Showing posts with label Copyright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Copyright. Show all posts

Friday, February 1, 2013

US Copyright Group Lawsuits - Understanding Rights and Defenses

If you're one of the thousands of people named as a defendant in a lawsuit handled by lawyers at United States Copyright Group (USCG) you may have questions about your legal options. This article provides answers to the most frequently asked questions about these copyright cases involving file sharing on peer-to-peer networks.


How do I know if I am a defendant in a United States Copyright Group lawsuit?


Notice of status in these cases comes in several forms. First, many people receive notice that they are defendants in a USCG case when they receive a letter from their Internet Service Provider (ISP). A letter from your ISP will often notify you that the ISP has been issued a subpoena from a court. The subpoena legally requires the ISP to disclose information about you to the requesting party, which is often U.S. Copyright Group. Your ISP usually sends you the letter as a courtesy before disclosing the requested information.


Second, you may have received a letter from USCG themselves. These letters often point defendants to a website where they are directed to make a direct payment to U.S. Copyright Group. Third, you may receive a summons from a court via certified mail or process server. Finally, you may receive a request for waiver of service via "standard" postal mail.


No matter how you learn about your status, you should contact an attorney as soon as possible to understand your legal rights in the litigation.


What options exist for defendants in these cases?


Luckily, there are often several legal options available to defendants in United States Copyright Group cases. First, you may have an opportunity to defend yourself in court. Depending on the facts of the matter, you may have defenses that are grounded in civil procedure. You may also have affirmative defenses in situations where you are using a shared Internet connection. Other defendants may have other legal defenses that are based on the unique facts of their particular situation. Depending on the facts of your matter, making attempts to settle the matter may also be worthwhile.


Most importantly, do not ignore any communications that you may receive regarding U.S. Copyright Group Cases. If you receive any of the letters described above, be sure to consult with a copyright attorney as soon as possible to understand and ensure your legal and financial rights.


Eric Menhart is an attorney with CyberLaw P.C., concentrating in Internet and intellectual property law. The firm recently launched a new website about the copyright issues in this article at USCopyrightGroupDefense.com.


Sunday, January 27, 2013

The Copyright Lawyers

Copyright has become very essential now with increasing plagiarism. But copyright law has some specifications and complications associated with it which makes seeking professional help necessary. The copyright lawyers help their client in understanding the problem better and finding a good solution.


The Copyright Law entered the common law in 1709 Statute of Anne and in 1911, it became statutory when the Copyright Act was passed. Most modern works are registered under the 1988 Copyright, Design and Patent Act.


This 1988 Act authorizes the owner of a film, drama, literature, sound recording, or design to file a case of infringement against anyone who reproduces it. If someone copies a work without the owner's consent, a copyright lawyer should be consulted by the owner under the Copyright Act of 1988 to pursue the case in the best possible method to assert his ownership.


The originator of a copyrightable work has legal rights to be identified as its owner and protection against any broadcasting, public performances, copying, lending, renting and adapting. If anyone violates this right, he's liable of punishment under the Copyright Act.


Whether it be reproducing work as exhibitions, a broadcast on radio or loudspeaker, an exhibition, a movie, a book or any additions or omissions from the work, the originator of the project must always be consulted by the third party.


The limitation of copyright law is that it does not provide protection to ideas but expression of ideas. Anything in a tangible form comes under the protection: a book written, a website designed, a movie recorded or a dance choreographed. Any idea shared by word of mouth and copied cannot be challenged. As words said are not a tangible form unless it is in the form of a recording.


Due to these complexities of the copyright law, professional help must be sought when it comes to plagiarism. A lawyer makes the whole process easier by guiding his client in the right direction which saves time, money and effort. These specialist lawyers keep record of the alleged work and make sure no further violations come about. With a lawyer hired, the owner does not have to worry about the copyright infringement of his work, if he is busy elsewhere, the lawyer takes care of the legal affairs.


As it can sometimes be difficult for an ordinary person to understand the legality of copyright law which can sometimes be quite confusing in grading which elements are copyrightable and which are not, the importance of lawyers cannot be ignored.


Find out more helpful information about Copyright protection. plz visit our Copyright UK Site: copyright.co.uk


Thursday, January 17, 2013

How to File a Copyright Application for Software

The foremost matter to do is arrange a deposit. This can be in whichever of differing document forms listed on copyright(dot)gov and can be formulated using a word processing program.


With recent computer programs, you have differing alternatives for the deposit. These are:

The original 25 and remaining 25 pages of Source Code with parcels containing trade secrets blocked out;The original 10 and remaining 10 pages of Source code along with no blocked out parcels;The original 25 and remaining 25 pages of object code plus any 10 or more consecutive pages of source code, with no blocked out parcels; orFor programs 50 pages or less in length, entire source code with trade secret parcels blocked out.

Whichever alternative shows the smallest quantity of trade secret code should be employed. The deposit will be within reach to competitors. Concurrently, you will want to be able to verify copying.


An independent application should be filed for each novel version of the software.


Subsequent to readiness of the deposit, the balance of the application is no trouble to fill in online. You will be questioned if the software was a work made for hire and you will want to contemplate that question previous to starting the application. If you paid someone to conceive the software for you, that does not as a matter of course attest that it is a work made for hire. You may still possess the software due to an assignment or contract not including it being a "work made for hire." Usually speaking, if you are an employer and an employee wrote the program, it is doubtless a work made for hire. If you employed an independent contractor, it doubtless is not a work made for hire. Assess and contemplate Circular 9 from copyright.gov to answer the question of whether the software is a work made for hire.


According to copyright law, ownership of the copyright unusually belongs with the originator. If you commission independent contractors to write software programs for you, it is of great consequence to have a contract in place assigning title to you. If you don't control such a contract, you may ascertain that you only possess one version of the software.


Please furthermore evaluate my composition on whether to have confidence on copyright law or patent law to safeguard software. Patent law accommodates much sturdier protection. In a different sense, copyright registrations are economical and should continually be employed regardless of financial plans.


A copyright application can simply be filed online at http://www.copyright.gov/eco/ by understanding the information online for form CO.


Deepak Malhotra is a registered U.S. Patent attorney, and is also registered as a patent agent. He has a bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering as well as a law degree. Deepak assists clients in security software patents, business method patents, electrical patents, mechanical patents, and trademark registrations. Admitted to the United States Supreme Court, Deepak can represent clients in any state or from any country against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Deepak has also had experience practicing outside the U.S. And can assist foreign clients in obtaining U.S. Patents.


Monday, January 7, 2013

Do We Need More Online Education With Regards to Fair Use Copyright Laws?

