How does Copyrighting work?

[Storm Raven]

Heh, good luck trying to enforce your million dollar US law-court award for copyright infringement against somebody in a non-US jurisdiction. About as likely* as US courts enforcing French judgements fining Yahoo for offering Nazi memorabilia on Yahoo.com.

*Leaving aside possible bribery & intimidation of third-world jurisdictions.

That's why you sue under sections of the law that implement portions of international copyright treaties that both nations are signatories to. It's hard for a defendant to argue that the judgment against him shouldn't be enforced when the law he's violated is identical in both nations.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Ewps.

 

[S'mon]

That's why you sue under sections of the law that implement portions of international copyright treaties that both nations are signatories to. It's hard for a defendant to argue that the judgment against him shouldn't be enforced when the law he's violated is identical in both nations.

Um, even if both nations are signed up to the WCT (WIPO Copyright Treaty) and have fully implemented it into domestic law, you still get the situation that with the way US punitive damages work a US civil action for copyright infringement can (in theory) give a $1 million dollar award for what in (eg) the UK would net you a £100 award, if that. No way you'll get a UK court to enforce the $1 million; and if you just want the £100 you might as well sue in UK to start with, you'll have to appear in the UK court anyway.

 

[Umbran]

I love how perception is always so far from reality...

Yes, like the perception that you have to register for a copyright. You don't. Registeringing for copyright makes enforcement much, much easier, but it is by no means required.

 

[S'mon]

Yes, like the perception that you have to register for a copyright. You don't. Registeringing for copyright makes enforcement much, much easier, but it is by no means required.

In 1930s America, you had to register your Copyright. But you knew that, right?

Edit: mutter... US as as nation of copyright pirates... Universal Copyright Convention... Berne Convention... mutter... US only recently signed up... mutter...

 

[S'mon]

Here's an article about the (lack of) copyright of the Conan stories by REH:
http://www.robert-e-howard.org/AnotherThought4ws02.html

You'll also find the Cthulu stories by HPL online, since they, like Conan, are also in the Public Domain. I should point out that Elric & Melnibone are very definitely not in the Public Domain though, there were no registration requirements for copyright in UK law when they were published, and on current law they will stay in copyright for the lifetime of Michael Moorcock + 70 years.

 

[Ry]

Hahahahaaaa.. .. hahaha.. heh.

"How does copyright work?" he says.

Hahaha... hehe, phew...

hehee... heh.

 

[Andor]

And while most people here probably know this it is worth noting that Copyrights and Trademarks are different things entirely. It's impossible to lose copyright (except perhaps by dieing and coming back 71 years later...) but failure to defend trademarks can result in their loss. These guys HAVE to be pricks about it. OTOH if you put 'used without permission' next to a trademarky thing you are not longer threatening to steal it and they can relax a bit.

 

[Storm Raven]

Yes.

Fair Use allows you to make copies for Personal, non-profit use. Putting it on the internet may not be found "personal" use, even if not for profit.

It's both a little more limited and expansive than that. Fair Use allows you to make copies for uses that, as a matter of public policy, Congress has deemed to be "good".

So, for example, reviews of work are considered a good thing, so using excerpts of a work in a published review would generally qualify as fair use. Scholarship on a subject is considered a good thing, so copying an excerpt from a paper for use in teaching a high school class would frequently be seen as fair use (taking into consideration the amount copied and so on). And so on. Fair use is not limited to personal, non-profit use, you could make money selling the magazine that the review is in for example. It also does not cover all personal, non-profit use - witness the music downloading cases. It covers what it says it covers, nothing more, and nothing less.

 

[Storm Raven]

Um, even if both nations are signed up to the WCT (WIPO Copyright Treaty) and have fully implemented it into domestic law, you still get the situation that with the way US punitive damages work a US civil action for copyright infringement can (in theory) give a $1 million dollar award for what in (eg) the UK would net you a £100 award, if that. No way you'll get a UK court to enforce the $1 million; and if you just want the £100 you might as well sue in UK to start with, you'll have to appear in the UK court anyway.

The reason you would sue in the U.S. in this circumstance, then enforce the portion of your judgment that you can in the U.K. (even though the U.K. court would grant you a tiny portion of the U.S. award), is that the U.S. judgment would remain unsatisfied. Which means that you can attach any of the defendant's assets in the U.S., generally at any time during the twenty years after you got the original judgment (the SoL in many states for enforcement of judgments). And most people (or companies) that you are going to sue for $100 million have assets you can target.