#copyright clause

[kattzzabug]

The reason why I state this is I wanna know... I have no drawing/painting phone in my body. Can I use others art if I cannot remember who it is from? I will state it's not mine but I cannot give the name of the person who made it in some cases.

[kattzzabug]

I am going to state it here ASAP. If I did not say I made it. I did not make it. I may borrow it to turn the item around to fit something I am doing but I do not claim credit for the original.

[tennesseewatchman-com-news-blog]

Bill Nye the Constitutional B.S. Guy

Bill Nye the Constitutional B.S. Guy

Debate continues to rage about whether Bill Nye is really a “science guy,” or if he’s just an entertainer pushing a political agenda, but one thing is certain: Bill Nye is not the “Constitution guy.”

In an interview on CNN during the so-called “March for Science,” Nye made the case for federal funding of science by quoting one-half of a constitutional clause.

“If you suppress science, if you…

View On WordPress

[arttechlaw-blog-blog]

Top Ten Supreme Court Copyright Holdings

The Constitutional grant of power allows copyright holders limited monopolies to incentivize further creative production. Does the case history bear this out?

Golan v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 873 (2012) The Supreme Court held that works in the public domain can be pulled out and put back undercopyright. This was in response to treaties signed in the Uruguay round of negotiations. It means any good-faith users may become liable for statutory damages upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars forcopyright infringement, so the law can encourage further creative production by artists who have been dead for more than 70 years.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 125 S. Ct. 2764, 162 L. Ed. 2d 781 (2005) Grokster effectively established the “inducement doctrine” that invalidated Sony’s safe harborby finding secondary liability where a technological platform existed to induce infringement.

Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003). Approved the constitutionality of the Sonny Bono CopyrightTerm Extension Act, which extended copyright protection to life + 70 years and applied retroactively. Congress appeared to be extending protection ad infinitum. The Supreme Court upheld this, past any reasonable expectation of incentivizing dead people to produce more, and violating both Congress’ Constitutional grant of power and the First Amendment.

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 571, 114 S. Ct. 1164, 1167, 127 L. Ed. 2d 500 (1994) Reinforced parody exception to copyright, and holding that commercial use does not create presumption against fair use so long as the use is transformative. Fair use is highly fact dependent, with no bright-line rules.

Feist Publ’ns., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 346 (1991) Feist established a cornerstone of what copyright IS, establishing that a copyrightable work must evidence at least a minimal amount of originality, and rejecting protecting for purely factual compilations and databases.

Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, (1985) Utilizing content from an unpublished work is less likely to be fair use insofar as an author has a right to control the first public appearance of their work. Taking the “heart” of a work for a commercial purpose is presumptively an unfair use.

Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 104 S. Ct. 774, 78 L. Ed. 2d 574 (1984) Sony is a landmark Supreme Court case that established a copyright safe harbor to protect technological development. If a device is sold for legitimate purposes and has substantial non-infringing uses, then the manufacturers are buffered from secondary liability for contributory copyright infringement. Also known as the “Betamax case,” this case became an important, though ineffective, defense to liability for P2P sites.

Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 74 S.Ct. 460 (1954). Extending copyright protection to the aesthetic elements of a functional object.

Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 4 S.Ct.279 (1884) Providing the old-school precedent which grants copyright protection to works produced on a digital platform, Burrow-Giles held that even photography – which utilizes a machine to produce creative content – is copyrightable insofar as it embodies the original intellectual conceptions of the author.

Post #4 in Copyright 500 Series – Copyright Law in 500 Words or Less