 

If you are an online article author, perhaps like me, then occasionally you run across your articles after they've been ripped off, plagiarized, or outright stolen. Perhaps, when you've contacted the content thief, they've given you some song and dance about the so-called "fair use" rule in copyright law. Well, it appears to me that the online community could use a little bit of online on-going education on this issue if you ask me. Okay so let's talk.


A little over a year ago, I had written a piece titled; "Copyright Laws Are Serious and You Have the Right to Defend Your Work!" I was explaining that just because there were copyright laws out there didn't mean that the government was going to back you up, and indeed it was the responsibility of the individual claiming the copyright to defend their work. Anyway, after I wrote that piece someone asked me some rather important questions about copyright and the internet - specifically about the fair use doctrine.


Fair use has to do with a specific part of the copyright law which allows for folks to use certain excerpts to make a point or statement, allowing one to borrow the quotes with citation, as long as it was only an excerpt and that they added substantially by giving more information, a second opinion, or value to the new idea being brought forth.


Now then, a fellow author, Heather, asks about this fair use principle in copyright law; "I have two questions (1) What is fair use of an original article on the Internet? and (2) Is it acceptable to use original content as the starter for a new article if your intention is to comment, criticize or develop a concept initially raised in the original article?"


Heather also notes that; many people in the US believe that pursuant to the First Amendment they have a right to comment on anything that is published on the Internet, so the real question is how do you distinguish a legitimate comment from a "stolen" article that provides no added value? This is the million dollar question.


Heather is right, I totally agree with her on her take on the fair use doctrine. Indeed, this is the million dollar question. Further, and as an article author myself with over 1000s of opinion articles, I often write opinions on what I read in the media. I especially like to comment to clear up falsehoods, or misconceptions, or politically leaning arguments which I disagree with.


My rule of thumb, and this is what I do for my own personal use, is I always cite the article, the author of the article, the date of the article, the name of the publication, and never more than five lines of text. In doing this generally my articles of four, five, or 600 words, it turns out to be very little, and I know I've satisfied the fair use rules.


Heather further notes; "as the Internet expands the question is one worth finding an answer to, one that the average user can understand and choose to comply with. It will be interesting to see if users create their own forums to resolve these kinds of disputes particularly since it potentially raises international jurisdictional issues."


Yes, I agree with Heather's views on this, there's a lot of copyright infringement on the Internet, and there are many international laws which do not include the US fair use "excerpt" doctrines, whether real or imaginary as to what those laws actually are now, due to on-going case law from internet usage. Indeed, many folks have stolen articles, including my own, so I know exactly what Heather is driving at and saying here, and I couldn't agree more. Folks who are cheating and claiming "fair use" when they rip off entire articles know or should have known that they are stealing works, and those who post entire articles to Internet forums are not doing the ethical thing.


What they should do is perhaps put a link to the article, along with perhaps five lines of text, with proper citation. Well, that's the way I see it, and I've never gotten into any trouble doing it that way, after having written tens of thousands of articles now. not once has anyone ever called me on it.


In fact, generally when the authors do contact me on those particular articles, they thank me for citing them. It's the least I can do, and I totally and fully understand Heather's comments, and I agree with her wholeheartedly about this issue. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who cares. And the issues of international copyright law will be a bridge we must soon cross, and that will be a world-wide challenge, thus, I hope we adopt US law and that is the new paradigm globally. Please consider all this and think on it.


Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on the Future of Internet. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/


Thursday, December 27, 2012

Song Titles, Lyrics, and Copyright Infringement: When Do I Need Permission?

If you're writing a novel or short story, you may encounter situations where you'd like to r


Q. Can I mention the title of a song in my work?


A. You can mention a song title -- or the title of anything else, for that matter -- freely, without asking permission.


Copyright law is based on the concept that unique works of authorship should be protected as the intellectual property of the author. However, it's important to note that in order to benefit from this protection, the work in question must both be unique and have original authorship.


Song titles, however, are considered neither of these things, and therefore they are not under copyright protection. In fact, in its "Copyright Basics" publication, the US Copyright Office specifically excludes "Titles, Names, [and] Short Phrases" from being eligible for copyright protection.


Q. Can I quote someone else's song lyrics in my work?


A. Except in certain cases, such as fair use, you will need permission before reproducing someone else's copyrighted material.


In most cases, using someone else's work without permission is considered copyright infringement. However, there are exceptions to this: Fair Use.


There is no hard-and-fast rule that states what is and is not considered Fair Use. Instead, the courts typically look at four factors:

The purpose and character of the useThe nature of the copyrighted materialThe amount of the work used, relative to the entire workThe effect of the use of the work might have on the market or value of the original work

The copyright does provide a few explicit purposes that qualify as fair use: commentary, criticism, and critique, for example. (This is how book reviews are allowed under copyright law, for example.) But there are other uses not specifically mentioned here, and whether or not your use is considered fair use, at the end of the day, must be decided by the courts -- the last place you want to end up.


Before it gets to that point, it's a good idea to look at the other factors so you can have some idea of whether or not your use might be considered fair.


With respect to song lyrics, look also at the factor relating to the amount of the work used. While there is no set percentage of the material that will be allowed at fair use, consider that quoting a mere two lines will be a more favorable use than reproducing the entire song.


Along these lines, the last factor can also help you determine whether or not your use might land you in hot water. The further the market for your new work is from the original market for the original song, the better your chances.


Here's an example. If you're writing a fiction novel and your protagonist walks into a coffee shop, a few lines from a song might be playing on the radio. Mentioning these lines helps to place your character in a certain time period; it likely does not detract from the original market or potential value of the song in the way that, say, reproducing the entire song in a Songs of the Century collection might.


Sarah Kolb, http://www.clickandcopyright.com/


Since 2000, Click and Copyright has helped thousands of small business owners, independent entrepreneurs, artists, musicians, and writers start new businesses, protect their intellectual property, and stay informed. Click and Copyright is a member of the Legal Research Center family of businesses.


Friday, December 21, 2012

Copyright Violations Work Both Ways on the Internet

As you probably know, and this is already happening in Europe; publishers, music companies, and film companies want to have websites pulled down, ISPs fined and/or shut down if they are found to have copyrighted material on them. As a writer, this sounds like a good idea to me, because I can't tell you how often my articles are stolen, and I find them somewhere on the Internet with someone else's name attached. Yet, I see another problem to all of this, and I'd like to explain it to you.


First, many publishers are angry because they are finding their books reproduced, republished, and even posted on the Internet, and therefore they lose out on the revenue. You certainly can't blame them for being upset, and as I explained as a writer I can't either. However, if they are allowed to fill out a form with some secret Internet committee, and that group can go and pull down a website, they we're going to have huge problems in the future. Anyone that has an Internet forum, blog network, or anything like that cannot possibly police every single person that posts a blog, article, or comment. Do you see that point?


