Talk:History of copyright

message: I look forward to use this article as an example in my classroom: The challenge will be to find something wrong with every single sentence in this article. And it won't be difficult either. 
02:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality ? 

message: When, if ever, were these brought under copyright protection? JoshNarins (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In England they were, I believe, one of the subjects of debate that lead up to the Statute of Anne, so they were protected at the same time as books. Francis Davey (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspapers, Other Periodicals? 

message: I added a short blurb explaining why copyright wasn't really an issue prior to the invention of the printing press. Source:http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pgeller/coprhist.pdf (link is broken) Jaderaid 03:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-copyright History

message: Question - is this page dedicated solely to the international history of copyright? I wouldn't mind seeing a discussion of the various major copyright revisions in american history: 1790, 1831, 1870, 1909, 1976, 1998 (Sony Bono)
Note: A fairly accurate and complete discussion of the subject can be found at  http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html--Raul654 11:44, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that statutory revisions (and case law) in specific countries should only be included if they've turned out to be internationally significant.  I guess this could be said of many recent developments in US copyright.  Perhaps the story of the parochial pre-Berne, pre-globalisation US system should have its own section in this article (or its own article, if it gets to big) ?  -- Pde 23:39, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose of this page

message: Originally at the village pump
I am just wondering out of curoristy...Whatever happened to copyrights that were held by the USSR, SFRY, Czechoslovakia, and the GDR? Thanks! - iHoshie 04:12, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I think this belongs on the Reference Desk. Second of all, they all probably went to heck (who would seriously care about taking over the records -- especially if you're a communist), but don't take me as an expert. Ilyanep (Talk) 05:10, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I posted this in the wrong place. Mea Culpa. - iHoshie 06:18, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe they had copyright laws, actually. Intellectual property wasn't protected. That's one of the reasons why the ex-communist countries were and are such a hotbed of piracy - the culture all along the line was one of free copying by the state or citizens. -- ChrisO 15:33, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: They had copyright laws, but they were a different set, which was why many English songs were pirated.  — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:28, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We have an empty section copyright and communism in the history of copyright article, care to add your knowledge there? Andrewa 06:14, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Eastern Bloc C'Rights? 

message: I added "law" (History of copyright law so that this article will conform to the pattern established by History of patent law, and also because the new title is more descriptive of the article's actual content. Bryan 21:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of page name change

message: I came here hoping to find something to link to for the article I am revising on Marcantonio Raimondi, b1480, who provoked one of the earliest cases on copyright in Venice. There is nothing about this here, nor about the rather later case involving Titian. I'm no expert, but printmaking, because making plates was expensive, but not so much so that they could not profitably be copied, was a notable area for early copyright law, & not just in Rome & Venice. "priviledge" systems, which combined censorship & copyright in shifting combinations, came in earlier for prints than most other types of material in most parts of Europe, or so I understand.
someone who knows more than i do should get this into the section.
btw, I thought curses & imprecations,rabbinical & other, were common in manuscript books against those who MIScopied. i mean this doesn't reduce the point, but reinforces it.
Get to it, lawyers!
Johnbod 03:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I can't be much help as I don't know much about the "prehistory" of copyright. Its true that engravings were protected in English law long before other works of art (such as paintings). In the UK, engravings first got protection in 1734 (with the Engravers' Copyright Act) whereas paintings waited until 1862 (with the Fine Arts Copyright Act). Francis Davey (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing here about Prints (engravings etc), Durer, Titian cases etc. 

message: I believe that Wittmann's Geschichte des Deutschen Buchhandels discusses an early privilege circa 1640 granted to book publishers in Sachsen (Saxony) which protected said books from piracy. This privilege functioned in a similar fashion to copyright; pirated copies of books possessing such a privilege were seized in Sachsen.  This probably also contributed to Leipzig's ascendence  over Frankfurt.
Additionally, the Frankfurt book fair had largely died out by the 1760s, and wasn't reinvigorated to its present stature well until after the Second World War.  Most of the book traders had opted to exchange books in Leipzig by the 1760s to avoid various surcharges and censorship operating in Frankfurt-am-Main.  Again, Wittmann will deal with this to some degree, though there is also a book written in the late 1800s which deals exactly with the decline of the Frankfurt-am-Main book fair, and the rise of the Leipzig book fair. The author's name escapes me, unfortunately.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.32.57 (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errata about German-language areas 

