Wickedkitten Veteran Posted April 14, 2002 Veteran Share Posted April 14, 2002 a load of people here seem to either: A.) Know dick about copyright law or B.) Don't give a **** So here is a primer courtesy of www.lawgirl.com. WHAT DOES COPYRIGHT PROTECT?Copyright protects original works of authorship. This includes literary, dramatic, musical and other artistic works. Copyright DOES NOT extend to titles, names, or phrases, ideas, systems, processes and information. In other words, a work of authorship able to be fixed in a tangible medium is subject to copyright protection provided there is some element of creativity to the work to be protected. Copyright protection gives the owner of a copyright the right to reproduce a work, prepare derivative works based thereon, distribute the copyrighted work, perform any copyrighted work publicly, and display the copyrighted work publicly. COPYRIGHT? TRADEMARK? OR PATENT? As set forth above, copyright protects works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium. However, copyright protection does not extend to all intellectual property. Rather, your intellectual property may more properly be protected through trademark or patent law. Trademarks identify the source or origin of goods or services and protect the goodwill associated therewith. Patents protect inventions. Further information on these areas is available through the United States Patent and Trademark Office WHAT IS PUBLICATION? The Copyright Act defines publication as the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. Who cares? Before the Copyright Act was amended in 1978, copyright was general secured by the act of publishing a work with notice of the copyright. Since the notice requirement is no longer mandatory, publication is no longer as significant in copyright law, but publication is still relevant in a few respects, such as effecting the deposit requirement for registration and effecting the date that copyright duration is calculated. I have included this information because you will see the publication concept referenced many times throughout this page. WHEN DOES A COPYRIGHT ATTACH? Since the law was changed in 1978, copyright protection exists from the time a work is fixed in a tangible form. Tangible form means a form that is directly perceptible or perceptible with the aid of a machine or devise. For instance, if you sing a song in the shower the song does not garner copyright protection at this time, because it is not being fixed in a tangible media, but if you sing it into a tape recorder it is fixed in a tangible media and so copyright protection would attach. SO WHY REGISTER? Although since 1978 copyright vests at the moment of fixation in a tangible medium, registration of your copyright with the United States Copyright Office is important for several reasons: * Registration establishes a public record of your copyright and puts the world on notice thereof. * Registration is a prerequisite to filing an infringement suit in the U.S. * If a work is registered within five years of first publication, the registration certificate will serve as prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate. * If a work is registered before an act of infringement occurs, certain additional damages and attorneys fees are available to a prevailing litigant. Otherwise only an award of actual damages is available to the copyright owner (but you still must register before filing your suit). * Copyright registration allows the owner of the copyright to file with customs to prevent the importation of infringing copies of a work. This may all seem trivial to you, but the $20 price of registration is, in my opinion, a wise investment. You will be happy you registered if your work is ever infringed. What are you waiting for? Go register! COPYRIGHT NOTICE (do I need to put that little "c" thing on my work?) No. not anymore. Works published on or after March 1, 1989 are exempt from the notice requirement, though notice is still highly recommended as it puts the world on alert that you are claiming a copyright interest in your work. Also, in the event of an infringement action, an infringer will be precluded from claiming "innocent infringement" thereby entitling the copyright owner to a higher damages award. For works published before March 1, 1989, the use of notice (i.e. ? 1988 John Doe) was mandatory. If you published a work without notice it would revert to the public domain. Proper form of notice for visually perceptible copies. This requires The Symbol (?) or the word copyright or the abbreviation Copr; and the year of first publication of the work and the name of the owner of the copyright. What's that P in a circle? The P in a circle is the copyright notice for phonorecords of sounds recordings (i.e., the recording itself as opposed to the underlying composition). DURATION (how long does a copyright last?)b> This question is more simple for works created on or after January 1, 1978. The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was signed into law on October 27, 1998. This Act extends the term of copyright protection for twenty years. Thus, for works created on or after January 1, 1978, the duration of the copyright will last for the life of the author plus seventy years (i.e., seventy years after the author's death.) The copyright in a work created by one or more people lasts for seventy years after the last surviving authors' death. For works for hire, anonymous and pseudonymous works, the copyright term is ninety-five years from first publication, or one hundred-twenty years from creation, whichever is shorter. WHAT IS A WORK FOR HIRE?b> (do I own it or does that guy who paid me?) Generally speaking, the person that creates a work is the author, and hence, the owner of that work. However, when a work is made for an employer (within the scope of employment), the EMPLOYER, not the employee is considered the author. This seems relatively simple, but things can get a little sticky when determining whether someone is an employee or not. The law of agency is used to determine whether someone is an employee. For more information on works for hire and determining whether a work is a work