|
|
Go to page 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
D_avid Loyal user 253 Posts |
So I'm following my dream in writing, and find myself drifting further and further away from magic. I was recently registering my copyright, and for some reason started searching the copyright data base for magic books. I couldn't find one (I'm sure there are some).
I know It's not necessary to apply for a copyright nowadays, as everything you write is automatically copyrighted. I also know some here have talked about being plagiarized, some word for word. If you copyright your stuff though the Copyright office, you have protection and the right to sue here in the US. Internationally, I know it's tougher, if not impossible. What I am wondering is why, when there is the chance your work could be lifted, people here still don't spend the $35 and apply for a copyright? |
|||||||||
MobilityBundle Regular user Las Vegas/Boston 120 Posts |
Just to fix up some lingo, as you correctly note, one automatically gets rights in their original works as soon as those works are "fixed" in a tangible medium of expression. In other words, as soon as pen hits the paper (or as soon as you hit "save" on the computer), you have rights on your work. But the lingo is that you "register" your work with the Copyright Office, not "apply" for a copyright. The registration is automatic, nobody examines it for originality, etc. They just stamp it and file it away.
Anyways, I can't speak for everyone, but perhaps the reason people don't register their works pro-actively is that they don't feel like they need to. The main benefits a registration provides are: 1. If you sue someone, you are entitled to "statutory damages." This is a flat rate set by the court (subject to a minimum and maximum provided by Congress) that the infringer has to pay you if you win, on a "per infringement" basis. The twin benefits of THAT are, (a) you don't have the sometimes-difficult-burden of proving your actual damages (e.g., lost profits) in court; and (b) unless you're a major publisher or something like that, usually even the minimum statutory damages exceed any actual damages. And... 2. If you register your work, you are presumed to have a valid copyright. (Basically, it's presumed that all the facts on the registration sheet are true.) There are timing requirements to get these benefits, and they're pretty generous to the author. To get statutory damages, you have to register three months after the first date of publication. (Or, for unpublished works, within a month of discovering an infringer.) To get the presumption of validity, you have to register five *years* after the date of first publication. So if people consider the likelihood of infringement to be low (or the likelihood of infringement after 3 months or 5 years of publication), they may decide not to spring for the filing fee. Or, maybe they got bad advice. BTW, full disclosure: I'm a patent lawyer. As Ricky Jay said about gamblers and magicians, there are more differences than similarities between patents and copyrights. However, I *did* get a good grade in copyright law in law school, lo these many years ago. |
|||||||||
D_avid Loyal user 253 Posts |
Nice! I'm still learning as I'm going along
|
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Although mane will disagree with me, I strongly advise you to NOT get wrapped up in IP BS.
Beside the fact that it is an inherent violation of the actual property rights of others, you are actually going to be further restricting yourself, both in terms of potential exposure and profit, as counterintuitive as that sounds; so does turning into the skid, apparently. Turning into a skid always made sense to me. Any who, end whack job rant here.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
So no copyright or IP BS involved in your product, Glen?
|
|||||||||
Ray Tupper. Special user NG16. 749 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-09-01 15:14, Tom Cutts wrote: I would have thought Blue Crown own the product. Saying that, I wonder if Glen would have gone down the copyright route if he had self published? Selling the product to a company seems an easy option to appease this dilemma for him.
What do we want?
A cure for tourettes! When do we want it? C*nt! |
|||||||||
MobilityBundle Regular user Las Vegas/Boston 120 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-09-01 12:34, gdw wrote: Three things: 1. How does being a copyright owner "restrict [one's self], both in terms of potential exposure and profit"? 2. It doesn't bug me that people have opinions that differ from mine. But it always bugs me when people state opinions as fact. To say that copyrights are "inherent violation of the actual property rights of others" is stating an opinion. To be sure, I'm not looking to debate that opinion. But at least have the intellectual honesty to say something like, "*I believe* copyrights are inherent property violations." 3. Troubling though it may be, gdw, you likely own copyrights in a lot of things -- namely, anything you fix in a tangible medium of expression, such as your previous post. If you want to really live according to your philosophy, you should include a "dedication" in anything you write, along the lines of "the author hereby dedicates any and all rights in this work, including but not limited to copyrights, to the public." |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
Quote: the tangible physical product, yes. But the IP copyright is not automatically assigned in such a deal. Typically the actual IP remains with the person who created it.
