False Copyright Claims 268
FreetoCopy writes "Teenagers downloading music may not be the worst copyright offenders. See this item (available for download in PDF file with free registration) about the growing problem of copyfraud — in which publishers, archives, and distributors make false claims of copyright to shut down free expression. From the paper: 'Copyfraud is everywhere. False copyright notices appear on modern reprints of Shakespeare's plays, Beethoven's piano scores, greeting card versions of Monet's Water Lilies, and even the US Constitution. Archives claim blanket copyright in everything in their collections. Vendors of microfilmed versions of historical newspapers assert copyright ownership. These false copyright claims, which are often accompanied by threatened litigation for reproducing a work without the owner's permission, result in users seeking licenses and paying fees to reproduce works that are free for everyone to use...'"
Re:There should be consequence (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:There should be consequence (Score:3, Interesting)
As an ebook publisher making pocket change (Score:3, Interesting)
For instance, I have made a little pocket change reprinting a rare 1863 cookbook. By no means am I getting rich off of it, but I do put a copyright on the ebooks I sell just to have some legal options. I don't care if someone prints it out and OCRs it, there isn't a thing in the world I could do about that. But I had to spend a couple of days OCRing the material, cleaning it up, and formatting it. Anyone else wanting to sell it, or give it away, should have to do the same, not swipe my work.
How exactly should someone be able to just start reselling my ebook and why is that wrong of me to put a copyright notice on it?
Transporter_ii
At least they should be required to say WHY (Score:3, Interesting)
All of these, without exception, bear the notice "Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission."
In the case of articles published before 1923 (and don't you think it's interesting that the Globe cuts off at exactly 1923?) I completely fail to see how these can be anything other than a faithful reproduction of a work published in the United States before 1923.
Darn it, at the very least, if someone is going to claim copyright in something, they should be required to give an explicit statement of the legal basis for their claim. Maybe there's some way this material is copyrighted, but in the case of material that every university library guideline says is in the public domain, the burden of proof... or at least, the burden of saying why this is an exception to the general rule... should fall on the person making the assertion.
Re:All over the place. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think part of the problem is that the organization issuing the takedowns might actually think they own them, because they own things that use them. Thus a "public hanging" would be out of place.
If I scan and post a picture of the Mona Lisa out of an art history book, am I making an illegal reproduction of part of that book? The IP rights get cloudy when you consider: If I download an unliscensed/illegal MP3 of a song, but I own a CD with that same song on it, the downloaded copy is still illegal. If the source is considered for MP3s why wouldn't it be considered for the Mona Lisa?
Bill Gates's Corbis does this (Score:2, Interesting)
'Sweat of the brow' not copyrightable (Score:2, Interesting)
So while there may be something about your e-book that is protectable, the OCR of the original text almost certainly does not qualify.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v
Re:All over the place. (Score:3, Interesting)
- Ok in the interest of following the call for "public hangings" in the GGP: If I make prints from my own source, but Getty Digital Archives believes that it is theirs and they make eBay close my online vending page: Does Getty deserve a "public hanging"? I believe you called for the full weight of Purjury charges to be applied in the case of false DMCA takedowns.
It's a twisty, ambiguous, and nuanced area of law,
-In general I think any laws that can't be clearly understood by an average highschool gradute need to be scrapped and rewritten. If for no other reason but that they can be clearly understood by a jury expected to rule on them.
Sometimes not fraud, but sheer ignorance... (Score:4, Interesting)
I sell out of print books on eBay. There is a certain historic African-American sorority that published a quite hard to find history of the organization -- tends to bring triple-digit prices when you can find a copy. I've been fortunate enough to twice have found a copy (once at an estate sale, once in a Goodwill), and both times when it was listed on eBay, I was INUNDATED with hostile messages from members of that sorority. Apparently, they believe that the fact that the book is copyrighted means that only THEY can sell copies, and only to fellow members -- as far as they are concerned, I don't have the right to read it or even posess it, let alone sell it! Both times, they lodged complaints with eBay who politely explained to them the right of resale and the fact that pretty much every used book sold, whether on eBay or in your local book nook, is copyrighted. But that didn't stop them from continuing to harass me and threaten me with legal action (take yer best shot, I told 'em). Really makes one wonder what sort of deep, dark secrets are in that book that they don't want any "outsiders" to get their hands on a copy!