Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet.[1][2] Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.
Provisions[edit] Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions[edit] Re: Wikipedia and Commons screenshots of GNU programms. [Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index] Re: Wikipedia and Commons screenshots of GNU programms Scripsit Patrick-Emil Zörner <paddyez@yahoo.de> > My question is the following:is there a policy or rule of if and how > screenshots of GNU programs may be published?
You would be better off asking that question of the FSF. This mailing list is for discussing the legal aspects of including things in the Debian operating system. That being said, most of the screenshots you link to could not reasonably be covered by the copyright (or other intellectual property rights) of the programs whose output are being depicted. To the extent that the pictures include icons that by themselves are subject to copyright, it is reasonably safe to assume that they are okay under "fair use" (in common-law juristictions) or "right to quote" (in continental European ones). Reply to: References: Right to quote.
Right to quote is a legal concept in continental Europe, which some people consider similar to fair use.[1] It allows for quoting excerpts of copyrighted works, as long as the cited paragraphs are within a reasonable limit (varying from country to country), clearly marked as quotations and fully referenced, and if the resulting new work is not just a collection of quotations, but constitutes a fully original work in itself.
In some countries the intended use of the work (educational, scientific, parodist, etc.) may also be a factor determining the scope of this right. France[edit] In France, it is illegal to reproduce someone's work without their approval. But if the work is published, i.e. no longer being edited prior to release, small quotations are legal.[2] Germany[edit] In Germany, the right to quote is extended considerably for research purposes and may even encompass complete works (e. g. texts, pictures, music or videos).[3] References[edit] See also[edit] Fair dealing. Fair dealing: Encyclopedia II - Fair dealing - Fair dealing in Singapore.
Copyright Act. Fair dealing. Fair dealing is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work, which is found in many of the common law jurisdictions of the Commonwealth of Nations. Fair dealing is an enumerated set of possible defences against an action for infringement of an exclusive right of copyright. Unlike the related United States doctrine of fair use, fair dealing cannot apply to any act which does not fall within one of these categories. In practice, common law courts might rule that actions with a commercial character, which might be naïvely assumed to fall into one of these categories, were in fact infringements of copyright as fair dealing is not as flexible a concept as the American concept of fair use. Fair dealing by country[edit] Australia[edit] In Australia, the grounds for fair dealing are: Regarding fair dealing under Crown copyright the Australian Copyright Act 1968, ss.176-178. Canada[edit] New Zealand[edit] Singapore[edit] India[edit]
What the "jailbreak" exemption says about the future of copyright law | Stanford Center for Internet and Society (Build 20100722155716) I dashed off a piece for CNET today on the Copyright Office’s cell phone “jailbreaking” rulemaking earlier this week. Though there has already been extensive coverage (including solid pieces in The Washington Post, a New York Times editorial, CNET, and Techdirt), there were a few interesting aspects to the decision I thought were worth highlighting. Most notably, I was interested that no one had discussed the possibility and process by which Apple or other service providers could appeal the rulemaking.
Ordinarily, parties who object to rules enrolled by administrative agencies can file suit in federal district court under the Administrative Procedures Act. Such suits are difficult to win, as courts give deference to administrative determinations and review them only for errors of law. But a win for the agency is by no means guaranteed. For more on this on other important aspects of the case, see "Copyright Office Weighs in on Awkward Questions of Software Law. " Copyright Law: Chapter 1. And Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code Circular 92 § 101 . Definitions2 Except as otherwise provided in this title, as used in this title, the following terms and their variant forms mean the following: An “anonymous work” is a work on the copies or phonorecords of which no natural person is identified as author. An “architectural work” is the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.
“Audiovisual works” are works that consist of a series of related images which are intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machines or devices such as projectors, viewers, or electronic equipment, together with accompanying sounds, if any, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as films or tapes, in which the works are embodied. A person’s “children” are that person’s immediate offspring, whether legitimate or not, and any children legally adopted by that person. § 102 .