Talk:Copyright law of the United States/Archive 1

message: whered you get the 2019 number? recordings made in 1905 should be public domain now, yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.245.163.1 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 1 December 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 2019?

message: What is the copyright status of non-federal government works? Does it vary by state/county/city? -- Kjkolb 02:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  The Copyright Act just says that works of the federal government are public domain.  Its silence regarding works of state and municipal governments means that they are copyrighted, absent that local government expressly releasing its works into the public domain.  However, due process has to put some limit on this regarding local laws and other official information that citizens must be able to have free and easy access to.  Postdlf 03:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Postdlf. Are you aware of any states, or large counties or cities, that have released their works into the public domain? I encounter an enormous amount of copyright violations while wikifying and I'd hate to have public domain material deleted unnecessarily. Thanks, again -- Kjkolb 04:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Works produced by state, county and city government 

message: I'm going to take a small stab at making it a little more easy to follow, or at least better organized. Bobak 17:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly and have been trying to do the same. The article is also burdened with some rather technical details that I suspect is not of interest to non-lawyers, or even to lawyers not in the IP field. I've been a little reluctant to remove them. Maybe later I will. I believe some of those hypertechnical details need to be removed to shorten the article and make room for a section on exceptions and limitations of copyright - things such as Braille allowance, covering someone's song, etc. Haonhien 17:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is a confusing mess 

message: How does one check to see if a copyright issued between 1923 and 1963 has been renewed? --Blainster 03:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See U.S. Copyright Office Circular 6. Physchim62 (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Renewal checking

message: I have removed the following sentence from the "Treaties" section because it was unreferenced and it seemed both weaselly and prima facie untrue.
:Some legal scholars question whether the U.S. is fully in compliance with TRIPS or Berne requirements, particularly given the far reach of the fair use defense.
A comparison of US fair use versus Berne Convention exceptions is given below: the US is not obviously way out of line! Now on moral rights, that would be another matter... Physchim62 (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the U.S. is way out of line with Berne on a number of other issues. Formalities (notice required for certain damages, for instance), moral rights, the limited protection for sound recordings, etc. Check out 17 USC § 104(c). Plus, VARA is very clearly out of line with the moral rights of Berne Art 6. One might argue, however, that Berne is not a bad thing to be out of line with. LH 22:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States vs. Berne 

message: I moved the former contents of "Relief available for infringement" to a new article, United States civil copyright enforcement procedure. I thought that contents was too much procedural minutae, but I didn't want to just delete it. Somebody obviously spent a lot of time on it. (If you're the person who put it in, please see the new article.) In its place I re-wrote an entire new section that describes all the relief available for infringement: Injunctions, actual damages and profits / statutory damages, attorney's fees, and a short section on criminal penalties. Haonhien 07:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think the new procedure article,  United States civil copyright enforcement procedure  should be combined with Copyright_infringement, along with putting in the appropriate wiki cross links? Yellowdesk 18:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes. That would be one place to put it. The problem is United States civil copyright enforcement procedure is U.S.-specific whereas Copyright_infringement is global. And United States civil copyright enforcement procedure is still too much minutae and it would clutter up Copyright_infringement. If someone can simplify that material, it can be placed as a U.S.-specific section in Copyright_infringement. Haonhien 04:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-worked entire remedies section 

message: There ought to be a defenses & exceptions section, that would briefly review Sections 107 onward, with links to relevant subpages (like "Fair use"). -- LQ 15:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defenses & Exceptions? 

message: Hi! I read in the article that copyright registration is not necessary for copyright protection. Apparently registration is necessary for collecting statutory damages, but because of the Berne Convention it is not a requirement.
Is there a way one can secure copyright protection without registering? If so, how? Can I mail content to myself and assure myself exclusive rights to it?
Hope this isn't too beyond the scope of the article. Seems like it should be in some article, though.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by the burning bush (talk • contribs) 22:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is such a section; it is the "Registration of copyright" section.  The answer to your question is that registration is not needed to have copyright protection in the US.  However, registration is useful for people who wish to commercially distribute their work, since it permits statutory damages for infringement and enables people who wish to license the work to get in touch with the copyright holder more easily.  --LQ 22:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! So I can mail it to myself to get protection? The burning bush 00:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Mailing it to yourself is not the same thing as registering it. You register it at the Copyright Office. --LQ 00:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, and plus, Berne is not binding; Berne does indeed probably disallow registration as a requirement for statutory damages, however Berne is not U.S. law. See 17 usc 104(c). Go to the copyright office's website if you want to know more about registration. You don't need to register to have protection, though. Copyright, since 1978, is automatic.LH 22:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  getting protection ... 

message: This page has some good information in various parts, but the organization is very bad. Also, there's telescopic detail on some issues, and very little on others. The other problem is that some of the technical information is wrong. Some gets corrected, but non-legal writers are occasionally making statements in imprecise language that are technically false.
Also, a formal citation system would be nice. The copyright act is self-contained in Title 17. Reference to statutory provisions would help with the technical problems discussed above.
The starting point, however, is there needs to be an organized structure. Here's a starting suggestion. Divide the article into
*Introduction
*History
*What's protected (what copyright covers)
*How it's protected (duration, infringement, fair use)
*Effect of infringement (remedies, damages, penalties)
LH 22:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup