Copyright Material Research Articles

Notes on Intellectual Property: Copyright Law

Notes on Intellectual Property: Copyright Law

"The Proposed Treaty For The Protection Of Broadcasting Organizations: Old Wine In A New Bottle?"

This article analyses the proposed WIPO Treaty for Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (“Broadcast Treaty”) and argues that (a) The need for the Broadcast Treaty has not been fully established and b) even if there were such a need for the Broadcast Treaty (purportedly to help counter signal piracy), the proposed draft of the treaty deviates from this approach towards a ‘rights-based’ approach, creating a ‘paracopyright’ regime, potentially creating chilling effects on legitimate end uses of copyrightable material.

Best Copyright Practice in Interlibrary Loan

This article is originally designed to provide guidelines to handling requests from other libraries for lending and reproducing copyrighted materials owned or subscribed by the Northeastern University School of Law Library. This article attempts to analyze the Copyright Act of 1976 and the 1979 CONTU guidelines produced by the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (“CONTU”) in order to properly apply them to the law library's lending practice. In this appendix, it will provide an annotated bibliography on copyright law relating to libraries. Interlibrary loan covered by this article is defined as loan requests for books and articles between two qualified libraries. Interlibrary loan here does not apply to music, pictures, graphics, sculptures, motion pictures or other audiovisual works. Interlibrary loan here does not apply to loan requests between non-qualified libraries.

Disciplining the Vernacular: Fair Use, YouTube, and Remixer Agency

Disciplining the Vernacular: Fair Use, YouTube, and Remixer Agency

The Sampling and Remix Dilemma: What is the Role of Moral Rights in the Encouragement and Regulation of Derivative Creativity?

The borrowing and rearrangement of musical content, especially in the digital context, raises difficult questions for copyright law. There is significant community support for a loosening of the restrictions on the derivative (and particularly creative) use of copyright material. Law reform is called for. This paper discusses the possible introduction of a new exception to copyright infringement but notes that in the drafting of any such exception not only the economic rights but also the moral rights of the originating author need to be taken into account.

Copyright Review: Issues for Cultural Practice

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) has been asked by the Attorney-General to inquire into and report on current and further desirable uses of copyright material in the context of the digital economy. In this paper the focus is on the scope of the terms of reference of the ALRC and the importance of copyright in a modern digitally orientated world. The paper also analyses other important initiatives and reports in this area, focusing on the changing ‘political economy’ and cultural impact on copyright issues and, in particular the challenges for copyright law.

Open by default: a proposed copyright license and waiver agreement for open access research and data in peer-reviewed journals

Copyright and licensing of scientific data, internationally, are complex and present legal barriers to data sharing, integration and reuse, and therefore restrict the most efficient transfer and discovery of scientific knowledge. Much data are included within scientific journal articles, their published tables, additional files (supplementary material) and reference lists. However, these data are usually published under licenses which are not appropriate for data. Creative Commons CC0 is an appropriate and increasingly accepted method for dedicating data to the public domain, to enable data reuse with the minimum of restrictions. BioMed Central is committed to working towards implementation of open data-compliant licensing in its publications. Here we detail a protocol for implementing a combined Creative Commons Attribution license (for copyrightable material) and Creative Commons CC0 waiver (for data) agreement for content published in peer-reviewed open access journals. We explain the differences between legal requirements for attribution in copyright, and cultural requirements in scholarship for giving individuals credit for their work through citation. We argue that publishing data in scientific journals under CC0 will have numerous benefits for individuals and society, and yet will have minimal implications for authors and minimal impact on current publishing and research workflows. We provide practical examples and definitions of data types, such as XML and tabular data, and specific secondary use cases for published data, including text mining, reproducible research, and open bibliography. We believe this proposed change to the current copyright and licensing structure in science publishing will help clarify what users – people and machines – of the published literature can do, legally, with journal articles and make research using the published literature more efficient. We further believe this model could be adopted across multiple publishers, and invite comment on this article from all stakeholders in scientific research.

