The secret on how to access Public Domain works Online
Starting from articles, journals, magazines, podcasts, videos, movies, books and the likes. There are huge varieties of collections that can be easily access online. As long as the copyright protection is already terminated, the works found in the public domain can be used on whatever purpose an individual may want. At this point, you may be wondering what a public domain is all about.Because vast resources of public domain works can be accessible online. Public domain are those works that is no longer encompassed by the copyright protection law or in other words, those works that has an expired authorization, which can be, transform into public's property and that the public can do anything on materials that fall into the array of public domain.
So how can you easily access public domain works? The best and easiest way in accessing public domain works can be through the internet. The materials that you have been looking for can be just one click away. It is very convenient for you because by doing such can help you save time and effort. Now that you are getting excited on where to begin let's start by telling you about the sites that can help you access public domain works by following these sites.
You can also try searching for The Project Gutenberg was there are thousands of books and texts that are being collected.
IPL.org in this site you can find a huge material of public text that has been presented here as a public library.
If you are a music lover and you want to collect songs that hit the billboard PDMusic.org can help you achieve what you want.
Now it should be clear to you by now that there is a diverse collection of information and materials on public domain by the use of the internet. What you just need is a little creativity and the right knowledge on where to find them. I hope that this article gives you information that can be easy for you to do such.
To satisfy your craving, you can directly follow the link in the resource box below.
A Simple Guide to Copyright Law
In the field of intellectual property protection, copyright law plays a pivotal role. So, what is copyright law? In simple terms it is a property right that includes in any type of works like literary, musical, dramatic, sound recordings, broadcasts & films and grants the user of its exclusive rights ensuring that their work is used prior to their permission. In every country across the world this is the main aspect of copyright law.What are protected under copyright law?
As we already discussed above there are different types of works that can be protected under copyright law. So, here are different types of works that can be protected with copyright law.
Literary Works: By definition a literary work is any kind of work that is written, spoken or sung other than musical or dramatic work. Some of the most common types of literary work are books, collection of poems, different types of instructions like business letters etc. The list is no doubt exhaustive, but owners & creators protect their creativity with this copyright law.
Dramatic Works: In this type of work creative pieces of dance, mimes etc are included. Thus, if these are protected under copyright law, a reconstruction of any piece would require permission of the rightful owner and thus gain monetary benefits and enjoy fame.
Musical Works: As the name suggests musical works includes any type of work of music. Thus, it includes not only the lyrics but also the musical notes. As a further step musical works includes all types of materials effecting human ear like orchestra & harmony.
Artistic Works: Artistic work includes photographs, graphic work, sculpture, architecture and the list goes on. In more simple way artistic work includes that creative works that is completely significant visually. Under copyright law artistic works can be protected well.
Film, Sound Recordings & Broadcasts: In case of film & broadcast anything that is recorded & broadcasted can be protected under copyright law. In case of film the soundtracks used in films are also treated as part of film and hence can be protected under this law. In many cases films are also treated as dramatic work. This same outlook is also maintained for sound recordings where the sound piece protected by this law can no longer be reproduced without the prior permission of the owner or creator.
Thus, we can see that copyright law is a vast concept intending to protect the creative aspects of the creators. But copyright does not protect the ideas of the creation. It only protects the every word expressed in the way. However, in case of any invention the concerned inventor needs to seek protection in other areas of intellectual property law like patents and design protection.
Piracy in Software industry in Asia
Software Piracy and Copyright Infringement has long been a plague eating up valuable revenue for the developers in the developing countries. Countries like Pakistan, India, China, Malaysia, Bangladesh etc have always been center of attention when it came to Piracy. Despite having big population numbers, Software developers have not concentrated on these potential markets, which can be a source of great revenue for them if the markets are utilized properly, and some efforts are invested in eroding software piracy.THE cost of the licensed versions of WindowsXP Professional and OfficeXP Professional combined is higher than what an average Pakistani earns in a whole year which means the software, so crucial for today’s computing, is unaffordable to a typical Pakistani computer user.
The obvious choice, hence, is to use pirated software available on a CD that can be bought anywhere for a mere 25 to 30 rupees. Almost all the home users, and most of the commercial users too, indulge in this crime without giving a thought to the rights of Microsoft, the owner of the intellectual property known as Microsoft Windows, Office and other software.
Microsoft though has just started to focus on the Pakistani market, and as such they had jointly organized training session for Federal Investigation Agency to increase the awareness of Copy Right Infringement. It’s a good initiative but unless and until copyright infringement is not given serious consideration on the Legal front, not much is going to change.
Country Manager Microsoft Pakistan, Kamal Ahmed, shed light on Microsoft’s commitment to safeguarding interests of the consumers and said, ‘The ability of the government and IT eco-system to create new jobs and a better quality of life through information technology is strongly affected by how they handle piracy.
In Pakistan, about twenty software houses are already our certified partners. A “certified partner” is globally recognized and some of them are selling us technologies. This is to ensure that these people are solution developers.
Microsoft has much to offer to software house in Pakistan. They have some great solutions and all they need is someone to market them. However, since these people are not using legal software, they get afraid of Microsoft. We are also trying to solve that issue. We have a very attractive offer for the software houses in Pakistan. We will make them Microsoft certified partners, which is a world-recognized status.
An Open Letter to the New York Times
I write several commercial blogs for clients with diverse business interests. I write and manage blogs on real estate, Internet marketing, security, art and literature, software and technology, advertising media and online gambling. Recently, I received an e-mail from a commercial writer who creates content on one of your subsidiary websites. It was a very threatening letter.In read in part, and this is a paraphrase, that my use of her material on one of my blogs constituted plagiarism and that I should remove it or be subject to her attorneys’ – you – hungry ambitions. I was aghast that a fellow author didn’t understand the fair use clause of U.S. copyright law.
According to a report for Congress on fair use on the Internet, written by Christopher Alan Jennings of the American Law Division, courts weigh four factors with regard to fair use, whether online or off line:
1.Purpose and character of work in question
2.Nature of copyrighted work
3.Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole”
4.Effect of use of the work “upon the potential market”
Now, I’m no legal scholar, but it seems to me that copying a paragraph or two and commenting on it on a blog falls into these guidelines as fair use. While there is no black and white dividing line with regard to fair use, I believe the first point (purpose and character) has a lot to do with medium. In other words, the media used in communicating a copyrighted work is essentially and inherently tied to purpose and character.
This is an important distinction because, while blogs are fairly new on the historical landscape of copyrighted material, it is very common and a fairly accepted practice – not to mention encouraged – for bloggers to copy and paste a few sentences or paragraphs from a website and add their own comments to it. Of course, it is generally recognizable that, when doing so, bloggers will link back to the quoted source as an act of attribution. This is considered fair use by the majority of bloggers who engage in this practice. It is also what I did when I “plagiarized” your subordinate author’s copyrighted material.
In his report, Jennings goes on to elaborate on each of the points above, noting that purpose and character has to do with two factors – primarily commercial use and transformative use. Jennings quotes the Supreme Court with regard to the first factor: “The crux of the profit/nonprofit distinction is not whether the sole motive of the use is monetary gain, but whether the user stands to profit from the exploitation of the copyrighted material without paying the customary price.” Again, I’m no legal scholar, but it seems to me that a vital question to ask in determining this crucial distinction is whether or not the commercial use of the copyrighted material could stand on its own without the material in question. Since I removed the “borrowed” material from my posts immediately upon receiving this e-mail, I think any judge would see that there is no question that my blog posts could survive without your material.
This brings me to Jennings’ next point. He says in his report that “transformative use” means generally that the new use of the copyrighted material “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message.” Well, since I added my own comments to the “borrowed” material in order to highlight certain points that I agreed with, simply using the material as a testimonial to prove my larger point, I believe that would qualify as a valid transformative use of copyrighted material. Again, since I did link back to the original source, which constitutes attribution, I do not understand why a fellow author would consider that plagiarism.
In light of your own issues regarding plagiarism – i.e. Jayson Blair, which led to the resignation of Howell Raines and Gerald Boyd – I can understand why this might be a sensitive issue for you. Perhaps your newspaper would like to change its public image or take any attention off of yourselves due to these very serious issues that have resulted in a negative image of your company. But that’s no reason to toss around false accusations. I’d encourage – indeed, I implore you – to please take the time to educate your employees on what constitutes plagiarism and fair use for bloggers and other Internet authors. I’d hate to see your company involved in other embarrassing and unnecessary legal wrangles.
Where is the Border Between Free Information and Copyright?
With the explosion of the global internet and millions of websites begging for content information, there arises the question of just where is the border between free information and copyright? Research today is a snap, or rather, a query set into a browser followed by "enter", and tens or hundreds of thousands, even millions of related information websites appear. Just click and presto, you have information on your screen. But, is it free or is it copyrighted?For most cases, information on a website is copyrighted. You can scroll down to the footer of most websites and find a copyright notice, or there may be a more visible warning posted. Some even have small banners for protection services like CopyScape on their website pages. Owners can check with this type of service and instantly see if any information contained on their website is appearing elsewhere, and from there they can pursue the copyright issue with offending websites.
There are services available that provide original written material for website content. Care is taken at those sites to check for any text infringements before content is released. This makes sense, because information production involves, time, talent, money, and ideas. It would be very wrong to just steal someone else's work, same as stealing physical property. There are principles involved, unless a person is totally unscrupulous and wants to run the risk of lawsuits and possible fines and/or jail time.
Let's look at definitions to determine where is the border between free information and copyright. Information is of three types: free, open, and copyrighted. Free information is available to be freely used, changed, altered, derived from, and there is no penalty for using it. Open information is available to be used, and free, but it cannot be altered or changed. Copyrighted information is not free and available to use except with specific authorization for use by a licensed or permitted person or business. Authors can post a notice that a copyright work of their own may be reproduced or copied.
Holders of copyrights have monopoly control over their works. Information that is in the public domain is considered free to use however a user wants. If a work has been copyrighted and that term of copyright expires, putting it into the free public domain category, it still can become copyrighted again if the laws change. This would affect all derivitive works from it also.
A copyright is a legal term, marked on works with the copyright symbol, a "c" within a small circle. It can be for a period of time and is important to protect monetary rights of the copyright holder on that work. Usually this refers to creative or written works, but can be to other ideas. It is a term for Constitutional protection in the US for original works published or unpublished, and is honored by many other countries, but not all. Besides the written word, it protects music, songs, computer software and architecture. Before using content, be sure it is free, not copyrighted. Additional copyright information is available online at the US Copyright Office.
Protecting your Website Legally From the Music Industry
In the connected world, where businesses pop up like dandelions and anyone with a computer can upload video, audio and text-based content to be shared across the web, it is of growing importance to understand the potential legal ramifications associated with these technical advancements.Most internet businesses make use of some sort of rich media on their websites such as video or music. What most don’t realize is that even the smallest S-Corp can find itself in hot water if it doesn’t understand the basics.
The intent of this article is to focus on the use of production music (music on your website) and the ways you can protect your business or yourself from copyright infringement.
What is production music?
Production music is music intended for use in connection with films, corporate videos, Television shows, commercials, Internet video, multimedia and any other form of media that requires music.
If you’ve ever listened to an advertisement on the radio, watched an infomercial, or heard menu music on a video game, then you have probably heard production music.
Production music libraries cover a multitude of genres, providing music for most tastes at varying levels of quality. Traditionally, production music comes in shorter lengths. These lengths are normally 30 seconds, 60 seconds and 90 seconds.
Production music also comes in different variations known as full and reduced versions. Reduced versions are identical to full versions with the exception of one or possibly two of the main instruments having been removed.
Who uses production music?
Production music is most widely used by industry experts like; video editors, producers, music supervisors, videographers, and creative directors. Although increasingly, it is being used by relative amateurs for websites, podcasts, streaming video and more.
How do I Get a License?
Something called a Synchronization License or Sync License must be obtained for the music in question before it can be utilized in any audiovisual production, such as a motion picture, television program, television commercial, video production, or website.
Sync Licenses come in different shapes and sizes. Two of the most popular are a Drop License and Blanket License. They are most commonly made available by production music publishers such as Slynth (www.slynth.com).
How do I get a Sync License?
Production music publishers will usually license music on what is called a needle drop (a.k.a Drop License) or a Blanket License.
A needle drop or Drop License is a license that requires payment for individual songs. The prices for each song vary depending on the type of production in which the song is being used. The rule of thumb when pricing Drop Licenses is - the larger the audience, the higher the price. (Rate cards can be requested with Drop Licenses.)
A Blanket license is a license that affords a user either a set number of music selections or unlimited use of music selections in any given production. The distinction between a blanket and drop license is a drop is issued for one song, a blanket for many. Obtaining a blanket license involves dozens of variables, so it usually requires some negotiation. Venues such as radio stations or night clubs will often require blanket licenses.
Is A Sync License the Same as a Performance License (Permission from the Musician)?
Unfortunately, no it isn’t. Obtaining a Sync License doesn’t absolve you from getting legal permission from the artist. And, seeing as musicians aren’t known for their knowledge of the legal system, you might imagine that obtaining such a license would be rather difficult. In actuality, the opposite is the case.
The reason for the relative ease of obtaining a Performance License is most musicians are represented by one of two agencies or “performance right societies” that handle the legal jargon. These societies manage the right of performers and see to it that artists get paid when you play their songs in a “public” venue.
Performance rights societies such as ASCAP, BMI and SESAC collect monies for composers and publishers. These societies handle Performance Licenses and should be consulted before you publish any finalized work.
Who needs a performance license?
Anyone who uses copyrighted music in a public place including radio and television stations and/or their networks; all new media, like the Internet and mobile technologies such as ringbacks and ringtones; satellite services like XM and Sirius; discos, nightclubs, bars, restaurants, hotels, and other venues. This includes digital jukeboxes and live concerts. All should obtain a performance license.
What happens if I don’t have a performance license?
Production music users are in danger of copyright infringement without a license from a performing rights organization. If you’re an individual with a small audience and no real money (ie you’re not a business), then you are at lower risk of having suit brought against you for copyright infringement.
However, if you’re an individual with a large audience or you’re a business or organization and you fail to obtain the proper licensing, be prepared to hire a lawyer.
The basic rule of thumb with rich media on your website is this: If you’re going to use audio without a license, make sure no one sees it. This may be a difficult rule for most webmasters to cope with, as the purpose of internet businesses is to be seen. Remember the best choice, if you have a large enough audience, is to be safe and purchase the required licenses.
Copyright for Fashion?
The copying of fashion design originals - "knocking off" or "affordable interpretation," depending on your point of view - is a practice that designers may have grudgingly accepted in the past, when less expensive copies took some time to reach stores and only those consumers who could afford the designer-label originals could be the first to follow a trend. This practice is costing designers greatly as more advanced technology makes it possible to see high-quality copies appear in stores before the original has even hit the market. While it has long been the practice of the American fashion industry to knock off European designs, American designers did not copy one another. They registered their original sketches with a trade group called the Fashion Originators Guild, an organization that urged retailers to prohibit styles known to be knockoffs.In 1941, the Supreme Court held that the Guild was an unreasonable restraint-of-trade; the end of the Guild marked the beginning of the knocking off "free-for-all" that we are familiar with today began. It is now common for imitators to photograph the clothes in a designer's runway show, send the photo to a factory to be copied, and have a sample ready within a couple of days for retail buyers to order. Since fashion collections are displayed in runway shows approximately four to five months before they are available to the public, this leaves the fashion impersonator plenty of time to get the copies to stores at the same time, if not earlier, than the originals. Designers assert that design piracy cuts into their longstanding franchise of uniqueness, lowers their sales volume, and ultimately removes incentives for creativity.
Sometimes the same department stores that carry the higher-priced version of a garment will also sell the lower-priced knockoff, often under the store's private label. Knocking-off is widespread in the fashion industry and even those designers who fume over being copied are not above doing it themselves. Because of the speed with which designs can be recreated, it is not even always clear which designer created the original and which designer simply copied it. This discussion will explore how protection of fashion works fits or does not fit into the current intellectual property law framework in the United States. The overall organization of this discussion is a systematic consideration of possible protection for works of fashion under copyright, patent, and trade dress law. This discussion will encompass not only the current state of the law, but also proposals for reform, such as an amendment to the Copyright Act to protect fashion works.
The central question is whether fashion design is an art worthy of protection or a craft whose practitioners can freely copy one another. In an industry where many designers come out with similar looks each season - and where inspiration is said to be "in the air" - designers and the thriving knockoff industry are fiercely debating the issue.
Another key question: whether knockoffs actually benefit the industry as a whole. Copying, some argue, propels the fashion cycle forward by creating popular trends that encourage designers to move on to the next big idea. In what they call the "piracy paradox," law professors Kal Raustiala of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Christopher Sprigman of the University of Virginia argue that copying makes trends drench the market quickly, driving the fashion cognoscenti to search out newer looks. "If copying were illegal, the fashion cycle would occur very slowly, if at all," While they admit copying can harm individual designers, they say Congress should protect industries only when piracy stymies -- rather than encourages -- innovation.
Despite the apparent unsuitability of copyright protection to works of fashion, commentators are often confused by the anomalies in copyright law under which fashion accessories, works of architecture, and computer chip designs are eligible for copyright protection. Some argue that since copyright has already been extended to protect the aforementioned items, copyright may be the best legal tool that fashion designers have when fighting design piracy.
For example, Robert Denicola has argued that it would be more consistent with the legal principles of intellectual property law to draw the line of copyright with respect to arguably "useful articles" by shaping whether, in the process of creating the item, the designer focused primarily on aesthetic or utilitarian consideration. Such a test would to a great extent improve the odds that works of fashion would be granted copyright protection, as most fashion designers are concerned with the aesthetic rather than the functional aspects of their clothing.
The specific extension of copyright to fashion works would have many advantages for designers. First, a copyright owner may seek an injunctive remedy to prevent the impersonator of his or her design from making and selling copies of the original. Second, copyright law allows for the imposing and discarding of the infringing items. Third, the copyright owner can recover damages, either actual or statutory, and also profits. Finally, the copyright owner may be able to recover court costs and attorney's fees. This last remedy is especially important in fashion design cases, as it allows small new designers to take on big manufacturers whose greater power and financial resources would otherwise be an intractable obstacle.
Despite these advantages to fashion designers, an amendment to the Copyright Act for works of fashion is not likely to be passed soon. As one commentator concisely stated that the current situation of the legislators and courts has a great deal of trouble seeing past the utilitarian function of a piece of clothing. While industrial designs have been the subject of repeated bills, Congress has explicitly excluded fashion works from these bills. For example, while the Design Anti-Piracy Act of 1989 would have protected original designs of useful articles against unauthorized copying, the bill would have barred apparel designs composed of three-dimensional shapes and surfaces with respect to apparel. According to one commentator, this exclusion has no basis in any discernible principle. It was added to help still the vociferous opposition of retailers to the bill." In this current climate of judicial and legislative hostility, copyright protection will probably not be extended to specifically protect fashion works.
Fashion seems to be an industry particularly ill-suited to legal restrictions against copying. Copying or "borrowing" or "reinterpreting" is prevalent at every level of the fashion industry. When a lower-priced designer knocks off a higher-priced designer's clothing, the copy may be a huge success because it offers more value for the price. But it is the higher-priced designers who are copying each other.
Fashion designers labors over their finished product just like any other creator or inventor. It takes hours upon hours of careful effort until a dress with just the right cut or a purse with the perfect design is complete. Why should this hard work and effort not grant the person behind the creation some level of security, allowing them to collect the benefits of their labor?
As a matter of Public policy it is generally believed that copycats are good for the economy. The claim asserts that preventing copyright for fashion eliminates the possibility of a monopoly by providing the consumer with lower priced knockoffs. Furthermore it is contended that knockoffs really promote business for the designer by creating a market for a style of fashion. But do we believe this actually? And what's wrong with having a monopoly on fashion? When a consumer spends thousands of dollars on a purse or a dress that others will recognise as a Louis Vuitton or Versace, they should be able to enjoy the exclusivity that comes with such a purchase. Knockoffs steal from the consumer of their exclusive right to enjoy a specific product.
