What about Paraphrasing?
We are frequently asked, "how much might I copy?" Paraphrasing is a matter of degree and whether or not en unlicensed use of another's work is a parody or other "fair use" defense may apply. Technically any copying and/or republishing of any copyrighted work is an infringement. If however a very insubstantial or de minimus amount of text is "taken" or if the rephrasing is to "comment" on the original work it could fall into the defense of Fair Use the topic of a concentrated article.
If you only take an idea from a book, film or other work it would be arguably not a "copy" but you would be using the idea to further expand. Don't forget - copyright protects against someone plagiarizing, not using ideas. The basic premise is not to prevent the expansion of use of ideas, for this would stifle creativity forever, but to prevent others from using the fruits on one's labor to profit. one court stated, "It is hardly an inducement to [an author] to do the years of research and scholarship needed to produce an authoritative text if an untrained writer may paraphrase major portions and make a competing text out of it"); Donald v. Zack Meyer's T.V. Sales & Serv., 426 F.2d 1027, 1030 (5th Cir.Ct. App. 1970) and again, "A resemblance in details of setting incident, or characterization that falls short of close paraphrase may be enough to establish substantial similarity and infringement." Landsberg v. Scrabble Crossword Game Players, Inc., 736 F.2d 485, 488 (9th Cir. Ct. App. 1984).
Factual Works Differ:
Subsequent authors wishing to express an idea contained in a factual work such as a history, mathematical book, scientific text, and films of historical events like "Titanic" and "Amistad" often can choose from only a narrow range of expression. For example, Landsberg's work states that "[t]he poor player simply attempts to make as many points as possible each turn." The idea contained in that statement cannot be expressed in a wide variety of ways. Just about any subsequent expression of that idea is likely to appear to be a substantially similar paraphrase of the words with which Landsberg expressed the idea. Therefore, similarity of expression may have to amount to verbatim reproduction or very close paraphrasing before a factual work will be deemed infringed. The Amistad film raised a similar issue, whether the author of the book "Echo of Lions" could prove an infringement. The court stated that it was not an infringement because, "Copyright protection does not extend to historical or contemporary facts, material traceable to common sources or in public domains, and scenes a faire." (CHASE-RIBOUD vs. DREAMWORKS, INC 45
U.S.P.Q.2d 1259, (9th Cir. Ct. App. 1997).
The Duration of Copyright:
1. Copyright lasted until November 1998 for the life of the author plus 50 years. In order to more fully come into the modern e-world of long lasting copyrights in billions of dollars in intellectual property, the U.S. has now passed the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act." (S. 505)
a. The Act extends the life of copyrights from life plus 50 years to life plus 70 years for works that were created on or after January 1, 1978, the effective date of the Present Copyright Act of 1976. 17 USC Sec. 302.
b. The life of copyrights for works created before January 1, 1978 is extended by 20 years from 47 to 67 years
beyond the original 1909 Act term of 56 years after publication. NOTE: This will soon be a topic of a detailed new article on the Duration of Copyright and other Modern Issues.
c. In software, since there is a USE for the copyright material (the function of the software as used by hardware) there are several layers of this problem; the equation includes these three parts of the expression of ideas in software. Thus, one must "fix" the PROCESS, METHOD and USEFUL elements in a tangible medium before copyright can be claimed. If the method of a work is useful, then the work might ALSO have a PATENT possible, the topic of a future article.
NOTES ON THE FUTURE:
Congress has passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, changing the negative effect of holdings of many cases that have held that copyrights can be enforced even for a brief, though useful "copy" of the operating system of a computer that resides in the RAM (random access memory) of another, but unauthorized, computer. See MAI vs. Peak. There is one consistent theme regarding copyrights and the digital world, Internet, and the coming networked age, and that is CHANGE. Weekly copyright laws are challenged by the changing and rapidly advancing and expanding universe of Internet users. Not only is policing more important than ever but registration upon completion of a work for use on the Internet is a must. Cases like MAI will be within an exemption to infringement of copyright since the act of copying an OS onto another computer for the legitimate licensor of the OS for the purposes of maintenance of the OS, is not an infringement under the definition of the DMCA. A new article will soon appear on this topic.
The quantity of copyright infringements is on the increase due in part to the "easy" technology available to all to publish and "lift" images, film, video, photographs, text sounds and other matter. NAPSTER almost destroyed the music industry. These are so many that they might not be as easy to detect. New "spiders" and "bots" are used to watch for a "watermarked" image files; the source for the image it finds may be a pirate has made an infringement. The complex world of infringement on the Internet is the subject for future articles. Stay Tuned!
Check out the US Government Official Copyright Office website: www.copyright.gov.
