I have a question regarding copyright infringement

Previous | Next
 rated by 0 users
Latest post Mon, May 1 2017 3:17 PM by jv1597. 47 replies.
  • Fri, Apr 28 2017 4:12 PM In reply to

    • DOCAR
      Lawyer
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Sat, Dec 9 2000
    • NV
    • Posts 5,469

    Re: I have a question regarding copyright infringement

    I will be happy to quote my source and it should be easy to google.

    15 USC 106(5)

    That is volume 15 united states code section 106 subparagraph 5

  • Fri, Apr 28 2017 7:16 PM In reply to

    • jv1597
      Consumer
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Sat, Apr 15 2017
    • TX
    • Posts 28

    Re: I have a question regarding copyright infringement

    Copyright grants exclusive rights to the licensor to reproduce, duplicate, perform, display, and distribute the work in whole.

     

    Copyright grants the licensor with exclusive priority for fair use of the inherently intrinsic subject matter, and scope of the copyrighted work.

     

    Copyright protection does not subsist in accordance with laws which pertain to the protection of intellectual property, and therefore, does not grant exclusive rights to the licensor to demand compensation for infringement upon intellectual ideas, concepts, and principles.

     

    "(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

     

    Copyrights grant the licensor the right to prohibit the reproduction, restrict the duplication, remove the performance, delete the display, or confiscate the distributed copyrighted material from sources which infringe upon the subject matter, and scope of the copyrighted work.

     

    In conclusion, as with a display that infringes upon the subject matter and scope of a copyrighted work, a stream that infringes upon the subject matter and scope of a copyrighted work can only be prohibited respectively of reproduction, restricted respectively of duplication, removed respectively of performance, deleted respectively of display, or confiscated respectively of distribution.

     

    So in the case of streaming of media content, the consumer, is the owner of the purchased license, and the holder of the licensed work, which is not reproduced, duplicated, performed, displayed, nor distributed.  So there is no work to be prohibited, restricted, removed, deleted, or confiscated from the media content streaming corporation.

     

    Per se.

  • Fri, Apr 28 2017 8:16 PM In reply to

    • DOCAR
      Lawyer
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Sat, Dec 9 2000
    • NV
    • Posts 5,469

    Re: I have a question regarding copyright infringement

    I will stop, as pointing out the law, which is one of the purposes of this site, and you choose to ignore it.  The law has been explained to you by two attorneys, one of whom practices regularly in Federal Court.  Go ahead a do whatever you want, since that was your intent from the beginning, but you can't say you haven't been warned.

  • Sat, Apr 29 2017 9:17 AM In reply to

    • jv1597
      Consumer
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Sat, Apr 15 2017
    • TX
    • Posts 28

    Re: I have a question regarding copyright infringement

    Do you all just judge these matters in general, or do you interpret the laws by how they're stated in the code?

    I was just wondering, because you seem somewhat intimidated by law whenever a questionable issue turns up.  All I've been able to get, as far as advice is concerned, is de facto support in practice.

     

    I don't think this issue is as much to do with whether the practice is legal at this point in time as it is to do with whether the practice (not the law) is as adequate as it should be with respect to streaming applications, principally.  I think the "Opinion of the Court" in favor media corporations is a form of extortion, stemming from lack of understanding with respect to non-profit popular franchise, competitive business, and fair use.

     

    IMO, the producers of media content get first dibbs (ie: main copyright, distribution, trailers, clippings, etc.) , and the rest is free enterprise without distribution of the copyrighted material.  Fair, and square.

     

  • Sat, Apr 29 2017 10:41 AM In reply to

    Re: I have a question regarding copyright infringement

    jv1597:
    In response to the third quote, I was just trying to determine whether a "part" in a copyrighted novel would be considered to be a word in a novel, or a sentence, and whether a part in a movie would be considered to be a singular movie frame, or a set of multiple frames of a movie.

    A single word of a book is, of course, not by itself protected by copyright. But when it comes to movies, which is what you are asking about for your app, a single frame of the movie is protected, and I earlier cited you the actual statute that says this. This is not suprising. A photograph is clearly a protected work. All a moving picture is simply a series of still photographs that when projected very quickly in succession give the appearance of moving. Each of those photos taken by the movie camera are protected works, as is the movie as a whole. As the statute makes this clear, I don't see why you are having trouble with understanding it. Yes I know you really want to pursue your idea for the app, and perhaps that is blinding you to what we have been explaining here.

    jv1597:
    f a movie is protected in part, as well as it is in whole, wouldn't that part have to be copyrighted specifically as a separate version?

    No. First, copyright protection applies to the work automatically when the work is created. As each frame of the movie is shot and recorded on film or video it becomes protected right then. Nothing more needs to be done to protect the work. Registration of the work is not required, but registration does give extra benefits for the copyright holder in enforcing his/her rights. Second, registration protects the work in its entirety and every part of it that is also protected by copyright. The registration of the entire movie is enough for the registration to protect each frame of that movie, too.

  • Sat, Apr 29 2017 11:56 AM In reply to

    • jv1597
      Consumer
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Sat, Apr 15 2017
    • TX
    • Posts 28

    Re: I have a question regarding copyright infringement

    First of all, in response to your first take on the matter, I'm not as unreasonable as you might think about getting this app out.  It's not about the app in that respect.  In response to your second reply, I think you're way off base in claiming, per se, that the work is protected at the time each frame is recorded on film.  There is some due process involved, which requires official copyright registration, so it seems you're misinterpreting the statute biasedly to some extent.  The statute clearly states that "A work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.".

    How can you protect a copyrighted material if it has yet to be copyrighted officially?

    You can't film a movie part of the way, and claim copyright protection without copyrighting it first.

    That being said, a license is not the same thing as a copyright.  A copyright grants exclusive rights to the licensor, whereas a license only allows for one, or more backup copies of the consumer's purchased copyrighted material for personal use, not for distribution.  Copyright is just what the term implies, rights with respect to copying, not intellectual infringement, as with intellectual property.  So you can't sue anyone for money, for having used a phrase in your novel on a liquor advertisement.  All the copyright owner can do is have it removed, etc..., without consideration of the impact the infringement has on the market pertaining to the copyrighted material, unless there is some form of distribution involved.

    So streaming might fall under copyright jurisdiction at this point in time, but the practice it isn't as lexically sound as it seems with respect to popular franchise inherent in modern-day commercial enterprise, with respect to free media streaming without distribution.

    Being that the streaming app is a non-profit media streaming solution, there is no legal basis for law suit other than by the "Opinion of the Court", with respect to commercial impact, which is immoral on the part of the court.

    It's like determining whether an app developer is held liable by the court for a billion dollars in damages based purely on the court's opinion.  That's largely substantial basis in practice.

     

  • Sat, Apr 29 2017 1:38 PM In reply to

    • DOCAR
      Lawyer
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Sat, Dec 9 2000
    • NV
    • Posts 5,469

    Re: I have a question regarding copyright infringement

    Again you don't understand copyright.  A copyright exists at the time the work is created, not when it is registered.  Copyright exists as a matter of common law. The statute merely grants additional protections when it is registered. It doesn't have to be registered to be copyrighted.

  • Sat, Apr 29 2017 1:57 PM In reply to

    • jv1597
      Consumer
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Sat, Apr 15 2017
    • TX
    • Posts 28

    Re: I have a question regarding copyright infringement

    Here is what I found at www.copyright.gov/fls/...  It delineates what the copyright process is like.  As far as I can tell, its similar to the patenting process.

    It reads:

    "An application for copyright registration contains three essential elements: a completed application form, a nonrefundable filing fee, and a nonreturnable deposit—that is, a copy or copies of the work being registered and “deposited” with the Copyright Office.

    When the Copyright Office issues a registration certificate, it assigns as the effective date of registration the date it received all required elements in acceptable form, regardless of how long it took to process the application and mail the certificate of registration. The time needed to process applications varies depending on the amount of material the Office is receiving and the method of application.