There are policy based arguments behind the government's resistance to providing a copyright for fashion; ranging from the dislike for creation of monopolies to improving the market.
If the designer believes another person infringed his copyright, he could sue those who sell or manufacture the design in any federal court. Those found guilty would face fines of 250,000 or $5 a copy, whichever is greater.
Copywriting, Tutorials, Lessons and Training
Copywriting will not be easy to learn and it is a lifelong subject which you will continue to improve at if you work at the subject. To paraphrase a quotation from Stephen King, he said that copywriting, really writing in general, is a subject that you continue to improve on. It would be similar to lifting weights for 10 years. You will develop muscles. If you write every day for a certain period of time, you will develop writing skills to the point where you become a very good writer. If you focus on copywriting and write everyday, you will become a very good copywriter.The key to copywriting training for your development into a good copywriter is to make sure that you continue to train every day. When you take the time to work on this subject day after day, you will find that you will have consistent development. Another key to copywriting training is that you must make sure to continually learn about the field. There's a great deal of information to learn about copywriting and this is not a field which you can learn overnight. It will take the development and persistence as well as the education and experience that you get from continually working.
The first resource that you should look for in copywriting training would be any book by Dan Kennedy. He is one of the world's foremost experts on copywriting, specifically direct response writing. Direct response writing is copywriting where people respond immediately to the offer that you present to them. This is often done in the form of direct mail. One of the very good books that he wrote is called The Ultimate Sales Letter.
If you would like an introduction into copywriting, visit your local library. You will find that there should be at least one or two do-it-yourself books on copywriting training. Another great resource to help you would be the Internet. There are many different resources out there to help you in your copywriting training.
Copyright Your Own Work
Recently, one of my articles was placed on a site without proper credits. It was brought to my attention by another article submission site. I had submitted my article to them for posting, when to my shock; they informed me that someone else was claiming ownership of my work! After contacting the potential plagiarizing site, my article was immediately given the proper credit with an apology from the owner of the site. It appears as though the owner of the site lets bloggers place what they will on the site without too much concern. He now knows just what a serious problem that can be and is taking steps to enforce blogs to respect author copyright.This has happened before, which may be indicative of good writing content, but I won’t laud my own work. Not too much anyway. What this does bring to mind is just how to copyright your own work. Copyright is an automatic result of anyone placing any original content on the Internet. Behold the key word – “original”.
Proving originality can be difficult. This is why there are sites that will act as third party logistics and hold your copyrighted material until you need proof. The problem with these sites is that they charge between $150 and $300 and if they go out of business some years down the road, well you are just out of luck and the money paid.
So, my solution to this problem is to email your original copy to yourself, before submitting it to any site. Once you have your emailed copy, save it to a folder marked 'copyright'. You can open this folder at any time and select an emailed article to show proof of your ownership, since the mailers are time stamped and cannot be edited. The copyright folder also holds the time stamp of when you placed the article in the folder and you can snapshot ( simply press 'print screen' on your keyboard ) a picture of that for more proof, if need be. Just remember to take a copy of your article from the copyright folder when sending it to someone as proof.
This is a quick and fairly good copyright. It is not a legal copyright, but it is proof to any server that you are the original owner of the questionable material, since anyone else will not have a timestamp preceding yours.
The DMCA ( The Digital Millennium Copyright Act ) makes it mandatory that each server becomes the stopgap for copyright infringement. That is, they are responsible to police their clients and if they don’t comply they can be held responsible by a court of law.
Copyright infringement is a felony; so don’t let anyone steal your work. If Google or any advertiser finds out a site is plagiarizing other people’s material, they will drop them like a hot potato! So, stand your ground and make sure everyone knows you are the author of your work.
Page 3 of 3Last >> Next > < Previous << First
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Categories
RSS Feeds
Sponsored by