On 2013-09-01 17:07, Ray Tupper. wrote: |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-09-01 17:54, MobilityBundle wrote: 4. "Actual"?!
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-09-01 17:54, MobilityBundle wrote: 1) It's not being a copyright "owner" that restricts one, it is the enforcement of copyprivilege (which is what it is, not a right) that limits one's exposure, and consequently one's potential profits. If you limit the abilities of others to spread your work, which is what preventing others from coping it does, then you are, obviously, preventing the potential exposure. 2) This is not just an opinion, it's objective reality. Do I own my printer? Yes. Do I own my computer? Yes. However IP law prohibits me from typing certain letters in certain combinations on my own computer. I also own the physical books I've purchased, and the aforementioned printer (which also has a scanner, as many do.) However, I am prohibited by law from placing the physical object I won onto the scanner/printer, which I also own, and pushing a button on said scanner/printer. Those are direct infringements upon my rights in the physical property I own. 3) I don't "own" any copyrights in anything. Government claims they will enforce a monopoly privilege, "for" me, over reproduction of things I've written, drawn, filmed, edited, etc, but I am not responsible for what others wish to claim, or do. As such, I have no obligation to inform everyone, anytime I do anything, that I have no intent to use the government to aggress against them if they choose to use their own computer, or what have you, to duplicate something I've written, etc. I do as much as I can to live by my philosophy; Life involves choices, and compromise, and we are often resigned to the world in, and systems under, which we live, and we must do the best we can within the confines of such. Also, last I read, we actually do NOT "own" our posts here, Brooks does.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-09-01 19:11, Tom Cutts wrote: Yes, but considering the "idea" of, in his case, the Mobius Switch, is, itself, not able to be copyrighted, where as the expression, the teaching video, is. So, who is the "creator" of the video? Is it the people IN the video, the person who directed it, the individual who held the camera, the editor, etc? Who "naturally" gets the "copyright?" Who is the "creator" of the expressed form of the video itself?
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
MobilityBundle Regular user Las Vegas/Boston 120 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-09-03 12:11, gdw wrote: 1. (Re: "exposure") That makes sense. I thought you meant something else -- sometimes people use the word "exposure" to mean "exposure to lawsuits." I thought you were suggesting that somehow registering a copyright made one more of a target. 2. If you want objective reality, how about the law as written? 17 U.S.C. section 201(a) provides that rights originally vest in authors. Section (d) says that those rights may be transferred as personal property. Section 202 provides that copyrights are distinct from ownership rights in the material object in which the work is embodied. Sections 204 and 205 set up a machinery of copyright ownership like property ownership: one transfers rights by written conveyance, and that conveyance can be recorded. Now, reasonable people can disagree as to what the law should be. But the reality is that you have never had "full authority" to use your printer however you see fit. Copyrights inherently help define boundaries about what you can or can't do with your printer. But they're not inherently violative of the property rights in your printer. At least, they're no more "inherently violative" of the ownership rights in your printer than laws prohibiting you from bashing someone else's head in with your printer. 3. According to the government, as noted above, you have copyrights in your original works. Of course, whether you chose to enforce those rights is another story. But if you want to go the whole hog and disavow your rights, merely not believing in them is insufficient. Separately, you raised the distinction between rights and privileges. "Rights" refer to a legal status by which you can compel someone or something to do something (or stop doing something) in a certain context. "Privileges" come from a legal status by which nobody can compel you to do something (or stop doing something) in a certain context. Copyrights are indeed rights: you can compel someone to stop copying your work (or at least compel them to pay you money if they do). There is no "copy privilege," except perhaps to the extent you license copyrights, or entirely disavow them. (Just to try out the vocab, consider the "attorney/client privilege." One cannot be compelled to testify as to communications covered by the privilege, so the word "privilege" is really appropriate here.) |
|||||||||
Pop Haydn Inner circle Los Angeles 3691 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-09-03 16:48, gdw wrote: Well, presumably, whether or not these things are documented, the person who produces the video and sells it should either have all the rights, or be sharing the profits among those who do. Typically, the cameraman, director, editor, writer, talent, etc., etc., have sold their rights to the project or agreed to a share of the profits or whatever. If they haven't, or didn't get what they agreed to, then they sue the producer for their share. But to say that anyone can make a copy of that video and sell it for money to others, or give it away for free, would be to upend and violate all the participants' interests in the project. Everyone involved would lose their interests in any profit that might come from all their hard work. It is wonderful to get huge exposure, but if you are never able to capitalize on it and make money, then what is the point? People can die of exposure. Steve Brooks does not own the copyright to what we publish here. But we have given him permission to use what we have written here in many ways. It doesn't keep us from using our own words in whatever way we want. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-09-04 10:51, MobilityBundle wrote: 2)Words written on paper do not define objective reality. Regarding rights, no, you have no right to compel anyone to DO anything. That is not a "right." Your rights extend from your ownership of something, be it property , or yourself. Your rights are only limited by the extent that they infringe upon the rights of others. You might think "well that makes sense, you're prohibited from using your copier from copying someone else's IP as it violates their rights in said 'IP,'" but this is not an argument, this is a conclusion. "3. According to the government, as noted above, you have copyrights in your original works. Of course, whether you chose to enforce those rights is another story. But if you want to go the whole hog and disavow your rights, merely not believing in them is insufficient." I have no obligation to go out of my way to make disclaimers about not subscribing to what someone else believes. The beliefs of those who support IP law does not obligate me to do anything. I do not have to "opt out" of something I never opted into in the first place. I'm also not disavowing any "rights" because they simply aren't "rights."
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-09-04 13:49, Pop Haydn wrote: Doesn't stop him from claiming otherwise of course: "All contents & postings Copyright © 2001 - 2013 Steve Brooks-All Rights Reserved." Considering he's the one who makes the policies and agreements to which we submit via or membership here, we may very well have "given" the "rights" to our posts to Brooks. "But to say that anyone can make a copy of that video and sell it for money to others, or give it away for free, would be to upend and violate all the participants' interests in the project. Everyone involved would lose their interests in any profit that might come from all their hard work. It is wonderful to get huge exposure, but if you are never able to capitalize on it and make money, then what is the point?" You're making assertions not backed by facts and reality. These are assumptions that everyone would lose interest in any profit. People are starting to make MORE money "giving" their work away then they are chaining it in IP.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
ed rhodes Inner circle Rhode Island 2885 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-09-04 16:33, gdw wrote: Possibly. But it is the creator of the work who has the right to choose to allow it to be distributed in that manner. It is not our right as consumers of the work to decide we can distribute it for them.
"...and if you're too afraid of goin' astray, you won't go anywhere." - Granny Weatherwax
|
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Ed, if I tell you a secret, do I get to control what you do with that information?
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
ed rhodes Inner circle Rhode Island 2885 Posts |
"Secrets" aren't published. As such, they don't fall under copyright law.
"...and if you're too afraid of goin' astray, you won't go anywhere." - Granny Weatherwax
|
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-09-06 10:44, ed rhodes wrote: Ed, I'm talking about the principle behind the justification for IP. If I tell you an idea, which is not published, for something, then I have given you that information. Be that information a hidden truth about myself, or an idea for a better pool cleaner, or a story idea for a new superhero; I have still given you that information. It is now in your head, and yours to do with what you wish. I have no right to control you, or your brain, just because I said words to you. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that I have an inherent right to control you just by telling you something. You now become obligated to me simply because I was the one who may have originally thought up those words in that particular order.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-09-06 11:59, gdw wrote: But surely (?) you'd agree that we could agree that I could sell you a book subject to the provision that you not copy or distribute it. Basic freedom of contract, right? So all the current framework does is change the default - Offers to sell books are subject to that provision, and we all know it. If we don't like it, we can either opt not to buy the book under those restrictions, or try to talk the copyright holder into waiving his or her protection. Most creators want the protection, so it's an opt-out rather than an opt-in, but anybody who wants to could certainly write a book and give it away subject to no restrictions whatsoever.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Copyrighted... nah, just kidding (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2~3 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.12 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |