Greg Newby <gbnewby@ils.unc.edu> writes:
Some electronic journals, some conferences and some print journals now let authors retain copyright or, if they keep copyright, allow authors to do what they please with their work.
Usenix is really good with this. You agree not to re-publish anything for a period of one year (to cover their print distribution), although you're allowed to put a copy on your home page. After that, you're free to do what you like. They also make all their stuff available online at no charge after a year. This is why I preferentially submit papers to Usenix rather than ACM or IEEE, I want to get the information out there where it does some good, not have it locked up in a copyright prison for all eternity. I can't imagine that the ACM is going to make much (if anything) from the reprint rights of a ten-year-old article on distributed search algorithms, but by locking it up, very few people ever have access to it. (Hmm, I wonder if it can be argued that making stuff intended for public distribution inaccessible violates the creator's moral rights? I know that doesn't apply in the US, but in other countries it might work. Moral rights can't be assigned, so no publisher can take that away from you. Any lawyers out there?).
It's far more typical, though, for the journal to get all rights, except perhaps classroom use (aka "fair use") by the author.
That's more traditional for publishers like IEEE and ACM. OTOH they seem to turn a blind eye to people making papers available on their home pages, even if the publishing agreement says you shouldn't do that. I suspect the backlash would be too strong if they tried to clamp down on this, although I wish it'd be formalised in some way rather than leaving it as a grey area. Peter.
Peter wrote:
(Hmm, I wonder if it can be argued that making stuff intended for public distribution inaccessible violates the creator's moral rights? I know that doesn't apply in the US, but in other countries it might work. Moral rights can't be assigned, so no publisher can take that away from you.
Peter has an interesting point, since in addition to common law applies to a trend in copyright that is prevalent in Europe (and presumably some other countries), but rather alien to the US, taking that trend further. For those readers not familiar with this trend, there is the gist of it: Everybody on this list knows that what buyers of bit strings may or not do with such bit strings, under pain of incarceration and, should you resist that effectively, death, is under global attack by the MPAA and its cohorts. What US observers are frequently less aware of is that the same right is as much under attack, albeit for very different reasons, by the European cultural elite which has been as effective as the MPAA in working on their shared goal of dismantling what in the US would be called the doctrine of first sale. In brief, this doctrine states that if you buy a book, painting, or DVD, you may read or watch it for as many times as you please (including not at all), loan it to your friends, donate it to a library, sell it to somebody else, or chuck it out with the trash. The MPAA desires to dismantle the doctrine of first sale for the easily understandable reason that the MPAA's members would like to approximate as closely as possible to a state in which each person watching a movie has to pay the studios each time the DVD is watched. If the technology existed at a cost acceptable for a consumer device to count the number of people present in a room watching a particular DVD, the MPAA likely would lobby Congress to mandate that technology's inclusion to permit for the collection of per-watcher/watching licensing fees. The other half of the shears cutting away at the public's right to entertain themselves with the artwork they purchased in any way they please is represented by parts of the art culture of significant political clout, in particular in Europe. Bills are pending or have already passed, that make it illegal for a buyer of a work of art to simply dispose of the work, or use it as kindling in his fireplace, once he no longer desires to own it. No, you can't just burn that painting you bought from some street corner painter five years ago. Though you are permitted to give the painting back to the artist. Without compensation, of course. Between the corporate objective of charging the readers of a book each time they read it and the elitist objective of forcing the buyer to read a book they bought at least on occasion, with both groups united in their zeal to impose their respective view points onto the public by force of law and the men with sub-machine guns the law employs, the future of copyright proves to be interesting. But you already knew that part. While the European art circles clamoring for such moral right protection acts would undoubtedly denounce the assertion that they are working hand in glove with the MPAA's objective of dismantling the doctrine of first sale to the detriment of society, the two groups in fact are natural allies or pawns, depending on their level of awareness of the situation. Undoubtedly this has not been overlooked by the MPAA, though I suspect the European artists are blissfully unaware of how they have helped and continue to help to grease the MPAA's skids. --Lucky
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Lucky Green wrote:
The other half of the shears cutting away at the public's right to entertain themselves with the artwork they purchased in any way they please is represented by parts of the art culture of significant political clout, in particular in Europe. Bills are pending or have already passed, that make it illegal for a buyer of a work of art to simply dispose of the work, or use it as kindling in his fireplace, once he no longer desires to own it. No, you can't just burn that painting you bought from some street corner painter five years ago. Though you are permitted to give the painting back to the artist. Without compensation, of course.
the american artists are also trying to get this kind of "right" in place for themselves. The perspective isn't so much copyright as it is "leave it alone forever". But it amounts to the same thing.
While the European art circles clamoring for such moral right protection acts would undoubtedly denounce the assertion that they are working hand in glove with the MPAA's objective of dismantling the doctrine of first sale to the detriment of society, the two groups in fact are natural allies or pawns, depending on their level of awareness of the situation. Undoubtedly this has not been overlooked by the MPAA, though I suspect the European artists are blissfully unaware of how they have helped and continue to help to grease the MPAA's skids.
The american artists are certainly unaware of the connection. If the law forces the end to "art", is that such a bad thing? :-) Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 06:27:04AM -0700, Mike Rosing wrote:
simply dispose of the work, or use it as kindling in his fireplace, once he no longer desires to own it. No, you can't just burn that painting you bought from some street corner painter five years ago. Though you are permitted to give the painting back to the artist. Without compensation, of course.
the american artists are also trying to get this kind of "right" in place for themselves. The perspective isn't so much copyright as it is "leave it alone forever". But it amounts to the same thing.
actually, as with most laws, the basic idea behind the "moral rights" isn't that bad, it just got perverted. if used differently, the "morale rights" part could well be used to put a limit on the corporate abuse of copyright. for example, I could envision an argument that an artist sues the RIAA for abusing his copyrighted works for bogus lawsuits against P2P systems. -- New GPG Key issued (old key expired): http://web.lemuria.org/pubkey.html pub 1024D/2D7A04F5 2002-05-16 Tom Vogt <tom@lemuria.org> Key fingerprint = C731 64D1 4BCF 4C20 48A4 29B2 BF01 9FA1 2D7A 04F5
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Tom wrote:
actually, as with most laws, the basic idea behind the "moral rights" isn't that bad, it just got perverted.
if used differently, the "morale rights" part could well be used to put a limit on the corporate abuse of copyright. for example, I could envision an argument that an artist sues the RIAA for abusing his copyrighted works for bogus lawsuits against P2P systems.
I guess the argument would boil down to who has copyright and who or what has "moral right". For sculpture and painting the duplication rights are kind of obvious, but the destruction/use/"first sale" is complicated. For digital art/music duplication rights are complicated, and use in other works ("fair use") gets really messy. And if I take a digital photo (well many pictures) of a sculpture and reconstruct it in a 3D virtual world, is that "fair use" or copyright violation? Blech, this is gonna get worse before it gets better! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 07:45:18AM -0700, Mike Rosing wrote:
if used differently, the "morale rights" part could well be used to put a limit on the corporate abuse of copyright. for example, I could envision an argument that an artist sues the RIAA for abusing his copyrighted works for bogus lawsuits against P2P systems.
I guess the argument would boil down to who has copyright and who or what has "moral right". For sculpture and painting the duplication rights are kind of obvious, but the destruction/use/"first sale" is complicated. For digital art/music duplication rights are complicated, and use in other works ("fair use") gets really messy.
I guess you misinterpret the "morale rights" doctrine. not that I'm a lawyer, but to my reading of the german copyright law, the morale rights are thus: - publication the creator can control if and how his work gets published. only he may cite from or describe his work in public as long as neither the work nor a description of it are published with his permission. (e.g. even the publisher can't leak stuff without the author's consent) - credit the creator must be given proper credit, and he can choose if and what kind of credit (e.g. if he wants to use his real name or a pseudonym) - defense against disfiguration (?) creator can fight against attacks on the integrity of his work, within limits. this is the complicated part. as I parse it, the intention was that if you, say, write a poem against communism and by some freak accident the communist party adopts it as their hymn, you can stop them from doing so (unless you enjoy the irony of it). to me, the german copyright appears to take much more consideration of the author, while the US copyright system is entirely economical in nature. no surprise that the idea of "intellectual property" comes from your side of the atlantic, it doesn't fit very well with most european copyright doctrines. that said, your original terms of copyright were more sensible - europe has always had durations such as 70 years or "death + 50 years" and other bullshit. too bad the "new world order copyright" takes the bad from each, instead of the good. -- New GPG Key issued (old key expired): http://web.lemuria.org/pubkey.html pub 1024D/2D7A04F5 2002-05-16 Tom Vogt <tom@lemuria.org> Key fingerprint = C731 64D1 4BCF 4C20 48A4 29B2 BF01 9FA1 2D7A 04F5
Tom wrote: [...]
- publication the creator can control if and how his work gets published. only he may cite from or describe his work in public as long as neither the work nor a description of it are published with his permission. (e.g. even the publisher can't leak stuff without the author's consent)
This is basically copy right as already existed in England, & not one of the moral rights.
- credit the creator must be given proper credit, and he can choose if and what kind of credit (e.g. if he wants to use his real name or a pseudonym)
Yep, this got added to English law (but not US, I think, except for the weird VARA Peter mentioned which only applies to unique original objects)
- defense against disfiguration (?) creator can fight against attacks on the integrity of his work, within limits. this is the complicated part. as I parse it, the intention was that if you, say, write a poem against communism and by some freak accident the communist party adopts it as their hymn, you can stop them from doing so (unless you enjoy the irony of it).
I don't know about the German laws but this is not, I think, the case in most other countries. Just borrowing a poem & using it somewhere else would (at worst) count as parody, which is legally protected speech in the US (& usually in England as well). I think the law is more intended for the Alan Smithee situation, where a publisher (or record company, film studio, broadcaster, whatever) takes a work and changes it so that the author thinks it makes them look bad, and they don't want to be associated with it. I am no expert, but I think up till 1989 in common law jurisdictions this would have to have been pursued as defamation - which in the USA means the aggrieved party has effectively no chance at all, and in England that the side with the most expensive lawyers wins.
to me, the german copyright appears to take much more consideration of the author, while the US copyright system is entirely economical in nature.
That is my general impression. As an example of the sort of nonsense that some countries recognise moral rights to avoid, while Googling around for these things I found this heap of prdroid shit: "... any submission of materials by you will be considered a contribution to Boeing for further use in its sole discretion, regardless of any proprietary claims or reservation of rights noted in the submission. Accordingly, you agree that any materials, including but not limited to questions, comments, suggestions, ideas, plans, notes, drawings, original or creative materials or other information, provided by you in the form of e-mail or submissions to Boeing, or postings on this Site, are non-confidential (subject to Boeing's Privacy Policy) and shall become the sole property of Boeing. Boeing shall own exclusive rights, including all intellectual property rights, and shall be entitled to the unrestricted use of these materials for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, without acknowledgement or compensation to you. The submission of any materials to Boeing, including the posting of materials to any forum or interactive area, irrevocably waives any and all "moral rights" in such materials, including the rights of paternity and integrity." (http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/aboutus/site_terms.html) Ken PS in English these are "moral" rights - "morale" is borrowed from French and means the mental state of an army :-)
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 06:55:48PM +0100, Ken Brown wrote:
- publication the creator can control if and how his work gets published. only he may cite from or describe his work in public as long as neither the work nor a description of it are published with his permission. (e.g. even the publisher can't leak stuff without the author's consent)
This is basically copy right as already existed in England, & not one of the moral rights.
