Re: Wait, what?
S.30(2) doesn't say it has to be relevant - "fair dealing with a work" not 'with a relevant work'.
Posts by Mark 121
14 publicly visible posts • joined 29 Jun 2009
BBC report urges Halo troops to end bloodshed in Syria
Hanging's too good for 'em - so what do you suggest?
Vimeo takedown leads to court loss
Boffin's blog blast births boycott of publisher Elsevier
Monday 30th January 2012 09:47 GMT
Most university libraries allow walk-in use of electronic journals, even by riff-raff. This is because of a concern that the move to electronic had removed the access afforded to non-university users who had previously used paper copies on shelves. Granted, you do still have to be close to (well, in) the library to benefit.
Big Music trumpets ‘Cliff Richard’ term extension
Tuesday 13th September 2011 09:34 GMT
"There are three copyrights on a sound recording"?
"There are three copyrights on a sound recording: the composition, which is seventy years plus life, and which goes to the author; a mechanical royalty which also goes to the composer, and the recording or ‘master’ right."
What a confusing paragraph - inconsistent language, muddled concepts etc. Author/composer? Mechanical royalty? Recording/master right? No wonder people fail to understand copyright and related rights.
If the material recorded is a song with words and music, then copyright subsists in the music and the words separately (authors as first owners) and in the sound recording (producer as first owner). Performers have a performance right. So yes, three copyright works (and a related right), but not as you describe them.
'Poems are the original text messages,' says Laureate
Texan smut baron spanked over UK schoolgirl snap
Monday 4th October 2010 23:53 GMT
True, but
§412 of the 1976 Copyright Act provides that statutory damages and attorney's fees cannot normally be claimed in respect of unregistered works. Perhaps this explains the very small amount granted as damages for the copyright infringement - this could be the total profit made by the company.
Eagles singer wins case against US politico
Friday 6th August 2010 15:55 GMT
but don't forget
It still has to be judged fair use.
If the politician wasn't directly parodying the eagle then it isn't surprising he lost, like in the Dr Seuss case (Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997).) - see the bottom of this page for a useful summary of this and other parody cases: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html
However, the eagle shouldn't have won on prinicple - I agree with the Dude when he said "I f*uckin hate the Eagles, though Hotel California was partially redeemed by the Gypsy Kings.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
