Copyright myths and creative common(s) sense

neville

A handful of myths have spawned practices, particularly among bloggers and website owners, that turn copyright law on its head, says The Law Library Resource Xchange (LLRX).

These myths are rooted in the assumption that everything is up for use online unless proven otherwise, LLRX says, fostering a presumption of entitlement where many people treat the internet (and non-electronic sources as well) as a buffet spread of photos, articles, sounds and multi-media files free for the plucking and posting.

LLRX highlights eight specific myths:

  1. Myth: It’s okay to use anything that doesn’t have a copyright notice.
  2. Myth: It’s okay to use anything that’s online, because if it’s online, it’s in the public domain and up for grabs.
  3. Myth: It’s okay to use anything as long as I’m not making any money off it.
  4. Myth: It’s okay to use anything as long as I give credit.
  5. Myth: It’s okay to use anything as long as I include the creator’s copyright notice.
  6. Myth: It’s okay to use anything as long as I take it down when the copyright holder objects.
  7. Myth: It’s okay to use something if I can’t find the copyright holder.
  8. Myth: It’s okay to use something if I asked for permission and didn’t get a response.

LLRX’s feature goes into substantial detail in discussing each of these myths. While the focus is on copyright under applicable US law, I am sure that much if not all the myth-debunking would apply in many other countries (caveat emptor, though, with that comment as I’m not a lawyer).

But you don’t need to be a lawyer to know what’s right and what’s not. Just look at the list and ask yourself: Do I disagree with any of these points?

Yet here’s where it becomes interesting. Whether you disagree or not, the reality is that blogs, websites and other electronic media make it so easy and simple to use anything you find, anywhere – a couple of mouse clicks and you have it for whatever use you want.

If you look at my blog, you will find material that, legally speaking, must breach some country’s copyright law. Every time I quote something from an online newspaper or journal, for instance, I guess I’m in breach of copyright.

I often quote verbatim from articles in the Financial Times (UK law) and the Wall Street Journal (US law). Both publications have clear and prominent statements on their websites regarding copyright ownership of content and its use by others (the FT’s terms of use statements include this phrase: “you may not copy, reproduce, publish, broadcast, transmit, modify, adapt, create derivative works of, store, archive, publicly display or in any way commercially exploit any of the FT content”).

It’s pretty clear from a legal point of view. So should I now expect to hear from any publication’s lawyers? No, I don’t think so.

I believe common sense applies in such situations relating to how anyone would use someone else’s material. In the case of the FT, the words “commercially exploit” are highly relevant here (as would be “fair use,” I suspect). If I simply copied the entire content of FT or WSJ articles and reproduced them here in my blog, I would expect to hear from someone at those publications sooner or later, especially if I passed off that content as my own work or if any person reasonably assumed it was my own work.

But I don’t do that.

Copyright laws are all a rather grey area now, it seems to me, and which look increasingly outdated and possibly irrelevant in view of the ease and speed with which anyone is able to use any content, as I mentioned, whether that’s right or not.

To my mind, the balanced approach to copyright and recognizing the intellectual property rights of others as advocated by Creative Commons is how ‘normal’ copyright law should develop:

As we help people make their work available with public domain dedications and generous licenses, we will also build an “intellectual property conservancy.” Like a land trust or nature preserve, the conservancy will serve to protect works of special public value from exclusionary private ownership and from obsolescence due to neglect or technological change. We will encourage people to donate their works to Creative Commons to be held in public trust; in some cases, we may purchase important works to help guarantee both their integrity and widespread availability. Our ultimate goal is to develop a rich repository of high-quality works in a variety of media, and to promote an ethos of sharing, public education, and creative interactivity.

I have a Creative Commons license for material on my blog – take a look at it and see how simple and clear it is.

Would a Creative Commons approach mean an end to the simple copy-and-paste method of using others’ material?

Unfortunately, that’s unlikely. But at least you can apply common sense and do what you know is right, as suggested by LLRX:

  1. Use someone else’s work only if:
    a. You have permission;
    b. The work is in the public domain; or
    c. What you do with the work amounts to “fair use.”
  2. If you do not know whether a work is subject to copyright, investigate before you use it.
  3. If a work is subject to a copyright, don’t use, quote or lift from it without getting permission first, unless you are confident you meet a fair use exception. For a blogger or site owner, that means ask before posting someone else’s articles or photos.
  4. If you don’t know whether it’s copyrighted or do not know for certain that it is in the public domain, ditto.
  5. If you have any doubts, consult a copyright or intellectual property attorney before using someone else’s work (advice costs less than defending an infringement claim does).