Exception to Copyright Infringement for Study and Research: Comparative Study of Thailand and Australia

In any countries, the legislations on copyright will provide exception of copyright infringement for a purpose of study and research. The reason for this exception is to create reconciliation between two conflicting interests: exclusive rights of authors, and public interest. On one hand, authors in producing original materials deserve legal protection given their efforts, time and expenditures spent on their materials. Thus rights of authors restrict use that can be made of their copyright materials. On the other hands, public, to a large extent, depends on these materials for essential development and re-production of subsequent or new works. As a result, restriction on use of these materials would contradict with public interest. One restriction in copyright legislation is an exception to copyright infringement for study and research. In this paper, Thailand's legislation and Australia's legislation on this will be examined on a comparative basis.

인터넷 저작권 침해에 대한 처벌이 태도와 침해 의도에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구: 저작권 교육의 조절변수 효과를 중심으로

Internet is widely spreading in everyday life and it makes easy to find and share information on the Internet. Many of Internet users are copying and distributing copyrighted materials freely on the Internet without recognizing that it is unethical and illegal behavior. The rate of Internet piracy is constantly increasing even though the regulation and punishment for piracy behavior are to be strict. However, there is a lack of study about the relationship between the punishment and education for intenet piracy on users` attitude and intention toward piracy on the Internet. The purpose of this study is therefore to find out the effect of the level of punishment for internet piracy on users` attitude and intention. This study also examines the moderating effect of piracy education on the relationship between punishment and piracy intention. The study shows that the punishment is directly associated with the attitude but not associated with the piracy intention. The piracy education has a significant effect on the relationship between punishment and intention. The result of this study could bring up the issue of intellectual property protection on the Intenet and suggest an importance of piracy education to educators, managers and internet users.

Unauthorised adaptation of computer programmes - is criminalisation a solution? <i>Haupt T/A Softcopy v Brewers Marketing Intelligence (Pty) Ltd</i> 2006 4 SA 458 (SCA)

In Haupt t/a Softcopy v Brewers Marketing Intelligence (Pty) Ltd 2006 4 SA 458 (SCA) Haupt sought to enforce a copyright claim in the Data Explorer computer programme against Brewers Marketing Intelligence (Pty) Ltd. His claim was dismissed in the High Court and he appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The Court held that copyright in the Data Explorer programme vested in Haupt. Haupt acquired copyright in the Data Explorer programme regardless of the fact that the programme was as a result of an unauthorised adaptation of the Project AMPS programme which belonged to Brewers Marketing Intelligence (Pty) Ltd.This case note inter alia analyses the possibility of an author being sued for infringement even though he has acquired copyright in a work that he created by making unauthorised adaptations to another's copyright material. Furthermore, it examines whether or not the law adequately protects copyright owners in situations where infringement takes the form of unauthorised adaptations of computer programmes. It is argued that the protection afforded by the Copyright Act 98 of 1978 (Copyright Act) in terms of section 27(1) to copyright owners of computer programmes is narrowly defined. It excludes from its ambit of criminal liability the act of making unauthorised adaptation of computer programmes. The issue that is considered is therefore whether or not the unauthorised adaptation of computer programmes should attract a criminal sanction. In addressing this issue and with the aim of making recommendations, the legal position in the United Kingdom (UK) is analysed. From the analysis it is recommended that the Copyright Act be amended by the insertion of a new section, section 27(1)(A), which will make the act of making an unauthorised adaptation of a computer programme an offence. This recommended section will close the gap that currently exists in our law with regard to unauthorised adaptations of computer programmes.

Copyright in Quotes

The research paper gives a brief overview of copyright law as it relates to using quotations and extracts from other people’s writing. Copyright law protects expressions of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. Under section 13 of the Copyright Act 1957, copyright protection is conferred on literary works, dramatic works, musical works, artistic works, cinematograph films and sound recording. Copyright refers to a bundle of exclusive rights vested in the owner of copyright by virtue of Section 14 of the Act. These rights can be exercised only by the owner of copyright or by any other person who is duly licensed in this regard by the owner of copyright. These rights include the right of adaptation, right of reproduction, right of publication, right to make translations, communication to public etc. Reproducing or communicating copyright material without the copyright owner’s permission may infringe copyright. Reproducing or communicating part of a work may also infringe copyright. When is permission needed to use a quotation? There are two ways in which the word “quote” is understood. It can either be an extract from a larger work (for example, a paragraph or couple of sentences or lines from a book, report or poem), or it can be an entire quote itself (for example, a bumper sticker quote or a slogan). If quote you propose to use is not an extract from a longer work, but “stands alone” as a short phrase, it may be too small or unoriginal to be a “work”, and thus not protected by copyright. Under this heading fate of quotes used in research study or as news element shall be looked into. Basically the first part of the project shall observe whether or not you need permission to use quotes and extracts will generally depend on whether or not what you want to use is a “substantial part” of the work from which it comes. The concept of a “substantial part” is judged by whether or not what you want to use is important, essential or distinctive.

Agitating for a design and regeneration agenda in a post-conflict city: the case of Belfast

Agitating for a design and regeneration agenda in a post-conflict city: the case of Belfast

HSI 워터마크를 이용한 IPTV 콘텐츠 보호 및 인증 시스템 설계

While the broadband network and multimedia technologies have been developing, the commercial market of digital contents also has been widely spreading with recently starting IPTV. As the IPTV services are getting to be generalized and popularized, the contents illicit copying and distribution of copyright meterials tends to draw more attentions. So we need a right service system that can protect contents and copyright using watermark inserting. Until now, the conventional protection and authentication system is taking advantages of merits both in CAS and DRM. But this system can not protect the contents when acquiring them from TV output using A/D convertor. So we apply watermark method using HSI color space against contents illicit copying. And for distribution of copyright materials. we compound unique settop ID and copyrighter`s ID to make new ID that is watermark. When inserting watermark, we use the watermark for copyright protection and authentication. So we can protect copyright and identify last settop`s user in illicit distribution. we design download based IPTV contents protection and authentication system using HSI watermark method.

Balancing Students' Rights

In June 2005, University of Delaware student Maciej Murakowski used university's server to build a web site and posted several of his own essays. During next two years, he posted about 80 essays. About eight of them focused on violence or sexual abuse. For example, in How to Skin a Cat, he described in graphic detail, including illustrative photos, tools and procedures for breaking the frail little neck and skinning a kitten, ending with recommendations for using skin and for disposing of body. Similarly, Maciej's Official Guide to Sex vividly described how to kidnap, rape, and murder. These essays also included blatant racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic comments. On Nov. 9, 2005, a student complained about harassment by Murakowski. In February 2007, when he was a sophomore, Murakowski violated computing policy by copying or distributing copyrighted material through his computer. In April, after a hearing and an appeal, university placed him on disciplinary probation through end of fall 2007 semester. During early April 2007, university officials learned of Murakowski's web site from brother of a female student who--along with her roommate--expressed fear of living in same dormitory as Murakowski. On April 20, university's Counseling Center received a call from a parent of another female student expressing concern about Murakowski's bizarre behavior. Her daughter was reportedly so anxious about her safety that she wanted to change at least one of her courses to audit status. The student also expressed grave fear that he would learn that she was responsible for report. After receiving several complaints, associate dean immediately notified Murakowski's father and asked him to remove his son from campus and to visit her office with his son next morning. At meeting, Murakowski said disputed sexual-guide posting was a humor piece, but associate dean disagreed. She charged him with 1) engaging in disruptive conduct and 2) again violating computer use policy. She banned him from campus until he provided a licensed mental health provider's assessment that he was not a threat to self or others. At end of next week, a psychologist who interviewed Murakowski and reviewed 25 of his web pages wrote to associate dean that student did not pose a physical threat to himself or others. On next day, associate dean learned that Murakowski's electronic access card had been used four times while he was banned from campus. As a result, she added a charge of failure to comply to her previous order. Nevertheless, university allowed him to return to classes. At a May 2 hearing, Murakowski said his posts were satirical and funny, but not threatening. His witnesses, including female students, testified that he wasn't violent, that they weren't disturbed or threatened by his web posts, and that if complainants had known him, they wouldn't have been frightened. In addition, Murakowski admitted that he entered his dormitory on April 24 and that he had a friend enter residence hall three times to post messages on his dormitory door as to his status. The hearing officer decided Murakowski was not guilty of violating computing policy but that he was guilty of failure to comply and disruptive conduct charges. He was suspended for next semester and placed on probation until graduation. Murakowski appealed, and appellate board affirmed hearing officer's decision. On Aug. 1, 2007, Murakowski filed a civil rights suit in federal court, claiming university violated his freedom of expression under First Amendment and procedural due process under Fourteenth Amendment. Both sides moved for summary judgment, that is, a decision based on these undisputed facts without a trial. The Decision of Court On Sept. …

Software Written By Software – Is Copyright Still the Appropriate Tool to Protect IT?

Recently, some businesses have started to offer software, fully written by other software. This development is raising some very interesting questions with regard to the traditional way in which software is protected by intellectual property rights. Questions as to ownership, the identity of the author, and qualification as copyrightable material emerge. This article looks at both the technological aspects of software written by software and their legal implications. Mainly focusing on copyright, as this is the most common protection for software, it will address the question of authorship, and whether software written by software fulfills the originality requirement, two core requirements for copyrizht protection. Thereby the analysis leads to the question whether the historical choice for copyright as the most common protection tool for software has reached its limits of usefulness as a result of technological developments.

Responsibility of Bittorrent Search Engines for Copyright Infringements

With the music industry pursuing copyright infringement claims against various parties, the issue addressed in this paper is the responsibility of BitTorrent search engines for copyright infringements.The paper analyzes the reasoning of the recent and widely-known Swedish Verdict B 13301-06 handed down by the Stockholm District Court. In this decision, the court found The Pirate Bay guilty of making copyrighted works available. The paper explores the consequences of this decision. Next, it applies the verdict’s rationale to the Google search engine. The paper also analyzes isoHunt search engine’s legal situation in Canada. IsoHunt filed a petition in the Supreme Court of British Columbia applying for orders declaring that its services do not infringe copyright. As the isoHunt case is about authorization, the paper also considers this issue. Furthermore, the paper compares isoHunt search engine with Google search engine.Summary: This dissertation concludes that: (i) based on the The Pirate Bay rationale Google, if sued in Sweden, might be found liable for copyright infringement as it assists in making available copyright materials to the general public; (ii) under Canadian law, and the CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada and Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers rationale, both isoHunt and Google should be found as not authorizing copyright infringement.

Failure to plead originality of copyright design is fatal to complaint

Copyright, as the name implies, provides the owner of a copyright the ability to control who has the ‘right’ to ‘copy’ the copyright material. Unlike patent law, in order to be qualified for copyright protection in the USA, the material need not be novel (i.e. new compared to that which existed before), it merely needs to be original. Under US law, the threshold level of originality to obtain copyright protection is ‘extremely low’. In LA Printex Industries, Inc. v Forever 21 Inc., the US District Court for the Central District of California explored the parameters of the minimal level of originality that is necessary to be entitled to copyright protection, and the elements necessary to plead such a cause of action.

教えて！著作権 第1回 著作権とは？ 著作物を利用する，とは？

教えて！著作権 第1回 著作権とは？ 著作物を利用する，とは？

'To Every Cow its Calf, to Every Book its Copy': Copyright and Illegal Downloading after EMI (Ireland) Ltd and Ors v. Eircom Ltd [2010] IEHC 108.

In his judgment delivered on April 16 2010, Mr. Justice Charleton ruled that the graduated, “three-strikes” policy which could result in an internet subscriber being cut-off because of persistent infringements of copyright law online was lawful. As a result, Eircom, as the Defendant internet service provider (ISP) and four major record companies (EMI Records (Ireland) Ltd., Universal, Sony BMG Music Entertainment (Ireland) Ltd and Warner Music (Ireland) Ltd.) who involved in formulating this three-strikes policy can lawfully proceed to implement their settlement agreement. The case, which commenced in March 2008, is the first in Ireland which has targeted ISPs rather than individual illegal down-loaders as it is the conduit through which illegal downloading has been facilitated and the property rights of record companies and artists being violated. (Originally, the four companies wanted orders under the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 restraining Eircom from infringing copyright by facilitating (as an ISP), the illegal downloading of copyright material without consent.

The ‘isolation’ of Turkish Cypriots and its relevance to a constitutional convention

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Acknowledgement This paper is adapted from the authors' book, Cyprus: The Post-Imperial Constitution (Pluto Press, London, 2009). We thank Pluto Press for giving us permission to reproduce some of its copyright material here.