject to controversy due to lobbying by copyright owners. SuperFeral (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)