(Hat tip to Shel Holtz for the link to LLRX’s article.)

5 thoughts on “Copyright myths and creative common(s) sense”

  1. 8 Copymyths on the Internet

    Bloggers beware – via NevOn, Shel Holtz, Corporate Engagement and LLRX, an article from Kathy Biehl on 8 US copyright law myths spawned in part by the Internet.

  2. The LLRX article starts with the word “misinformation”. This is regretable because the entire article is meant to misinform by giving one limited scope legal side of an argument, like politicians and salespersons do but scientists and businessmen (at least internally) are not supposed to do. After all shortest way to the truth is to look at all sides of the issues. The arguments for copyrights have also a moral and political side, not just a legal side. After all, the inquisition was legal,so was the Hitler political ascendancy. Certainly more myths could have been raised in the LLRX article if a more balanced and objective discussion had been presented. For example:
    Myth: Copyright laws work. The fact is that they work in an opposite way as they should. It destroys the created works. It destrous the arts. It destroys the artists. This is because they were written to favor the copyright industries or cartels. This is expalined in detail in the article THE COPYRIGHT FUNNEL (read at THE COPYRIGHT DOG blog: http://chocoweb.blogspot.com/).
    Myth: Copyright claims are valid. Nonsense. I have recordings of Beethoven symphonies made in the USA before 1950 that say “all rights reserved,,blah, blah. when in fact the recording is in the public domain per US law for being pre 1978 and the music is in the public domain per the law of Germany, the composers’s homeland and international law). This type of claim is incredibily common and tolerated by the governments that now appear to be so concerned about copyrights. The biggest scam of false claims is the ownership claims that music publishers make. The article BIGGEST COPYRIGHT SCAM: RENEWAL RIGHTS APPROPRIATION (read at THE COPYRIGHT DOG blog: http://chocoweb.blogspot.com/) .
    Myth: Copyright laws protect the creators. Nonsense.
    Myth: The money collected by music publishers and performance rights organizations reach the songwriters. Nonsense. There are some exceptions, but that is it. The vast percentage of author royalties, over 90 percent, is retained by the publishers.
    Myth: Sony (and RIIA by extension) is anti-piracy. Nonsense. A lawsuit against Sony was filed by the children of one composer because it makes and markets 16 records with songs owned by the composer’s children without any license and without paying any royalties. By their action Sony has saved a bundle in royalties. The details can be read here: http://www.gvenegas.com .
    Myth: Buying blank CDs and DVDs is criminal. This is because they are used to infringe. Then why are they sold by the truckload, at a rate 1000 greater that what would be need to backup self created works? Then we are all criminals.
    Myth: The works of Shakespeare are in the public domain. The truth is that nothing is ever in the public domain. There are a variety of trick available to publishers that allows them to claim copyrights. Added artwork and footnotes are great tools in literature and music scores, for claiming copyrights. Remastering and removing sctraches of old records can justify a new copyright claim. Arrangements of public domain songs are registered, then included in the catalog of the performace rights societies. And so on.
    Myth: Songs are licensed by the performace “composer” societies. The truth is that these societies are not composer societies but publisher societies and no one knows what songs are licensed because the catalog of songs is not know by the licenesee. For example a barber shop may be licensed so that they can play the radio in the barber shop. But the barber shop owner has no idea what songs are played on the radion, let alone if they are included in the non existing catalog he has licensed. Actually what the barber shop acquired is a blackmail license, meaning that he will no be sued by the performance society that issed the license to the barber shop. And the legislators now not of this openly ongoing licensing farce/blackmail? There you have anothe myth.
    Etc. Etc.
    Rafael Venegas
    http://www,gvenegas.com

  4. Rafael, thanks for such a thoughful and lengthy comment. From visiting your website, I think I can understand why you have such strong views on this subject.
    I’m not really wholly sure how I can give comment directly to what you say. I can’t comment on the detail re any issues with record labels, music downloading, etc – hot topics, all! – as I have little knowledge on the specifics in those areas. Plus I’m not a copyright lawyer.
    One comment you made, though, is one I’d agree with – copyright laws work (in the sense that they don’t, which is what you’re pointing out). In this age of being able to get hold of just about anything from a website, blog or whatever, and wherever it is, and then go ahead and use it just isn’t right, in my view. That’s actually at the heart of what the LLRX story, and my post, is addressing.
    Indeed, all the points you make illustrate how current geography-based copyright laws are so weak today.
    I think the the idea I mentioned in my post re Creative Commons is worth exploring – and they have detailed information relating to rights for audio material (http://creativecommons.org/audio/).

Comments are closed.