Isn’t this basically the Orphaned Rights Act confirmed by court decision?
Anyway, in my opinion this continues what I consider an outright malicious strategy, to place little obstacles in the way of “ordinary” people in order to (a) silently invalidate otherwise completely natural, intrinsic rights and (b) profit from the fact that inertness and chance will work in favour of those capable of paying lawyers.
I wonder how many people on this planet would have basic human rights if this required paid registration at humanrights.gov …?
Nope, this is one more step into a utterly wrong direction and hence no surprise at all, it favours a mentality of exploitation over creativity, (wannabee) billionaires will laugh their heads off one more time …
The reality is that they have all copied the Roman Catholic Church Spa. when they realized that having the copyright on God was very profitable, they entered the businenss to compete.with God Mickey Mouse …
A “collection” is purely an administrative convenience: for one price, you register one-or-more works of the same type. Copyright protection immediately applies, severally, to all of them. (“Collection” has no legal impact.)
There is no “approval” process. From the moment you complete registration (on-line), it is registered.
Patents and Trademarks require approval. Copyrights do not. But a copyright claim can be challenged, and overturned by a court.
Your statement, that you produced the work and that you own it, is made under penalty of perjury. If you knowingly made a false statement, you’re in serious trouble.
You can easily pay $35 for dinner. Once. You might walk into an arts store to buy the supplies for a new painting and walk out having spent more than $35. It’s just a cost of doing business.
The fact that you’ve got a sealed, postmarked envelope won’t do anything to persuade me to take a chance on selling your work. I’ve got to know that my ass is covered. A registration is a matter of public record. Your envelope isn’t. The financial consequences to me of being on the wrong side of a copyright claim, brought by someone I’ve never heard of, could be disastrous. I can’t take the chance.
Copyright laws vary by country, but there are international copyright conventions to which most countries subscribe. Copyrights are often registered in multiple countries, if those countries support it.
The benefit of being multinational corporation: “Register and we’ll sell where your registration doesn’t count.”
Albert E. already knew this.
CC all the way. Just do, spread your work yourself and you’ll reap what you sow.
What this decision means, if you want copyright protection you will have to buy it from the government. This means more money coming in. Right now, to have protection you already have to buy the protection, but most artist think they don’t need to buy it. Now that it’s worded differently, there will be more money flowing into the government system. More money is the reason for the change.
EDIT: I read the article. What it says, that filing for copyrigh protection is not enough to protect your original works. It must be approved, signed and dated. Only then do you have protection. It said it takes about 1 year to get approved. This means unless your willing to truly share your work, you should never share your work until the copyright office has finished their side of the job.
Before you had protection, only because the protection was pending. Having your protection in pending is no longer justified reason for law suit.
Now I’m confused. Copyright and trademark are often mixed up. I may have been led astray. My only experience with the process was songs which were sent in via snail mail. It’s been awhile since and I do not recall if I got verification back.
You seem to have taken that 2nd quote of me out of context. We are in agreement that is bad advice. However, I hadn’t considered the freelancer/client angle. Thanks.
trademarks are usually products , say any widget and the right to produce , or sell the same but may include
logos name brands ect , copyrights are more often written, photo,art ,intellectual property,songs ect…
though a design can be in this category also IE : blueprints ect…
trademarks are normally a branding issue and a copyright is as the name imply , a copy issue
though the two are not mutually exclusive and may contain elements of both.
Yup. And i rather state, shame on “establishment” for providing “guns” to dumb.*
Art IMHO, is more in line with a food (i.e. “food for thought” & can’t be judged, as it suits everyone’s own taste)… “Can you copyright a dish?” (The Guardian)
Think global, act local!
Stand firm, open and ready
*Eveeryone has a right to self-defense, but with rights to carry a deadly weapon comes great responsibility & it’s this (sanity & reason) which must be proven.
Their “FAQ” section is very extensive (and, in some places, funny …), and deserves a careful read.
Notice that, in the eyes of US Law, the creator “has copyright” from the indefinable first moment of creation, but that registration is essential in protecting (and, documenting) those rights in any commercial situation. But that’s all that the copyright office is doing: registering your claim to a right that you already have. They don’t “approve” it – they simply “record” it. But this record, once made (under perjury), can be instantly and objectively verified by anyone, forever.
The writers of copyright law “pulled out all the stops” in defining draconian penalties which can be hurled against anyone who violates a copyright, and they slanted them squarely in favor of the creator. Which is hunky-dory if you are the creator, but it also means that, anyone whose business touches “copyrightable material” faces great risks which must be countered. Which verifiable registration will largely do.
They’re entirely justified in treating you like a “much-too hot potato” if you haven’t got it. (It’ll take you five minutes on-line, and $35.00. “Shaddup and do it.” )
Still, 35 USD a work is still pretty pricey if you make work frequently. Though the window is 3 months and the collection size can go to 100 so maybe you do it every 90 days then (if you really want the protection)?
That is unless the amount can be divided by 100 if you’re registering one work at a time and the actual cost is 35 cents (which is less than a postage stamp). I would still be surprised if this was as big a deal as some here claim, as it’s barely getting any attention at all on the websites that had multiple stories on EU’s article 13.
As for the BF getting their open movies claimed by someone else, this is not the first time this happened. In fact the last time saw their movies taken down completely.
As I understand it, this “Supreme Court” decision cannot be applied universally. There are so many countries with different regulations. And Internet is nearly everywhere. That makes decisions like this controversial. This is not “Supreme” court to me, why care?
BTW: Until there are no universal solutions (and that’s rather unlikely), copyrights will be problematic. In some cases, it helps - less limits to creativity, in others - authors suffer, when their hard work is monetized by someone else, without even credits given to original creator - and that feels totally unjust.
Yes, this doesn’t look like a ruling that prohibits you from having rights in your work unless you pay 35 dollars. This is just a ruling that says your registration has to be approved before you can sue for damages. You can share your work, then register for copyright after someone rips you off. You just won’t be able to take the infringer to court until after the registration is completed.
Say badly if I think that you Americans are afraid of the future and you have taken refuge in the past with this increasingly illogical abomination of copyright that completely clashes with the philosophy of the Internet and the human nature of sharing things and knowledge?
Here we touch the threshold of the ridiculous.
Shit, when this incentive was born in the nineteenth century was to promote creativity and collective well-being, not chaining the world.
American’s do not share. They steal, kill and destroy, it’s their way of life. This has given us very good reason to be fearful. When ever the government stands up and makes laws, we start shaking, because we only have a little bit of things left for them to take away from us.
This makes it like first comes first serve, which has nothing to do with original ownership. This path makes the situation stickier not simpler , because if someone else registers your work in their name, you have to take them to court, now it becomes your responsibility to proove that you own whatever it is.
This kind of ruling is only good for top shot hot spot artists who sell their work for big dollarz. Most artists struggle with daily life and finances, let alone having time to go through goverment agencies or courts to deal with this kind of stuff.
I wished the artists’s right to her work was accepted as solid as the mother’s right to her baby. It is undeniable and a natural right. There can be cases one has to go through court to proove or proceed further for better beings of their baby but this is a rarity not generality.
The benefit of being multinational corporation: “Register and we’ll sell where your registration doesn’t count.”
)