message: Here is an interesting book reference somebody should check up on: Zheng Cheng-si, Copyright in China, in Ancient Time, Today and in Future. International Gesellschaft für Urheberrecht. Jahrbuch 1990. Baden-Baden. Supposedly on page 75 of it, there is a claim that when the Nine Classics were engraved, printed and sold by the imperial court in 932 AD, the imperial court forbade the copying of those texts by others, except by am imperial waiver or privilege. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese case from 932 

message: If someone has the time to add a section on song rights, which seem to have been included in copyright  only in the twentieth century, that would be great 90.11.214.168 (talk) 07:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: song rights

message: The following:
Some copyrighted works are more difficult to protect. Music, for example, may be played or sung by anyone after it has been published. But if it is performed for profit, the performers must pay a fee, called a royalty, to the copyright owner. A similar principle applies to performances of plays. As a written work, a play is protected in the same way as a book; anyone who wants to perform it must pay a royalty.
Does not quite make sense and seems to need editing. First its not true to say that music may be played or sung by anyone as a general rule. In my jurisdiction (UK) s.19 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 makes it an infringement to perform any literary, dramatic or musical work in public. There is no need for there to be even an indirect profit from it. I would be surprised if there weren't many jurisdictions in which this (or something more restrictive) were true, so in this respect the section is in error.
But I'm not sure I even understand what its saying. How does this relate to some copyrighted works being more difficult to protect? Is the article trying to talk about compulsory licensing? The logic seems (to me) to be that it is easier to protect musical works (where performance is forbidden) than (say) artistic works where there is no infringement by performance (sure, performance of works of art is now rare, but there are cases where it clearly happens). The final remark about plays and books also seems to be disjointed and unconnected with the rest. 
What is the aim of this bullet point? Francis Davey (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Performance (needs editing?) 

message: During the centuries following the destruction of the Roman Empire, European literary undertakings were confined almost entirely to the monasteries. The Roman usage, under which authors could dispose of their works to booksellers and the latter could be secure of some commercial control of the property purchased, was entirely forgotten.
Why? Can this be expanded, as the previous paragraph mentions only the author sometimes gaining reward for giving 'first' access to their work. That does not sound like 'commercial control', at least not in a modern sense. ... I'm not an expert, but the whole section doesn't gel.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.181.175 (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older Legal rights 

message: I will be moving big sections on early copyright law in Britain, France and US into this article, they are getting too long for the general copyright article. They are all referenced so there are no quality issues.
Re this article, large parts of it are completely unreferenced and do not comply with Wikipedia quality standards. I will remove some of the unref text when I integrate the sections form the copyright article into this article. Re early privileges, I will create a section at the beginning of the article for privileges which predate copyright statute.--SasiSasi (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early copyright law history 

message: There seems to be no mention of any acts in 1962 or 1972, shown in green in the graph.
ACME Squares (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  1962-1972 Copyright acts 

message: I added to this section to include information about a few ancient societies who displayed some of the early origins of copyright. MXYXYM (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Developments 

message: I was having a look at the article Copyright term the other day and thought that it really doesn't seem to be adding anything extra that is not already said in either this article, List of countries' copyright length and the "duration" section of the main copyright article. What do folks think about merging the content from "copyright term" into one (or several of these articles) and redirecting it. I know that "copyright term" is a specific phrase but there's really nothing that's said there that is not already said elsewhere. Wittylama 04:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright term

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of copyright law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140702153948/http://www.ria.ie/Library/Special-Collections/Manuscripts/Cathach.aspx to http://www.ria.ie/Library/Special-Collections/Manuscripts/Cathach.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Continental Europe at the time of invention of the Gutenberg Press and the first English copyright law were not "Germany", "Italy" or "France", but hundreds of kingdoms, fiefs etc. all with rulers that had legislative power. Will do some rewriting - work needed from english native speakers. Thanks - VanArtevelde (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadening introduction and article with situation on European continent