Describe the proposed change in detail and outline how and why it would benefit the entertainment industry. The paper should address a change to one of the five key cornerstones we’ve discussed in class:
(I) Copyright Ownership,
(ii) Copyright Registration,
(iii) Copyright Notice,
(iv) Duration of Copyright and
(v) Copyright Infringement.
In addition to citing the US Copyright Act, feel free cite case law, articles, journals and other third-party publications. 7 U.S. Code § 102 – Subject matter of copyright: In general 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. I would like to propose a change to code B In clause B<<<< no work is protected from an original work of authorship extent to any ideas, procedures. In my opinion I feel that it would be necessary to modify this clause and the there would be protection for pre-existing material. Even though the works are derived for an original work, these have nothing to do with any idea, procedure, operation of the said work. This would give protection and registry to new works derived form the original. “change in detail and outline how and why it would benefit the entertainment industry. A composer is researching a music copyright to determine if it has expired for a piece that has a segment he wants to use in his composition. He determines that it has not. Desiring to use it anyway, he contacts the heirs of the piece’s “author” in the hopes of getting permission to use the segment. If the composer gets permission to use the segment, his copyright on his new musical score would not cover the portion that he has borrowed. Any copyrights for pre-existing material used other works remain with the original author. If the copyright had lapsed on the the music, the music would have fallen into the “public domain.” Copyright protection does not extend to public domain material inserted into a new work that is otherwise protected by copyright. If this were not so, then the act of inserting it into the new work would instantly remove the material from the public domain and make it unavailable for others to use. (more on public domain) Facts The Unites States Code does not specifically identify “facts” as being exempt from protection. Rather, it states, “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.” The U.S. Supreme Court, inFeist vs. Rural Telephone, says that this is “universally” understood to exclude facts, as well. In the same ruling, Court states that facts do not originate from authorship. They are, thus, not original, and, again, not copyrightable. Where original expression is used to explain or convey a fact, the original expression is protected. However, the underlying facts are not. one might think that facts that they have discovered and that are not known by anyone else should be protected when they have gone to all of the effort to put them into a document. This is not the case. The person who finds a fact and writes about it has not created it, he has merely discovered it. Thus the requirement of original expression cannot satisfied. No lines are drawn by the law between what is creative enough to be protected by copyright and what is not creative enough. Only cases and statutes tell us what is or is not creative enough. The Copyright Act says: 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. 5″ copyright protection for an original work of authorship. My personal opinion is that everything that derives form pre`existing materials should be protected by copy right law. In the case of The Verve’s Bitter Sweet Symphony, the song didn’t have anything to do with the original sampled version. Richard Klein, Rolling Stones’ manager, didn’t agree for the band to just license the right to sample the original recording, because in his own words “we don’t believe in sampling.” What Klein offered instead was to but the Verve’s copy right for 1 thousand dollars. The record label, EMI, was forced to take the deal, because otherwise they would have not been able to release the album on schedule with this song being the obvious hit. Bitter Sweet Symphony went on to make millions of dollars for Klein and the Rolling Stones and only 1000 dollars for the writers of the actual song. http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotected.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_copyright_case_law
