Copyright Law

[Mephisto]

I can't imagine how this ever plays out. Basically, if one copyright owner is bigger and more well known, I see the courts ruling going in their favor, every time. Are there actually cases of this that have ruled both people own independent creations?

I agree with you since the "biggest" lawyer and corporation often win these cases. I also think gumboot had some good input as there have been similar movies releasted at nearly the same time.

One recent example was the film "The Descent," which was somewhat similar to a Japanese production entitled "The Cave." The first one produced may or may not have been a ripoff of the first (it usually happens with sequels), but since they were released at roughly the same time, I suspect they were produced without knowledge of the other film.

 

[geni]

You would be a very silly writer if you sold a film company the copyright to your book.

Generally, if you have a brain, you OPTION the film and associated merchandising licensing rights, and that's it.

If they make a film within the period determined by the option agreement, well and good - they own the film and associated merchandising rights as an independent copyright. If they don't make it the license lapses and you can offer it to someone else.

The thing is, the copyright holder has the exclusive right to make or authorise derivatives of the work - that is adapt it. So unless the film company actually purchases the copyright to the BOOK (rather than a license to adapt the book into a film) the previous copyright owner (be that the author or the publisher) retains the exclusive right to authorise derivative works. Thus they can license the film rights to a film company and independently license stage adaption rights to someone else.

-Gumboot

While film companies are unlikely to buy the copyright on a book they will probably buy up exclusive lisences for anything you could do with it other than sell it as a book.

 

[steverino]

The artist providing the sketch for the New Yorker should have known that the photograph taken by Steverino's father was copyrighted, but he likely thought there was a slim chance that the photographer would run into the sketch, or that the New Yorker would absorb the legal fees stemming from the infringement.

I have also found there to be an arrogance in the photography food chain. IOW, if a big magazine, newpaper, or book decides to run an image, we lowly photographers are supposed to be soooo thankful that they used our image that we should just shut up and accept it, even at no pay. In the above case my father was not acknowledged when the sketch was published so they were probably just trying to get away with it.

Same old thing, the artist being exploited by The Man.

 

[Ocelot]

It seesm plans are afoot to nearly double the copyright term for sound recordings.

Register your opposition here.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/NoTermExtension/

 

[drkitten]

Why would patents deserve more time than art?

Several possible reasons. FIrst, patents tend to cover physical objects, which take longer to create than most works of art. (I can churn out a million copies of a book in a few weeks, but my patented new bridge joist can only be built as fast as the bridge
can.)

If an invention is worthy of putting into production it shouldn't take more than ten years to recoup the investment. I would say that after ten years a patent might be relatively useless, since many inventions are often obsolete within a short time frame.

Even an "obsolete" patent can be valuable, as it controls derivative works as well. If you develop a better bridge joist than mine, based on my technology, you can patent yours as well --- but everyone still needs to licence mine to use yours.

 

[volatile]

Mephisto - your argument relies on your work having commercial value after you die. This is not true for the vast majority of works, and may be as high as 98%. As Cory Doctorow over at BiongBoing often points out, if you look at the "Bestseller" lists from years past, you will not recognise even a fraction of the books or authors on the list.

Also, don't forget about works which are still "in copyright" but whose authors are long dead and whose estates are untraceable, known as "orphan works". By preventing the republishing, re-mixing or re-transmission of these, you deprive the present of the cultural legacy of the past.

See eg: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/23/orphan-works-bill-in.html

 

[volatile]

Might I also recommend browsing the BoingBoing "copyfight" tag:

http://www.boingboing.net/copyfight/