IANAL, but this is not the same as the "regular" publication clause, because that one is still a seperate (the german copyright law has three parts - moral rights, economic rights and other rights.
- defense against disfiguration (?) creator can fight against attacks on the integrity of his work, within limits. this is the complicated part. as I parse it, the intention was that if you, say, write a poem against communism and by some freak accident the communist party adopts it as their hymn, you can stop them from doing so (unless you enjoy the irony of it).
I don't know about the German laws but this is not, I think, the case in most other countries. Just borrowing a poem & using it somewhere else would (at worst) count as parody, which is legally protected speech in the US (& usually in England as well).
I think the law is more intended for the Alan Smithee situation, where a publisher (or record company, film studio, broadcaster, whatever) takes a work and changes it so that the author thinks it makes them look bad, and they don't want to be associated with it.
yes, that is what I meant. except that the law as I read it does not require a change. I don't think parody would violate it.
PS in English these are "moral" rights - "morale" is borrowed from French and means the mental state of an army :-)
whoops. I mixed those up before. /me is not a native english speaker. :) -- New GPG Key issued (old key expired): http://web.lemuria.org/pubkey.html pub 1024D/2D7A04F5 2002-05-16 Tom Vogt <tom@lemuria.org> Key fingerprint = C731 64D1 4BCF 4C20 48A4 29B2 BF01 9FA1 2D7A 04F5
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Ken Brown wrote:
PS in English these are "moral" rights - "morale" is borrowed from French and means the mental state of an army :-)
Actually it means their willingness to continue to fight. Whether they are happy about it or not is irrelevant. -- ____________________________________________________________________ When I die, I would like to be born again as me. Hugh Hefner ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucky Green wrote:
Peter wrote:
(Hmm, I wonder if it can be argued that making stuff intended for public distribution inaccessible violates the creator's moral rights? I know that doesn't apply in the US, but in other countries it might work. Moral rights can't be assigned, so no publisher can take that away from you.
Peter has an interesting point, since in addition to common law applies to a trend in copyright that is prevalent in Europe (and presumably some other countries), but rather alien to the US, taking that trend further.
[...snip...]
Bills are pending or have already passed, that make it illegal for a buyer of a work of art to simply dispose of the work, or use it as kindling in his fireplace, once he no longer desires to own it. No, you can't just burn that painting you bought from some street corner painter five years ago. Though you are permitted to give the painting back to the artist. Without compensation, of course.
[...snip...] True, but it is an old process. In French law there has been a concept of "moral rights" in a work for a very long time. These are inalienable, you can't sell them. The two most important are (IIR the jargon correctly) "integrity" and "paternity". The right of integrity means that if someone buys the copyright to a work, then alters the work in a way that could affect the reputation of the originator, they can be sued. So, for example, if a painter paints a picture, sells it to a publisher, then the publisher prints a defaced version as a book cover, the painter can perhaps sue the publisher. The right of paternity is the right to be known as the originator. It was imported into English law in, IIRC, 1989, but has to be asserted - which is why nearly all books published in Britain these days have a note asserting the rights of the author to be known as the author. These rights did not exist in the USA (& still don't, quite), but the US didn't really have copyright law in the European sense until the 1980s anyway - what they /called/ copyright was something you had to apply for and register - very different from our English tradition which is based on an idea of the natural property rights of an artist or author in their own work, and so has never had to be registered or applied for, any more than you have to get government permission to own the clothes you stand up in. The moral rights limit the freedom of action of publishers to the benefit of artists and authors, not, as far as I know the ultimate purchasers, but then IANAL and IA-certainly-NA-French-L. Some people who know a lot more about it than I do have said that English law traditionally treated copyright as a matter of property, French as a matter of personality, and the US as a sort of government licenced monopoly or patent. But they are all much closer to each other these days, with international copyright law being a compromise between the old systems. Ken Brown
participants (6)
-
Jim Choate -
Ken Brown -
Lucky Green -
Mike Rosing -
pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz -
Tom