Now then, I'd like to bring a case in point because there was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal on November 8, 2011. The article was titled; "Spy Thriller: an Instant Classic-Vanishes amid Plagiarism Charges-Publisher Recalls Novel after Passages Discovered Mimicking Bond, James Bond," by Jeffrey A Trachtenberg. Okay so, can you see the problem here? Here is a company that sells books and e-books, and it found out one of its authors had plagiarized a spy novel. Worse, the company sold 8000 copies before anyone noticed. In fact, the article stated;


"Our reviewer didn't pick up anything suspicious, and a reader commenting on an online forum devoted to James Bond noted the similarity in the material. The online forum comment poster was able to identify at least 13 novels from which the material was similar, using Google books search engine."


Well, there you have it. Should that publisher's website be shut down, and taken off-line for copyright violations? Fair is fair, the publishers seem to want to be able to control other people's ISPs and websites, and have the power to turn them off. Are you beginning to see the problems we are going to have in the future with these laws? I surely do, and I fear that it may cause less information to end up online, and allow others to control the flow of information for their own personal gain.


Having control to turn off ISPs and websites based on copyright law could turn into a can of worms and give far too much power to those who would use it corruptly. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.


Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Future Concepts. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/


Monday, December 17, 2012

Can Google's New Semantic Search Keep Within Copyright Laws?

All great companies must evolve, and I believe Google to be a company which wishes to stay on the leading edge of its core business model. It is a search engine after all, it delivers information to the world, which is one of the main reasons the Internet exists in the first place. Today, the web is an accumulation of human knowledge, and it is also one of the greatest communication devices ever created in the history of mankind. Okay so, let's talk about some of the challenges ahead as Google attempts to give us the information we ask for.


Specifically I'd like to talk about copyright law, and ask; exactly who owns all that information. Are we getting to a point where knowledge and information isn't owned by anyone individual anymore, and therefore it should be free to the world, and since Google has found a way to do that and to make money doing that through advertising, I'd say that is of great benefit to all humans on this pale blue dot.


Now then, there was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal on March 15, 2012; "Google Gives Search a Refresh," by Amir Efrati which stated; "Google is giving its tried-and-true Web-search formula a makeover as it tries to fix the shortcomings of today's technology and maintain its dominant market share. Over the next few months, Google's search engine will begin spitting out more than a list of blue links. It will also present more facts and direct answers to queries at the top of the search page results."


Indeed, what information are they going to display, whose information is it, and what format will they use? All those things will be carefully studied, analyzed, tested, and then presented for all of us to see. Chances are Google understands the human psyche, probably as good or better than anyone else on the planet due to their incredible data analytics, and massive treasure trove of human queries.


If you ask a question of the search engine and it presents you what you asked for on the screen rather than just giving you a list of websites which you then have to choose from, then it must gather that information in order to give it to you. Now then, where are they getting that information from - are they getting it from books, are those books copyrighted? Are they taking it from the Internet, and if so what websites? Does Google have a repository of endless information on every single fact known to mankind?


Apparently IBM does with their Watson supercomputer, but still it takes information from everywhere else, which is loaded up with information that it has accumulated from everywhere. Well, I think I have a solution for this;


What if Google bought The Encyclopedia Britannica Company?


The Encyclopedia Britannica is no longer going to print after over 200 years of printing encyclopedias. They have all the world's information, and that could be broken down and delivered in bits and pieces to the specific questions asked by the Internet users in their queries. Can Google afford to buy Encyclopedia Britannica? Well, Google can afford to buy just about anything, including the next president of the United States if they so desired. In fact that would be a drop in the bucket.


If I were running Google would I make an offer to buy Encyclopedia Britannica for their semantic search? You bet I would, and I would have already made the phone call before I posted this article. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.


Cite:


1-WSJ article; "End of Era for Britanica" byShalini Ramachandran and Jeffrey Tratchenbrg, 3/14/2012.


Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Future Internet Concepts. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/


Thursday, November 22, 2012

Efforts Towards Copyright Policy in China

Due to plagiarism and infringement of pieces of work in literature; music; drama; art; sound recording; architectural design and government work, copyright policies are much stressed upon all over the world. But some authors and publishers have been surprised by the unlawful reproduction of their copyrighted works. Big stories from famous authors were pirated by the container loads and distributed all over the world. China is facing a major issue concerning piracy perhaps because most of the books are being printed and published there.


This violation of the copyright law became a very serious problem when all the books on The New York Times bestseller list were produced by a pirating publisher into thousands of copies and distributed throughout the world before the original work could come to the market. Even the United State had many such pirated copies in its own markets.


China is taking desperate measures to stop this infringement on their account by burning any pirated DVDs, books or magazine that they find in their country. It has been reported by Barbara Demick in Los Angeles Times that a large number of such alleged work was found and burnt in Beijing on a big scale. Though, it seems like a big waste of money and time at the moment, but this daring act will probably have better effects in the long run in discouraging plagiarism.


The National Copyright Administration has been established in China to ensure the security of original pieces. The Government of China wants everyone around the world to know about their steps to eliminate this problem of piracy. These measures will make traders and investors around the world working with China more secure about their businesses, as their growing concern was the increasing violation of copyright law in China. This will also protect China's local products which are often copied by other countries and are causing them a big loss. The matter here needed quick measures as piracy was not only affecting the country's foreign investors but also its local market.


China is putting in a great effort to eliminate this menace from not only the country itself but also the rest of the world. It has joined hands with the other countries to ensure observing the copyright law better. Critics believe it is only a drop in the ocean compared to tons of pirated copies distributed all over. At least the effort has started somewhere.


Copyright UK Provide Complete Copyright Protection For Your work. We ensuring that you always have the best proof to protect your Copyright work and your rights.


Saturday, November 3, 2012

To Use or Not to Use? Copyright Infringement and the Use of Online Images

Recently, one of my clients posed this question to me about using online images. It made me realize that many business owners and entrepreneurs may struggle with this issue. If you've ever wondered about using images online and how that use impacts copyright law, then you owe it to yourself to take a peek at my answer. It is better to be educated (and safe) than ignorant (and potentially, sorry)!


Question:


Many people are confused about using images in ezines, products or on their website that are captured from the web. I purchase most of my images from IStock, or other resources, but what are the clear cut rules?


I know Constant Contact offers free images as well as Microsoft clipart. And when writing about a product or resource (basically promoting them), is it safe to use a picture of the product or company logo? I've done this before.


You can get yourself into trouble by using images, can't you? Even if you don't see a "copyright" on them? I would assume that you can ask for permission and cite the image source. Could you could give advice to all those building their business about this? Thank you.


