Owning and Using Scholarship: an IP Handbook for Teachers and Researchers

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Owning and Using Scholarship: an IP Handbook for Teachers and Researchers Owning and Using Scholarship: An IP Handbook for Teachers and Researchers Kevin L. Smith, JD Association of College and Research Libraries A division of the American Library Association Chicago, Illinois 2014 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum require- ments of American National Standard for Information Sciences– Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48- 1992. ∞ Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Smith, Kevin L. (Kevin Lindsay), 1959- author. Owning and using scholarship : an IP handbook for teachers and researchers / Kevin L. Smith, JD. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8389-8747-6 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Intellectual property--United States. 2. Copyright--United States. 3. Fair use (Copyright)--United States. 4. License agreements--United States. 5. Learning and scholarship--United States. 6. Commu- nication in learning and scholarship--United States. 7. Research- -Technological innovations. 8. Creation (Literary, artistic, etc.)- -Research. I. Title. KF2994.S63 2014 346.7304’8--dc23 2014041050 Copyright ©2014 by Kevin L. Smith, JD All rights reserved except those which may be granted by Sections 107 and 108 of the Copyright Revision Act of 1976. Printed in the United States of America. 18 17 16 15 14 5 4 3 2 1 Owning and Using Scholarship: An IP Handbook for Teachers and Researchers is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0 Contents 1 TECHNOLOGY AND THE GROWING PROBLEM OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN ACADEMIA 1 A Revolution in Copyright Law 3 The Digital Revolution 8 Living in Revolutionary Times 17 2 WHAT IS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW AND WHY DOES IT MATTER? 21 Is “Intellectual Property” the Right Name? 22 Copyright 25 Purpose and Character 25 What Can Be Protected? 27 Exclusive Rights 29 How Protection Arises 31 Copyright Term and the Public Domain 32 Infringement and Exceptions 34 Patents 37 Purpose and Character 38 Scope of Patent Protection 40 Scholars and Patented Inventions 41 Obtaining a Patent 42 Duration and Enforcement of Patents 44 Trademark 45 Purpose and Character 45 Scope of a Trademark 46 Obtaining and Maintaining a Trademark 48 Scholars and Trademark Use 50 Trade Secrets and the Role of IP in Scholarship 52 iii iv CONTENTS 3 WHO OWNS SCHOLARLY WORK? 55 Copyrights and Patents on Campus 57 Owning Copyright 60 Joint Authorship 60 Research Example—Joint Authorship 62 Work Made for Hire 63 Research Example—Work Made for Hire 65 Work Made for Hire—The Common Law “Teacher Exception” 66 Work for Hire and New Forms of Scholarship 69 Teaching Example—Work Made for Hire 70 University IP Policies 71 Copyright Policies 72 Teaching Example—The Rise of MOOCs 73 Research Example—Policy Application 76 Patent Policies 76 Trademark Policies 79 Conclusion 80 4 USING COPYRIGHTED WORKS IN SCHOLARSHIP 83 Is the Work I Want to Use Subject to Copyright Protection? 85 Works Published before 1923 86 Teaching Example—Public Domain Works 87 Works Published in the United States between 1923 and 1963 87 Federal Government Works 89 Research Example—Government Work 90 Works Lacking Minimal Creativity 90 Teaching Example—Photographic Reproduction 91 The Internet is NOT the Public Domain 92 Teaching Example—The Internet 92 Contents v Is There a License in Place that Governs My Proposed Use? 93 Commercial and Online Licenses 94 Blanket Licenses 95 Teaching Example—Course Content 96 Creative Commons Licenses 97 Research Example—CC Licenses 99 Is There a Specific Exception in the Copyright Law that Allows My Proposed Use? 99 Performances and Displays in Face-to-Face Teaching 100 Transmissions of Performances and Displays 102 Teaching Example—Hybrid Courses 107 Is My Proposed Use a “Fair Use”? 108 The Factor Analysis 110 The Second and Third Fair Use Factors 112 Fourth Factor: Effect on the Potential Markets for the Original 113 Controversial and Uncontroversial Fair Use 115 Uncontroversial Fair Use Examples 116 Fair Use Controversies 117 Fair Use Decisions in Academia 118 Who Should I Ask for Permission? 123 Research Example—Permission 126 Conclusion 126 5 COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT AND THE DISSEMINATION OF SCHOLARSHIP 127 Traditional Scholarly Publishing and Its Discontents 128 Advantages and Disadvantages—Traditional Publication in Subscription-Based Journal 133 Copyright and Control 134 Managing Copyrights 137 The Publication Contract 138 vi CONTENTS Open Access Defined 146 Open Access Definitions 148 Open-Access Options and Peer Review 151 Open-Access Journals 152 “Gold” Open Access—Publication in Wholly Open-Access Journal 158 Hybrid Publications 159 Hybrid Open-Access Publication with Traditional Publisher 162 Self-Archiving and Direct Web Publication 163 Self-Archiving 163 Green Open Access—Self-Archiving after Traditional Publication 169 Direct Web Publication 170 Direct Web Distribution—Blogs and Web-Based Discourse Spaces 175 Conclusion 175 6 BEYOND COPYRIGHT: LICENSING AND TECHNOLOGICAL PROTECTION MEASURES 177 Licensing 179 Licensing in General 179 Publication under License 179 Software Licenses and Terms of Use 181 Individual versus Enterprise-wide Licensing in Academia 184 Creative Commons Licensing 186 Creative Commons Licenses and Open-Access Journals 188 Technological Protection Measures 190 TPMs and the Future 195 Conclusion 196 Text Mining—A Licensing Quandary 197 Contents vii 7 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN A WORLD WITHOUT BORDERS 201 Bounded Jurisdictions in an Unbounded Environment 202 International Treaties 205 Unsettled Questions for the Borderless Digital World 209 Orphan Works and Copyright Reform 209 First Sale in Analog and Digital 212 Conclusion 216 WORKS CITED 217 INDEX 227 This book is dedicated with fondness and respect to the memory of my father, Lindsay Gordon Smith, who taught me both the rigors and the joys of scholarship and research. 1 Technology and the Growing Problem of Intellectual Property in Academia SCHOLARS HAVE always been plagued by an ambivalent attitude toward intellectual property, as the following simple story demonstrates. According to the legend of Saint Columba, who became the fi rst abbot of the monastery at Iona and died in 597 CE, the famous Irish saint was involved in what may have been the world’s fi rst confl ict over academic copyrights. As Butler’s Lives of the Saints (1956, 507) notes, “Like the true scholar he was, Columba dearly loved books and spared no pains to obtain them.” Th e result of this passion was the making of a surrepti- tious copy of a psalter in the possession of Columba’s former master, Finnian. When Finnian learned of the copy, which rendered his own possession no longer exclusive in the land of Ireland, he objected bit- terly. Th e dispute over who should own the copy escalated and eventu- ally reached King Diarmaid, who rendered the fi rst, and probably most cryptic, copyright verdict in recorded history. Diarmaid’s ruling, “As the 1 2 CHAPTER 1 calf belongs to the cow, so the copy belongs to the book,”1 awarded the unauthorized copy to Finnian and led to even greater conflict. Several aspects of this story from the sixth century make it particularly relevant to a discussion of intellectual property for twenty-first-century academics. First, of course, is the fact that both of the contestants for ownership of the disputed book were scholars. The tension, for scholars, between the desire to assert ownership over ideas and their expression and the need to disseminate those ideas as widely as possible in order to encourage learning and increase academic standing has existed for a very long time. And, of course, scholars are today, as they were in Columba’s time, both creators and consumers of intellectual property, a circumstance that does much to explain the persistent sense of ambiva- lence about copyrights. It is worth pointing out that Columba’s copying did not deprive Finnian of the valuable manuscript he had obtained. The “non-exclusive” nature of intellectual property remains a fundamental problem for copyright regulation in particular. Second, we should note that neither Finnian nor Columba had much in the way of economic incentive; their conflict was about reputation more than money. When the modern forerunners of copyright law developed in the seventeenth century, they were always primarily aimed at creating economic incentives, which is one reason they have never fit comfortably with the needs and concerns of scholars.2 As copyright scholar William Patry (2009) notes, these economic incentives work best when consumers set the value for intellectual content and creators benefit directly from that value exchange. For academics, however, publishing intermediaries both set the value for scholarly works and collect all the profits, so there is a fundamental failure in the incentive structure. Finally, there is a modern ring to the realization that the legal rul- ing intended to settle this dispute did no such thing; ultimately (and 1. The wording of the verdict varies slightly in different sources. This particular version is taken from the modern retelling of this “well-attested” legend by James J. O’Donnell (1998, 92). 2. For the origins of modern copyright law, see Patterson 1968 and Rose 1993. Technology and the Growing Problem of Intellectual Property in Academia 3 for reasons more complex than just a dispute over rights to a copy of the psalms), Columba’s clan fought a short war with the followers of Diarmaid, which led directly to Columba’s exile and settlement of Iona (see Butler 1956, 508). For us, the point is that, even fifteen centuries ago, legal rules based on analogies with personal or real property (like a cow!) seemed ill-suited to settle the disputes that arise over intellectual property, especially among academics. As we shall see, this “property” language has always been problematic and is especially ill-suited for thinking about IP in the age of the Internet (see Patry 2009, 109–31). The regulation of intellectual property has obviously come a long way since King Diarmaid issued his decision.
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]
  • Beyond Authorship Refiguring Rights in Traditional Culture and Bioknowledge
    Beyond Authorship Refiguring Rights in Traditional Culture and Bioknowledge Martha Woodmansee and Peter Jaszi An “author” in the modern sense is the creator of unique literary, or artistic, “works” the originality of which warrants their protection under laws of intellectual property -- Anglo American “copyright” and European “authors’ rights.” This notion is so firmly established that it persists and flourishes even in the face of contrary experience. Experience tells us that our creative practices are largely derivative, generally collective, and increasingly corporate and collaborative. Yet we nevertheless tend to think of genuine authorship as solitary and originary. This individualistic construction of authorship is a relatively recent invention, the result of a radical reconceptualization of the creative process that culminated less than two centuries ago in the heroic self-presentation of Romantic poets. In the view of poets from Herder and Goethe to Wordsworth and Coleridge genuine authorship is originary in the sense that it results not in a variation, an imitation, or an adaptation, and certainly not in a mere reproduction, but in a new, unique -- in a word, “original” -- work which, accordingly, may be said to be the property of its creator and to merit the law’s protection as such.1 With its emphasis on originality and self-declaring creative genius, this notion of authorship has functioned to marginalize or deny the work of many creative people: women, non-Europeans, artists working in traditional forms and genres, and individuals engaged in group or collaborative projects, to name but a few. Exposure of these exclusions -- the recovery of marginalized creators and underappreciated forms of creative production -- has been a central occupation of cultural studies for several 1 See Martha Woodmansee, “The Genius and the Copyright: Economic and Legal Conditions of the Emergence of the ‘Author’”; rpt.
    [Show full text]
  • Az Enyém, a Tied És a Miénk a Szellemi Tulajdonban
    Bobrovszky Jenő Az enyém, a tied és a miénk a szellemi tulajdonban Áttekintés a közkincs és a szellemi magántulajdon egyes összefüggéseiről az Internet tükrében Mottó - „Az enyim, a tied mennyi lármát szüle, Miolta a miénk nevezet elüle.” (Csokonai Vitéz Mihály: Az estve) - Salus populi suprema lex (A legfőbb törvény a közjó). (Cicero, a XII táblás törvény nyomán) - „Une oevre ne tombe pas dans le domaine public. Elle s´y élève.” (Egy mű nem hullik a közkincsbe, hanem oda felemelkedik.) (Francia weblap mottója) Megjegyzés: Ezt a szakmai esszét, amely most elektronikus formában, szélesebb körben válik hozzáférhetővé, eredeti változatában a Gyertyánfy Péter kedves barátom és nagyszerű kollegám tiszteletére az ELTE ÁJK Polgári Jogi Tanszéke által megjelentetett Liber Amicorumba írtam 2008 januárjában, az ünnepi dolgozatokhoz illően komoly témáról, de könnyed, olvasmányosnak szánt, baráti stílusban. Köszönet: Köszönetemet fejezem ki Dr. Faludi Gábornak és Dr. Gödölle Istvánnak, akik értékes észrevételeikkel hozzájárultak az anyag csiszolásához. Ha ennek ellenére nem elég fényes, az az én hibám. Köszönöm továbbá Párkányi Máriának az általam gépelt kézirat „szépítgetését”. 1 I. A téma, a cím és a műfaj magyarázata 1. A téma 1.1. Közismert tény, hogy a szellemi tulajdon jelentőségének ugrásszerű felértékelődése az elmúlt 10-15 évben ment végbe. Addig csendes, szunyókáló, csak szűk körű szakembergárdának érthető, elitista jogterület volt, ahogy egyesek ironikusan mondják, „a szabadalmi és szerzői jogászok homokozója”. A 90-es évek elejétől kezdve azonban a szellemi tulajdon addig perifériális témaköre a Kereskedelmi Világszervezetben (World Trade Organization=WTO) a nemzetközi kereskedelmi politika egyik központi kérdésévé vált. A szellemi javak privatizációjával és kommercializálásával kapcsolatos új, fokozottabb követelmények a szellemi tulajdonjogok világkereskedelmi vonatkozásait szabályozó, globális hatályú un.TRIPS Megállapodásban (a továbbiakban: TRIPS=Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) nyertek kifejezést.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Rights – II
    KLE LAW ACADEMY BELAGAVI (Constituent Colleges: KLE Society’s Law College, Bengaluru, Gurusiddappa Kotambri Law College, Hubballi, S.A. Manvi Law College, Gadag, KLE Society’s B.V. Bellad Law College, Belagavi, KLE Law College, Chikodi, and KLE College of Law, Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai) STUDY MATERIAL for IPR II Prepared as per the syllabus prescribed by Karnataka State Law University (KSLU), Hubballi Compiled by Dundappa B. Solapure, Principal K.L.E.Society's Law College, Chikodi This study material is intended to be used as supplementary material to the online classes and recorded video lectures. It is prepared for the sole purpose of guiding the students in preparation for their examinations. Utmost care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the content. However, it is stressed that this material is not meant to be used as a replacement for textbooks or commentaries on the subject. This is a compilation and the authors take no credit for the originality of the content. Acknowledgement, wherever due, has been provided. Course –III: Optional –V Intellectual Property Rights – II Study Materials on Intellectual Property Rights – II Objectives: Intellectual Property law has assumed great importance in recent times as a result of the recognition that “knowledge is property”. The creations of the human brain as IP Legislations are required to be understood and protected. The syllabus encompassing all relevant IP Legislations in India with a view to understand and adjust with changing needs of the society because creative works useful to society and law relating to innovation/creativity i.e. Intellectual Property is one of the fastest growing subjects all over the globe because of its significance and importance in the present era.
    [Show full text]
  • Censorship, Copyright, and Free Speech: Some Tentative Skepticism About the Campaign to Impose First Amendment Restrictions on Copyright Law
    CENSORSHIP, COPYRIGHT, AND FREE SPEECH: SOME TENTATIVE SKEPTICISM ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN TO IMPOSE FIRST AMENDMENT RESTRICTIONS ON COPYRIGHT LAW CHRISTOPHER L. EISGRUBER* INTRODUCTION A burgeoning tide of scholarship urges courts to subject copyright law to heightened scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause. Articles of this genre commonly begin by trying to shock the reader into recognizing the repressive character of copyright law. For example: ‘‘In some parts of the world, you can go to jail for reciting a poem in public without permission from state-licensed authorities. Where is this true? One place is the United States of America [if the poem in question is protected by copyright].’’1 Another example: ‘‘Copyright gives the government authority to seize books and enjoin their sale, award damages against booksellers, or even send them to jail. If the justification were anything other than copyright, these sweeping powers would be seen as a gaping hole at the heart of free speech rights.’’2 The authors then go on to make a variety of recommendations, some more radical than others, but all variations upon the same message: copyright law has been unjustifiably exempted from First Amendment * Director, Program in Law and Public Affairs, and Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Public Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and the University Center for Human Values, Princeton University. For useful comments on earlier drafts, I am grateful to Phil Weiser and Tom Nachbar, and to participants in the University of Colorado’s Silicon Flatirons Telecommunications Program 2003 Conference on ‘‘Models of Regulation for the New Economy.’’ 1. Jed Rubenfeld, The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright’s Constitutionality, 112 YALE L.J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Scholar, the Intellectual, and the Essay: Weber, Lukács, Adorno, and Postwar Germany Peter Uwe Hohendahl the German Quarter
    The Scholar, the Intellectual, and the Essay: Weber, Lukács, Adorno, and Postwar Germany Peter Uwe Hohendahl The German Quarterly, Vol. 70, No. 3. (Summer, 1997), pp. 217-232. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0016-8831%28199722%2970%3A3%3C217%3ATSTIAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H The German Quarterly is currently published by American Association of Teachers of German. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/aatg.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org Mon May 28 03:37:07 2007 PETERUWEHOHENDAHL Cornell University The Scholar, the Intellectual, and the Essay: Weber, Lukacs, Adorno, and Postwar Germany Since the late 1980s the intellectual has Is there a difference between the approach been under attack-not only in this coun- and style of an intellectual and that of a try, but also in Europe, and especially in scientist or a member of the political elite? Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • Traditional Knowledge & Intellectual Property: a TRIPS-Compatible
    Vanderbilt University Law School Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2005 Traditional Knowledge & Intellectual Property: A TRIPS-Compatible Approach Daniel J. Gervais Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications Part of the Contracts Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Daniel J. Gervais, Traditional Knowledge & Intellectual Property: A TRIPS-Compatible Approach, 2005 Michigan State Law Review. 137 (2005) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/830 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,1 2 1/,1( Citation: 2005 Mich. St. L. Rev. 137 2005 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Mon Jun 4 15:16:16 2012 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. Retrieved from DiscoverArchive, Vanderbilt University’s Institutional Repository This work was originally published in 2005 Mich. St. L. Rev. 137 2005 TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE & INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: A TRIPS-COMPATIBLE APPROACH Daniel Gervais" 2005 MICH. ST. L. REV. 137 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................ 137 I. TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE & INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ...... 140 II. COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS ................................ 149 A. Nature of the Owner ................................ 149 B. Nature of the Object ................................ 151 C. Nature of the Right(s) ..............................
    [Show full text]
  • Trends of Internationalization in China's Higher
    US-China Education Review B, January 2019, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1-12 doi: 10.17265/2161-6248/2019.01.001 D D AV I D PUBLISHING Trends of Internationalization in China’s Higher Education: Opportunities and Challenges∗ Phylis Lan Lin University of Indianapolis, Indianapolis, USA; Assumption University, Bangkok, Thailand Quality of higher education is a key to national economic growth and social development. Internationalization of higher education has been one of the major national trends and governmental agendas in many emerging countries in the past few years. International education is transformative. With globalization and the development of the Internet of Things, internationalization of higher education has become an important national goal in China. The purpose of this paper is threefold: (a) to describe a brief history of internationalization of higher education in China; (b) to conceptualize the dualism of internationalization of higher education, the role of the government, and China’s 13th Five Year Plan in China; and (c) to delineate the challenges and opportunities of international collaborations, especially in the dual-degree model under international partnership programs between China and the United States. Keywords: internationalization, higher education, China, dual degree, one belt, one road, University of Indianapolis, international partnership, international education Introduction: The Importance of Internationalization in Higher Education Quality of higher education is a key to national economic growth and social development. Internationalization of higher education has been one of the major national trends and governmental agendas in many emerging countries in the past few years. “Internationalization of education is the process of integrating an international/intercultural dimension into the teaching, research, and service functions of the institutions” (Knight, 1997, p.
    [Show full text]
  • INTELLECTUAL PRIVILEGE: Copyright, Common Law, and The
    INTELLECTUAL PRIVILEGE Copyright, Common Law, and the Common Good TOM W. BELL Arlington, Virginia Founders’ Copyright 2014 by Tom Bell. (See opposite for more information.) Second printing, April 2018 Printed in the United States of America Mercatus Center at George Mason University 3434 Washington Blvd., 4th Floor Arlington, VA 22201 www.mercatus.org 703-993-4930 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bell, Tom W. Intellectual privilege : copyright, common law, and the common good / Tom W. Bell. pages cm ISBN 978-0-9892193-8-9 (pbk.) -- ISBN 978-0-9892193-9-6 (e-book (kindle)) 1. Copyright--United States. I. Title. KF2994.B45 2014 346.7304’82--dc23 2014005816 COPYRIGHT NOTE Not long ago, in “Five Reforms for Copyright” (chapter 7 of Copyright Unbalanced: From Incentive to Excess, published by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in 2012), I suggested that the United States should return to the kind of copyright the Founders supported: the one they created in their 1790 Copyright Act. The Founders’ copyright had a term of only fourteen years with the option to renew for another fourteen. It conditioned copyright on the satisfaction of strict statutory formali- ties and covered only maps, charts, and books. The Founders’ copyright protected only against unauthorized reproductions and offered only com- paratively limited remedies. This book follows through on that policy advice. The Mercatus Center and I agreed to publish it under terms chosen to recreate the legal effect of the Founders’ 1790 Copyright Act. For example, the book’s copy- right will expire in 2042 (if not before), and you should feel free to make a movie or other derivative work at any time.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright in an Era of Information Overload: Toward the Privileging of Categorizers
    Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship 1-2007 Copyright in an Era of Information Overload: Toward the Privileging of Categorizers Frank Pasquale Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Science and Technology Law Commons Copyright in an Era of Information Overload: Toward the Privileging of Categorizers Frank Pasquale 60 Vand. L. Rev. 135 (2007) Environmental laws are designed to reduce negative externalities (such as pollution) that harm the natural world. Copyright law should adjust the rights of content creators in order to compensate for the ways they reduce the usefulness of the information environment as a whole. Every new work created contributes to the store of expression, but also makes it more difficult to find whatever work one wants. "Search costs" have been well- documented in information economics and addressed by trademark law. Copyright law should take information overload externalities like search costs into account in its treatment of alleged copyright infringers whose work merely attempts to index, organize, categorize, or review works by providing small samples of them. These categorizers are not "'free riding" off the labor of copyright holders. Rather, they are creating the navigational tools and filters that help consumers make sense of the ocean of expression copyright holders have created. The new scholarship of cultural environmentalism lays the groundwork for a better understanding of the costs, as well as the benefits, of copyrighted expression. Any expression that signals something to one who wants exposure to it may constitute noise to thousands of others. By modeling information overload as an externality imposed by copyrighted works generally, this article attempts to provide a new economic justification for more favorable legal treatment of categorizers, indexers, and reviewers.
    [Show full text]
  • WRF Attorneys Featured in ABA Program on Copyright Protection −
    PRESS RELEASE WRF Attorneys Featured in ABA Program on Copyright Protection − October 15, 2003 Practice Areas WRF attorneys Scott E. Bain and Bruce G. Joseph were featured − speakers in a copyright program entitled "Laws, Licenses, and Copyright Intellectual Property Technical Locks: The Future of Digital and High Definition Patent Entertainment Content" at the 2003 annual meeting of the American Trademark Bar Association Section of International Law and Practice in Brussels, Belgium. Mr. Bain, Vice President of the section's Intellectual Property Rights Committee, chaired the program, which focused on recent legislative, licensing and judicial "copy protection" developments. Explaining the impetus for the program, Mr. Bain noted that "copyright owners increasingly are using technical protection measures such as encryption and watermarks to protect audio or audiovisual works above and beyond copyright laws," and that the U.S. Congress and the European Union both are examining the impact of certain copy protection licenses and proposed government mandates. Mr. Joseph, leader of the WRF Copyright Practice Group, was one of three legal experts who discussed various copy protection issues. He has long been an active participant in numerous inter-industry copy protection initiatives and legislative debates and negotiations. He began by describing anti-circumvention laws as "paracopyright," noting that, unlike copyright law, technical protection measures can impose absolute restrictions on the use of a work, regulate more types of use and do not necessarily reflect the same balancing of interests as copyright law. Moreover, "since you can’t put a judge on a chip," Mr. Joseph explained, "technical protection measures can prevent or limit fair use" and other lawful uses of copyrighted works.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trans-Pacific Partnership
    OCTOBER 2016 JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIES THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP: COPYRIGHT LAW, THE CREATIVE INDUSTRIES, AND INTERNET FREEDOM DR MATTHEW RIMMER PROFESSOR OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INNOVATION LAW FACULTY OF LAW QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Queensland University of Technology 1 Executive Summary This submission provides a critical analysis of the copyright sections of Chapter 18 of the Trans-Pacific Partnership on intellectual property. In National Interest Analysis, the Australian Government asserts that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a merely recapitulation of existing agreements: The TPP Intellectual Property Chapter is consistent with Australia’s existing intellectual property regime and will not require any changes to Australia’s legislation. Minor regulatory changes relating to encoded broadcasts will be required to extend to Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei Darussalam and New Zealand the benefits in Part VAA of the Copyright Act 1968 that Australia already extends to parties to the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations 1961 (the Rome Convention). The TPP does not require an increase in the term of copyright protection in Australia, nor any other changes to Australia’s copyright regime, including with respect to technological protection measures. The TPP standard with respect to ISPs is consistent with Australia’s existing ISP liability regime and will not require ISPs to monitor, report or penalise copyright infringement. However, such an assertion is not well-founded. A close examination of the Trans-Pacific Partnership reveals that the agreement has obligations above and beyond existing agreements – such as the TRIPS Agreement 1994 and the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004.
    [Show full text]