This list of issues I found that are pertinent to blogging is definitely not exhaustive; do drop a comment below if you find that I missed something out.
(1) Authors are entitled to copyright by law
The fact that many works are copyrighted is quite obvious since copyright notices are visible on many websites, but what some people don't realise is that authors are automatically entitled to the copyright in the work they create.
United States law:
"Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work." (U.S. Code, Title 17, Sec 201(a))
Singapore law:
"the author of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting in the work by virtue of this Part" (Chap. 63, Sec 30(2))
Additionally, the use of the copyright symbol, ©, is no longer necessary to claim copyright, although using it has certain consequences when it comes to lawsuits. (see Wikipedia section on copyright notices in U.S. Law)
(2) Some exceptions to the "authors hold copyright" rule
In both the United States and Singapore, copyright lasts for a certain number of years after author of the work dies.
In Singapore, this is 70 years from the author's death if the work was published, broadcast, etc, before the his or her death; but it is 70 from the time of publishing, broadcasting, etc, if this was not done before his or her death. (Chap. 63, Sec 28(2)-(3))
In the United States, if copyright was in place (subsisting) on Jan 1, 1978, it shall subsist for 28 years from the date the copyright was originally secured, but the copyright owner can renew and extend the copyright for a further 67 years. (U.S. Code, Title 17, Sec 304(a)-(c)) If the work is created on or after Jan 1, 1978, the copyright will last until 70 years after the author's death. (U.S. Code, Title 17, Sec 302(a))
A good rule of thumb is that copyrightable works are in the public domain if they were published prior to 1923 in the US. (see this Wikipedia article on US copyright law)
(3) What is fair use?
Fair use (or fair dealing, in Singapore) is generally not an infringement of copyright.
In the United States, whether or not the use of a copyrighted work is considered fair use depends on
"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
(U.S. Code, Title 17, Sec 107)
And fair use in United States law covers
"criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research"
(U.S. Code, Title 17, Sec 107)
In Singapore, deciding whether or not a use is considered fair use is similar to that in U.S. law, with a fifth point added:
"(e) the possibility of obtaining the work or adaptation within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price."
(Chap. 63, Sec 35(2)(e))
Singapore law adds some exceptions to this. Notably, Sec 35(3), 36 and 37 seem to suggest certain uses of a literary, dramatic or musical work ("work") or its adaptation that are deemed not to constitute fair dealing, apart from the five criteria mentioned above:
(1) Where an article in a periodical is copied, or less than a reasonable length of any work is copied, for research or study.(Chap. 63, Sec 35(3))
(2) The work is used for criticism or review and is sufficiently acknowledged.(Chap. 63, Sec 36)
(3) The work is used to report current events in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical and is sufficiently acknowledged.(Chap. 63, Sec 37)
However I'm a little confused about whether section 36 and 37 requires the five criteria in section 35(2). Perhaps some copyright law experts could help me on this!
(4) Are Wikipedia articles copyrighted?
The short answer is yes. However, the text of Wikipedia is released under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). This means that if you want your work to contain text from a Wikipedia article, either copied verbatim or modified, you have to make sure that
(1) your text in turn has to be licensed under GFDL,
(2) you must acknowledge the authorship of the Wikipedia article, and
(3) you must provide access to the "transparent copy" of your article. (e.g. the wiki text itself)
An example notice for your text would be:
"This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Article_Title".
From Wikipedia:Copyrights, Reusers' rights and obligations.
That's all!
I'm a layman when it comes to copyright law, so please verify what I wrote here with your own research. It would be great if you could leave a comment here if you find I missed something out!
This article is released under the GFDL.
Excellent post. This is one of my pet peeves, especially as a published author. I had no end of students (I taught elementary school) who would copy entire pieces of information and call it their own and put it into a report.
ReplyDeleteI wrote a piece about this as well. People can be sued by corporations, such as Walt Disney, who find people stealing their images.
Have you seen this, Sam?
ReplyDeleteI created a newer post</A with a bit more info, links & reflection. We are not alone. Good work, Sam.