Yes, it's very common and well-known that museums claim copyrights where they haven't any.
For instance, any reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art for which copyright has expired CAN NOT be placed under copyright again. So you're free to scan museum postcards or catalogues and publish them again. You can't put a license on them, because they're public domain anyway.
It's different with three-dimensional works of art, where light, angle, focus and so on play a role. This means, a photograph of say, a piece of armour, can underlie copyright. Not the armour, but the photograph of it, because it can constitute a work of art itself.
Any museum trying to restrict photography on the basis of copyright can only do this for modern works (but doesn't even have to -- the work is on public display, and unless the photographer publishes his picture, no copyright violation has taken place), but not ever for anything which does not underlie copyright (anymore).
They can however, restrict photography however they want, on the basis of householders right. If you violate that, they can throw you out. But they don't have any right to a) search your camera, b) make you delete your pictures, c) call the police (unless you refuse to leave) to obtain a or b. And in case you've photographed a three-dimensional work, your picture probably even underlies copyright, and deleting it would be a destruction of your copyrighted work... ;)
Fact: myriad genetics invested a huge amount of dollars in blowing up the advertised cost of creating the most accurate test and in research on these genes by factor 20.
So in reality, they probably spent 5 millions on it.
.. and your nation. In which case your gouvernment (were it any good) would promptly replace those people on ground of endangering national security.
I mean, private people can advocate anything, but if they're officials, proposing ideas like this in an official role at least warrants immediate dismissal, if not an investigation for high treason (trying to subvert national security etc...).
Re: "reasonably monetize what might be considered infringement under the law"
Actually, no. And no again.
Fan Fiction is NOT, and CAN NOT be copyright infringement, because there is nothing copied at all.
US: "102 (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."
Copyright is about the exact form, and not about an "idea" or a "concept".
The use of characters and settings developed by others MIGHT constitute trademark infringement (if named the same), but most literary characters are not even trademarked.
I think they will side with transparency. And then the commission will either ignore them, wail, hand over outdated documents to the public, or some other shenanigans.
It's called "discrimination" here too. And actually, what this "Business"-consortium advocates is clearly a violation of European non-discrimination acts (and probably even human rights).
Presumably "Business Europe" is therefore a criminal organization ;)
It absolutely is infringement. In fact, it's plagiarism, since the studios assert "under penalty of perjury that they are the copyright owner or authorized to act on behalf of the owner".
This is a very clear copyright infringement, it's even a case of disputing the copyright away from the creator of the work.
Ah incomplete sentence: "that has a patent system and allows foreigners to apply for patents" of course. But I doubt not allowing foreigners to patent in ones country would be a big deterrent; people would just set up front-companies...
The problem here is largely on the Chinese side, not the Australian side.
Oh, no, it's not. The Chinese obviously found the hole in your system, and are exploiting it.
Actually, the Chinese found the really big hole, and it turns out it's the patent system as a whole. They are now able to stifle innovation in a big style, in any country that adheres to international patent treaties, or that even HAS a patent system and allow . And, of course, they themselves can just ignore any foreign patents as they wish, to not enchain their own economy.
Besides; your advertisement of your system as "a more balanced software patent right" is absurd in the first place. Software, being math, is not patentable. Nowhere on earth. So there can't be any "software patent right", because patenting software is illegal anyway. I would suggest you fix the illegal doings of your patent office first, if they're granting software patents.
Of course, free sex will hinder the development of prostitution. Probably they think sex with professionals is much better than with amateurs, obviously ;)
I somehow doubt that this might be the same ever crossed their minds.
32% DRM sucks, and copyright is too rigid
31% DRM sucks
32% your sales channel is shite
36% your offers are too expensive
36% your sales channel is shite
43% commercials are shite
So what are you going to do about this? Bitch about those who think your offers are too expensive and demand harsher laws in order to stop them?
On the post: Art And Copyright In The Age Of Compulsive Looking
Re: copyright is unlimited - in museums
For instance, any reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art for which copyright has expired CAN NOT be placed under copyright again. So you're free to scan museum postcards or catalogues and publish them again. You can't put a license on them, because they're public domain anyway.
It's different with three-dimensional works of art, where light, angle, focus and so on play a role. This means, a photograph of say, a piece of armour, can underlie copyright. Not the armour, but the photograph of it, because it can constitute a work of art itself.
Any museum trying to restrict photography on the basis of copyright can only do this for modern works (but doesn't even have to -- the work is on public display, and unless the photographer publishes his picture, no copyright violation has taken place), but not ever for anything which does not underlie copyright (anymore).
They can however, restrict photography however they want, on the basis of householders right. If you violate that, they can throw you out. But they don't have any right to a) search your camera, b) make you delete your pictures, c) call the police (unless you refuse to leave) to obtain a or b. And in case you've photographed a three-dimensional work, your picture probably even underlies copyright, and deleting it would be a destruction of your copyrighted work... ;)
On the post: Stop & Frisk Accomplishments: Barely Any Illegal Weapons Recovered, But Tons Of Weed Smokers Jailed
A song?
On the post: How Long Before A Patent Kills A Hundred Million People?
Re: Facts
So in reality, they probably spent 5 millions on it.
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/biosoc/journal/v6/n1/abs/biosoc201040a.html
On the post: Reporters Tell Attorney General Eric Holder They Won't Agree To 'Off The Record' Meeting As Scale Of Journalist Spying Expands
not unlike the president he serves.
The liberal president which imprisons people without charge? Yup, not unlike each other. Neither liberal, nor pragmatic, nor balanced, however.
On the post: Dumb Idea Or Dumbest Idea: Letting Companies Use Malware Against Infringers
Re:
I mean, private people can advocate anything, but if they're officials, proposing ideas like this in an official role at least warrants immediate dismissal, if not an investigation for high treason (trying to subvert national security etc...).
On the post: Dumb Idea Or Dumbest Idea: Letting Companies Use Malware Against Infringers
In Soviet America..
On the post: Hollywood Studios Send DMCA Takedowns Over Kim Dotcom's Mega Service
Sue them
So they're actually wide open to a lawsuit for illegal assertion of copyright, aka copyfraud.
On the post: Filmmaker Behind The Pirate Bay Documentary Says Bogus DMCA Takedowns Take Away His Free Speech
Re: Anomaly? Coincicence? Or does DMCA = Censorship?
Of course. But did he or the studios pay the lawmakers?
On the post: Filmmaker Behind The Pirate Bay Documentary Says Bogus DMCA Takedowns Take Away His Free Speech
Re: What a whiney baby + @ "Oh, you didn’t just say that."
On the post: Amazon Wants To Sell Fan Fiction With It, Originator And FanFic Author All Sharing Profits
Re: "reasonably monetize what might be considered infringement under the law"
Fan Fiction is NOT, and CAN NOT be copyright infringement, because there is nothing copied at all.
US: "102 (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."
Copyright is about the exact form, and not about an "idea" or a "concept".
The use of characters and settings developed by others MIGHT constitute trademark infringement (if named the same), but most literary characters are not even trademarked.
On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform
Re:
It has a relation to totalitarianism, and with the soviet union being a totalitarian state, it was it's natural ally.
But of course, you can turn the argument upon its head, and claim that copyright is "anti-democracy", since it's "pro-totalitarian" ;)
On the post: EU Commission Sued For Refusing To Reveal Trade Agreement Documents They Shared With Lobbyists
Re:
On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright
Discrimination
Presumably "Business Europe" is therefore a criminal organization ;)
On the post: Major Hollywood Studios All Sent Bogus DMCA Takedowns Concerning The Pirate Bay Documentary
Copyfraud
This is a very clear copyright infringement, it's even a case of disputing the copyright away from the creator of the work.
On the post: Chinese Junk Patents Flood Into Australia, Allowing Chinese Companies To Strategically Block Innovation
Re: Re: Patenting the wheel, and other myths
On the post: Chinese Junk Patents Flood Into Australia, Allowing Chinese Companies To Strategically Block Innovation
Re: Patenting the wheel, and other myths
Oh, no, it's not. The Chinese obviously found the hole in your system, and are exploiting it.
Actually, the Chinese found the really big hole, and it turns out it's the patent system as a whole. They are now able to stifle innovation in a big style, in any country that adheres to international patent treaties, or that even HAS a patent system and allow . And, of course, they themselves can just ignore any foreign patents as they wish, to not enchain their own economy.
Besides; your advertisement of your system as "a more balanced software patent right" is absurd in the first place. Software, being math, is not patentable. Nowhere on earth. So there can't be any "software patent right", because patenting software is illegal anyway. I would suggest you fix the illegal doings of your patent office first, if they're granting software patents.
On the post: French Politicians Worry That Free Creative Commons Works Devalue 'Legal' Offers
Free Sex
I somehow doubt that this might be the same ever crossed their minds.
On the post: Here's A Taste Of What Publishers Will Do If First Sale Rights For Foreign Goods Disappear
Something else will happen
Which will immediately lead to everyone else calling the USA for breach of WIPO contracts, and the judgement will be overturned very very fast.
On the post: Iceland's MPAA Pirates Software; Tries To Defend Itself On Facebook; Runs Away
Re: Creative America
Apparently it does: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130201/12043621854/many-motivations-movie-piracy-notably-absent-i -want-everything-free.shtml
42% of people copying movies illegaly do so because they don't want to see commercials. So advertising pretty much fosters "piracy".
On the post: The Many Motivations Of Movie Piracy (Notably Absent: 'I Want Everything For Free')
Translation
31% DRM sucks
32% your sales channel is shite
36% your offers are too expensive
36% your sales channel is shite
43% commercials are shite
So what are you going to do about this? Bitch about those who think your offers are too expensive and demand harsher laws in order to stop them?
Next >>