Today, with the increase in the amount of information, the spread of new types of its carriers, the issue of copyright is most acute. There are so many questions about the use of copyrighted materials, and the polarity of opinions ranges from "everything is possible" to "nothing is allowed", which gave rise to some myths.

A work is not protected unless there is a copyright notice on it. This approach was traditional for countries with an Anglo-Saxon legal system. However, in 1886, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Property appeared, which changed the approach. This multifaceted document itself is almost the main one today, regulating copyright issues. Thanks to him, in the United States since April 1, 1989, all original works created by the work of the author are protected by law without having a copyright notice on them. That is, a work can be considered under the protection of the law if there is no firm belief that it is not protected. Indeed, there are some materials that are no longer protected because they do not have the mentioned notice. However, one thing is clear - you should not take risks in this matter if there is no firm certainty. The very same copyright notice strengthens the protection even more - thus the author seems to warn his potential users about the protection of his labor, and it will be easier for lawyers to prove the fact of copyright infringement in court. So any work that can be protected by law will, in fact, be protected by it. A similar approach applies to photographs and pictures. What is printed in magazines cannot be scanned for posting on the Internet. Therefore, in this case, the slightest uncertainty about the legality of actions is the basis for refusing them. The copyright notice looks like this: "Copyright by ". Often, instead of the word "Copyright" they use the "c" sign in a circle, getting ©. However, it does not provide legal protection by law, just like the phrase "All Rights Reserved", which was used earlier.

I am not breaking the law if I do not receive profits from the use of copyrighted materials. In fact, even in this case, the court may order compensation. The fact of making a profit will only affect the size of the penalty payments. There are no other differences. Copyright infringement can cause significant real damage to the copyright holder, even if you have not received income from such actions. Then the court will force you to compensate for the damage caused.

If a work is published on the Internet, then the copyright law no longer applies to it, it is in the public domain. The law states that if the term of protection for works has not expired, none of them can be in the public domain without the direct desire of the author. By such is meant his or the copyright holder's indication: "I am releasing this work into the public domain." If you think that the appearance of a work on the Internet implies the possibility of its unlimited copying, then this is a mistake. The Internet is not a system for storing and distributing copyrighted materials. The very fact of multiple copying, which is natural for the Web, does not mean that a work is being transferred to the public domain. And the law implies that copying is carried out not by computers on their own, but by people. They are the ones who give commands, and only they can get the appropriate permissions. It is believed that if someone publishes a work on the Internet, then they have rights in relation to those materials. If they do not exist, then the copies should be considered counterfeit, and the permission of the copyright holder is required for publication. As a result, there is no limitation of the author's rights. The transfer of a work to the status of the public domain means the author's complete renunciation of all rights to his work. Therefore, it is impossible to transfer a work to such a status by third-party methods only under the pretext of its non-commercial use.

There is nothing wrong with publishing someone else's work in newsgroups as a fair use. There is a whole concept of "fair use" which is an exemption from general copyright rules. This phenomenon has emerged through the creation of parodies, commentaries, research and news reports using copyrighted works without permission from the authors themselves. With this use of materials, it is necessary to strictly take into account both the intentions of the user and the possible damage to the author of the work. Citing someone else's article for criticism or using it as borrowing, since there was no opportunity to write your own - different things. Perhaps you just wanted to save money so that site visitors do not pay the authors of the materials? If the first case is likely to be recognized as "fair use", the rest will not. Fair use should not be taken as a rule, it is an exception anyway. At the same time, there are weighty restrictions: you cannot use the work in ways and volumes that are not justified by the purposes of the citation. The use of a work should not harm its commercial use; only such use that does not entail a decrease in the sale of protected labor will be fair. That is why there is a ban on complete citation of the work. The publication of works in newsgroups usually involves user comments and discussion of the original messages, which does not prejudice the commercial use of the original message. Usually such quotation is considered bona fide. The doctrine of fair use itself is not strictly defined. It is usually the court that decides on a case-by-case basis whether such use would harm the copyright. The law does not protect the facts and ideas themselves; it guards their objective expression and structure. Nobody forbids interpreting facts and presenting ideas in their own way.

If you do not use copyright, then it can be lost. In addition, some names may be protected by law. The law states that copyright cannot be lost, it can only be transferred. American law states that the titles of works are not protected by copyright, while Russian norms also give protection to the titles of works. This is possible if they are created by the creative work of the author and can be used independently. This term is justly criticized by lawyers, since it is unclear whether it will be an independent use of the song title as the title of another song? There is a more reliable way to protect names - through the trademark system. Failure to use them can lead to the loss of trademark rights. Typically, businesses seek to register trademarks for certain specific words associated with the services or goods they offer. For example, Apple Computer has the rights to the word "Apple" in relation to computers, although this word ("apple) is the most common. In relation to music, Apple Records has the rights to this word. Naturally, no company has full rights to the word itself. no, they all own it only in a certain context. And ownership of a trademark does not at all guarantee absolute rights, in this case there are some restrictions determined by law. Thus, it is prohibited to use someone else's trademark in a way that may harm its copyright holder. take advantage of the mark to get others to mistake you for its rightful owner, thereby generating illegal profits. For example, putting the MTV mark on music videos is an extremely unwise way to promote your product.

When creating your own work based on an existing one, all rights belong to the new author. Copyright laws clearly state that the creation of derivative works from existing works is the exclusive right of the author of the original material. Even the fact that the very creation of a derivative material can be an extremely creative process is not taken into account. The law states that even when writing your own story in which the heroes of someone else's work participate, you must obtain permission from the author of the original work. In American laws, in contrast to domestic ones, it is expressly stated that there is no need to obtain such permissions from authors in order to create parodies. The concept of "fair use" already mentioned applies here: if a work is only used to create a parody of it, then the creator's permission is not required. And this is by no means a loophole - it is forbidden to create a derivative work that is not a parody, but to claim it as such. In Russia, the laws are generally silent on the issue of creating parodies without the permission of the authors. So it turns out that all parody performers who have not received permission from the authors to use their works, in fact, are breaking the law.

You won't have to bear responsibility for copyright infringement - the defendant in the court has broad rights. By and large, copyright protection measures are civil law. That is why civil lawsuits are usually filed against such violators. In civil law, the principle of the presumption of innocence does not apply, in contrast to criminal law. In such a court, when considering the issue of protecting rights, the party whose arguments seem to the judge the most convincing will win.

Copyright infringement is not a crime. This is not true, such a violation is a crime. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in article 146 determines that the illegal use of copyright objects or the appropriation of authorship, in the event of major damage, may be punishable by a fine from two hundred to four hundred times the minimum wage or in the amount of the convicted person's salary for a period of two to four months. Such a measure of punishment as compulsory correctional labor from one hundred and eighty to two hundred and forty hours and even imprisonment for up to two years is also envisaged. If a crime is committed repeatedly or by a group by prior agreement, the amount of fines and the terms of punishment increase significantly. Thus, the law provides for imprisonment for up to five years.

I am not doing any harm by my actions. The author still has to thank me for the free advertising! It is up to the author himself to determine whether a work needs such free advertising. If he feels the need for it, then he himself will find persons who will do it. Do not think for him - will you bring harm to him by your actions. Why not just ask? This is usually not difficult.

I received the piece by email. Therefore, I have all the rights to publish it on the network. It is worth distinguishing between the possession of a copy of the work and the copyright to it. It is also worth considering the fact that e-mails are usually not secret. That is, sending a document in this way, followed by its quoting by the recipient on his own website, is a rather controversial situation. After all, it will be difficult to prove in court that the publication of the email violated copyright and caused economic harm.

It turns out that other people's materials cannot be used at all? The answer to this myth is essentially a generalization of the above. Copyright does not provide for an absolute prohibition on the use of other people's work. Practice has proven that the payment of royalties to authors leads to the fact that they themselves not only allow the use of their works, but often themselves participate in their publication and distribution. Copyright has two purposes: to protect the author's right to profit from his work, and to protect his rights to control where and how his work will be used. If you are sure that you do not overstep these two fundamental rights, do not appropriate authorship and the original work itself, depriving someone of legitimate profit, then the court decision will hardly be cruel towards you then.

Watch the video: Copyright Basics (October 2020).