Anyone have a sample they could share of their corporate copyright policy?
I have lots of samples of academic ones, but I'd like to include some
corporate ones in a workshop I'm teaching on writing a copyright policy.
Thanks.
Lesley
Lesley Ellen Harris
lesley[_at_]copyrightlaws.com
> CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property Digest #2716
> 1) Re: IETF/source code copyright status
> by "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen[_at_]rosenlaw.com>
> 2) Re: TV ads break copyright law
> by "John T. Mitchell" <mitchell[_at_]interactionlaw.com>
> 3) Re: Conde Nast vs. Blackmask (copyright infringement)
> by "J. Noble" <jfnbl[_at_]earthlink.com>
>
> This digest is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to FEED mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-feed[_at_]cni.org>
> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> To resume mail list message delivery from postpone mode, E-mail to
> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-feed[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at
> <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:10:00 -0400
> Message-ID: <redirect-13431749[_at_]cni.org>
> From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen[_at_]rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: RE: [CNI-(C)] Re: IETF/source code copyright status
> In-Reply-To: <list-13403819[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Greg Aharonian wrote:
>> So ask yourself. Does source code describe, explain, illustrate =
> and/or
>> embody the idea, processes, system (structure), methods of operation,
>> and concepts in a computer programs (all aspects of which are ideas =
> under
>> patent law)? When patents and Web pages dealing with source code uses
>> phrases such as "source code illustrates", are they using "illustrate"
>> with the same meaning as in 102(b)? If so, this latter language of
>> 102(b) raises its ugly head. I assume this is what Larry is referring =
> to.
>
> Actually, Greg, I wasn't trying to reach quite so far. That logic might =
> make
> all software source code non-copyrightable, which is clearly not what =
> was
> intended by Congress.
>
> It is in the area of industry standards that copyright becomes difficult =
> to
> sustain. When we require everyone to follow the same specification (we
> *intend* conformance), we cannot lock up that idea, process, system, =
> method
> of operation or concept under an almost permanent monopoly merely just
> because it is necessary to express it in specific words.=20
>
> That is also, I believe, why applicants for US patents are required to
> authorize copying of their specifications:
>
> ******************************************
> 37 C.F.R. =A7 1.71 Detailed description and specification of the =
> invention.
>
> (d) A copyright or mask work notice may be placed in a design or utility
> patent application adjacent to copyright and mask work material =
> contained
> therein. The notice may appear at any appropriate portion of the patent
> application disclosure. For notices in drawings, see =A7 1.84(s). The =
> content
> of the notice must be limited to only those elements provided for by =
> law.
> For example, "=A91983 John Doe"(17 U.S.C. 401) and "*M* John Doe" (17 =
> U.S.C.
> 909) would be properly limited and, under current statutes, legally
> sufficient notices of copyright and mask work, respectively. Inclusion =
> of a
> copyright or mask work notice will be permitted only if the =
> authorization
> language set forth in paragraph (e) of this section is included at the
> beginning (preferably as the first paragraph) of the specification.
>
> (e) The authorization shall read as follows: A portion of the disclosure =
> of
> this patent document contains material which is subject to (copyright or
> mask work) protection. The (copyright or mask work) owner has no =
> objection
> to the facsimile reproduction by any=ADone of the patent document or the
> patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office =
> patent
> file or records, but otherwise reserves all (copyright or mask work) =
> rights
> whatsoever.
> ******************************************
>
> It appears, by the way, that the PTO has not yet recognized that section
> 1.71(d) needs to be changed to deal with specifications in which no
> copyright notice appears (but for which copyright subsists per 17 U.S.C.
> 102(a)!). Furthermore, it is common practice for people (including =
> patent
> attorneys) to modify previous patent specifications while describing new
> inventions, yet the authorization of 1.71(e) doesn't even mention =
> derivative
> works. Notice that the sample copyright notice in 1.71(d) is dated 1983.
> Perhaps we should recommend an update.
>
> /Larry Rosen
>
> Lawrence Rosen
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
> Stanford University, Lecturer in Law
> 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
> 707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:10:00 -0400
> Message-ID: <redirect-13431754[_at_]cni.org>
> In-Reply-To: <list-13416697[_at_]cni.org>
> References: <list-13390866[_at_]cni.org> <list-13397952[_at_]cni.org>
> <list-13403822[_at_]cni.org> <list-13416697[_at_]cni.org>
> From: "John T. Mitchell" <mitchell[_at_]interactionlaw.com>
> Subject: Re: [CNI-(C)] TV ads break copyright law
>
> I didn't view the case as a moral rights case (though admittedly, I
> viewed it through the lens of U.S.A. law). It struck me more as a
> derivative work kind of issue -- analogous to me writing a 12-chapter
> book, authorizing a publisher to reproduce N copies, and the
> publisher, without any authorization from me, decides to insert a
> couple of extra chapters -- not representing them as mine, and
> clearly known to the reader as being crass commercial solicitations
> that helped finance the publication, but nevertheless alterations to
> my work.
>
> Movie trailers on the leader BEFORE a DVD movie starts are fine, as
> are commercial advertisements included before or after a movie, but
> if I inserted advertisements in the middle of the movie, I have think
> USA courts would consider a derivative work analysis.
>
> John
>
>
> John T. Mitchell
> http://interactionlaw.com
>
>
>
> On Apr 14, 2006, at 6:15 PM, Karl-Erik Tallmo wrote:
>
>> This is another question of moral rights, BTW. And on top of that
>> how contracts are written. In this case, the filmmakers - Claes
>> Eriksson and the newly deceased Vilgot Sjoman, who were plaintiffs
>> - had never signed the usual contract that permits the TV channel
>> to show the films with ad breaks.
>>
>> /Karl-Erik Tallmo
>>
>>
>>> TV ads break copyright law
>>> By The Local, 12th April 2006
>>> http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=3536&date=20060412
>>>
>>> "Swedish television channel TV4 infringed the copyright of
>>> filmmakers Claes
>>> Eriksson and the recently deceased Vilgot Sjoman by inserting
>>> commercial
>>> breaks in their films, said the Svea Court of Appeal on Wednesday."
>>
>> #############################################################
>> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
>> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
>> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
>> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
>> To resume mail list message delivery from postpone mode, E-mail to
>> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-feed[_at_]cni.org>
>> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>>
>> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <https://
>> mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:10:00 -0400
> Message-ID: <redirect-13431755[_at_]cni.org>
> In-Reply-To: <list-13416693[_at_]cni.org>
> References: <list-13388550[_at_]cni.org> <list-13389920[_at_]cni.org>
> <list-13390846[_at_]cni.org> <list-13397949[_at_]cni.org> <list-13403807[_at_]cni.org>
> <list-13414638[_at_]cni.org> <list-13416693[_at_]cni.org>
> From: "J. Noble" <jfnbl[_at_]earthlink.com>
> Subject: Re: [CNI-(C)] Re: Conde Nast vs. Blackmask (copyright
> infringement)
>
> --============_-1067065728==_ma============
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
>
> At 6:15 PM -0400 4/14/06, Steven Jamar wrote:
>>On Apr 14, 2006, at 10:50 AM, J. Noble wrote:
>>
>>>I
>>>
>>>The scope of the right, taking into account the policy
>>>considerations, was largely defined by Congress in sec. 106. I'll
>>>grant that the statute is trumped by the "constitutional
>>>framework," but I didn't hear Prof. Jamar offer a constitutional
>>>argument for compulsory license. I heard an equitable argument. My
>>>point was that the copyright holder doesn't need equity if he has
>>>sec. 106. It is the compulsory license that depends on the
>>>licensee's claim to equity. I can't think of a situation in which
>>>the legal right under the Act is trumped by equity, which usually
>>>stands in when there isn't a statute.
>>>
>>
>>1. tolling the statute of limitations
>>2. misuse
>>
>>I am not claiming that such an equitable license exists at present.
>>I just think it is a provocative idea and as a potential legal
>>theory gets one well past the giggle threshold. And I am not
>>advocating it. But I would not so easily dismiss it out of hand,
>>either.
>
> I didn't dismiss it easily. I was serious when I said it was
> thought-provoking. I think it is largely bad policy, but the
> Microsoft/Apple hypo has me thinking.
>
>>The Copyright Act doesn't provide for contributory infringer
>>liability either, but the courts found a way. Fair use was invented
>>by the courts and is now in the statute. I find the idea that in
>>the US the courts cannot continue to develop copyright law rather
>>curious in light of Grokster.
>
> As long as their are new ways to infringe (or not), the law will
> continue to develop.
>
> John
> --============_-1067065728==_ma============
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
>
> <!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
> <html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
> blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
> --></style><title>Re: [CNI-(C)] Re: Conde Nast vs. Blackmask
> (copyright i</title></head><body>
> <div>At 6:15 PM -0400 4/14/06, Steven Jamar wrote:</div>
> <blockquote type="cite" cite>On Apr 14, 2006, at 10:50 AM, J. Noble
> wrote:</blockquote>
> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
> <blockquote type="cite" cite>I</blockquote>
> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
> <blockquote type="cite" cite>The scope of the right, taking into
> account the policy considerations, was largely defined by Congress in
> sec. 106. I'll grant that the statute is trumped by the
> "constitutional framework," but I didn't hear Prof. Jamar
> offer a constitutional argument for compulsory license. I heard an
> equitable argument. My point was that the copyright holder doesn't
> need equity if he has sec. 106. It is the compulsory license that
> depends on the<i> licensee's</i> claim to equity. I can't think
> of a situation in which the legal right under the Act is trumped by
> equity, which usually stands in when there isn't a statute.<br>
> </blockquote>
> </blockquote>
> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
> <blockquote type="cite" cite>1.<x-tab>
> </x-tab>tolling the statute of limitations</blockquote>
> <blockquote type="cite" cite>2.<x-tab>
> </x-tab>misuse</blockquote>
> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
> <blockquote type="cite" cite>I am not claiming that such an equitable
> license exists at present. I just think it is a provocative idea
> and as a potential legal theory gets one well past the giggle
> threshold. And I am not advocating it. But I would not so
> easily dismiss it out of hand, either.</blockquote>
> <div><br></div>
> <div>I didn't dismiss it easily. I was serious when I said it was
> thought-provoking. I think it is largely bad policy, but the
> Microsoft/Apple hypo has me thinking.</div>
> <div><br></div>
> <blockquote type="cite" cite>The Copyright Act doesn't provide for
> contributory infringer liability either, but the courts found a way.
> Fair use was invented by the courts and is now in the statute. I
> find the idea that in the US the courts cannot continue to develop
> copyright law rather curious in light of Grokster.</blockquote>
> <div><br></div>
> <div>As long as their are new ways to infringe (or not), the law will
> continue to develop.</div>
> <div><br></div>
> <div>John</div>
> </body>
> </html>
> --============_-1067065728==_ma============--
>
> ------------------------------
> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at
> <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>
> End of CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property Digest #2716
> **********************************************************************
Received on Wed Apr 19 2006 - 01:00:00 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:56 GMT