Do you think copyright law should be changed?

[Sammy-San]

I think copyright laws are good to an extent and the original idea for creating those laws was good, but theyve become too strict and restrictive. Heres what I mean.

Despite some copyright laws being too restrictive, many aspects of copyright law make perfect sense.

For example, you cant make money off of a persons ideas without permission. Thats why superhero films cant make films involving superheroes that are also owned by another person (like Spiderman and Avengers combined in one film)-unless they get permission from the copyright owner of the other character (which is one of the reasons you dont have different supeheroes in one movie-the copyright owners dont come to agreements to share the money of the film. Copyright laws allow parody, they allow you to sue if somebody copies your ideas and makes money off of it without permission (thats happened with software and song ideas-you can borrow some aspects of other peoples ideas-but you cant copy them and they have to have your originality in it).

I also believe copyright laws have a fair balance in some of the rules they have. For example, while you cant make a book of a movie based off of somebody elses story, you are allowed to borrow limited and superficial aspects from their story and incorporate it into your own. (like how JK rowling borrowed ideas from Tolkein's story.)

But some aspects of copyright law are too restrictive and dont seem to have any reasonable reason to be in law. Most of these are unintended consequence of the law-I guess.

For example, churches need a liscence to print hymn lyrics, and its against copyright law to have hymn lyrics in bulletins-or have copyrighted hymns sung in church-recorded online. What logical purpose does this law serve? None-in my opinion. Like what person would care that people had hmyn lyrics at their church? I dont understand why a person would need permission for something like that. http://leaderresources.org/sites/default/files/LR_Copyright_Guidelines_010711.pdf

People also need streaming licences to show wedding videos with copyrighted music in the background. I dont think any musician would be annoyed by people seeing their music in a wedding party online wont cause them to lose sales-and the only reason copyright owners would sue in a situation like that (and have sued-there have been cases of it) is because the law allows them to do so.

Youtube has gotten people in trouble (ie, removed their videos) for posting videos of parties that had copyrighted music playing in the background. I could understand why Youtube would remove song videos and why song owners would complain (if people are looking up songs that they own on youtube that arent part of VEVO-they are losing sales money) but hearing some music in the background at a party does not make a copyright owner lose sales.

Watching music at a party is not going to substitute sales or make a person lose money

It seems that many aspects of copyright law are based and too focused on the technical aspects and loopholes of who may show copyrighted work-to the point where they create strict laws in certain circumstances, that I believe arent necessary.

For example, I dont believe people should be legally required to have a liscence to show work in situations that wont affect the sales of the copyright owner-things like wedding videos or movies in church without a liscence and hymn lyrics. Those are just a few examples, but you get the overall idea of what my opinion is?

I dont know what federal or state law says on this one, but I also believe fanfiction should fall under fair use-for the most part.

Any thoughts? Agree or disagree?

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Youtube has been a bunch of internet nazi's for their content in the last 2 years. People have been flagged for content on items the company gave them to review...but the flagging was done by the same company.

 

[fargonic]

I'm no expert but I believe Copyright exists solely to protect the options of content generator. The artist, the musician, the writer. It is solely at their discretion that an original piece of their product of work can be used or shown. As such it makes the case of the wedding video clear cut. You would need to get express authorization from the artist who made the music in order to use it.

It isn't like it's a matter of who makes money off of it or not. Copyright automatically attaches to anything you produce in a reasonably permanent form. Whether you choose to register the copyright will determine what you can do to collect damages due to improper usage as I understand it.

Even if showing a video with copyrighted music doesn't make anyone any money and wouldn't count as a sale is completely beside the point as I understand it. It is a violation of copyright simply to use someone's work without permission (within the bounds what are called "fair use" exceptions, things like commentary or critique etc.)

 

[keith99]

I'm no expert but I believe Copyright exists solely to protect the options of content generator. The artist, the musician, the writer. It is solely at their discretion that an original piece of their product of work can be used or shown. As such it makes the case of the wedding video clear cut. You would need to get express authorization from the artist who made the music in order to use it.

It isn't like it's a matter of who makes money off of it or not. Copyright automatically attaches to anything you produce in a reasonably permanent form. Whether you choose to register the copyright will determine what you can do to collect damages due to improper usage as I understand it.

Even if showing a video with copyrighted music doesn't make anyone any money and wouldn't count as a sale is completely beside the point as I understand it. It is a violation of copyright simply to use someone's work without permission (within the bounds what are called "fair use" exceptions, things like commentary or critique etc.)

Only as long as the copyright lasts.

Which means pretty much any song I sang as child is now public domain. That means there are plenty of free hymns for Churches that do not need the latest fad song.

 

[mala]

wait seriously? hymns are copyrighted? that's insane.

 

[keith99]

wait seriously? hymns are copyrighted? that's insane.

Why? Unless you think it is fine for the Church to steal the work of others.

 

[fargonic]

Only as long as the copyright lasts.

Correct. Which if I recall is now life+75 years (?)

Which means pretty much any song I sang as child is now public domain. That means there are plenty of free hymns for Churches that do not need the latest fad song.

Maybe, maybe not. I assume that most of the classics are fully public domain by this time but certainly anything penned within the last 50 or so years is probably still under copyright.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

1923 is the general cutoff. Published before 1923, the work is almost certainly Public Domain. Published after 1923, it may or may not be still under copyright, depending on which set of rules applied to the work.

There remain some unpublished works from the 1890s that are still under copyright, and there are many works from after 1923 that are Public Domain because the copyright was never renewed.

 

[Sammy-San]

I'm no expert but I believe Copyright exists solely to protect the options of content generator. The artist, the musician, the writer. It is solely at their discretion that an original piece of their product of work can be used or shown. As such it makes the case of the wedding video clear cut. You would need to get express authorization from the artist who made the music in order to use it.

It isn't like it's a matter of who makes money off of it or not. Copyright automatically attaches to anything you produce in a reasonably permanent form. Whether you choose to register the copyright will determine what you can do to collect damages due to improper usage as I understand it.

Even if showing a video with copyrighted music doesn't make anyone any money and wouldn't count as a sale is completely beside the point as I understand it. It is a violation of copyright simply to use someone's work without permission (within the bounds what are called "fair use" exceptions, things like commentary or critique etc.)

I know what the laws say, and thats what I dont agree with. I believe people should follow current copyright laws, but I do believe the laws should be reformed. I dont see why playing music in a party video or wedding video should be something you need permission to get (it doesnt seem like a serious thing)-that should fall under fair use. The only reason people sue because of wedding videos without permission is because the law allows them to. I highly doubt that many singers would be upset their song was in a wedding video without asking them. Besides, the church hymn printed lyrics being illegal seems rather ridiculous to me-for the same exact reason.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Just parsing through this.

For example, you cant make money off of a persons ideas without permission.

Ideas can't be copyrighted.

Thats why superhero films cant make films involving superheroes that are also owned by another person (like Spiderman and Avengers combined in one film)-unless they get permission from the copyright owner of the other character (which is one of the reasons you dont have different supeheroes in one movie-the copyright owners dont come to agreements to share the money of the film.

That's actually due to trademark and licensing provisions, not copyright.

Copyright laws allow parody, they allow you to sue if somebody copies your ideas and makes money off of it without permission

Again, ideas cannot be copyrighted.

(thats happened with software and song ideas-you can borrow some aspects of other peoples ideas-but you cant copy them and they have to have your originality in it).

Software is really more of a patent issue than a copyright issue (though copyright does apply).

I also believe copyright laws have a fair balance in some of the rules they have. For example, while you cant make a book of a movie based off of somebody elses story, you are allowed to borrow limited and superficial aspects from their story and incorporate it into your own. (like how JK rowling borrowed ideas from Tolkein's story.)

You can write the same story as someone else--otherwise, we'd have run out of original stories a thousand years ago--but you cannot use their words. Want to write a story about short people who undertake a quest to save the world? Go right ahead.

You can't use Tolkien's words (but you can use Baum's, since The Wizard of Oz has been Public Domain for decades), but you can tell a very similar story. You can't set your story in Tolkien's Middle Earth or in Rowling's Potterverse because the original author has sole right to produce derivative works. (Also, in many cases, trademark issues are also in play.)

But some aspects of copyright law are too restrictive and dont seem to have any reasonable reason to be in law. Most of these are unintended consequence of the law-I guess.

For example, churches need a liscence to print hymn lyrics, and its against copyright law to have hymn lyrics in bulletins-or have copyrighted hymns sung in church-recorded online. What logical purpose does this law serve? None-in my opinion.

It's due to Fair Use. Fair Use allows people to use short excerpts from copyrighted material, as long as what is used is not substantial and does not encapsulate the "heart and soul" of the original.

Songs are usually very short, so the amount that can be used before Fair Use is exceeded is tiny. The rule of thumb for Fair Use is 10%*. For a 5,000-word short story or a 90,000-word novel that's a lot that can be used. For a 150-word song, that's only 15 words.

Also, the heart of the song may be captured by just a few words from the lyrics. In theory, using a single word from a song can violate Fair Use (though the circumstances would have to be unusual).


* There is no hard and fast rule for how much can be used while remaining within Fair Use. Some books and websites will claim the 10% figure as a matter of law, but that is not correct. Others will state that up to three (or four, or five) lines from a song or poem are allowed, but there is no basis in law for that claim, either.

Like what person would care that people had hmyn lyrics at their church?

Either the copyright holder or a person who paid to license the work evidently cared. Otherwise, the issue wouldn't have been raised.

I dont understand why a person would need permission for something like that.

Because a church doesn't have the legal rights to print or publish someone else's work without permission, regardless of whether that work is religious in nature.

People also need streaming licences to show wedding videos with copyrighted music in the background.

That's a licensing issue, not a copyright issue.

I dont think any musician would be annoyed by people seeing their music in a wedding party online

Some of them had to have been annoyed by it for the matter to have become an issue.

wont cause them to lose sales-and the only reason copyright owners would sue in a situation like that (and have sued-there have been cases of it) is because the law allows them to do so.

The previously mentioned licensing comes into play here--why would a company pay thousands of dollars to license a song if other people can just use it for free? So yeah, whenever Joe Schmoe uses a song that he hasn't licensed, it damages the ability of the song writer to make money.

In short, the law allows the copyright holder to sue for damages because there have been actual financial damages.

Youtube has gotten people in trouble (ie, removed their videos) for posting videos of parties that had copyrighted music playing in the background

Having a video taken down isn't "getting into trouble".

I could understand why Youtube would remove song videos and why song owners would complain (if people are looking up songs that they own on youtube that arent part of VEVO-they are losing sales money) but hearing some music in the background at a party does not make a copyright owner lose sales.

It undermines the creator's ability to license the song.

I dont know what federal or state law says on this one, but I also believe fanfiction should fall under fair use-for the most part.

Fan fiction is illegal to write. Technically.

It's legal if the original is now Public Domain, and it's legal if the copyright holder specifically allows fan fiction. Otherwise, it's illegal. Again, technically.

The fact is, though, that nobody's going to come after you for writing fan fiction or for publishing it on some fan-site.

Why is it against the law? Because the original author has the sole right to create derivative works. If any Joe Schmoe can publish a new Hunger Games or novel, then that would strongly detract from the original author's ability to control and earn money from the original creation.

You call it fan fiction. The law calls it a derivative work. Because that's exactly what it is. And really, where would you draw the line between the two?

But again, the fact that it's illegal is academic, since there won't be any consequences for writing it.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Besides, the church hymn printed lyrics being illegal seems rather ridiculous to me-for the same exact reason.

What about the hymnal publisher who paid hundreds or thousands of dollars for a license to include the hymn in the hymnal? If it's legal to print off dozens of copies of the songs, why would anybody spend money to buy the hymnals?

That directly impacts the finances of the hymnal publisher, and the lost licensing fees from the freely printed copies directly impacts the finances of the original artist.

That's why you can't just print stuff all willy-nilly.

 

[Sammy-San]

Just parsing through this.



Ideas can't be copyrighted.




That's actually due to trademark and licensing provisions, not copyright.




Again, ideas cannot be copyrighted.




Software is really more of a patent issue than a copyright issue (though copyright does apply).




You can write the same story as someone else--otherwise, we'd have run out of original stories a thousand years ago--but you cannot use their words. Want to write a story about short people who undertake a quest to save the world? Go right ahead.

You can't use Tolkien's words (but you can use Baum's, since The Wizard of Oz has been Public Domain for decades), but you can tell a very similar story. You can't set your story in Tolkien's Middle Earth or in Rowling's Potterverse because the original author has sole right to produce derivative works. (Also, in many cases, trademark issues are also in play.)




It's due to Fair Use. Fair Use allows people to use short excerpts from copyrighted material, as long as what is used is not substantial and does not encapsulate the "heart and soul" of the original.

Songs are usually very short, so the amount that can be used before Fair Use is exceeded is tiny. The rule of thumb for Fair Use is 10%*. For a 5,000-word short story or a 90,000-word novel that's a lot that can be used. For a 150-word song, that's only 15 words.

Also, the heart of the song may be captured by just a few words from the lyrics. In theory, using a single word from a song can violate Fair Use (though the circumstances would have to be unusual).


* There is no hard and fast rule for how much can be used while remaining within Fair Use. Some books and websites will claim the 10% figure as a matter of law, but that is not correct. Others will state that up to three (or four, or five) lines from a song or poem are allowed, but there is no basis in law for that claim, either.




Either the copyright holder or a person who paid to license the work evidently cared. Otherwise, the issue wouldn't have been raised.




Because a church doesn't have the legal rights to print or publish someone else's work without permission, regardless of whether that work is religious in nature.




That's a licensing issue, not a copyright issue.




Some of them had to have been annoyed by it for the matter to have become an issue.




The previously mentioned licensing comes into play here--why would a company pay thousands of dollars to license a song if other people can just use it for free? So yeah, whenever Joe Schmoe uses a song that he hasn't licensed, it damages the ability of the song writer to make money.

In short, the law allows the copyright holder to sue for damages because there have been actual financial damages.




Having a video taken down isn't "getting into trouble".




It undermines the creator's ability to license the song.




Fan fiction is illegal to write. Technically.

It's legal if the original is now Public Domain, and it's legal if the copyright holder specifically allows fan fiction. Otherwise, it's illegal. Again, technically.

The fact is, though, that nobody's going to come after you for writing fan fiction or for publishing it on some fan-site.

Why is it against the law? Because the original author has the sole right to create derivative works. If any Joe Schmoe can publish a new Hunger Games or novel, then that would strongly detract from the original author's ability to control and earn money from the original creation.

You call it fan fiction. The law calls it a derivative work. Because that's exactly what it is. And really, where would you draw the line between the two?

But again, the fact that it's illegal is academic, since there won't be any consequences for writing it.

What makes you think a person would use a youtube video with a song played for part of the video in the background (but isnt the main essence of the video) would use that as a substitute for the original song?

What defines "the heart" of a song? The chorus?

Can a copyright owner make a formal statement that allows all fanfiction, or does each fanfic owner have to get individual permission from the owner?

 

[Sammy-San]

What about the hymnal publisher who paid hundreds or thousands of dollars for a license to include the hymn in the hymnal? If it's legal to print off dozens of copies of the songs, why would anybody spend money to buy the hymnals?

That directly impacts the finances of the hymnal publisher, and the lost licensing fees from the freely printed copies directly impacts the finances of the original artist.

That's why you can't just print stuff all willy-nilly.

Are churches allowed to use printed hymns if they buy them from hymnals?

 

[SepiaAndDust]

What makes you think a person would use a youtube video with a song played for part of the video in the background (but isnt the main essence of the video) would use that as a substitute for the original song?

I don't understand your question.

What defines "the heart" of a song? The chorus?

The court. Art is such a subjective thing that most Fair Use issues are decided on a case-by-case basis.

Can a copyright owner make a formal statement that allows all fanfiction, or does each fanfic owner have to get individual permission from the owner?

Allow all fanfic? Not really. There's no good way under current US IP law for an author to give up all or part of the copyright. You can't, for instance, just release your book directly to Public Domain. Some GPL and other licenses attempt to accomplish this, but the author can withdraw from those licenses, usually at will, which kinda defeats the purpose.

Many authors do specifically allow fan fiction within certain guidelines. Some allow you to use the story's universe, but not use any of the main characters. Others allow you to use the characters, but disallow romantically pairing adults with minors. And, of course, the fan fic can't be sold, and it can't be marketed as though it were an official publication or as though it were endorsed by the author of the original.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Are churches allowed to use printed hymns if they buy them from hymnals?

It depends on the hymnal publisher's policy. Some allow it, some don't.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Copyright and IP laws have become a double edged sword
(as many things do when too many lawyers get involved)

If well written and properly enforced, I understand their purpose...however, many of them have been approved based on criteria that's simply much too broad and does more to squash competition than encourage when that happens.

If it's a very specific and unique idea, I get that... However, if it's a very broad and generic idea (and you throw a bunch of money at lawyers to have them get that generic idea 'protected'), then you're simply abusing the system in order to prevent any future competition from coming after you.

I work for a company that writes/manages VOIP software and I see it happen all of the time, the companies (mine included) all try to outdo each other by preventing other companies from doing something rather than actually doing something unique/special themselves.

I'll leave the company names out of it, but there was recently a incident that we had to go to court over because as it turns out, the other company apparently got it approved to lock down the idea of clicking a button on a webpage to play a dynamic audio message to the recipient of a 3rd party transfer...not sure how that got approved, but it did, so they tried to sue us when we did something similar....cost us a couple thousand to fight that in court.

It makes sense when you're locking down something very specific...for example, McDonald's & Big Mac and Burger King & Whopper...however, with many of the examples that are out there today, it's the equivalent of McDonald's saying "Oh, we own the idea of selling hamburgers in a quick service restaurant....so, BK & Wendy's...you can't sell burgers anymore"

 

[SepiaAndDust]

I work for a company that writes/manages VOIP software and I see it happen all of the time, the companies (mine included) all try to outdo each other by preventing other companies from doing something rather than actually doing something unique/special themselves.

I'll leave the company names out of it, but there was recently a incident that we had to go to court over because as it turns out, the other company apparently got it approved to lock down the idea of clicking a button on a webpage to play a dynamic audio message to the recipient of a 3rd party transfer...not sure how that got approved, but it did, so they tried to sue us when we did something similar....cost us a couple thousand to fight that in court.

Patent trolls caused our current state of Patent everything and sit on it. But really, the legitimate software companies have to do that just to survive... if they didn't, the patent trolls would beat them to the punch and drive everybody else out of business.

That whole system needs a good redo from start.

 

[Billnew]

wait seriously? hymns are copyrighted? that's insane.

At least one religious entity releases their work to all. Ie they put their work into public domain. But many people work with publishers that for some strange reason like to make money. If their investment is allowed to be given away they can't make money.
So the artist might be ok, but the publisher who made the work available has a right to thier claim.

I do believe copyright is a law that is always changing and evolving.

one thing to remember is:

Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form so that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The moment you write it, paint it, or put it on the internet, your work is copyright protected.

Copyright in General (FAQ) | U.S. Copyright Office
Until something is valuble to someone else, it doesn't need to be registered. ($35 is alot of money for something no one wants) It is protected, even if not registered.

Most publishers will get your work copyrighted and trademarked if needed. So for the average person to register for trademark is a waste. (They get your work copyrighted and then buy the rights. They can't sell it without the rights, and you can't get money without it.)
Publishers want the "Copy right"-the right to copy your work.

I believe background music is questionable and most people can't afford the fight so they give in. If you walk down the street and get music in your video, you have no control of that music. But if you walk down the street with a song playing on your device, then you can control that. So really there is no difference then using the music to make a video. Using their music to make you "famous".

It is a strict enforcement of the rule, but unless you are willing to go to court and risk paying royalties, its easier to remove the video.

Now if the music is a radio, then the radio station could object, but the music being played isn't directly linked to the singer. Again you have little control of the radio's music. But I believe you would have to include the Dj talking to prove it wasn't a player.

Copyright is a difficult thing to understand. But the people you listen too, need money to keep doing what they do. If they don't profit, they won't keep doing it. We all have bills to pay and we need to eat.

Big publishing companies pay normal people money to do their work, if they don't make enough money the little guy will be unemployed. The artist will make less money and might decide not to publish their work anymore.
Once you can get it free on the internet, it becomes worthless to companies. So intellectual property is something to guard closely.

Just for info: Copyright expiration: When work is fixed in tangible medium of expression - notice is irrelevant - copyright protecion lasts for the life of author and 70 years based on the the longest living author if jointly created or if work of corporate authorship, works for hire, or anonymous and pseudonymous works, the shorter of 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation.

Copyright Protection: How Long Does It Last?

 

[Maren]

The biggest issue, for me, is the length that copyrights remain valid -- as well as the fact they can be sold. The idea of copyrights (and patents), to my understanding, is to allow the producer of the item to make a profit so that he can keep producing new works.

My issue is that copyrights primary purpose no longer seem to be to help the artist, instead the copyrights typically end up in the hands of corporations who try to prevent works from entering the public domain as they want to continue making money as long as possible. I believe the length of copyrights should be shortened and, in most cases, should not extend beyond the life of the creator.

 

[fargonic]

If it's a very specific and unique idea, I get that... However, if it's a very broad and generic idea (and you throw a bunch of money at lawyers to have them get that generic idea 'protected'), then you're simply abusing the system in order to prevent any future competition from coming after you.

Remember it isn't just the skill of your lawyers, it's also the job of the examiner to ensure that the IP is unique in the case of a patent and the examiner will work with your legal team to ensure that you get as strong a patent protection as is legally available.

In certain areas there aren't any more "generic" spaces. A lot of places end up having to carve out little niches in coverage.

It makes sense when you're locking down something very specific...for example, McDonald's & Big Mac and Burger King & Whopper...however, with many of the examples that are out there today, it's the equivalent of McDonald's saying "Oh, we own the idea of selling hamburgers in a quick service restaurant....so, BK & Wendy's...you can't sell burgers anymore"

9 Times outta 10 there's no way to get that broad a coverage on a relatively mature market. Unless you luck out and get the most dense and unobservant examiner on earth, but the danger comes in people making oppositions to it post grant.

Patenting is almost as much art and rhetoric as science but it usually isn't that easy to proclaim a piece of IP is bad simply because it causes some litigation. That's part and parcel of the game.