We are frequently asked, "how much might I copy?" Paraphrasing is a matter of degree and whether or not en unlicensed use of another's work is a parody or other "fair use" defense may apply. Technically any copying and/or republishing of any copyrighted work is an infringement. If however a very insubstantial or de minimus amount of text is "taken" or if the rephrasing is to "comment" on the original work it could fall into the defense of Fair Use the topic of a concentrated article.
If you only take an idea from a book, film or other work it would be arguably not a "copy" but you would be using the idea to further expand. Don't forget - copyright protects against someone plagiarizing, not using ideas. The basic premise is not to prevent the expansion of use of ideas, for this would stifle creativity forever, but to prevent others from using the fruits on one's labor to profit. one court stated, "It is hardly an inducement to [an author] to do the years of research and scholarship needed to produce an authoritative text if an untrained writer may paraphrase major portions and make a competing text out of it"); Donald v. Zack Meyer's T.V. Sales & Serv., 426 F.2d 1027, 1030 (5th Cir.Ct. App. 1970) and again, "A resemblance in details of setting incident, or characterization that falls short of close paraphrase may be enough to establish substantial similarity and infringement." Landsberg v. Scrabble Crossword Game Players, Inc., 736 F.2d 485, 488 (9th Cir. Ct. App. 1984).
Factual Works Differ:
Subsequent authors wishing to express an idea contained in a factual work such as a history, mathematical book, scientific text, and films of historical events like "Titanic" and "Amistad" often can choose from only a narrow range of expression. For example, Landsberg's work states that "[t]he poor player simply attempts to make as many points as possible each turn." The idea contained in that statement cannot be expressed in a wide variety of ways. Just about any subsequent expression of that idea is likely to appear to be a substantially similar paraphrase of the words with which Landsberg expressed the idea. Therefore, similarity of expression may have to amount to verbatim reproduction or very close paraphrasing before a factual work will be deemed infringed. The Amistad film raised a similar issue, whether the author of the book "Echo of Lions" could prove an infringement. The court stated that it was not an infringement because, "Copyright protection does not extend to historical or contemporary facts, material traceable to common sources or in public domains, and scenes a faire." (CHASE-RIBOUD vs. DREAMWORKS, INC 45
U.S.P.Q.2d 1259, (9th Cir. Ct. App. 1997).
The Duration of Copyright:
1. Copyright lasted until November 1998 for the life of the author plus 50 years. In order to more fully come into the modern e-world of long lasting copyrights in billions of dollars in intellectual property, the U.S. has now passed the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act." (S. 505)
a. The Act extends the life of copyrights from life plus 50 years to life plus 70 years for works that were created on or after January 1, 1978, the effective date of the Present Copyright Act of 1976. 17 USC Sec. 302.
b. The life of copyrights for works created before January 1, 1978 is extended by 20 years from 47 to 67 years
beyond the original 1909 Act term of 56 years after publication. NOTE: This will soon be a topic of a detailed new article on the Duration of Copyright and other Modern Issues.
c. In software, since there is a USE for the copyright material (the function of the software as used by hardware) there are several layers of this problem; the equation includes these three parts of the expression of ideas in software. Thus, one must "fix" the PROCESS, METHOD and USEFUL elements in a tangible medium before copyright can be claimed. If the method of a work is useful, then the work might ALSO have a PATENT possible, the topic of a future article.
NOTES ON THE FUTURE:
Congress has passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, changing the negative effect of holdings of many cases that have held that copyrights can be enforced even for a brief, though useful "copy" of the operating system of a computer that resides in the RAM (random access memory) of another, but unauthorized, computer. See MAI vs. Peak. There is one consistent theme regarding copyrights and the digital world, Internet, and the coming networked age, and that is CHANGE. Weekly copyright laws are challenged by the changing and rapidly advancing and expanding universe of Internet users. Not only is policing more important than ever but registration upon completion of a work for use on the Internet is a must. Cases like MAI will be within an exemption to infringement of copyright since the act of copying an OS onto another computer for the legitimate licensor of the OS for the purposes of maintenance of the OS, is not an infringement under the definition of the DMCA. A new article will soon appear on this topic.
The quantity of copyright infringements is on the increase due in part to the "easy" technology available to all to publish and "lift" images, film, video, photographs, text sounds and other matter. NAPSTER almost destroyed the music industry. These are so many that they might not be as easy to detect. New "spiders" and "bots" are used to watch for a "watermarked" image files; the source for the image it finds may be a pirate has made an infringement. The complex world of infringement on the Internet is the subject for future articles. Stay Tuned!
Check out the US Government Official Copyright Office website: www.copyright.gov.