"Copyright©" - means what?

“Can we get into trouble posting copyrighted material on TT?

Frequently, I see copyrighted material being posted. I've been trying to avoid posting anything that is copyrighted. Sometimes I will use a few words to attract readers to a link, but that is about it. At other times I look for a different source that does have a copywrite indicated. (Likewise, I try to look for sources that do not require registration. ) There have been times when I've copied and posted articles that are clearly copyrighted. But I've become increasingly leery of doing this. I believe that there are exceptions to copyright law, such as things that are common knowledge. But my knowledge in this area is very limited.”

“A lawyer could correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that it's OK to post copyrighted material as long as you identify its source and the fact that it's copyrighted.”

“Usage depends on the fair use clause.
Posting stuff for parody and news is protected under the fair use clause.”

“As another side note, there have been several law cases where people have been held responsible for what was posted on a message board. In other words, if you post it, you are responsible for the content. So if it is copyrighted or libelous, the poster will be responsible for it.”

“Man, I wonder how big of a tab Ewker's run up on the Day of Atonement thread? I bet Trump couldn't cover that lawsuite! LOL!”

“I think there could potentially be some problems if someone was inclined to follow up on copyrighted info.

At our school we have a page for news stories about the school. Some papers allow us to repost the article with proper credit given to the paper. Others, however, stress that articles cannot be reposted. Instead we have to post a link to their site.”

“Yep, posters are responsable for all user supplied content.”

“Thanks, folks. It is now a little clearer.

I found the long version of the fair use clause,and a readable summary of it.”

“You're not going to turn us in are you? :)”

“"A lawyer could correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that it's OK to post copyrighted material as long as you identify its source and the fact that it's copyrighted.”

In academic literature, as long as you give proper credit to the person/article/book/etc you are fine. If you claim it as your own, then you're in big doo-doo.”

““As another side note, there have been several law cases where people have been held responsible for what was posted on a message board. In other words, if you post it, you are responsible for the content. So if it is copyrighted or libelous, the poster will be responsible for it.”
matt, the webmaster
8:50:47 AM
12/21/04

I can see it now.....



Hustler Magazine, Inc.

v.

A certain individual known only as Buddha Bear.”

“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm

so now, if you play the radio in public, you owe somebody $$$$”

“Are you british?”

“no

you think the mafRIAA here wont try that trick here, if they havent already?

the fact that anyone anywhere in the world is doing it is ludicrous
last edited: 10/09/07 8:49:00 PM”

“When someone creates something (a poem, a photo, a sculpture, a song, a performance of a song, a choreogrphed dance, a book, a drawing), they own the copyright in it, without the need to register it. Without registering it, they can make you stop copying their work, but they might have to file a lawsuit and spend a lot of money to do it.

If they file for registration of the copyright, if they have to sue you they can get attorney fees and damages, as well as an injunction against you making copies. That includes derivatives of the original work.

One defense to the charge of copyright infringement is that the copying was a "fair use". Part of that analysis is how much was copied (the entire work?) and why (for parody?).

Technically, posting pictures found on the net is copyright infringement, and you might get a cease and desist letter from the owner. That would be more likely if the photo was made by a professional photographer, or was of a famous person. Some people put pictures of celebrities on their personal web page, and certain attorneys are looking for those, write a demand letter, and might get paid a few $1000 to not sue them. The agents of the celebrities authorize the search, to police the net for infringements.

Same with copying songs, if they catch you and decide to make an example of you, you have no legal grounds for your defense.

More than you wanted to know, I bet.”

“so could what happened in england happen here?”

“Muzac... a music service which has been around for years was started to avoid exactly the situation that was created in England. In deed in the US there have been restaurants, doctors offices, retail stores and so on that have been prosecuted for copyright infringement for playing radios over the store loudspeaker or in the public areas of the stores. That is one reason places like Wally World (a favorite target for lawsuits) has its own programing playing in the stores.”

“Dance studios, speakers, performers like clowns or magicians and the like have been prosecuted for copyright infringement because they have used commercial recordings for background or break music. When I was actively performing I purchased a three cassette tape series of musical interludes in various styles so that I could have background music for my routines without running afoul of copyright laws.

Disney Corp. has prosecuted marching bands for playing songs arranged from Disney movies in parades. Some of it gets absolutely absurd.

"Fair Use" doctrine is not part of the copyright code but is based in judicial precedent. It is almost more complex than the copyright law. Using "fair use" doctrine is a very tricky legal defense. It may or may not apply depending on the type of intellectual property, how much was used, and the use it was put to. Music can be absolutely bonkers. The lyrics to old hymns for example are often public domain, but as the lyrics and tunes were often done differently, sometimes centuries apart, the lyrics are public domain, but the tunes are covered by copyright.

The two little old ladies who wrote "Happy Birthday" never dreamed their tune would become the center of a firestorm. They sold the rights after many years to a publishing company who then proceeded to litigate its use on tv sit-coms and such. Barney and Mister Rodgers (among others) had their own Birthday songs.”

“*snore*”

“oh sorry sarge. sorry that we're not endlessly debating the latest sex/money scandal of --name your politician-- we'll try to get back to bashing the talking head du jour as quickly as possible”

“Oh, it's not you crash. It was the Christian, you know how boring they are.

LET'S PARTY!!!!!!! LET'S DRINK TIL MORNING!!!! WOO-HOO!!!!”

“party on, wayne”

“I'm curious...what about when businesses use a radio station as their "hold" music?

And what about dj services for private parties and weddings and so forth?”

“Treebeard would probly have a handle on DJ services. My guess is that hold music could be targeted if the agencies wanted to. There are probably services where you can rent or buy music for that.

ASCAP... BMI... RIAA... are the agencies that watch for copyright infringement in terms of music. I believe they all have licenses that can be purchased to allow legal use of their various resources. There are other license agencies that operate covering various other areas. Churches are often covered by CLII license.
last edited: 10/10/07 7:50:06 PM”

“The owner of the business where the dj is playing must get the license.

ASCAP!

”

“CB -- This is nothing new. If you play in a band and play a Hendrix tune in public, and relatives are in the audience, they can demand payment and hold your equipment as collateral until payment is submitted.

The reason you can go into a bar and hear someone play a Hendrix tune to due to the lack of resources in order to have one person in every bar across the whole world, then prosecute. Don't worry, digital technology is helping in all of that.”

“I doubt that Hendrix relatives own his songs. About all the music in the u.s. is owned by two companies, and they collect royalties from music and send it to the artist or his estate.

If you listen to a radio in a restaurant, that might be OK because there is an implied license to hear the radio music for free, but if you take the radio music and pipe it into a broadcasting system for several rooms, you are exceeding the implied license by not paying for it.

The music companies pay a finders fee to people who snoop for things like that. Same with video copies in mom and pop video stores. There are people who check out the inventory for copies and get a finders fee for turning them in.

There are artists who write decent sounding music and sell it for phone background music while you are on hold.”