Answer:


Great question! I have a colleague that just got into trouble with this exact scenario for using an image without permission for her ezine that was copyrighted by a photographer.


Copyright protection begins the moment an original work is created and lasts for the creator's life plus 70 years. Copyright protection extends to literature, music, plays, choreography, pictures, graphics, sculptures, architecture, movies, audiovisuals and recordings. So you are correct that images and photos are included and given copyright protection.


Copyright infringement is using someone else's creative work without authorization or compensation, if compensation is appropriate. So, what we are dealing with here is a potential copyright infringement of someone else's photo or image. (It may also be a trademark infringement if the image or logo is trademarked.)


The owner of the copyrighted material controls whether others can reproduce the work, prepare derivative work, distribute copies or display it. Using it without permission, even if you credit the creator, is not acceptable. Neither is copying others' original work that does not carry a copyright symbol.


However, there are exceptions. One is "public domain." But, don't misinterpret the term "public domain." Just because it is on the internet, does not mean it is public domain! Once a copyright expires, it enters the public domain. Public domain comprises all works that are no longer protected or never were, including works created prior to 1923, and works created between 1923 and 1963 on which copyright registrations were not renewed. Works created since 1989 are presumptively protected, and all government material, such as statutes and laws.


There is also a Fair Use Exception to copyright infringement that allows the limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holder. It is permitted for literary criticism, comment, news, reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. The courts use a four-factor balancing test to determine if fair use exception applies: 1) Purpose and character of use, 2) nature of use, 3) amount and substantiality of work used, and 4) effect on market value of work. Some people believe there is a 5th factor too that depends on the type of infringer (non-profit or for-profit) and its intentions and track record (a repeat offender or an unknowing and unintentional infringer).


The easiest way to avoid copyright infringement is to only use images from sources that specifically grant permission, some of which you listed, such as iStock. There is also a non-profit organization called Creative Commons that grants copyright permissions through a tiered approach ranging from selective protection to unlimited grant of permission. You can learn more at http://www.creativecommons.org. Be sure to look for a Creative Commons License on a website to see if the owner has specified which rights he or she is retaining, and which rights he or she is willing to release.


Another way to avoid copyright infringement is to ask to use the work. Sending a simple email request to use an image takes just a few minutes, and can save you a lot of turmoil (and potential legal fees!) in the long run. Approach people online on sites like Flickr. Let them know you'd like to use one of their images, which one, for what purpose, and offer to give them credit. Also, check Stock Exchange and Wiki Commons. Read through the restrictions and rights. Artists will usually list whether a photo may be used, for what purpose, and what type of credit must be given.


Despite all of the above, if you are using an official image of a product to promote it, the assumption is usually that the owner of that product is happy to have you assist in their marketing efforts. It has become common practice to use an image of a product when reviewing it, sharing it with your readers, and promoting it for people to purchase. Most companies that put a photo of their products on the internet are thrilled if you take that image and tell the world about that product. It is like having a global sales team! Indeed, if you are an affiliate of a product, there is an implied agreement for you to be able to use the images of that product in order to fully promote it as an affiliate. I often review products on my blog, and the companies that I do so for are only too happy to provide me with images.


The bottom line: When in doubt, use images that specifically grant permission. If you are unsure, do not use the image! Seek permission first or find a different image that is clearly permissible to use.


Copyright 2011 LM Organizing Solutions. Lisa Montanaro, "The Solutions Expert," is Principal of LM Organizing Solutions, LLC, a professional services firm created in 2002 that offers professional organizing, business and life coaching, and motivational speaking to individuals and organizations. To receive a free audio program on Conquering Paper Clutter, subscribe to Lisa's free monthly ezine, "DECIDE™ to be Organized" at http://www.lmorganizingsolutions.com/. Lisa is the author of the book "The Ultimate Life Organizer: An Interactive Guide to a Simpler, Less Stressful & More Organized Life" published by Peter Pauper Press, which can be found at http://www.theultimatelifeorganizer.com/. Through LMOS, Lisa helps people deal with the issues that block personal and professional change and growth. To explore how LMOS can improve your home or work environment, contact Lisa at (845) 988-0183 or by e-mail at Lisa@LMOrganizingSolutions.com.


Saturday, October 27, 2012

Copyright Infringement and Its Consequences

The author or creator of every original work that is tangible in nature has every right over his project. If this work is reproduced, altered, exhibited, broadcasted or made public in other way without the consent of the owner, it is considered violation of the legal and moral rights of the author. It is best to register your work with the United States Copyright Office which asserts the owner's rights under the Copyright Act and makes it public without revealing the actual identity of the author or the detailed content of the project. But authorization discourages plagiarism to some extent.


If a case of infringement of copyright occurs, an encroachment application must be filed with the federal court. The judge can order a permanent prohibition on the offending person or entity otherwise if the infringement case is a complicated one and requires time, a temporary injunction is ordered by the court to keep away any further cases of corruption till the decision is pending.


At any point in an infringement case, the contents of the alleged work can be seized by the court. If the court gets proof of the infringement, all the illegal copies are seized by the Law Enforcement Agents and then destroyed. The original work is also kept in custody which is liable of unlawful reproduction.


If the copyright holder has registered his work with the United States Copyright Office prior to the infringement, he can claim charges for lost sales and profit due to plagiarism. Legal fines can also be recovered ranging from $250 to $150,000. This amount can also be bigger depending on the circumstances and popularity of the violated work


Plagiarism is also when an author's work is reproduced for profit. If the project that has been copied had a worth around or more than one thousand dollars, the guilty is awarded a punishment of one year in jail along with the payment of fine decided upon by the court. If the infringed work had a worth of more than two thousand five hundred dollars, the guilty is sent to jail for five years and fine, decided by the court is paid.


Copyright violation of bigger projects is definitely a far greater issue than that of smaller and less popular projects, but morally it is wrong both ways. If the problem is not snubbed right at the beginning, it creates greater disasters with the passage of time.


copyright uk Provides copyright service in uk to protect your legal work. For more information about copyright law feel free visit here: "copyright.co.uk"


Thursday, October 18, 2012

Copyright Registration Is Not A Pre Condition To Protection

Contrary to the near-indefatigable lay assumption that entertainment attorneys like myself hear all the time, one is not required to register a copyright in one's work with the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. (or elsewhere) as a condition precedent for U.S. copyright protection. In other words, the New York-based author in Chelsea, for example, already has copyright protection in his or her finished original work of authorship, under U.S. federal law, just as soon as the work is reduced to a tangible medium of expression in New York. That copyright protection is automatic, and inheres in the Chelsea-situate New York author immediately, his or her entertainment lawyer will opine.


Therefore, when the New York entertainment attorney hears the Chelsea-based New York writer saying "I 'copyrighted' my novel by registering it with the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office in Washington, D.C.", the writer is usually operating under a mistaken set of geographic and legal assumptions. It is incumbent upon entertainment lawyers to correct those assumptions. This one is a particularly difficult myth to explode - because members of Congress, those that write and edit case law, and a few jurisprudential scholars have been known to use "copyrighted" as a verb form, too. When I hear it, it sounds to me like nails on a chalkboard.


So, "No", the New York entertainment attorney replies to the New York writer in Chelsea, "you already had automatic copyright protection in your work as soon as you wrote down the text - as soon as you reduced your vision to a 'tangible medium of expression'. Your act of mailing it from a post office on Manhattan's West Side in New York City, to Washington D.C., isn't what engendered the copyright. Rather, your prior act of crystallizing it in a tangible medium here in downtown West Side New York - pen to paper, or keystroke to hard-drive - is what caused the copyright in your work to be born. The New York entertainment attorney then explains that the phrases and verb forms "to copyright" or "I copyrighted" should probably be avoided outright - certainly avoided as synonyms for "registration" or "filing" - specifically to prevent that kind of lay confusion. After all, if the Chelsea screenwriter in New York "copyrighted"[sic] his or her work only by mailing it to Washington D.C. on Friday morning, then that would imply that no copyright yet existed in the work when he or she completed the final draft, hit the "Save" button on his keyboard, and printed it out in hard-copy form in his or her Chelsea home office in Manhattan on the Thursday evening prior - and that conclusion would be legally incorrect. In that fact pattern, the entertainment lawyer opines, the copyright existed and the screenwriter owned it as of Thursday evening based upon the events that happened in downtown West Side New York.


The process of U.S. copyright registration is just an after-occurring formality, though it is one which entertainment attorneys (from New York, and yes, even elsewhere in places like Hollywood) handle for their clients often. In other words, the work is already copyright-protected prior to one's mailed submission of the work from New York or any other city, to the U.S. Copyright Office and Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. Yes, U.S. copyright registration does thereafter provide certain advantages over unregistered works, as your entertainment lawyer will tell you. But copyright registration is not itself a pre-requisite for copyright protection. The copyright protection exists first. The copyright filing comes second.


After all, the USCO form specifically asks the filer when - in what year - his or her work was completed. You could in theory file in 2011 for a 2006-completed work. In that case, the copyright would have existed as of 2006.


Under the U.S. Copyright Act, (which can be found at various locations on the Internet, at 17 United States Code [U.S.C.] Section 101 and following), the author of an original and otherwise-protectable work automatically possesses a copyright in that work as soon as the work is reduced to a "tangible medium of expression". No later.


The New York choreographer on Manhattan's West Side improvises a new set of dance steps for her students - fleeting, in the air - but owns no copyright in these movements or their performance or rendition. However, the moment she writes down the original dance steps using a detailed graphic chart, or videotapes herself performing them in her New York studio - perhaps at her entertainment lawyer's suggestion - she may then have a chance to claim some copyright-protected work. The key, again, is the work's reduction to a fixed medium. In fact, she may own the copyright in that material without ever interacting with Washington, D.C. - even though her entertainment attorney will tell her that it sure would be a good idea to thereafter mail a filing to D.C. if the original work of authorship is perceived to have any economic or other long-term value.


And this makes sense. Look at it from the perspective of copyright enforcement - from the perspective of the New York entertainment attorney litigator trying to prove or disprove copyright infringement in a court of law downtown at 500 Pearl Street. How difficult would the job be of a federal judge or jury in a U.S. copyright infringement litigation in the Southern or Eastern Districts of New York, or that of a U.S. Copyright Office Examiner in Washington, D.C., if the U.S. Congress allowed all of us to claim copyright in the inchoate and evanescent? The courts in New York and indeed nationwide would be inundated with strike suits and other spurious copyright claims, perhaps more often brought by pro se litigants rather than their entertainment lawyers if any. Therefore, Congress doesn't let us get away with it. Congress requires reduction to a "tangible medium of expression" as a pre-condition for copyright protection. But no, Congress does not require copyright registration as a pre-condition to copyright ownership itself - rather, copyright registration at or around the time of creation is discretionary with the copyright owner. Congress only requires copyright registration as a pre-condition to filing a lawsuit for copyright infringement - something that your entertainment lawyer litigator won't miss when reviewing the statute pre-filing of the federal court lawsuit.


Yes, your entertainment attorney will tell you that after-occurring copyright registration of a work does provide certain strategic advantages, relative to unregistered works. Copyright registration notifies those of us in New York, and in California, the U.S., and the rest of the world, at least constructively, that the copyright claimant thinks he or she owns the copyright in that registered work. Practically speaking, copyright registration creates a likelihood that another company including its own entertainment attorney performing a copyright search, will "pick up" (i.e., see, or notice) the previously-registered work, when that company or its entertainment lawyer counsel later conduct a thorough professional (or for that matter even a cursory and informal) ocular copyright search of the public records of the Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Copyright Office. Most film studios and their entertainment attorneys perform thorough copyright searches as a matter of course, for example, before optioning an author's literary work.


As discussed above, whether you live in New York, Los Angeles, or elsewhere, copyright registration with the U.S. Copyright Office in the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. is also a necessary precursor to your entertainment attorney litigator bringing a copyright infringement litigation in a U.S. federal court. For this reason, in practice, individuals and companies and their entertainment lawyers have been occasionally known to register their copyrights days - or even hours, paying an emergency rush filing fee using a New York-to-D.C. Fed Ex - before they sue for copyright infringement in federal court. Of course, the entertainment lawyer will tell you that it is better to register the work at an earlier stage than that. Filing a copyright infringement litigation predicated upon a USCO copyright registration in turn allows for the entertainment attorney litigator to recover certain types of damages afforded by the U.S. Copyright Act, such as "statutory" damages, and plaintiffs' attorneys fees. These types of damages would not be availing to the copyright plaintiff if his or her entertainment lawyer sued using a different common law theory. A copyright registration may also work advantages in terms of certain international copyright protections.


Click the "Articles" button at: http://www.tormey.org/art.htm to return to the main Articles page.


ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT


This article is not intended to, and does not constitute, legal advice with respect to your particular situation and fact pattern. Do secure counsel promptly, if you see any legal issue looming on the horizon which may affect your career or your rights. What applies in one context, may not apply to the next one. Make sure that you seek individualized legal advice as to any important matter pertaining to your career or your rights generally.


Copyright Registration Is Not A Pre-Condition To Protection>
? John J. Tormey III, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.


My practice as a New York entertainment attorney includes copyright registration work in music, film, television, publishing, Internet, media, and all artistic fields. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:


Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.
John J. Tormey III, PLLC
217 East 86th Street, PMB 221
New York, NY 10028
(212) 410-4142 (phone)
(212) 410-2380 (fax)
e-mail: brightline@att.net
http://www.tormey.net/
ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT


Friday, October 12, 2012

How Copyright Protection Works in the IPR and Entertainment Industry

Copyrights are the main types of IPRs that cater to the entertainment and publishing industries. The fact that these are big businesses, it is important that all those involved know how to generate, protect and manage these rights. This can only be done with the right IPR structure.


The issue of copyright and all the other intellectual property rights is not new. In entertainment and publishing business, it is a common to have great music and books copyrighted to protect the interests of the owner. The most common areas where copyright is used include copyrights for music, copyright for movies, copyright for drama, IPR for events and also copyright for live shows.


In any entertainment industry, there are different groups that benefit from this business. These are the big industry players and the small enterprises. All of these groups have in the recent years become victims of copyright violation. However, the enterprise that suffers the most is the small entertainment business. To be able to protect the smaller player, many governments have put in place mechanisms to help them protect their works of art. Nevertheless, even with these measures the individual artist is still not getting the best out of their work due to poor structured Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).


For many years, the bulk of taking care of an individual's rights has fallen heavily on the private individual. The fact that it takes a lot of management costs to monitor and enforce the rights, many authors, musicians and artists in the entertainment industry are not able to cope. Additionally, few have the self-determination and legal support to seek a more effective copyright protection.


This issue has become even more difficult to manage because of the new technologies being invented daily. There have been many cases of copyright violations online. The main problem with the internet is that it has opened a big opportunity for high time piracy. Additionally, it does cost a lot of money to monitor such a huge platform.


Even with all these depressing news for major player in the IPR and entertainment industry, there is still hope. It is possible to enforce copyright for music, copyright for drama, copyright for lyrics and copyright for live shows online.


The insurance industry has today taken up the task to offer copyright protection services. There are many insurance companies, which insure individual's work of art. Moreover, these services also cater to small enterprises in the entertainment industry. Fortunately, these services are offered at much cheaper prices, and the private individual is assured of some compensation in case of IPR violation.


For an individual in the entertainment industry to be able to enjoy his or her work, then the right IPR protection should be sought for. This include using copyrights protection or by insuring an individual's work. In the case of online IPR violation, there are programs underway to ensure that an Internet Service Provider (ISP) become liable to any kind of copyright abuse. These mechanisms will ensure that the provider is to control the occurrence of these abuses with the use of electronic filters. Additionally, they are to carry out any action against the illegal activities.


Ganesh R is the author of this article on IPR & Entertainment Industry.
Find more information, about Brain League IP Services here


Saturday, October 6, 2012

How to Copyright or Trademark Your Business

In my business consulting, I have found that a lot of people do not know the difference between copyright and trademark. They do not know how to copyright a logo, website, blog or business name. Or in using the actual term, TRADEMARK their business. I used 'copyright' in the title because most people confuse the two. However, as I researched this subject I found out some interesting things...


Copyright is actually not the same as a trademark. According to the U.S. Copyright Office, a copyright provides protection for original works in the realms of music, poetry, movies, literature, etc. In fact, copyright exists as soon as the publication exists. It is just advised to register your publication with the U.S. Copyright Office for legal purposes. Some people also like to publish the copyright facts on their publications and make sure there is a public record. Registration fees vary from $35 to $80. It cost more money to renew, get copies, or search copyright records. Believe it or not, people steal ideas so you want to make sure you are protected. And for a mere $35 at least, I'd say it's a good idea to make sure your writings are safe, LEGALLY.


Now to the good stuff. A trademark is what is used to protect patents, trademarks, and ideas. This is handled in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). So, a business name, logo, or even business idea would fall under the trademark category. It is often confused with copyright but now you know the difference. The reason you would want to register for a trademark is to get legal use of a service mark (™, SM ,?) for your word, phrase, symbol, or design.


The benefits of getting the service mark is to protect your name. To keep people from stealing your ideas. Just like with copyright, if you claim ownership, you can use the ™ and SM symbols on your business name or logo at any time. But owning the federal trademark registration obviously has it's benefits legally. Some of which include, being able to defend your logo in federal courts, being listed in the USPTO database, and the use of the ? symbol. YES! You MUST be registered with the USPTO to use that symbol on your logos, etc. You cannot even use it if your application for registration is pending. So, there are great benefits to registering your business name and logo.


Now, keep in mind, the USPTO has the right to deny your registration application. Especially if there's a similar logo. So, you need to research and make sure your business name and logo are UNIQUE and fit federal regulations. When filing an application for trademark registration (or to get a service mark) you must file one application per category(class) you the need the service mark for. FOR EXAMPLE, if you need a service mark for a t-shirt logo AND for the store marquee, you must submit two applications. Application fees vary from $275-$325, depending on the type of application you submit.


I know it sounds a bit complex and confusing but registering your business name and logo are so worth the protection. Especially if you're an owner that offers services/goods, merchandiser, designer, or inventor that's about to BLOW UP! You can of course find out more and get an application at http://www.USPTO.gov


For help on a business plan and development contact us today!


Tamara Garrison-Thomas


http://www.garrisonprosperitysolutions.com


Thursday, September 20, 2012

Copyright Violations and International Challenges

Many authors and publishers have been quite alarmed to find their books pirated, and reproduced in other nations and then distributed throughout the world. There have been big cases where stories from very famous authors have been pirated by the container loads. This happens all over the world, and it has been a big issue in China, probably because they produce most of the world's books now.


Imagine a pirating publisher taking all the books on the New York Times bestseller list, and printing tens of thousands of each, putting them into containers and shipping them to the United States for sale in our markets. Also, shipping the same books to many other countries before our publishers get the actual books on the shelves and into those markets. Yes, this is a serious issue.


Indeed, there was a very interesting article the other day in the Los Angeles times titled "China Gives a Shred about Piracy" by Barbara Demick reporting from Beijing China. The article explained that the Chinese government in Beijing had found pirated DVDs, books, and even magazines and they were destroying them. There was even a picture of a large Caterpillar skip loader moving everything into a pile to be burned. Indeed, it seems like a big waste of money to do that, but Beijing figures that it's the best way to send a message to prevent copyright infringement and piracy.


China now has The National Copyright Administration and the leadership in China wants everyone to know around the world that they are trying to stop the problem of copyright violations. This is a very good thing and it's going to make most of their trading partners quite happy, as it has been a very big complaint for a number of years. Indeed, China is also worried about copyright infringements concerning its own material now, as other countries are copying Chinese produced material, and now they understand the economic loss that can occur.


