Talk:Copyright

Misstatements on US copyright in "Conception" section

The article currently says in the "Conception" section, that: In the US, the Constitution protects the rights of authors and the legislature, Congress, can create national copyright laws but must exercise their power within the scope of the Constitution. This is not correct. Congress is empowered by the copyright clause to protect the rights of authors, but is free not to do so. Copyright is not constitutionally protected -- Congress could abolish it if it chos to do so, although this i highly unlikely. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That same section mentions the US copyright acts of 1790, 1906, and 1976. But it omits the significant act of 1802. (I will need to check my source for the exact date, but it is close to that.) That act was the one in force in the US for over 100 years, and made significant changes to the 1790 act. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That same section says authority was granted to the states to protect authors’ unpublished works. Again not quite correct. Ther was no Constitutional grant of authority to the US States over copyright, and to the best of my understanding there were no state-level copyright statutes. State courts did undertake as part of the existing common law, to protect rights to unpublished works. This ended with the Act of 1976, which extended federal copyright protection to works at the moment of fixation, and preempted all state copyrights. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyright enforcement in non-U.S. countries/copyright enforcement for various forms of media

Would this be a topic worth fleshing out in this article? I know that Japan has a very different attitude towards regulating fan works than the U.S. does (i.e. passively lets most fan works be sold for money, even if they are popular, most of the time v.s. as soon as a fan-work is popular, especially if it's making money, the cease-and-desist hammer will be used). DriftWrench2k (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be :). Finding a reliable source to cite for that information that meets Wiki standards might be difficult, though..i am not really sure how one would go about searching for that.

Firejuggler86 (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Needs Explaining

"However, Parc argues that contrary to prevailing beliefs, imitation and copying do not restrict cultural creativity or diversity but in fact support them further. This argument has been supported by many examples such as Millet and Van Gogh, Picasso, Manet, and Monet, etc"

How do these famous long dead artists support the argument? Are they being copied? Did they copy when they were alive? The footnote links to a page that does not contain the explanation or requires an account to see the explanation. No good for those of us who don't have an account. Please provide more explanation. Or delete the sentence mentioning these artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjnwood (talk • contribs) 23:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Fix citation link to copyright.gov circ

"United States copyright law does not cover names, titles, short phrases or listings (such as ingredients, recipes, labels, or formulas).[69]"

Reference 69 currently links to https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.pdf which discusses registering copyright for multiple works. Instead, it should link to https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf which is titled "Works Not Protected by Copyright".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.38.60.4 (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)