Copyright law of the United States
The Copyright Law of the United States tries to encourage the creation of art and culture by rewarding authors and artists with a set of exclusive rights. Copyright law grants authors and artists the right to make and sell copies of their works, the right to create derivative works. These exclusive rights are subject to a limit, and generally expire 70 years after the authors death. In the United States, any music composed before January 1,1923, is considered public domain. United States copyright law is governed by the Copyright Act of 1976, the United States Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to create copyright law under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, known as the Copyright Clause. The United States Copyright Office handles copyright registration, recording of copyright transfers, US copyright law traces its lineage back to the British Statute of Anne, which influenced the first US federal copyright law, the Copyright Act of 1790. The Copyright Act has been updated several times, including, notably, the Copyright Act of 1976 and this includes incentivizing the creation of art, literature, architecture, music, and other works of authorship. As with many legal doctrines, the effectiveness of law in achieving its stated purpose is a matter of debate. The United States copyright law protects original works of authorship, fixed in a tangible medium including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic and this protection is available to both published and unpublished works. This distinction is called the idea–expression dichotomy, the distinction between idea and expression is fundamental to copyright law. For example, a paper describing a theory is copyrightable. The paper is the expression of the ideas about the political theory. But the theory itself is just an idea, and is not copyrightable, another author is free to describe the same theory in their own words without infringing on the original authors copyright. Although fundamental, the dichotomy is often difficult to put into practice. Reasonable people can disagree about where the unprotectable idea ends and the expression begins. Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp.274 F. 2d 487, however, compilations of facts are treated differently, and may be copyrightable material. Copyright protection in compilations is limited to the selection and arrangement of facts, the Supreme Court decision in Feist v. Rural clarified the requirements for copyright in compilations. The Feist case denied copyright protection to a white pages phone book, in making this ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the sweat of the brow doctrine
Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.
Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.36 F. Supp. Even though accurate reproductions might require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element to determine whether a work is copyrightable under U. S. law is originality. Corel Corporation sold, in the U. K. the U. S. and Canada, a CD-ROM called Professional Photos CD Rom masters, Corel stated that it had obtained these images from a company called Off the Wall Images, a company that no longer existed. Bridgeman Art Library possessed a library of photographs of paintings by European masters. The copyright terms on the paintings themselves had expired, but Bridgeman claimed that it owned a copyright on the photographs and it licensed copies of its photographs for a fee. It claimed that since it owned the copyright on its photographs, both parties moved for summary judgment. Judge Lewis Kaplan in the Southern District Court of New York issued two judgments, on November 13,1998, Judge Kaplan granted the defendants motion for a summary dismissal of the suit. The court applied U. K. law to determine whether the photographs were copyrightable in the first place. It determined that Bridgemans photographs were not original works, and could not be validly copyrighted under U. K. law, in the judgment, Kaplan noted that the court would have reached the same result had it applied U. S. law throughout. The entry of the first summary judgment caused the court, in the words of Judge Kaplan, the plaintiff moved, on November 23, for reconsideration and re-argument, on the grounds that the courts assessment of the copyrightability of the works was in error. In support of motion it pointed to a certificate of copyright issued by the United States Register of Copyrights for one of Bridgemans photographs. It asserted that the certificate demonstrated the subsistence of copyright and it further argued that the court had mis-applied U. K. copyright law, by not following Graves Case. The court also received a letter from William F. Patry. The plaintiff moved for the court to receive an amicus brief from The Wallace Collection. The amicus curiae brief was filed, both parties were given leave to address the points raised by Patrys letter, and the case was re-argued and reconsidered, indeed, it did not even cite Graves case, the supposedly controlling authority that the Court is said to have overlooked. On February 26,1999, Judge Kaplan again granted the motion for a summary dismissal of the suit. In particular, it considered sections 3 and 4 of the BCIA, in other words, Congress did not adopt the Second Restatements rule, under which the law of the state with the most direct relation to the property would apply. Thus Kaplan applied U. S. law to the issue of copyrightability, the second judgment provided a more detailed statement of the courts reasoning than the first judgment did
Sweat of the brow
Sweat of the brow is an intellectual property law doctrine, chiefly related to copyright law. According to this doctrine, an author gains rights through simple diligence during the creation of a work, such as a database, substantial creativity or originality is not required. The classic example is a telephone directory, in a sweat of the brow jurisdiction, such a directory may not be copied, but instead a competitor must independently collect the information to issue a competing directory. The same rule applies to databases and lists of facts. Civil law jurisdictions have traditionally used the similar but not identical concept of droit dauteur, european Union law tends to harmonize the protection of intellectual property throughout member states and the doctrine thus gains more influence. In a traditional English idiom, the sweat of ones brow refers to the effort expended in labor, the phrase is famously used in English translations of Genesis 3,19. The law doctrine takes its name from this idiom, the United States rejected this doctrine in the 1991 United States Supreme Court case Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, until then it had been upheld in a number of US copyright cases. Under the Feist ruling in the US, mere collections of facts are considered unoriginal and thus not protected by copyright, the arrangement and presentation of a collection may be original, but not if it is simple and obvious such as a list in alphabetical or chronological order. Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, for copyright to subsist in a work, however, courts have not adopted a literal reading of this requirement. For over a hundred years, English courts have held that a significant expenditure of labour is sufficient and this suggests that copyright is not about protecting ideas, because one can acquire a copyright by expending skill, labour, and judgement, but no creativity or inventiveness. Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of a work can be considered as ‘original’. In Walter v Lane, reporters took shorthand notes of a speech, punctuated them, etc. in University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd, the question arose as to whether certain mathematics exam papers were original literary works. The exam papers just consisted of conventional maths problems in a conventional manner, the court held that originality does not mean that the work must be an expression of individual thought. The simple fact that the authors drew on a body of knowledge common to mathematicians did not compromise originality, the requirement of originality, it was held, does not require that expression be in an original or novel form. It does, however, require that the work not be copied from another work and it must originate from the author. In Cummins v Bond, a psychic in a trance claimed to have written down what spirits told her, in court, she accepted that she was not the creative author of the writing. The creative input, had, presumably, come from the spirits, nonetheless, the court held that she had exercised sufficient labour and skill in translating and transcribing what the spirits told her, so she had a copyright in the resulting literary work. In certain cases, German law grants ancillary copyrights due to the involved in the production or exploitation of creative works
The term public domain has two senses of meaning. Anything published is out in the domain in the sense that it is available to the public. Once published, news and information in books is in the public domain, in the sense of intellectual property, works in the public domain are those whose exclusive intellectual property rights have expired, have been forfeited, or are inapplicable. Examples for works not covered by copyright which are therefore in the domain, are the formulae of Newtonian physics, cooking recipes. Examples for works actively dedicated into public domain by their authors are reference implementations of algorithms, NIHs ImageJ. The term is not normally applied to situations where the creator of a work retains residual rights, as rights are country-based and vary, a work may be subject to rights in one country and be in the public domain in another. Some rights depend on registrations on a basis, and the absence of registration in a particular country, if required. Although the term public domain did not come into use until the mid-18th century, the Romans had a large proprietary rights system where they defined many things that cannot be privately owned as res nullius, res communes, res publicae and res universitatis. The term res nullius was defined as not yet appropriated. The term res communes was defined as things that could be enjoyed by mankind, such as air, sunlight. The term res publicae referred to things that were shared by all citizens, when the first early copyright law was first established in Britain with the Statute of Anne in 1710, public domain did not appear. However, similar concepts were developed by British and French jurists in the eighteenth century, instead of public domain they used terms such as publici juris or propriété publique to describe works that were not covered by copyright law. The phrase fall in the domain can be traced to mid-nineteenth century France to describe the end of copyright term. In this historical context Paul Torremans describes copyright as a coral reef of private right jutting up from the ocean of the public domain. Because copyright law is different from country to country, Pamela Samuelson has described the public domain as being different sizes at different times in different countries. According to James Boyle this definition underlines common usage of the public domain and equates the public domain to public property. However, the usage of the public domain can be more granular. Such a definition regards work in copyright as private property subject to fair use rights, the materials that compose our cultural heritage must be free for all living to use no less than matter necessary for biological survival
A cartouche is an oval or oblong design with a slightly convex surface, typically edged with ornamental scrollwork. It is used to hold a painted or low relief design, in Early Modern design, since the early 16th century, the cartouche is a scrolling frame device, derived originally from Italian cartoccia. