DOCSLIB.ORG

Intellectual Property Fundamentals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Intellectual Property Fundamentals Intellectual Property Fundamentals Presented by: The Intellectual Property Advisory Group © 2016 by the State of California, Department of General Services What is intellectual property? Intellectual property (IP) is a legal term that refers to creations of the mind, including an idea, invention or process that are protectable under copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secrets law. Common examples include: Books Sculpture Designs Discoveries Logos Phrases Software Symbols Words There are four main types of intellectual property: 1. Copyrights 2. Trademarks 3. Trade Secrets 4. Patents What is copyright? Copyright protects original work of authorship such as literary works, audio/video recordings, software, photos, and maps created by a state agency, department or by one of its consultants or vendors. Copyright law is governed by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 (Title 17, U.S.C., section 101 et seq.) Examples of works of authorship: Presentations Books Brochures Copyright Protection The person who created the work is called the “author.” An author automatically has copyright protection for his or her original works of authorship once they have been expressed in a tangible form. Tangible: is it real; can it be touched or reproduced; is it something that can be perceived by the senses. The author has the exclusive right to do and authorize others to: 1. Reproduce the work 2. Prepare derivative work 3. Distribute copies of the work 4. Perform the work 5. Display the work Creation of Copyrighted Materials Copyright does NOT protect thoughts or ideas Copyright protects the method of expression and not the facts contained in an original work of authorship Copyright protection arises upon fixation in a tangible media; registration is not required but does have important advantages (federal law recognizes both registered and unregistered copyrights) Thus, a story cannot be copyrighted until its words are transcribed on paper or a similar medium; similarly, a song cannot be copyrighted until its notes and lyrics are recorded or set in some other perceptible form Use of the Copyright Symbol The © symbol can be used EVEN IF the work is not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office As a best practice, the symbol should be used on any copyrightable materials that a state agency or department posts or publishes and wants to protect Questions about the use of the © symbol should be discussed with agency or department legal counsel Duration of a Copyright Pre-1978 works: One 28 year term plus an additional term of 67 years Works created in 1978 and beyond: The life of the author plus 70 years Work made for hire: 95 years after the first publication or 125 years after creation, whichever expires first Once the relevant time period expires, and in other very limited circumstances, the work typically enters the public domain and may be freely used without restriction Ownership of Copyrighted Materials In the case of actual employees who use employer resources and time to create the materials, the employer is the owner However, an independent contractor or service contract provider will own the copyright to the materials UNLESS: a. The work qualifies as a work made for hire (narrow circumstances AND there is a written agreement so providing); or b. The independent contractor assigns the copyright to the work to the principal. There are several nuances in California law that can make it problematic to use a work made for hire agreement with independent contractors who are individuals (i.e., they might be deemed employees for certain insurance purposes) When Are Copyrighted Material in the Public Domain The term public domain denotes materials that are not protected by intellectual property laws such as copyright, trademark, or patent laws The public owns these works, not an individual author or artist; consequently, anyone can use a public domain work without obtaining permission, but no one can ever own it Posting a copyrighted work, such as a state manual, on the Internet means that it is downloadable and will be difficult to protect Consequently, when posting state owned materials on the Internet, it is best to post them in a format such as .pdf and to include terms and conditions outlining the appropriate use of these materials (a “click wrap” agreement requiring consent is one example of these terms and conditions) Dangers of Using Internet Materials An article of IP typically takes a tangible form, such as in a book or DVD; however, there are separate and distinct intangible rights that also attach when IP is created Under the “first sale” doctrine, a purchaser acquires the ability to sell or transfer the tangible article but she does not obtain any of the intangible IP rights, such as the ability to reproduce or distribute the work Given that IP protection arises upon fixation of the work in a tangible medium, Internet content generally should not be used without written permission and appropriate attribution This restriction has special relevance with respect to music found on the Internet as companies that own these works are very zealous in protecting their property interests Exceptions to this general rule are discussed in the “Defenses to a Claim of Infringement” and the “Fair Use” sections of this training Navigating the Use of Photographs Found on the Internet The use of photographs found on the Internet presents special problems as most are protected under copyright law Consequently, the use of a photograph found on the Internet typically requires written permission or a waiver from the copyright owner Some Internet sites, such as Creative Commons, have standard licenses that may permit some uses of a photograph so long as license requirements are strictly met The question of whether a photograph found on the Internet may be used is a difficult one with the result that agency or departmental legal counsel should be consulted prior to use One state agency had to use a photograph taken by staff because a suitable one, with the appropriate licenses, could not be found on the Internet Copyright and Social Media Social Media, such as Facebook and Twitter, utilize a great deal of copyrighted materials that should only be used with the utmost of caution These social media sites have very strict terms and conditions; it is very easy to violate these terms, which may prompt a legal claim for copyright infringement Posting copyrighted materials that are owned by the state runs the risk that these materials will be deemed within the public domain Remember: It is not necessary for copyrighted materials to contain the © designation so the absence of the designation does NOT mean that these materials are free to use If a license is obtained for copyrighted materials, care must be exercised not to violate the terms of the license as this could also prompt a copyright infringement claim Copyright Registration Registration is not necessary or required but is strongly recommended for published or commercially-distributed works because it is a pre- requisite for the owner to pursue a legal action for copyright infringement. Eligibility for copyright: Advantages of Copyright Registration Enables the copyright owner to institute a federal court action in order to prevent others from engaging in the exclusive rights of the owner (i.e., reproduction, distribution, public performance, public display, or the preparation of derivative works) Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim Registration of a copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office allows an aggrieved owner to seek statutory damages and attorney fees in a copyright infringement lawsuit A copyright notice is not required for enforceability but it creates a presumption of knowledge. A copyright notice consists of ©, the year of first publication, and the name of the copyright owner Registering a copyright is the least expensive form of IP protection and usually takes approximately eight to fourteen months (see, www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-what.html) Registration of Works Created by State Employees Using Public Funds Not all copyrightable materials should be registered by state agencies and departments, such as emails and meeting agendas Some materials created by a state governmental entity might be suitable for release into the public domain in order to maximize the overall public benefit The decision to register (or not) must be made at the management or legal office level based on the policies, missions and goals of the respective state agency or department Factors to Consider When Deciding Whether to Register a Copyright The importance of public access to the materials The risk of unauthorized, private commercial gain arising from the unrestricted use of the materials (one state department had to act to prevent the use of a sponsored vehicle license plate on popcorn bags being sold at a local store) The importance of the materials in disseminating the goals and mission of the state agency or department to the public The feasibility of licensing the use of the materials on a non-exclusive, limited basis The overall public perception created by limiting access to the information or materials NOTE: The fact that copyrightable materials are not registered does not mean that the materials lack legal protection; the common law establishes protection for such unregistered materials Should Copyrighted Materials be Placed in the Public Domain? The answer to this important question involves a three-part process: Is the work one that the state agency or department desires or needs to protect based on the factors outlined in the previous slide, including the potential value of the work? Should the materials be placed in the public domain due to the importance of public access and the need to further the mission and goals of the agency or department? If the agency or department determines that copyright protection is warranted, should the materials be registered with the U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • International Intellectual Property Law
    ee--RRGG Electronic Resource Guide International Intellectual Property Law * Jonathan Franklin This page was last updated February 8, 2013. his electronic resource guide, often called the ERG, has been published online by the American Society of International Law (ASIL) since 1997. T Since then it has been systematically updated and continuously expanded. The chapter format of the ERG is designed to be used by students, teachers, practitioners and researchers as a self-guided tour of relevant, quality, up-to-date online resources covering important areas of international law. The ERG also serves as a ready-made teaching tool at graduate and undergraduate levels. The narrative format of the ERG is complemented and augmented by EISIL (Electronic Information System for International Law), a free online database that organizes and provides links to, and useful information on, web resources from the full spectrum of international law. EISIL's subject-organized format and expert-provided content also enhances its potential as teaching tool. 2 This page was last updated February 8, 2013. I. Introduction II. Overview III. Research Guides and Bibliographies a. International Intellectual Property Law b. International Patent Law i. Public Health and IP ii. Agriculture, Plant Varieties, and IP c. International Copyright Law i. Art, Cultural Property, and IP d. International Trademark Law e. Trade and IP f. Arbitration, Mediation, and IP g. Traditional Knowledge and IP h. Geographical Indications IV. General Search Strategies V. Primary Sources VI. Primary National Legislation and Decisions VII. Recommended Link sites VIII. Selected Non-Governmental Organizations IX. Electronic Current Awareness 3 This page was last updated February 8, 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • MM — a Macro Package ______For Generating Documents
    MM — A Macro Package for Generating Documents ________________________ 1. INTRODUCTION This document is the user’s guide and reference manual for the Memorandum Macros (MM), a general- purpose package of text formatting macros for use with the UNIX system text formatters troff and nroff. The user must be familiar with the UNIX system and with the use of an editor. Some familiarity with the request summary in the Troff User’s Manual is helpful. A Troff Tutorial provides a general overview of formatter capabilities, while Troff User’s Manual provides detailed information as well as a summary of requests. 1.1 Purpose The purpose of MM is to provide a unified, consistent, and flexible tool for producing many common types of documents. Although the UNIX system provides other macro packages for various specialized formats, MM has become the standard, general-purpose macro package for most documents. MM can be used to produce: • Letters • Reports • Technical Memoranda • Released Papers • Manuals • Books The uses of MM range from single-page letters to documents of several hundred pages in length, such as user guides, design proposals, etc. 1.2 Conventions Each section of this memorandum explains a single facility of MM. In general, the earlier a section occurs, the more necessary it is for most users. Some of the later sections can be completely ignored if MM defaults are acceptable. Likewise, each section progresses from normal-case to special-case facilities. Read a section in detail only until there is enough information to obtain the desired format, then skim the rest of it because some details may be of use to just a few people.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyrights Quick Reference Series
    Copyrights Quick Reference Series Designing a t-shirt? Showing a movie on campus? Creating a website? For these things and more it is important to understand the laws and rules surrounding copyrighted material. Check out the information below to understand how copyright affects your student org. Copyright Material In the United States Code, Title 17, Section 107 of the Copyright Law allows for the “fair use” of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. The Fair Use Doctrine allows for limited use of copyrighted materials without obtaining permission from the copyright holder, but the limitations are significant. The factors to be considered in determining if the copying is fair use are: The purpose and character of the use (education is more likely to be fair use and use that causes the work to be used for a new purpose is more likely to be fair use) The nature of the copyrighted work (a fact-based work is more likely to be fair use than a creative fictional work) The amount and substantiality of the copied portion compared to the work as a whole (a small portion and/or not copying the “best” portion(s) of the work is more likely to be fair use) The effect of the use on the potential market (copying that does not cause someone to not buy the whole work is more likely to be fair use) Copyright and Trademark Symbols © is the copyright symbol and signifies a creator’s exclusive rights to publish, reproduce, or sell an original work.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Room in the Property Canon
    Making Room in the Property Canon INTEGRATING SPACES: PROPERTY LAW AND RACE. By Alfred Brophy, Alberto Lopez & Kali Murray. New York, New York: Aspen Publishers, 2011. 368 pages. $40.00. Reviewed by Bela August Walker* I. Introduction Property is oft considered the province of the antediluvian, far situated from modern concerns, particularly issues of race and diversity. Even more so than other areas of legal academia, Property remains the province of dead white men. Courses and casebooks continue to hark back to Blackstone, the epitome of the antiquated.1 The thread of old English law continues throughout the semester, to the consternation of many a first-year law student. It should come as no surprise that Property is then viewed as lifeless, the course least accessible, least relevant, most obscure. Nonetheless, Blackstone once avowed, “There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination, and engages the affections of mankind, as the right of property . .”2 This adage may prove still true. If property is dead,3 long live Property!4 Integrating Spaces: Property Law and Race takes on one aspect of this potential impasse. Alfred Brophy, Alberto Lopez, and Kali Murray address a long-standing absence and bring the Property casebook into the twenty-first * Associate Professor, Roger Williams University School of Law. For their sage advice and discerning counsel, I am indebted to M.J. Durkee, Sheila Foster, Jack Greenberg, Tanya Hernandez, Sonia Katyal, Jennifer Flynn Walker, and Patricia Williams. 1. Even Integrating Spaces cannot resist beginning its tale with the Englishman’s “‘despotic’ dominion.” ALFRED BROPHY, ALBERTO LOPEZ & KALI MURRAY, INTEGRATING SPACES: PROPERTY LAW AND RACE 3 (2011) [hereinafter INTEGRATING SPACES].
    [Show full text]
  • The Jurisprudence of Larceny:An Historical Inquiry and Interest Analysis
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 33 Issue 5 Issue 5 - October 1980 Article 2 10-1980 The Jurisprudence of Larceny:An Historical Inquiry and Interest Analysis Kathleen F. Brickey Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Kathleen F. Brickey, The Jurisprudence of Larceny:An Historical Inquiry and Interest Analysis, 33 Vanderbilt Law Review 1101 (1980) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol33/iss5/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Jurisprudence of Larceny: An Historical Inquiry and Interest Analysis Kathleen F. Brickey* I. INTRODUCTION The principle of harm is an essential component of criminal jurisprudence.1 It is important as both an element of crime2 and a measure of appropriate punishment.3 In a general sense harm im- plies infringement or destruction of cognizable interests," but the concept must be given more specific content if it is to assume a functional role in the development of coherent theory. As the no- tions of harm and protected interests are interdependent, defini- tion of the harm perceived to result from criminal conduct ulti- mately rests on determination of the legal interest sought to be * Professor of Law, Washington University. A.B., 1965, J.D., 1968, University of Ken- tucky. The author is grateful to Richard H. Helmholz, Professor of Law and Professor of History at Washington University, for his thoughtful comments on earlier drafts of this Article.
    [Show full text]
  • The Essence of Property Law
    Review: The Essence of Property Law FUNDAMENTALS OF MODERN REAL PROPERTY LAW, 3d Edition. By Edward H. Rabin and Roberta Rosenthal Kwall. New York, New York: Foundation Press, 1992. Pp. xvi, 1092. Reviewed by Vada Waters Lindsey* I. INTRODUCTION I have taught property law for four years and, after considering other casebooks, I have always used Rabin and Kwall's Fundamentals of Modern Real Property Law.1 My initial reason for selecting this casebook had much to do with my comfort level in contacting Professor Kwall to discuss her use of the casebook and course content. She graciously supplied me with several syllabi she had used through- out the years and helped alleviate the anxiety that accompanies new class preparation. In addition, I found Rabin and Kwall's Teacher's Manual to be a useful tool because of its level of detail, including a reference list to scholarly articles analyzing every subject covered in the casebook. When my former Academic Dean asked me to consider teaching Property Law, I agreed to teach the course without hesitation. I was extremely excited to teach a course in property law-not because I would gain a strong understanding of the archaic rule against perpetu- ities, but because of my desire to help the students establish a strong foundation in transactional law. I taught Wills and Estates during my first semester of law school teaching, which was when the dean approached me regarding teaching Property. I was more than a little frustrated that students lacked a basic understanding of some funda- mental property law concepts, such as the difference between joint tenancy and tenancy in common.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rule of Reason in Property Law
    The Rule of Reason in Property Law Joseph William Singer* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. RULES AND STANDARDS .......................................................... 1375 A. Conventional Analysis ..................................................... 1375 B. Legal Realism About Rules and Standards in Property Law ................................................................................. 1380 1. Why Rules Are Less Predictable than We Think ..... 1380 a. Informal Sources of Justified Expectations ............ 1380 b. Rules Do Not Determine Their Own Scope ........... 1383 c. Competing Norms Limit the Scope of Legal Rules .. 1385 * Copyright © 2013 Joseph William Singer. Bussey Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. Thanks and affection go to Martha Minow, Mira Singer, Lila Singer, Greg Alexander, Jane Baron, Bethany Berger, Eric Claeys, Hanoch Dagan, Nestor Davidson, Annie Decker, Rashmi Dyal-Chand, Mark Edwards, Kent Greenfield, Michael Kenneally, Gil Lan, Daphna Lewinsohn-Zamir, John Lovett, Hari Osofsky, Eduardo Peñalver, Stewart Sterk, Laura Underkuffler, André van der Walt, and Johan van der Walt. I would also like to thank all the participants in the Progressive Property Conference held at Harvard Law School in May 2012 and the Property Works in Progress Conference held at Fordham Law School also in May 2012. 1369 1370 University of California, Davis [Vol. 46:1369 2. Why Standards Are More Predictable than We Think ........................................................................ 1387 a. Exemplars and Precedent Make Standards
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Symbols (2286)
    1 Symbols (2286) USV Symbol Macro(s) Description 0009 \textHT <control> 000A \textLF <control> 000D \textCR <control> 0022 ” \textquotedbl QUOTATION MARK 0023 # \texthash NUMBER SIGN \textnumbersign 0024 $ \textdollar DOLLAR SIGN 0025 % \textpercent PERCENT SIGN 0026 & \textampersand AMPERSAND 0027 ’ \textquotesingle APOSTROPHE 0028 ( \textparenleft LEFT PARENTHESIS 0029 ) \textparenright RIGHT PARENTHESIS 002A * \textasteriskcentered ASTERISK 002B + \textMVPlus PLUS SIGN 002C , \textMVComma COMMA 002D - \textMVMinus HYPHEN-MINUS 002E . \textMVPeriod FULL STOP 002F / \textMVDivision SOLIDUS 0030 0 \textMVZero DIGIT ZERO 0031 1 \textMVOne DIGIT ONE 0032 2 \textMVTwo DIGIT TWO 0033 3 \textMVThree DIGIT THREE 0034 4 \textMVFour DIGIT FOUR 0035 5 \textMVFive DIGIT FIVE 0036 6 \textMVSix DIGIT SIX 0037 7 \textMVSeven DIGIT SEVEN 0038 8 \textMVEight DIGIT EIGHT 0039 9 \textMVNine DIGIT NINE 003C < \textless LESS-THAN SIGN 003D = \textequals EQUALS SIGN 003E > \textgreater GREATER-THAN SIGN 0040 @ \textMVAt COMMERCIAL AT 005C \ \textbackslash REVERSE SOLIDUS 005E ^ \textasciicircum CIRCUMFLEX ACCENT 005F _ \textunderscore LOW LINE 0060 ‘ \textasciigrave GRAVE ACCENT 0067 g \textg LATIN SMALL LETTER G 007B { \textbraceleft LEFT CURLY BRACKET 007C | \textbar VERTICAL LINE 007D } \textbraceright RIGHT CURLY BRACKET 007E ~ \textasciitilde TILDE 00A0 \nobreakspace NO-BREAK SPACE 00A1 ¡ \textexclamdown INVERTED EXCLAMATION MARK 00A2 ¢ \textcent CENT SIGN 00A3 £ \textsterling POUND SIGN 00A4 ¤ \textcurrency CURRENCY SIGN 00A5 ¥ \textyen YEN SIGN 00A6
    [Show full text]
  • Goldstein, Paul
    Paul Goldstein Lillick Professor of Law Stanford Law School Stanford, CA 94305 18 November 2015 David Kully Chief, Litigation III Section Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice 450 5th Street NW, Suite 4000 Washington, DC 20001 [email protected] Dear Mr. Kully: I am writing to you at the request ofthe National Music Publishers' Association ("NMPA") in connection with the Department ofJustice, Antitrust Division's request for comments on PRO licensing ofjointly owned works. By way of background, I have been Professor of Law (1975-1985) and since 1985 the Lillick Professor ofLaw at Stanford Law School, where I regularly teach courses in U.S., foreign and international copyright law. I have also since 1988 been Of Counsel to the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP. I am sole author ofthe four-volume treatise, Goldstein on Copyright, (Aspen Publishers 3rd ed. 2005) updated semi-annually, and co-author with Bernt Hugenholtz of the one-volume treatise, International Copyright (Oxford University Press 3rd ed. 2013), as well as of law school casebooks on U.S. and international intellectual property law. A copy of my resume is enclosed. -1- The NMPA has asked me to provide my opinion on the following questions: 1. Do the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et. seq. ("Copyright Act"), and judicial decisions under the Copyright Act, permit the co-owner of a jointly-authored work to include in its license ofthe work to a third party a condition that, before exploiting the work, the licensee first secure a license from the other co-owner or co-owners of copyright in the work? 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Covenants Running with the Land: Viable Doctrine Or Common-Law Relic? Margot Rau
