Talk:Copyright

Untitled

This page is for discussion of the particular contents of the Copyright article, or for straightforward questions about copyright. This article is not the place for:

1. debates about the merits of copyright. See Talk:Copyright/is copyright worthwhile?.
2. discussion of Wikipedia's copyright policies. See Wikipedia:Copyrights, or, for more informal discussion, see Wikipedia:Copyright issues.
3. Legal advice about copyright. Please see an attorney authorized to practice law in your jurisdiction.

---

Potential additional section

Hi. I am considering beginning a section about the "Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization" Act (TEACH) within this article. This act, in effect in the United States, provides educators with the right to use other's works within classroom and education settings. I am wondering if others agree that this information should be included. Also, if it is to be included, should I create a new section for it--perhaps beneath the "Fair use and fair dealing" section?

I also believe that it might be appropriate to briefly include information about how the creative commons helps individuals--free of charge--define and make public the terms of use of material to which they hold the copyright. Do others feel that this should be included? If so, would it be appropriate to place this information under the general section "Obtaining and enforcing copyright"? Or should I create a new sub-section within this section? Or would it be more appropriate somewhere else?

I am new to Wikipedia and I would appreciate any feedback that anyone can provide before I make any changes. Thank you!:)Marshallc8 (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I, a fellow University of Toronto student here! I think your suggestions would be a good addition, especially about TEACH. For the latter, a new section makes sense to me, perhaps one titled `Limitations on Copyright` right under the `Fair use and fair dealing section. Jamila iSchool (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jamila. Thanks for the suggestion! I have already added a section about the Creative Commons. Perhaps I will begin to work on the TEACH section soon...in the mean time, if you would like to work on it as well I would be happy to collaborate. There is no pressure if you aren't inclined to do so, but just in case you are interested I wanted to make it clear that I would be happy to have help.Marshallc8 (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi again! I would love to collaborate, if you do not feel it is too late? I will look into writing a brief paragraph on the history of TEACH and post it tomorrow morning, if perhaps you want do one about the content/implications of it? Or vice versa? I will be online around 9am tomorrow. Thanks for the proposal. Jamila iSchool (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the delayed response. I'm pretty bogged down with work right now...but I like the idea of working together. Perhaps it is a bit late to complete a joint endeavor for assignment 2, but it might be useful for the final one, as well as just improving the article. If you want to go ahead with a history paragraph (or other info about TEACH) I will add to it a bit later. Or if you have something else in mind I'm sure that would work too! Marshallc8 (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries! Same on my end. Let's try then for the next one. Jamila iSchool (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright and traditional knowledge

Hi there,

I am proposing a couple of edits to this section. As I am new to Wikipedia I’m unsure of the reference at the top of this section to Main article. Does this mean that this edit should apply to the main article as well? Should I be also posting edits on the other page?

In terms of my edits, I'm adding additional terms that are often used interchangeably with traditional knowledge such as indigenous knowledge, traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), people’s science or rural people’s knowledge.

More importantly, I see that there is a need to provide some insights into the reasons why there are different approaches to protecting traditional knowledge. I will be doing these edits in the next couple of hours. I would appreciate another eye on these edits and any feedback. Thanks.Nas Khan (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC

Hi Nas! I jusr wanted to leave a quick note about your addition to the article. I think it is a good addition, and adds a lot to the article. In the main, it points to some of the complexity involved in copyright law, which may lead readers to explore or at least be aware of the issues at stake in the use of copyright and intellectual property laws in protecting indigenious/traditional knowledge. Jamila iSchool (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes to History section of article

Hello everyone,

I am proposing a change to the History section of the article. Under 2.1 Early European printers' monopoly, after the first paragraph, I would like to add a couple of paragraphs that elaborate on the early factors which led to the emergence of copyright law by including the rise of capitalism and the subsequent commodification as factors. I think this is important because the replacement of feudalism with capitalism has been pointed out as an important prerequisite for the development of the very conception of intellectual and artistic work as property. Indeed, without the capitalist property paradigm, the conversation is moot. Alternatively, perhaps this can be put under section 18 Copyright as property right. Specifically, I am thinking of adding the following content, or something very similar, after the first paragraph of section 2.1 unless, as mentioned above, it ends up seeming best in section 18 - I have various sources to verify the below which I will add as footnotes when I make tha actual changes to the page:

Aside from the role of governments and the church, the history of copyright law is in essential ways also connected to the rise of capitalism and the attendant extension of commodity relations to the realm of creative human activities, such as literary and artistic production. Similarly, different cultural attitudes, social organizations, economic models and legal frameworks are seen to account for why copyright emerged in Europe and not in for example in Asia, where capitalism did not emerge until later.

In the Middle Ages in Europe, there was generally a lack of any concept of literary property due to the general relations of production, the specific organization of literary production and the role of culture in society. The latter refers to the tendency of oral societies, such as that of Europe in the medieval period, to view knowledge as the product, expression and property of the collective. There could be no copyright law in this period in Europe just as the conditions for copyright law in other parts of the world did not develop until later, or until Euro-American countries introduced such laws and conceptions through by dint of their colonial powers. Not until capitalism emerges in Europe with its focus on the individual, does the conception of intellectual property and by extension copyright law emerge. The most significant point is that under the capitalist mode of production, patent and copyright laws support in fundamental and thoroughgoing ways the expansion of the range of creative human activities that can be commodified.

... I would appreciate any and or all feedback! Jamila iSchool (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jamila, I think that you have identified an important piece of the story of copyright that was previously left out. This is a valuable contribution to this page. I wonder if Wikipedians (not sure if I can truly count myself as one) would have issue with your statement "Euro-American countries introduced such laws and conceptions through by dint of their colonial powers" as someone could interpret this as having a particular slant. The taking on of laws and concepts could be seen as an adoption by said countries. Nas Khan (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! It is very helpful. I will change the wording on that sentence. I had thought it was a neutral way of talking about the role of colonialism in spreading this knowledge paradigm but that is exactly why it is helpful to get other perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamila iSchool (talk • contribs) 13:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent setback

With deep apologies to those who have been working to repair this article, I'm afraid that User:Puramyun31 restored the copyvio version. You have been working to improve it, instead of the clean copy of this article. I have had to revert back. I will add back your clean content, but it's clear now that we need a revision delete of the text to avoid this kind of thing happening again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"copyrighted" is a neologism and not a real word

"copyright" is an adjective. "Copyrighted" can be found all over the place, but it lessens my confidence that the writer actually knows what words mean. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Language evolves. [1], [2]. We humans like our shortcuts. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The OED (my 1933 paper set) gives the verb form of copyright as dating from 1878. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You have the paper set? </jealous> --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's easier to get hold of a paper OED than it is to find the 3' of extra-tall shelf space to put it on. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No doubt. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

For contexts prior to 1978, in the U.S., "copyrighted" makes perfect sense. Prior to 1978, one did actually copyright a work: either by publishing it with a copyright notice (1909 Act, § 10) or by registering a claim of copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office (1909 Act § 12). Post-1978, a work is subject to copyright as soon as it's "fixed in a tangible medium of expression," so, under current law, "copyrighted" doesn't refer to anything more than creating something that is subject to copyright, and not so helpful. But it's still a word, even though it refers to something no longer around, just like it's not meaningless to refer to the Soviet Union.

Note that even the current U.S. Copyright Act itself uses the word "copyrighted," to denote exactly the sense described above:

"Copyright in a work created before January 1, 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for the term provided by section 302."

See 17 U.S.C. § 303(a). TJRC (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)