Yes, China is growing up and they are joining the world in getting rid of copyrighted contraband and pirated material. Some critics charge that this is merely a ploy and a drop in the bucket compared to the tens of thousands of cargo containers shipped all over the world of pirated products, and copyrighted material.


Perhaps, there is some truth to both sides of this debate, but just the fact that China is stepping up to the plate to do this, and to make a very public statement shows that things are improving. And that is a good thing. Indeed, hope you'll please consider all this and think on it.


Lance Winslow is the Founder of the Online Think Tank, a diverse group of achievers, experts, innovators, entrepreneurs, thinkers, futurists, academics, dreamers, leaders, and general all around brilliant minds. Lance Winslow hopes you've enjoyed today's discussion and topic. http://www.worldthinktank.net/ - Have an important subject to discuss, contact Lance Winslow.


Monday, September 3, 2012

Most Bloggers Do Not Copyright Their Work - And Why You Should or Shouldn't

If you are a blogger, I am certain that you've considered copyrighting your work. And if you blog about more intellectual things, I am also certain that people have copied what you've written, or the ideas and concepts onto their own blogs. You may not care, because you are able to spread your message across the Internet in this way, and if the individuals mentioned you and give you credit for it, that helps spread your notoriety and popularity. That's all good if that's what you're interested in.


Now then, let's take another case in point. What if someone is stealing your work off your blog, and is then either rewriting it, or simply claiming it as their own, and putting their name on it? How would you ever know that they are doing this, after all there are hundreds of millions of blogs in the world? Should you copyright what you write? Most bloggers don't, because they have considered the comments above, and they want to spread the word about something they believe in, something that is near and dear to their heart, perhaps a social cause - alternative energy, or something they wish to make known to the public online.


If you put a copyright symbol at the bottom of each blog post on your blog where it can be seen quite easily, this will deter probably 50 to 75% of those who might steal content from your site. But it will not deter the hardcore content thieves very often, or folks that don't believe in copyrights anymore, as perhaps they are part of the new generation and believe all the information belongs to the world, even though you created it. These folks are less likely to give you credit, and they may be stealing you blind. In other words they are using your thoughts, your words, your concepts, and ideas and spreading them around.


If you are someone like me, you probably aren't too offended because the reason you write is to get a message out to everyone, but if you are like me, it probably irks you when people steal your content, and fail to give you credit for it. If someone takes your content, gives you credit for it and gives you a link back to your website, you may think that is fine, and you might even send them an e-mail thanking them for it. One thing I have found is that when people steal your content and you catch them, they won't even bother returning your e-mail and sometimes they won't even remove it from their site.


So what is a blogger supposed to do - threaten another blogger? As you know that can start online animosity and words of war. Nevertheless the amount of copyright violation going on with blogs around the Internet is so intense, and so problematic, that it is doubtful that any copyright law or symbol will protect you whether you display it or not.


Is this simply a cost of doing business, is this the price you have to pay for getting your words out online? If it is that is rather upsetting, but it's something you have to come to terms with when it comes to copyright law online. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this.


Lance Winslow is the Founder of the Online Think Tank, a diverse group of achievers, experts, innovators, entrepreneurs, thinkers, futurists, academics, dreamers, leaders, and general all around brilliant minds. Lance Winslow hopes you've enjoyed today's discussion and topic. http://www.worldthinktank.net/ - Have an important subject to discuss, contact Lance Winslow.


Monday, August 27, 2012

Copyright Act of United Kingdom

Copyright Law is part of the intellectual property law that assures security of original compositions. The Copyright Act grants protection against plagiarism to all tangible pieces of work. These include work pertaining to literature, music, film, art, lectures in public, Government work, question papers of an examination and plans of a building.


In United Kingdom, a copyrighted product is secure with the government and is reproduced by the owner from an official government source if the date or content of his work is challenged for infringement. This effort is put in to increase the economic benefits of the owner and encourage more people to participate with their creativity which in turn helps in exploring new talents, techniques and materials. All this eventually benefits the country. Copyright Registration Service is offered by the intellectual property office to keep track of the output of businesses and individuals for the protection of copyright ownership.


In UK, copyright registration is conducted by agents of copyright or attorneys at the office of the Copyright of UK. Works of literature, music, drama, art and sound recordings are protected from unlawful reproductions or translations. A register is maintained where they enter names and titles of the work along with the complete details of the author, publisher and owner of copyright.


The owner, author, publisher or any person who lawfully wishes to attain the rights of a particular product, may apply by submitting a form with the prescribed fee to the Registrar of Copyright for entering the details of the work in the Register of Copyright. Once the application is received from the owner of the original work, the registrar then carries out necessary enquiry before issuing copyrights. If a correction is required after the registration has taken place, the authorized person files an application again. This is brought into notice of the registrar who then orders rectification. Omissions or incorrect additions are then taken care of and altered as required. Whether it be a change in name, address or any other detail, it is carried out by the registrar and the entry is amended in the register of copyright.


Any entry made in the Register of Copyrights or an alteration in terms of addition or omission in the already existing entries, is brought to public notice by the registrar either by publishing it in the Official Gazette or by any other means he finds appropriate. The Copyright Act of UK provides a big range of categories to protect the creativity of its people from violation. These categories include art, literature, music, drama, films, broadcasts, official work and allow them to reproduce their work and perform in public without fearing plagiarism.


Find out more helpful information about Copyright protection. plz visit our Copyright UK Site: copyright.co.uk


Thursday, August 16, 2012

Copyright Symbol - When and How to Provide a Copyright Notice

The creator of any original work fixed in a tangible medium (i.e., a work that physically or digitally exists somewhere, as opposed to being simply an idea) automatically owns a copyright to that work simply by virtue of being its creator-but in order to prove that ownership in a court of law, the work must be registered with the US Copyright Office. But what about that little circled "c"? What does it really mean-and what happens if you don't use it?


When Should I Use the Copyright Symbol?


To answer this we have to go back about a century, back to the Copyright Act of 1909. This Act addressed, among other important issues, the role of the copyright symbol-specifically by governing, at the federal level, protection only for those eligible published works that contain a copyright notice. Then, the Copyright Act of 1976 was enacted. Under this new version of the law, the notice is no longer required to receive protection under the law.


That said, it's a good idea to include a (c) symbol regardless. Even though it isn't legally necessary, it may just be the factor that deters a would-be copyright infringer from stealing your work - if there's a symbol present, your infringer is going to have a hard time claiming that he or she wasn't aware the work was protected. Additionally, the copyright symbol can go a long way in lending an extra bit of credibility to your work; it says to the public that you're serious about your work, serious enough to register a copyright.


How Should My Copyright Notice Look?


Should you wish to include a copyright notice, it should follow the below format:


Copyright (c) 2011 [Owner's name]. All rights reserved.


If you're typing the copyright symbol into a literary work, it's easy - most word processors automatically convert "(c)" into the correct symbol. You can also find it in your character palette.


Sarah Kolb, http://www.clickandcopyright.com/


Since 2000, Click Industries, Ltd. has helped thousands of small business owners, independent entrepreneurs, artists, musicians, and writers start new businesses, protect their intellectual property and find new ways to market and promote their business and creative works. Our copyrighting division, Click and Copyright, offers copyright filing services for creative professionals.


Copyright Law details available from the US Copyright Office.


Saturday, August 4, 2012

Copyright Challenges and Professional Help

For an entertainment attorney who deals on and off with copyright laws and protection policies, it is quite amusing to know how people misjudge the concept of copyright. But then again it becomes the responsibility of those with knowledge to prove this myth wrong. Some people believe in avoiding the use of phrases as "I copyrighted" and "to copyright" completely as it confirms the misconception of its meaning further.


Generally people believe a piece of work is authorized to its owner when it has a registered copyright in the name of its originator. Basically, any piece of work, when created, is completely under the authority of its creator. By the Federal Law, when an idea comes into a tangible form of expression, it automatically has copyright protection. When a story is penned down; when a song, sung is put into notes, it becomes into a tangible form and hence is copyrighted.


Any work in art, design, music, literature or even an exam question paper, is the creativity of the author or originator alone and his sole property from the minute it is created and brought into a copyrightable form. There are certainly lots of advantages of registering a copyright but an unregistered piece of work does not mean that the authority of the owner can be challenged.


Due to piracy everywhere, it is considered better to have a registered copyright. Though it is not a precondition to copyright, a registration makes it easier to convince the others of your possession. In case of an infringement, producing a legally approved document ensures a stronger position in the argument. Another advantage is that any new product being produced will have a lesser chance of similarity with a registered work. When an investor or creator plans a new project, research is conducted to find out more about the existing works in the similar field. If a registered piece is copied it is plagiarism, for an unregistered piece, the originality will be hard to prove.


As an individual is generally not aware of the legal procedures, entertainment lawyers help in the process. Besides, not everyone is allowed to approach the Copyright Office for this purpose. Seeking professional help is a better option as it keeps an eye on the violation of copyright and keeps track of big and little details even if the client is too busy with his own projects and is unable to keep tabs of the protection of his product.


Copyright UK Provide Complete Copyright Protection For Your work. We ensuring that you always have the best proof to protect your Copyright work and your rights.


Sunday, July 29, 2012

How Specialist Copyright Solicitors Deal With Copyright Infringement

If you are the creator and owner of a piece of work that is protected by copyright and someone makes use of that work without your permission, this could well be a case of copyright infringement.


If you suspect that this has happened to you then it is definitely a good idea to seek the advice of specialist copyright solicitors to find out about your legal rights and what your options really are. Read on for an introduction to Copyright infringement and the legal issues surrounding it.


Copyright infringement could take many forms, including things such as straightforward copying of your work, performing drama in public without permission, broadcasting work in public, playing music in public, renting work to the public or altering work (such as by translating it) without permission. However, it is worth noting that some uses of work are allowed by law and it can often be complicated proving that your rights have actually been infringed upon. This is why you are advised to talk to specialist copyright solicitors if you think you have a case of infringement.


There are a couple of things you need to consider if your work has been infringed upon. One is whether you are willing to give your permission for the work to be used, and another is what you want to do if you aren't willing to give them permission. Many people are willing to give permission for their work to be used in certain circumstances as they can often benefit financially as a result.


For instance, one option would be to set up a licensing agreement with the person or group wanting to use your work. This is something that your copyright solicitors would be able to help you with and you could typically expect to earn royalties or benefit from some other payment in return for them being able to make use of your work in a specific, agreed way. This will normally also include provisions for termination of the license, which helps you to further protect your work.


When it comes to taking action against someone who has infringed upon your work, you will normally have to contact them to explain the breach. You can ask them to stop using your work if you wish. Generally, legal action should be the last resort but if they do not heed your requests, you should talk to copyright solicitors. You should also talk to solicitors if you want to set up a license or other form of agreement. Often, people don't even realise they are infringing your copyright, so it is always best to be polite and most situations should be able to be resolved without too much difficulty.


If you think you're the victim of copyright infringement, you need expert legal advice - talk to the specialist copyright solicitors at Bonallack and Bishop who are able to offer city quality copyright advice at local prices.


Sunday, July 22, 2012

Copyright Protection: 2 Intriguing Objects Eligible for Copyrights

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Copyright -- a federal protection granted to the author of a creative work -- is commonly understood in contexts such as books, movies, photographs, and paintings. It's clear to most people that, under normal circumstances, you can't copy someone's novel and publish it as your own, post someone else's photo or painting on your own blog without the author's permission, or create an unauthorized sequel to someone's movie.

But did you know copyrights are not limited to words, pictures, music, and video?

For a work to be eligible for copyright protection, it must be the expression of an idea (not simply the idea itself, for ideas are not copyrightable), and it must be considered to have unique authorship (it cannot be an exact duplication of something else). Here are 2 intriguing types of work that do fall into these parameters and are, in fact, eligible for copyright protection.

1. Vessel Hull Design

Dating only as far back as 1998, the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act provides protection for -- you guessed it -- original ship hull designs.

While copyright registration for most of the more familiar types of works (music, text, movies) require a copy of the work itself to be submitted along with the application, the hull of a ship is understandably difficult to deliver to the US Copyright Office. For prohibitively large works such as this, the Copyright Office requires "identifying material" consisting of pictures and measurements.

2. Architectural Works

It seems odd to imagine a copyright on a building, but works of architecture can now be copyrighted by submitting the blueprints to the US Copyright Office, due to a series of modifications to copyright law throughout the centuries.

Works are architecture were introduced into copyright law almost as a fluke: the first copyright law specified that only books, maps, and charts could be protected; the next version broadened the to include "writings" by an "author"; the next version allowed for "drawings... of a scientific or technical nature"; only the next version after that specifically mentioned architectural drawings -- but even so, the buildings themselves were not explicitly mentioned, only the drawings or blueprints themselves.

In 1989, when the United States joined the Berne Convention (an international set of copyright agreements), they were required to adopt the rules and standards of the convention -- and among these requirements was that copyright would extend to the architectural works themselves, and not only the blueprints.

Sarah Kolb, http://www.clickandcopyright.com/

Since 2000, Click Industries has helped thousands of small business owners, entrepreneurs, artists, musicians, and writers start new businesses, protect their creative works, and keep up with information on small business and intellectual property.