for hire, please refer to Copyright Office Circular 9. In addition, works that are not created by employees, but which are commissioned, can qualify as a work for hire. In such a case the commissioner receives the ownership interest in the work rather than the artist. The Copyright Act defines a commissioned work as a work for hire in situations when the work is "specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional test, as a test, as an answer material for a test, or as an atlas." There must also be a written agreement signed by the parties that the work shall be a work for hire. Thus, only the foregoing types of commissioned works, when a written agreement exists, can be deemed works for hire. Other types of commissioned works cannot. (This type of situation frequently comes into play in the motion picture industry with writers, directors, etc. The producer becomes the owner of the copyright). WHAT IS A DERIVATIVE WORK?b> A derivative work is a work that is based on, or incorporates, one or more already existing works. Examples of derivative works include multi-media works using preexisting elements, screenplays adapted from books, new musical arrangements, art reproductions or any other work that modifies, is derived from or elaborates upon a preexisting work. To be copyrightable in its own right, a derivative work must contain enough elements of originality to qualify as as new work. Further, a copyright holder in a derivative work will only obtain a copyright interest in his original contribution, not the underlying, preexisting elements. It is extremely important to note that only the copyright owner of the underlying work, or one who has been granted permission to do so, may prepare derivative works. Unauthorized derivative works violate a copyright holder's exclusive rights under the copyright act. For more information on derivative works, please see Copyright Office Circular 14. The only reason I am posting this is because some people seem to think that they are above the law in the fact that they are making themes and think that either no judge would ever find them guilty of copyright infringement because its only a theme on windows or no one would ever sue them because of the fact it's only graphics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_Deleted Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 here we go agian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaosAD Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 Wicked Kitten, it's great you want to help, believe me, many others including myself have tried this in the past. It only falls on deaf ears here at Neowin. Unfortunately Bart's situation may have set a trend of "you don't give us permission we'll do it anyway until you cave". Sadly enough Neowin will be the ones to suffer when these kids do this to the wrong person, which I was hoping was Bart. Oh well, some people have to learn the hard way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest whybkuul Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 Yea, that's all well and good, but honestly, who's going to spend the money it takes to sue someone for copyright infringement? Most of us don't have that kind of money-hell, even if you did, you'd end up spending more than you'd get from the judgement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickedkitten Veteran Posted April 14, 2002 Author Veteran Share Posted April 14, 2002 Originally posted by whybkuul Yea, that's all well and good, but honestly, who's going to spend the money it takes to sue someone for copyright infringement? Most of us don't have that kind of money-hell, even if you did, you'd end up spending more than you'd get from the judgement you'd be surprised, if you are under the age of 18 in some places your parents can be held responsible for what you do, and even if you don't have the money if they have assets, ie computer, car, house those can and will be sold. Like I said, there are some people that will sue a person on the principal even knowing that they won't get anything so why put yourself in that kind of situation to begin with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayhaze Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 Thanks for the info WickedKitten. I'd been looking for something like this for a while now. I do think you're just banging your head against a brick wall if you want the NeoKids to listen though. No matter what you show them, they'll always just have a 'screw you' attitude; that is, until someone actually hits them with a copyright infringement. I think the thing a lot of these rippers don't realise is that they're not always just ripping an individual's work, but the work of an actual registered business. In those cases, it's very likely that the person in question would face legal action. In the case where they're ripping an individual's work, it pretty much comes down to how much time, money and conviction the author has to persue the thief. Even then, I think a lot of people would be surprised just how much of a target they make themselves by ripping. In many ways I think it's a shame William Bart didn't put up more of a fight. It would have set a good example for these kids. However, having experienced a huge amount of flaming as a result of my putting my foot down, I can see why he thought it best just to do what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnifeFace Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 Originally posted by grayhaze I do think you're just banging your head against a brick wall if you want the NeoKids to listen though. It would have set a good example for these kids. thx for your compliments to this site grayhaze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
werejag Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 sounds like bsa/ anti piracy campain to me or is this some holy quest to save us from the big bad ___________ corpration! threats about selling our computers and cars. ha ha ha please. anyways this is some great information most i knew already. all i can say is i understand and your motive for posting this is??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayhaze Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 Originally posted by KnifeFace thx for your compliments to this site grayhaze By 'NeoKids' I meant the younger element of the NeoWin crowd who seem to take pleasure in causing trouble. If I was talking about the site in general, I would have said so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AcidBurN Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 LOL Hey everybody i'm a NEOKid!!!!!!:lick: :paranoid: :ponder: :cross: :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbeast Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 Originally posted by WickedKitten: WHAT IS A DERIVATIVE WORK? A derivative work is a work that is based on, or incorporates, one or more already existing works. Examples of derivative works include multi-media works using preexisting elements, screenplays adapted from books, new musical arrangements, art reproductions or any other work that modifies, is derived from or elaborates upon a preexisting work. To be copyrightable in its own right, a derivative work must contain enough elements of originality to qualify as as new work. Further, a copyright holder in a derivative work will only obtain a copyright interest in his original contribution, not the underlying, preexisting elements. It is extremely important to note that only the copyright owner of the underlying work, or one who has been granted permission to do so, may prepare derivative works. Unauthorized derivative works violate a copyright holder's exclusive rights under the copyright act. For more information on derivative works, please see Copyright Office Circular 14. I'm sure this is where so many people "converting" themes over to WinXP from a Mac platform get confused and tread on copyright.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickedkitten Veteran Posted April 14, 2002 Author Veteran Share Posted April 14, 2002 Originally posted by superbeast I'm sure this is where so many people "converting" themes over to WinXP from a Mac platform get confused and tread on copyright.... yeah that and people that think that by putting credit to the original author in the readme file will save their asses if anything legal pops up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h71y6 Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 You know what i suggest: Neowin has a team of rip investigators. If a person didn't ask for permission, pull the plug on the thread. Suspend the account until an satisfactory explanation is given. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbeast Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 Here's a question for you... Where is the 'line' in what defines a derivative work? For example, the "Forest XP" Windowblinds skin offered at Wincustomize is nothing more than the Luna interface in green. This obviously infringes on the Microsoft copyright for Luna. However, the Madhatter theme, offers a unique situation. It's interface is inspired by William Barts BBX Mercury theme and Mikkel Madisons MMX Mercury icons. All the graphics were created from scratch, and having been implemented in a different interface (WinXP instead of Apple OS), almost all of the controls are different than the original. William Bart has given permission for this and other WinXP themes inspired by his original work, yet is this theme close enough in style to be considered a derivative work? BTW: Wickedkitten, Although you and I have have 'sparred' in the past, you have earned my undying respect in your honest, factual comments here at Neowin. You back your opinions up with hard facts, and have a quick mind in dealing with some of the 'trash' that is thrown your way. Excellent work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AcidBurN Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 Oh u rule Wickedpussy J/J...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h71y6 Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 This includes literary, dramatic, musical and other artistic works. Copyright DOES NOT extend to titles, names, or phrases, ideas, systems, processes and information. I guess this goes for 'style' or 'feel'. So as long as the result does not use any part, literature, piece, of the original and is not a reproduction of the original, it is not a rip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayhaze Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 Originally posted by superbeast It's interface is inspired by William Barts BBX Mercury theme and Mikkel Madisons MMX Mercury icons. All the graphics were created from scratch, and having been implemented in a different interface (WinXP instead of Apple OS), almost all of the controls are different than the original. Were all the graphics created from scratch? I got the impression from looking at the skin develop that all the graphics were just cut-and-pasted from the original. I could be wrong though. If they were, then the theme is certainly a derivative of the original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redmak Administrators Posted April 14, 2002 Administrators Share Posted April 14, 2002 I'm sticking this on top for a while so everyone can read the primer. (until I find a better place for it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eth3l Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 Regardless, Wicked kitten, what kind of damages do you think that anyone trying to enforce their copyright against an infringer who sells comic books for a living? Firstly you have to prove damages. When people complain about ripping off ideas for themes or icons, or whatever it gets under my skin. either ask the person politely to give you credit, or dont release your work. Face it people are going to copy it. This does not mean one should not protect their work. My little Avatar is protect under Trademark Laws; its the mark of The Lowreview. If someones initals are LR and they steal that image for a windows theme they distribute for free . . . . so be it. However, if someone takes that image, and applys it to a product or service which generate revenue then we have an issue. There we have an actual damage, and someoen to collect from. In my opinion the whole of the NeoWin community needs to chill on the copyright issue; unless they have registered or protected works. later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drewster2100 Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 Originally posted by grayhaze Thanks for the info WickedKitten. I'd been looking for something like this for a while now. I do think you're just banging your head against a brick wall if you want the NeoKids to listen though. No matter what you show them, they'll always just have a 'screw you' attitude; that is, until someone actually hits them with a copyright infringement. I think the thing a lot of these rippers don't realise is that they're not always just ripping an individual's work, but the work of an actual registered business. In those cases, it's very likely that the person in question would face legal action. In the case where they're ripping an individual's work, it pretty much comes down to how much time, money and conviction the author has to persue the thief. Even then, I think a lot of people would be surprised just how much of a target they make themselves by ripping. In many ways I think it's a shame William Bart didn't put up more of a fight. It would have set a good example for these kids. However, having experienced a huge amount of flaming as a result of my putting my foot down, I can see why he thought it best just to do what he did. if you are in any way refering to me, go **** yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mephistocorugan Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 grayhaze: you got the wrong impression http://137.54.229.3:8666/hosted/mm-mh-base.psd and, before you claim warezing, i get educational and employee discounts through the university here, thus, i use photoshop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortensen Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 The only reason I am posting this is because some people seem to think that they are above the law in the fact that they are making themes and think that either no judge would ever find them guilty of copyright infringement because its only a theme on windows or no one would ever sue them because of the fact it's only graphics. Quit trolling this board. You always have a thorn right up your aching a$$ whinging on about copyright this, and ripping that. JUST GO AWAY. There we go.... happy now that you made me mad? You nasty, nasty bully. I'm gonna tell my mommy now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grimlock Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 I understand this copyright thing. I have a site that has 3D wallpapers that I have created. Its ridiculous how many times I have seen my images used on other things, webpage backgrounds etc without permission or so much as a link back to the site. Even one of the neowin members personal page has my image with no credit given. Its not the personal stuff that gets to me, unfortunatly it happens way to much. The times I see my images on covers and other commerical work w/o my permission really gets to me. All you have to do is ask for Gods sakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iconman Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 Thread Moved to General - iconman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishX Posted April 14, 2002 Share Posted April 14, 2002 After reading everything at lawgirl's site and what was posted at the top of this thread, the only thing that applies when it comes to XP styles and themes is original works of art. If I take Joe Schmoe's start button which he created in Photoshop from scratch and put it in my theme, technically, that's copyright infringement. If I take his start button, change the font and the color, then its just another start button that has no graphical or artistic reference to the origina except for the fact that they are both start buttons. No law broken. Bottom line, themes and styles are *meant* to be changed and altered. If you take MacOS's look, change one little color on a button and put it out as your own, you can expect to be sued... but if you create one from scratch that looks remarkably similar to someone else's (which I've seem happen LOTS of times simply because people have no real creativity or talent), then its nothing more than coincidence. If I take the original Luna theme and make it all purple instead of blue or silver, Microsoft isn't suing anyone because they made it specifically available for change. They allow this and WANT people to customize their OS. Macintosh, on the other hand, does the same thing for Mac users, but both insist that you not take their ORIGINAL themes packaged with the OS, put your name on it and call it your own. I have a feeling that all this is going to fall of deaf ears, but having recently gone through a copyright battle, I've learned enough to know that themeing, skinning and styling just isn't going to hold up in any court in the land. Sorry, gents. Take the NeoWin logo, for example. You make it purple or yellow or whatever and say "I made this from scratch! Its my creation! I own the copyright!" then you're up for a lawsuit. However, if I turn the "N" sideways so that it looks like a "Z" and color it flaming red then cut the words off the bottom and say, "Mine! I made this!" then it *IS* yours. Call your site ZeoWin.net or something. Then its yours. Could you still get sued for that? Possibly, because then you're getting into trademark dillusion and can be called a "knockoff" which is a whole other issue than what we're talking about. Even in copyright law, there are "gray areas" that can only be sorted out by the ruling of the presiding judge. Wanna take the chance? Lawsuits call a lot of money, and sometimes so do copyrighting everything you do. If you're just plain ****ed that someone made something that looks like yours, you might want to try the civil adult human being approach and say, "Please alter your work. It looks like you're knocking off my design and I'm sure you don't want to look like some hack in the public eye..." Generally, they'll agree and change their work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts