Does anyone here know much about copyright issues (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Writers Roundtable



Message

Giulia -> Does anyone here know much about copyright issues (5/15/2008 7:22:14 PM)

Say with an adaptation. I know the work is adaptable if it's 70 yrs after the death of the author or 70 yrs after publication if it was made into film.

How about if someone has already attempted a film. The original work is quite different. Is someone else allowed to make a film out of the original work or does the copyright now belong to that person who attempted to make a film?

I am going to class today and I'm sure my teacher or some student would know, just wanted to enquire now as well.



Kathrynpagecamp -> RE: Does anyone here know much about copyright issues (5/16/2008 12:50:24 PM)

If you are adapting the original that is now in the public domain, you are fine. The person who made the later adaptation (called a "derivative work") only has a copyright in the derivative work, not in the original. So as long as you are working from the original and it doesn't contain elements of the derivative work (other than elements that come from the original), you will not violate copyright law.

Think of how many people have made movies from "Pride and Prejudice."



Giulia -> RE: Does anyone here know much about copyright issues (5/17/2008 5:02:13 AM)

Yeah, I got my eye on the Divine Comedy by Dante. Big job but I think I will be able to tackle it with my own insight and perception, I'll have a crack at it once I have finished what I am doing now. I heard that someone attempted the inferno at one stage. Someone else has tried it. Never seen any adaptation of the Divine comedy, have you?



Giulia -> RE: Does anyone here know much about copyright issues (5/18/2008 4:29:22 AM)

The adaptation of the 1935 production has no synopsis, so I am not able to make a judgement, but from the brief plot outline it is just based in the inferno, no pergatory and no paradise.



techne -> RE: Does anyone here know much about copyright issues (5/18/2008 11:20:27 AM)

there's a new animated adaptation: here

dino di durante was planning to do all three (though I have no idea whether he has or not).

and there's always wikipedia



techne -> RE: Does anyone here know much about copyright issues (5/18/2008 11:37:36 AM)

and here are some copyright links at philobiblon

also, a great video mash-up exploring copyright (using disney clips) - very cool: a fair(y) use tale



Giulia -> RE: Does anyone here know much about copyright issues (5/21/2008 8:19:21 AM)

quote:

there's a new animated adaptation: here


hmmmm, interesting. Didn't see it all, I'd like to hear the dialogue.



Kathrynpagecamp -> RE: Does anyone here know much about copyright issues (5/21/2008 1:22:30 PM)

The person who put the U-Tube video together doesn't know what he or she is talking about. I didn't get very far before I gave up in disgust. For one thing, it says a copyright only lasts for 14 years. It actually lasts for the life of the author/creator plus 70 years. The video also makes it sound like copyright is a bad thing, when actually it is designed to encourage people to be creative by rewarding them when they are (and if it takes money, so be it). And after all, what you write is your property. You wouldn't want someone to steal your car, so why should they be able to steal your written work?

(The video is also very hard to listen to. I don't think I could have taken much more of the jerky dialogue.)

So if you watch it, just be sure you don't put too much faith in the contents.



techne -> RE: Does anyone here know much about copyright issues (5/22/2008 10:26:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kathrynpagecamp
The person who put the U-Tube video together doesn't know what he or she is talking about. I didn't get very far before I gave up in disgust. For one thing, it says a copyright only lasts for 14 years. It actually lasts for the life of the author/creator plus 70 years.

actually -- they state exactly that at about the 5:59 mark - the 14 year comment is a reference to copyright's initial time limit. then again, you probably didn't watch that far. [8|] and copyright functions differently in different countries, so it's always good to check out your own country's copyright laws (nowadays, many government websites will have a summary). for example, it's different here in canada than it is in the states.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kathrynpagecamp
The video also makes it sound like copyright is a bad thing, when actually it is designed to encourage people to be creative by rewarding them when they are (and if it takes money, so be it). And after all, what you write is your property. You wouldn't want someone to steal your car, so why should they be able to steal your written work?

ah, copyright is good when it protects one's ability to generate income from their own work. and i agree wholeheartedly. but what's the point of copyright when that individual passes away? who then profits from that work? the family? the corporation? is the issue about control or profits? this is certainly an issue in my country (canada) where copyright law is currently under review and the discussion is pretty important (see this website for more information: http://www.appropriationart.ca/).

if copyright is applied too stringently collage and appropriation artists could be strongly and negatively impacted. there is a difference between using imagery as part of a work and reinterpreting it as opposed to a wholesale theft. that's where the fair use concept - here - is interesting (though it does open up a discussion about ethics - never a popular topic).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kathrynpagecamp
So if you watch it, just be sure you don't put too much faith in the contents.

or...you could actually watch the whole thing, and do some research yourself (especially when it concerns copyright laws in your own country).



Kathrynpagecamp -> RE: Does anyone here know much about copyright issues (5/22/2008 2:50:18 PM)

Teche, I am an attorney who is fairly well versed on copyright law in my own country, which is the U.S. You are right, however, that I should not have just assumed that was the jurisdiction talked about in the video. I guess I still haven't gotten used to the ease of international communication these days. (Or maybe it's U.S. conceit.)

My main point--and one you made as well--is that people should not blindly rely on something they find on U-Tube (or, for that matter, anywhere on the Internet unless it is a trusted site, like the U.S. Copyright Office).

Actually, the main reason I stopped watching was because the video was giving me a headache with its jerky dialogue. But that shows that we need to put certain relevant information up front (unless the work is clearly fiction) so people don't draw the wrong conclusion and stop reading, listening, or watching before they get the correct information.

The first part of the video also implied (or at least I heard it that way) that copyright is bad, period. Maybe it said something else later on, but I couldn't take the poor editing any longer.

I'm not arguing that 70 years after death is the right length--in fact, I would probably agree that it needs to be shorter. Maybe the right answer is the longer (or shorter) of death or so many years, or maybe death but no less than so many years. (In the case of a work for hire, a corporation owns the copyright to begin with, and it also needs an incentive to create works, so the term can't just rely on the author's life--at least as the system works under U.S. law.)

And you are right that there should be other limits to copyright protection for the person who is not trying to rip off the author's creation and divert money from the author to the person using the work. That's where fair use comes in. Overall, I think the U.S. fair use exceptions work pretty well, although it isn't always easy (even for a lawyer) to figure out where the exact boundaries are.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.



techne -> RE: Does anyone here know much about copyright issues (5/22/2008 4:54:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kathrynpagecamp
Teche, I am an attorney who is fairly well versed on copyright law in my own country, which is the U.S. You are right, however, that I should not have just assumed that was the jurisdiction talked about in the video. I guess I still haven't gotten used to the ease of international communication these days. (Or maybe it's U.S. conceit.)

My main point--and one you made as well--is that people should not blindly rely on something they find on U-Tube (or, for that matter, anywhere on the Internet unless it is a trusted site, like the U.S. Copyright Office).

And you are right that there should be other limits to copyright protection for the person who is not trying to rip off the author's creation and divert money from the author to the person using the work. That's where fair use comes in. Overall, I think the U.S. fair use exceptions work pretty well, although it isn't always easy (even for a lawyer) to figure out where the exact boundaries are.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

no problems. [:)] i'm curious -- since you are a lawyer "well-versed" in copyright law -- how do you understand copyright as it applies to artistic works (particularly for artists utilizing collage/ appropriation)?

are you familiar with the situation with richard prince and the original creator of those iconic marlboro man images? i haven't heard much about it, but iseem to recall that the original creator of the images was pursuing some legal avenues since prince now sells thos images (essentially unaltered but for scale) for millions.

i'd be interested in your thoughts in this area...



Giulia -> RE: Does anyone here know much about copyright issues (5/23/2008 4:21:12 AM)

Techne that utube video is very basic and badly made, I agree with Kathryn. On another note, do you think I'm a sandwich short of a picnic?



Kathrynpagecamp -> RE: Does anyone here know much about copyright issues (5/23/2008 10:23:37 AM)

I probably oversold my qualifications on copyright law when I said I was well-versed in it. I don't practice in the area, but I have done a lot to educate myself since it affects me directly as a writer.

Now to Teche's question about Richard Prince and the Marlboro Man photos. As I said in an earlier post, it isn't always easy to figure out where the exact boundaries of fair use are. Still, I think the courts would find Prince's "art" to be a violation rather than a fair use. I'm not aware of any cases that went to decision, though. (No guarantee there aren't, but a quick check on Westlaw didn't come up with any.) The Philip Morris Company apparently owns the copyright on the original photos, and I'm guessing it is happy to get the free publicity so has no desire to challenge Prince's use of the images.

Here is a link to a well-written and apparently well-researched article about that particular situation. The two comments by Philip are also well worth reading and appear to be legally accurate (at least until a court somewhere says otherwise). Unique Tracks Article



Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI