Jump to content

Copyfraud: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
川原 (talk | contribs)
4 edits
pov discussion has evidently ended
Line 1: Line 1:
{{POV|date=March 2009}}


'''Copyfraud''' is a term used by [[Jason Mazzone]] to describe the use of false claims of [[copyright]] to attempt to control works not under one's legal control.<ref name=Copyfraud-NYULR>{{cite journal |last=Mazzone |first=Jason |year=2006 |title=Copyfraud |journal=New York University Law Review |volume=81 |issue=3 |pages=1026 |url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=787244}}</ref>{{rp|1028}}
'''Copyfraud''' is a term used by [[Jason Mazzone]] to describe the use of false claims of [[copyright]] to attempt to control works not under one's legal control.<ref name=Copyfraud-NYULR>{{cite journal |last=Mazzone |first=Jason |year=2006 |title=Copyfraud |journal=New York University Law Review |volume=81 |issue=3 |pages=1026 |url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=787244}}</ref>{{rp|1028}}

Revision as of 22:24, 24 May 2009

Copyfraud is a term used by Jason Mazzone to describe the use of false claims of copyright to attempt to control works not under one's legal control.[1]: 1028 

Mazzone describes copyfraud as:

  • Claiming copyright ownership of public domain material.[1]: 1038 
  • Imposition by a copyright owner of restrictions beyond what the law allows.[1]: 1047 
  • Claiming copyright ownership on the basis of ownership of copies or archives.[1]: 1052 
  • Claiming copyright ownership by publishing a public domain work in a different medium.[1]: 1044–45 

Mazzone argues that copyfraud is usually successful because there are few and weak laws criminalizing false statements about copyrights and lax enforcement of such laws and because few people are competent enough to give legal advice on the copyright status of commandeered material.[1]: 1029–30  The U.S. Copyright Act does not provide for any civil penalties for claiming copyrights on public domain materials, nor does the Act prescribe relief for individuals who refrain from copying or pay for copying permission to an entity that engages in copyfraud.[1]: 1030 

In the U.S. Copyright Act, only two sections deal with improper assertions of copyright on public domain materials: Section 506(c) criminalizes fraudulent uses of copyright notices and Section 506(e) punishes knowingly making a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration.[1]: 1036  Section 512(f) additionally punishes using the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to remove material the issuer knows is not infringing.

Section 202 of the Australian Copyright Act 1968, which imposes penalties for 'groundless threats of legal proceedings', provides a cause of action of any false claims of copyright infringement. This should include false claims of copyright ownership of public domain material, or claims to impose copyright restrictions beyond those permitted by the law.

Examples

  • In 1984, Universal Studios sued Nintendo to stop them from profiting on their new Donkey Kong arcade game, on the basis that Donkey Kong was too similar to King Kong, which they owned. In the end, Nintendo's lawyers showed that Universal had argued against RKO General in 1975 that King Kong was in the public domain. Nintendo also won the appeal, a counterclaim, and a further appeal.[2] [3]
  • In 2003, electronic voting machine manufacturer Diebold, Inc. threatened two Swarthmore College students with charges of copyright infringement for posting some emails from Diebold's archives that discussed problems with its machines and issued takedown notices to several ISPs hosting links to the emails. One such ISP, the Online Policy Group, asserted on First Amendment (i.e., free speech) and public interest grounds that these links were not infringing and sued Diebold for issuing bogus takedown notices (an offence under DMCA § 512(f)). Diebold were ordered to pay damages of $125,000 to the students and OPG.[4]
  • In 2004, the SCO Group sued Novell, Inc. claiming that it owned the copyrights to the Unix operating system and Novell had infringed on its copyrights by adding Unix code to the Linux operating system. In August 2007, a court found that SCO's copyright claims were false and Novell in fact owned the Unix copyrights.[5]
  • In 2006, "Michael Crook" filed fraudulent DMCA claims against sites critical of him. The material he claimed copyright on was screenshots of his appearance on the Fox News Channel show Hannity & Colmes. In a March 2007 settlement, Crook agreed to withdraw the claims, apologize to his victims, and to limit his future copyright claims to material which he was legally allowed to file claims for.[6]
  • The American Antiquarian Society web site states that images of its archived printed materials from the 18th and 19th centuries (now automatically in the public domain due to age) "must be licensed by the society in consequence of its proprietary rights."[1]: 1053  [7]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i Mazzone, Jason (2006). "Copyfraud". New York University Law Review. 81 (3): 1026.
  2. ^ United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (October 4, 1984). Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.
  3. ^ United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (July 15, 1986). Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.
  4. ^ Online Policy Group v. Diebold | Electronic Frontier Foundation
  5. ^ http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,135858/article.html Novell Wins Right to Unix Copyrights
  6. ^ Diehl v. Crook | Electronic Frontier Foundation
  7. ^ Rights and Reproductions at the American Antiquarian Society
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copyfraud&oldid=292102854"