Is creative commons good for copyright holders and market competition?
It depends on your goals.
If you're a professional photographer, for example, and your goal is to make a living and put food on the table by selling and licensing images, Creative Commons would be a bad idea for you. If you're a hobbyist and just like the idea of your images getting out there, Creative Commons is perfect.
The argument could be made, then, that it's tremendous for competition: in order for Joe Pro to license his image for $100, it has to be $100 better than Fred Flickr's comparable CC image. Ideally, Joe will challenge himself to improve, leading to better options for the consumer. The more likely outcome is that Joe will complain a lot and eventually start teaching photography at the community college.
One side problem of CC is that users have become used to getting anything they want for free and right now; when Flickr doesn't give them what they need and they end up at istockphoto or whatever, they're flabbergasted by rates which are, in the grand scheme of things, entirely reasonable.
The long and the short of it is, as with just about any copyright question, it depends.
You will have something in writing giving you permission. This can range from a simple Creative Commons notification on the work itself, to a very specific multi-page contract prepared in triplicate.
If you are using materials that are not entirely your creative work, you need permission from the copyright holders of the other materials (usually in writing) in order to use their works.
The GNU General Public License was originally written by Richard Stallman for the GNU mass-collaboration software project. Like Creative Commons and other copyleft systems, it is a broad license that allows users to freely use, copy, and modify software. Copyright automatically gives the creator of a sufficiently creative work, including the author of computer code, the exclusive right to copy, alter, distribute, or perform/display the work, or authorize others to do so. It's the automatic… Read More
The 1894 book is in the public domain; various adaptations have their own copyright holders.
Yes; but the vast majority of uses would require licenses from the copyright holders.
There are a number of copyright holders, but most uses can be licensed through Warner Bros. Television.
With a license from the copyright holders, yes.
Co-creators often list themselves as copyright holders. If you choose to register a work (which is not required for copyright protection), you may list any number of rightsholders.
Depending on the journal's copyright polices, it may be Rhodes and McDaniel, or the Oncology Nursing Forum.
The images in Monopoly are copyright, which means you will need legal permission from the games copyright holders to publish the image.
There are at least three copyright holders, but for most uses I would suggest starting with Universal.
"Fair use" is an exception in the copyright laws which allows limited use (for purposes of critique, parody, or scholastically) of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the copyright holders
It came in 2006 world cup in Germany, holders Brazil had to qualify.
You may download high resolution versions of the Creative Commons logos and use them in connection with your work or your website, provided you comply with their policies. Among other things, if you use the logos on a website or on your work, you may not alter the logos in any respect -- such as by changing the font, the proportions or the colours. CC's buttons, name and corporate logo (the "CC" in a circle)… Read More
Not for people with copyrights!
Is a collection of techniques that copyright holders use to limit access to and use of digital content?
Through copyright laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act
At the website below, click on "business contacts" for a list of contacts for various uses.
You obtain permission from the copyright holders--usually for a sum of money and for a specific purpose.
There are a large number of copyright holders; the song itself has seven but can generally be licensed through Warner Chappell, and the sound recording has at least as many but can generally be licensed through Atlantic.
The song is controlled by Jobete, and the Captain and Tennille recording is controlled by A&M.
This questions has different answers depending on the scenario. If you are selling only your original Cds & DVDs this is protected as the "right of first sale" and is perfectly legal. If you are selling copies of the originals without permission then you are infringing upon the copyright holders' right of duplication and right to control distribution.
Which internet service caused controversy by allowing people to share music without paying the copyright holders?
In June of 1999, Shawn Fanning created Napster, which was the first "internet service" that allowed people to share music and avoid paying the copyright holders. Controversy flared over this and by July of 2001, Napster was shut down in order to comply with a court injunction.
No; the song itself is administered by Sony/ATV tunes, and various recordings will have their own additional copyright holders.
With permission from the copyright holders, yes. Without permission, no.
Licensing an Art Design or Pattern The first step in protecting your art design or pattern is to protect it through a copyright or trademark. Visit www.copyright.gov for complete details. Next, visit an attorney and have them draft up a license agreement that you can use with third parties. Another option is to consider a Creative Commons license. The aim of Creative Commons is to enable copyright holders to grant some of their rights to… Read More
The online DVD retailers are only authorized to sell online they aren't the copyright holders. Can they demand for the take down of illegal movie websites through DMCA notice?
No; takedown notices must be signed by the copyright holder, their agent or representative.
Copyright gives the owner the exclusive right to copy, alter, distribute, or perform/display a work, or authorize others to do so. Although laws allow for action to be taken against infringers in court, most copyright holders address problems directly and attempt to make an agreement first.
Copyright holders (like music labels) claim that they lose money when people download their music without receiving any money from it. They percieve that as stealing.
What is a part of the copyrights laws that define the limitations on exclusive rights of copyright holders?
In the US, sections 107-122 define limitations on the exclusive rights of section 106.
Why can't the US government crackdown on people who scam others instead of people who harmed copyright holders?
Because there is no anti-scam lobby, while there is a HUGE copyright-holder-we-should-be-allowed-to-go-into-their-houses-at-night-and-take-money-directly-from-their-wallet lobby.
No, it is a violation of copyright laws. Youtube routinely goes through and eliminates videos that violate those laws. They will also respond rapidly if requested to remove them from the copyright holders. Actually i posted a video and that happened to me,they send you an email you fill out the form and it is perfectly fine!
Which internet service caused controversy by allowing people to share music without paying the copyright owners?
Through the history of the internet, there have been several services that have vexed copyright holders. The most famous of these were file sharing services such as LimeWire and Kazaa. Napster was also used to share music amongst friends without paying royalties to the copyright owners.
Google Livres is Google Books' French site. It offers a large selection of scanned books, both out of copyright and in copyright with the permission of current copyright holders. Google Books offers searches of the scanned texts of these books, to find phrases and contents. Livres, being their French site, focuses on French language books.
If you edit someone else's song can you claim it as your own like if you change their voice to a higher or lower pitch?
You would have to license the sample. The cost of that varies among copyright holders.
LEGO bricks are primarily used for building LEGO sets. Some have used it for other creative purposes, like car key holders or magnets.
No; the song itself is administered by Music Sales Corp, and various sound recordings have their own additional copyright holders.
Can you legally rip and parse the translations of the bible from mlbibledotcom for reuse in a different format?
Early translations, yes. Most 20th-century translations would require permission from the copyright holders.
The final work would be considered a derivative work of the originals sampled, so it could be protected, but it would require a license to use the samples because creation of derivative works is one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holders.
Some music videos are removed due to the copyright owner claiming the video as their property and demanding the YouTube user to take down the video. Most music videos on YouTube are user-uploaded and not all of those videos have permission from the copyright holders to be uploaded and used on YouTube, which results in copyright complaints and videos getting removed.
It didn't go to court as the copyright holders of 'under pressure' settled out of court for an undisclosed sum of money.So you could say Queen won.
You get a song that sounds even less like the original recording. If you try to sell or give away your recording without the permission of the copyright holders, you get fined or go to jail.
It depends. Downloading files over Limewire, by itself, is not a crime in most jurisdictions. However, if the downloaded file is covered by copyright and the copyright holders have not agreed to distribution over Limewire, then it's illegal. If you're referring to the Limewire Store then yes, most likely they have agreements with the copyright holders, and it's legal to BUY from the store. If you mean dowloading content from other users then most likely… Read More
No It depends on the type of work, the extent to which it is used, for what purpose, and more. Some limited unlicensed uses are considered "fair."
The song "Grease" written by Barry Gibb and performed by Frankie Valli, the theme from the movie "Grease," is controlled by Crompton Songs and administered by Warner-Tamerlane. Various sound recordings would have their own additional copyright holders. The TV show "Grease is the Word" is property of Syco TV.
By obtaining the permission of the copyright owner, or by waiting for the copyright to expire, which at least in the US will occur approximately never since Disney (in conjunction with other large copyright holders) owns the US Congress in fee simple and keeps getting extensions passed. Some jurisdictions have a concept of "fair use" that allows certain specific usages of copyrighted images without the explicit permission of the copyright holder, but you should really… Read More
possessive form for the word holders: holders'
According to the Fair Use laws, yes. Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation… Read More
Copyrighted work cannot be used by others as the work is the property of another person. So if I was to write a song, that song would belong to me and would come under instant copyright law. The material is protected for the lifetime of the person or entity that produced the song. after the death of the copyright holder, the copyright remains with that persons estate for fifty years after their death. Copyright law… Read More
stake holders is all people have interest in the entity