Hello:
I wrote this article due to the rampant unauthorized copying of copyright protected work on the Internet. This article is also posted here on Black Web 2.0. Share your thought.
When Copying A Work If You Give Credit, Do You Still Need Permission to Copy? Before you have to even consider playing your ‘Get out of Jail Free’ card the short answer is absolutely yes!
There is a huge misconception among Internet users and Bloggers that as long as credit is given to the Copyright owner, it is permissible to copy, reproduce, use snippets or paraphrase the copyright protected work. However, the Copyright Act clearly states: any person who exercises the exclusive rights of a copyright owner, without the copyright owner’s express permission, is an infringer of copyright. 17 USC sec. 501(a).
This means that anyone who wants to use the copyright of a copyright owner must directly contact the copyright owner and receive written (express) permission to copy or reproduce the work. Simply giving credit will not do.
This law also pertains to photos. When writing blog posts, most bloggers simply search the Internet for an image to complement their blog post. This is a dangerous practice and can result in a Cease and Desist letter from the Copyright Owner or a Copyright Infringement action. To avoid legal action, simply contact the owner and ask if it is permissible to use their image. The majority of Copyright owners will agree as long as you give them credit. A simple email will only take 5 minutes to write. This is a small time investment to ensure you are not breaking the law. If you can not locate the Copyright owner, use your own image and/or writing. Copying without permission is simply not worth the legal headache.
However, there are certain instances where copying a work without the Copyright Owner’s permission is permissible. A copyright owner can use a creative commons license to allow users to use their work without permission in certain circumstances. Below is an example of a Creative Common License:
1. You are free to copy the work as long as you attribute the work to the copyright owner. However you can not use the work for commercial (monetary) purposes.
Lastly, a statement such as the one below, does not protect an individual from Copyright Infringement Actions:
If you hold the copyright(s) to any music or other content that can be found here and would like for it to be removed, please contact me and it will be removed immediately.
This clause is not a “safe haven” for Copyright Infringers. I will say it again, you must get the Copyright Owner’s express permission to use the Copyright protected work. The above clause will only expose an Infringer to liability.
Showing posts with label US Copyright laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Copyright laws. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Thursday, March 12, 2009
New Kindle Audio Feature: Is Text to Speech Reading essentially the Audio Book experience?
Hello!
I hope all has been well in your world!
As many of you may know, Kindle has added an audio feature that allows a user to click a button and the book is read aloud. Cool right? However, the Author's Guild, the organization that protects the rights of authors, has claimed that the use of the Audio function on the new Kindle is copyright infringement. Specifically, the Author's Guild argues Kindle was granted the use of copyrighted material for electronic reading only...not audio. To understand the Author's Guild argument, you must first have a working knowledge of the rights granted to a copyright holder under the U.S. Copyright laws. Those rights are as follows:
A copyright owner has the exclusive right to:
1. reproduce the copyrighted work in copies;
2. to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
3. to distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
4. in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
5. in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
6. in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
US Copyright Act.
The Author's Guild argues the authors did not grant Kindle a right to create a derivative work (audio) of the electronic books. The right to create a derivative work basically means the copyright owner has a right to transform the original work into another medium. For example, transforming a painting into a sculpture; transforming a novel into a motion picture; or transforming a book into an audio reading (audio book). The Author's Guild's position is that the audio function of the new Kindle, that allows the book to be read aloud, is an audio version of the book and therefore a derivative of the original book. However, Kindle argues that the text to speech function is performed by software generated technology and is not the same as an audio book experience.
So the question is whether the text to speech function qualifies as an audio version of the books and therefore a derivative of the original work?
In my opinion, I would argue that the text to speech function is an audio version of the original work. Audio is defined as any human audible sound. Whether the sound is computer or software generated is of no consequence. Like audio books in which the original author reads the books aloud, the new Kindle Text to Speech feature accomplishes the same goal: the reader is allowed the experience of having the book read to them as opposed to reading it themselves.
Of course, the real issue here concerns revenue. If the text to speech function is determined to be an audio version of the electronic books, Kindle would have to pay the Authors an additional licensing fee for the audio function. Kindle may not want to pay this additional fee and the Authors want to make as much money as possible for their works. What does this mean for consumers? It means that we may not get the benefit and advantage of purchasing one electronic book and receiving an audio version or experience for free!
I guess we have to wait and see how this all plays out.
I hope all has been well in your world!
As many of you may know, Kindle has added an audio feature that allows a user to click a button and the book is read aloud. Cool right? However, the Author's Guild, the organization that protects the rights of authors, has claimed that the use of the Audio function on the new Kindle is copyright infringement. Specifically, the Author's Guild argues Kindle was granted the use of copyrighted material for electronic reading only...not audio. To understand the Author's Guild argument, you must first have a working knowledge of the rights granted to a copyright holder under the U.S. Copyright laws. Those rights are as follows:
A copyright owner has the exclusive right to:
1. reproduce the copyrighted work in copies;
2. to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
3. to distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
4. in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
5. in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
6. in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
US Copyright Act.
The Author's Guild argues the authors did not grant Kindle a right to create a derivative work (audio) of the electronic books. The right to create a derivative work basically means the copyright owner has a right to transform the original work into another medium. For example, transforming a painting into a sculpture; transforming a novel into a motion picture; or transforming a book into an audio reading (audio book). The Author's Guild's position is that the audio function of the new Kindle, that allows the book to be read aloud, is an audio version of the book and therefore a derivative of the original book. However, Kindle argues that the text to speech function is performed by software generated technology and is not the same as an audio book experience.
So the question is whether the text to speech function qualifies as an audio version of the books and therefore a derivative of the original work?
In my opinion, I would argue that the text to speech function is an audio version of the original work. Audio is defined as any human audible sound. Whether the sound is computer or software generated is of no consequence. Like audio books in which the original author reads the books aloud, the new Kindle Text to Speech feature accomplishes the same goal: the reader is allowed the experience of having the book read to them as opposed to reading it themselves.
Of course, the real issue here concerns revenue. If the text to speech function is determined to be an audio version of the electronic books, Kindle would have to pay the Authors an additional licensing fee for the audio function. Kindle may not want to pay this additional fee and the Authors want to make as much money as possible for their works. What does this mean for consumers? It means that we may not get the benefit and advantage of purchasing one electronic book and receiving an audio version or experience for free!
I guess we have to wait and see how this all plays out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)