    Hofstra Law Review Volume 7 | Issue 1 Article 8 1978 Covenants Running with the Land: Viable Doctrine or Common-Law Relic? Margot Rau Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr Recommended Citation Rau, Margot (1978) "Covenants Running with the Land: Viable Doctrine or Common-Law Relic?," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 8. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol7/iss1/8 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rau: Covenants Running with the Land: Viable Doctrine or Common-Law Re NOTES COVENANTS RUNNING WITH THE LAND: VIABLE DOCTRINE OR COMMON-LAW RELIC?* Prominent legal scholars have questioned their fascination with the common-law doctrine of "covenants running with the land."' Oliver Wendell Holmes once remarked that recalling his former in- terest in the subject gave him "a spell of the dry grins." 2 Judge Charles Clark doubted that this "narrow corner of the law" de- served to have any "more good white paper" devoted to it.3 Notwithstanding the ambivalence of Justice Holmes and Judge Clark, this complex doctrine persists. Confusion and uncertainty pervade reported decisions, as courts continue to apply this relic of the days of inflexible common-law rules. Judge Clark made a comprehensive study of covenants running with the land, based on case law through the 1940's. 4 He clarified much of the confusion surrounding the doctrine, and made sugges- tions for its proper judicial use.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act Guidelines
    TEXAS PRIVATE REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS PRESERVATION ACT GUIDELINES TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1.1. The Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act 1.11. Purpose 1.12. Texas Attorney General Guidelines 1.13. Takings Impact Assessment Requirement (“TIA”) 1.2. Takings 1.21. What are takings? 1.22. Property Rights Act Definition of “Taking” 1.23. Incorporated Constitutional Definitions of “Taking” 1.24. “Regulatory Takings” or “Inverse Condemnation” Takings 1.3. Constitutional Regulatory Takings Analysis 1.31. Introduction 1.32. Federal Law 1.33. State Law 2. Applicability 2.1. Governmental Actions Covered and Exempted 2.11. Actions Covered 2.12. Actions Exempted 2.2. Takings Impact Assessment Procedures 3. Guide to Promulgating Takings Impact Assessments 3.1. Requirements for Promulgating Takings Impact Assessments 3.2. Guide to Evaluating Proposed Governmental Actions 3.21. Burden Analysis 3.22. Takings Impact Analysis Endnotes 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. The Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act 1.11. Purpose “The Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act,” Texas Government Code chapter 2007 (the Property Rights Act), represents a basic charter for the protection of private real property rights in Texas. 1 The Property Rights Act is the Legislature’s acknowledgment of the importance of protecting private real property interests in Texas. The purpose of the act is to ensure that certain governmental entities2 make a careful evaluation of their actions regarding private real property rights, and that those entities act according to the letter and spirit of the Property Rights Act. In short, the Property Rights Act is another instrument to ensure open and responsible government for Texans.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Law
    INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Intellectual property law seeks to identify and protect rights and responsibilities connected to the value of ideas. The advent of modern technology has raised the public’s awareness about the existence of intellectual property rights. This section will discuss some of the most common intellectual property interests. COPYRIGHTS The United States Constitution gives Congress the ability to establish a national system of copyrights and patents. United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clause 8. A copyright is similar to what it sounds like – a right to copy. The holder of a copyright has the exclusive right to copy, distribute, and adapt the work for which he or she holds the copyright. One may hold a copyright for various kinds of creative works, such as manuscripts, essays, art pieces, photographs, films, music, and lyrics. 17 United States Code §102. In most cases, a copyright is protected from the time the work is created until 70 years after the creator’s death. Registering a copyright has advantages, including the creation of a public record of the copyright holder’s claim, and a basis for bringing a lawsuit for copyright infringement. Infringement of a copyright may result in civil and/or criminal liability. The statute of limitations for criminal proceedings is five years, while for a civil action it is three years. 17 U.S.C. §507. PATENTS Copyrights and patents are easily confused but are two very different intellectual property interests. A patent protects an underlying idea, whereas a copyright protects the right to copy a work. Patents protect novel inventions.
    [Show full text]