     Basic claims include (1) a single work; (2) multiple unpublished works if the elements are assembled in an orderly form; the combined elements bear a single title identifying the collection as a whole; the copyright claimant in all the elements and in the collection as a whole is the same; and all the elements are by the same author or, if they are by different authors, at least one of the authors has contributed copyrightable authorship to each element; and (3) multiple published works if they are all first published together in the same publication on the same date and owned by the same claimant.

    You can also register your copyright using fill-in forms TX (literary works); VA (visual arts works); PA (performing arts works, including motion pictures); SR (sound recordings); and SE (single serials)."

  • Sat, Apr 29 2017 2:14 PM In reply to

    • jv1597
      Consumer
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Sat, Apr 15 2017
    • TX
    • Posts 28

    Re: I have a question regarding copyright infringement

    To tell you the truth, I think you all are the ones who have failed to understand.  I'm not sure how many times you've claimed that I don't understand, but it's beginning to sound somewhat conspicuous on your part.

    If you look over the entire discussion, you'll find that it wasn't necessarily as much a matter concerning the understanding of copyright, as it was concerning what copyright protection entails.

    Common law digression doesn't cover it.  "Copyright" is termed as such to indicate the right to copy, respectively of fair use.  The purpose of granting rights to authors was to limit the scope of their claims, to keep from infringing upon the fair use proposed by business consumers.  Otherwise all ***heck would break loose, and they would take advantage of every opportunity to sue the pants off of harmless business consumers for loads of money, which is what has been going on for a long time now.

    So IMO, when you think copyright, you should think "the right to copy" (for purposes of distribution).  There is no copyright infringement if there is no distribution of copyrighted material.  There is only unfair use in the case of performance, or display, but not in the case of streaming of media content, as the content is transmitted (without distribution, performance, or display) by means of the copy which is licensed for personal use to the consumer who happened to purchase it legally, in observance of common law.

     

  • Sat, Apr 29 2017 4:16 PM In reply to

    • DOCAR
      Lawyer
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Sat, Dec 9 2000
    • NV
    • Posts 5,469

    Re: I have a question regarding copyright infringement

    One last time.  Copyright exists as a matter of common law. It existed to protect creators from those who would steal or improperly use their work in any form without permission.  You don't have to register anything to get copyright protection.  If you choose to register the copyright, you gain additional rights, such as the right to sue in Federal Court. It is also the case that you cannot get attorney's fees if you sue under common law copyright in state court or Federal Court if you can find Federal Jurisdiction in a copyright case.

    You also are using a narrow definittion of distribution.  A performance of a copyrighted work without permission would be actionable copyright violation.  Even when schools put on a performance of a copyrighted play or musicial they must either pay for the right to perform it, or get permission from the copyright holder to waive the fee.

    Streaming would be distribution under the legal and dictionary definition of distribution.  Even youtube, which will let you stream anything, will pull a posting at the request of the copyright holder to avoid a lenthy and expensive lawsuit.  It is up to the copyright holder to request removal, if the material does not contain a copyright notice (in which case, Youtube will pull it themselves if they catch it).

     

  • Sat, Apr 29 2017 4:40 PM In reply to

    Re: I have a question regarding copyright infringement

    jv1597:
    In response to your second reply, I think you're way off base in claiming, per se, that the work is protected at the time each frame is recorded on film.  There is some due process involved, which requires official copyright registration, so it seems you're misinterpreting the statute biasedly to some extent.  The statute clearly states that "A work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.".

    Are you not comprehending what you just quoted? The statute tells you that a work is created as soon as it fixed in some form, i.e. when the photo is imprinted on film or the image recorded on electronic media. So the moment that movie scene is shot is a work that is protected by copyright law. The producer of the work does not have to wait until the whole thing is done for copyright protection to attach. The statute tells you expressly that where the work is done over time, each part of it is considered a separate work when it is produced and thus gets copyright protection. The creator does not have to wait until the entire thing is done to get the protection of copyright law. Nor does copyright just protect the final finished product, i.e. the movie as a whole.

    I quoted to you earlier the part of the statute that expressly tells you that each frame of a movie is protected. I'll repeat it again here. 17 U.S.C. § 106(5) gives the copyright holder the exclusive rights to: “in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly.” (Bolding added.) How much clearer does Congress have to be to tell you that each frame of the video or movie is protected?

    jv1597:
    How can you protect a copyrighted material if it has yet to be copyrighted officially?

    You are not getting it. REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR COPYRIGHT PROTECTION. The Copyright Office explains this in its publication Copyright Basics: “Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is cre­ated in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who cre­ated the work.” So the very moment the work is created, it is given copyright protection. The publication later makes the point crystal clear. “The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright.” So there you have it, right from the Copyright Office itself. Registration is NOT required. Rather the work is protected from the very moment it is created.

    jv1597:
    You can't film a movie part of the way, and claim copyright protection without copyrighting it first.

    Yes, I could. You yourself quoted the statute that says the partly finished movie is itself a separate work, and I quoted to you from the Copyright Office the explanation that (1) the copyright exists from moment the work is created and (2) registration is not required to secure the copyright. So if I shoot a movie that takes 3 months to complete, I still get copyright protection in each frame I shoot as I shoot it and I do not need to register it to get that protection nor do I have to wait until the movie is complete to get that protection.

    jv1597:
    That being said, a license is not the same thing as a copyright.  A copyright grants exclusive rights to the licensor, whereas a license only allows for one, or more backup copies of the consumer's purchased copyrighted material for personal use, not for distribution.  Copyright is just what the term implies, rights with respect to copying, not intellectual infringement, as with intellectual property.

    Not so. A copyright gives the copyright owner a number of rights, as again explained by the Copyright Office in the Copyright Basics publication. “Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:

    • reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords
    • prepare derivative works based upon the work
    • distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending
    • perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audio­visual works
    • display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual  work
    • perform the work publicly (in the case of sound recordings*) by means of a digital audio transmission.

    In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribu­tion and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act.”

    jv1597:
    So streaming might fall under copyright jurisdiction at this point in time, but the practice it isn't as lexically sound as it seems with respect to popular franchise inherent in modern-day commercial enterprise, with respect to free media streaming without distribution.

    Even free distribution via streaming will violate the copyright and entitle the copyright owner to sue for infringement as well as to seek injunction against further violations of the copyright.

    jv1597:

    Being that the streaming app is a non-profit media streaming solution, there is no legal basis for law suit other than by the "Opinion of the Court", with respect to commercial impact, which is immoral on the part of the court.

    It's like determining whether an app developer is held liable by the court for a billion dollars in damages based purely on the court's opinion.  That's largely substantial basis in practice.

    You have a rather odd take on it. It is through the courts that our laws are enforced. If a court issues a money judgment agaisnt you for infringement of a copyright, the holder of that judgment will be able to attach your assets and income to collect that judgment. So simply dismissing the courts decision as somehow not important shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how our legal system functions.

    You have heard here from several lawyers explaining to you what the law is. I would strongly urge you to consult a copyright lawyer prior to starting out your app to make sure you don't end up infringing on the rights of others. The fee you pay for that advice could save you many thousands or even millions of dollars that you might end up having to pay if you get it wrong. It is well worthwhile to make that investment.

  • Sat, Apr 29 2017 5:38 PM In reply to

    • DOCAR
      Lawyer
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Sat, Dec 9 2000
    • NV
    • Posts 5,469

    Re: I have a question regarding copyright infringement

    Your understanding of the purpose of the copyright law is flawed.  The law was not passed to protect the public from litigious copyright holders, it did not narrow the rights, it expanded the rights to protect copyright holders from intentional or unthinking use of their creation without permission.

  • Sat, Apr 29 2017 5:39 PM In reply to

    • jv1597
      Consumer
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Sat, Apr 15 2017
    • TX
    • Posts 28

    Re: I have a question regarding copyright infringement

    1) How can a copyrighted work be stolen without copying of the work?

    2) The penalty for "improper" use is removal, or confiscation, no lawsuit.

    3) Copyright does not subsist as a matter of common law, it subsists as a matter of copyright law.  A copyrighted work requires submittal of an application for copyright, which is then registered for legal use in a court of law.  There is no case without the registered copyright as proof of copyright.

    4) The penalty for performance of a copyrighted work is restriction/removal of the performance.

    5) No fee is required to perform copyrighted work, all that's required is a license to perform the work.  Charging for a license for performance of a copyrighted work is extortion.

    6) Streaming does not constitute distribution.  Distribution requires reproduction/duplication, of a copyrighted work.  A copyrighted work cannot be distributed without a copy of the work in hand to distribute.

    Copyright does not grant the right to a licensor to tarrif the accessibility of the transmission of a performance, or display of a copyrighted work, which does not consist of distribution of the work.  It is unlawful to demand a fee for transmission of a performance, or display of a copyrighted work, and therefore calls for re-examination of the law.

    The public has a right to consume the information contained in any literary/audio/audiovi... work as long as the transmission of the work, does not consist of any distribution of the work in whole, or in part.

     

  • Sat, Apr 29 2017 6:29 PM In reply to

    • jv1597
      Consumer
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Sat, Apr 15 2017
    • TX
    • Posts 28

    Re: I have a question regarding copyright infringement

    Taxagent,

    1a) Why are you all so fixated on whether a person is not comprehending, or understanding whatever it is you post?  The problem isn't anything to do with miscomprehension, or misunderstanding, I'm just contesting what it is you have posted because it's incorrect.

    1b) A work cannot be protected unless it is copyrighted first.  A work is not copyrighted unless an application is submitted to the copyright office first, so the application can be registered by the copyright office, and certified.  You might be confusing registration of unpublished vs. published works with the copyright registration procedure.

    2) This discussion is not about what common practice in copyright law has to offer, it's about the inadequacy involved in the practice.

    3) Preregistration is a service intended for works that have had a history of prerelease infringement. To be eligible for preregistration, a work must be unpublished and must be in the process of being prepared for commercial distribution. It must also fall within a class of works determined by the Register of Copyrights to have had a history of infringement prior to authorized commercial distribution (not prior to registration, but to publishing for commercial distribution). Preregistration is not a substitute for registration. The preregistration application Form PRE is only available online.

    So "preregistration is not a substitute for registration".  Page 7 delineates the copyright registration procedure.  Common law does not protect works that have not been certified by the copyright office.

    4) With respect to your fourth reply, you're misinterpreting the law.

    5) With respect to your fifth reply, you're just repeating what I've already posted.

    6) With respect to your sixth reply, that's common practice, it's irrelevant.

    7) With respect to your seventh reply, again you're overlooking the context.

     

  • Sat, Apr 29 2017 6:48 PM In reply to

    • DOCAR
      Lawyer
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Sat, Dec 9 2000
    • NV
    • Posts 5,469

    Re: I have a question regarding copyright infringement

    1.  Mere performance can be a copyright violation, if that is what you are referring to.

    2.  Lawsuits are common in copyright cases.  Statutory damages which are available for registered copyrights are $750-30,000 per work or if found to be intentionl $150,000. Such damages are not available for non registered copyright holders, they can only recover actual damages including lost profits.  Read 17 USC 504

    3.  It most certainly does. copyright protection predates the federal copyright law by several hundred years.

    5. How is paying for the right to perform the work extortion.  That is how the law protects copyright holders.

    6.  Again, try the dictionary.

    The public has a right to consume the information contained in any literary/audio/audiovi... work as long as the transmission of the work, doesnot consist of any distribution of the work in whole, or in part.  

    again how would the public "consume" the information without it being distributed?

Page 2 of 4 (48 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next > | RSS

My Community

Community Membership New Users: Search Community