Posted by: CurtisNeeley
January 3, 2012 @ 10:52pm
The “Richard Prince” decision will impact little regarding how copy[rite] law is amended to deal with artists asserting individual personal rights today or how the modern world deals morally and ethically with IP-backwards United States’ copy[rite]... Read more...
Replies: 0Posted by: williamsonl
January 2, 2012 @ 2:16pm
If the changes are such that it transforms the work (and there is no definition of this; it would be a matter of opinion if it ever came to court) then the creator would own copyright for the new work.
Replies: 3Posted by: williamsonl
January 2, 2012 @ 2:14pm
If the photo is one taken from a photo shoot by a previous magazine, then odds are the magazine owns the rights to the photo and they would need permission to reprint it.
If her garden is visible without coming onto the property then taking a... Read more...
Replies: 1Posted by: williamsonl
January 2, 2012 @ 2:11pm
Sorry it took so long to get a reply. This sight will be taken down shortly for maintenance so we are not monitoring it closely right now.
If something is in the public domain, then anyone is free to use it. Scanning it into a database does not... Read more...
Replies: 3Posted by: williamsonl
January 2, 2012 @ 2:04pm
Cartoons characters are also, possibly, covered by trademark law. Might this be fair use? Possibly. You would need to look at the 4 factors and decide. Disney in particular is infamous for going after even the individual when they perceive a violation. ... Read more...
Replies: 1Posted by: JanetCroft
December 14, 2011 @ 12:52pm
This site only deals with copyright issues. You'd have better luck taking your question to a site discussing patent issues.
Replies: 1Posted by: williamsonl
November 28, 2011 @ 9:54am
This is really a legal question pertaining to works for hire. You would need to consult internal policy and contracts for ownership of works created for your job
Replies: 1Posted by: williamsonl
October 24, 2011 @ 1:11pm
My first instinct would be to say that this is likely covered in the license you agree to when you subscribe. I went and looked at Pandora and it says 'private, non-commercial use', a pretty vague term unless you are a bar owner. So it would come down, in... Read more...
Replies: 1Posted by: williamsonl
October 24, 2011 @ 12:48pm
Although it is a derivative of a public domain work, there is likely enough originality to make the translation eligible for copyright. The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first... Read more...
Replies: 1Posted by: williamsonl
October 24, 2011 @ 12:43pm
You didn't ask a question here. Are you asking who owns the posters now? Was there any type of written contract with the theater? Did you receive pay? Are you consider an employee of any type? Basically, it can either be considered a work-for-hire, in... Read more...
Replies: 1Posted by: williamsonl
October 24, 2011 @ 12:34pm
Janet is right--sometimes it's nearly impossible to determine the copyright owner of a photograph. And Neilma is right--there is no definitive answer. Once you've exhausted all your resources to find out the owner, you will have to make a decision based... Read more...
Replies: 6Posted by: williamsonl
October 24, 2011 @ 12:32pm
It really just depends. In general the answer is no, you cannot copy material from a textbook and basically creating a derivative work from it without permission. Are the flashcards limited to students enrolled in a class where the textbook is used? Then... Read more...
Replies: 2Posted by: JanetCroft
October 24, 2011 @ 12:17pm
It's generally the instructor, unless you specifically signed a contract stating it was a work for hire. Your school should have a copyright policy clearly stating this.
Replies: 1Posted by: GClement
September 24, 2011 @ 11:56am
Without seeing the exact design of your website, it is hard to know exactly how you plan to reproduce the logos. That said, it sounds like your use of other people's logos could constitute Trademark and Copyright Infringement.
The... Read more...
Replies: 1Posted by: JanetCroft
September 19, 2011 @ 12:44pm
The only copyright problem you might have is that these charts will be copyrighted by you, automatically. If you like giving them away free, you might want to clarify this for people who use them by registering them under a Creative Commons license. Just... Read more...
Replies: 1Posted by: Freya Anderson
September 16, 2011 @ 6:24pm
Hi Graham~
With US law, it's hard for me to see how what you describe would cause any problems through copyright law itself, but it seems like there could be issues with contract law or other areas of law. It seems to me that this is an issue... Read more...
Replies: 1Posted by: GClement
September 16, 2011 @ 3:35pm
Nithi,
Since the other website is probably copyrighted, you need to be sure that your website has not used the original and creative elements contained in the other website, such as images, designs, etc. The basic design of the other... Read more...
Replies: 1Posted by: GClement
September 14, 2011 @ 12:29pm
Hello lowrider2072005
The scenario you are describing suggests that you could be infringing on copyright protection covering the labels, which often contain colorful or artful images, graphics, etc. So you need to evaluate whether the... Read more...
Replies: 2Posted by: GClement
September 14, 2011 @ 12:20pm
Hi Caitem,
Just to clarify, the provisions for using Elmo to project images during storytime rely on § 109 · Limitations on exclusive rights:
Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord, as follows:
(c)... Read more...
Replies: 1Posted by: JanetCroft
September 6, 2011 @ 12:26pm
It's not the best contract in the world, but it does give him the right to submit his work elsewhere. If it were me, I'd prefer to own my own copyright, but this isn't as bad as it could be, since he still has that right.
Replies: 4Posted by: GClement
September 4, 2011 @ 5:49am
I agree with LWilliamson that it is up to you to decide whether or not to comply with the terms of the license that the publisher attached tothe PDF. They apparently did NOT choose to use a Creative Commons license, which *is* legally defensible. It is... Read more...
Replies: 4Posted by: williamsonl
August 24, 2011 @ 9:36am
I don't believe there is a real question of 'rights' here. The translation is not a legal property so doesn't really convey any rights. My layman's opinion would be that the illegal translations would belong to the publisher, but what they could do with... Read more...
Replies: 1Posted by: williamsonl
August 24, 2011 @ 9:21am
It will be almost impossible for you to determine the copyright status of most of these photographs. Or even if they are even legal copies. If it is a legal copy or original, you can display or sell the print that you own. You may not make any additional... Read more...
Replies: 1Posted by: williamsonl
August 24, 2011 @ 9:10am
Depends on what you are using it for and how much you are using. This could possibly fall under fair use and be considered transformative. Do you intend to sell it? That counts against you. And you could be well within your rights and still receive an... Read more...
Replies: 1Posted by: GClement
August 4, 2011 @ 12:03pm
Hello CartoonEtc,
If you created your own original poster designs, you own the copyright in them and may reproduce, distribute, modify them as you see fit. However, what I am not sure about is whether your posters are truly original, or... Read more...
Replies: 2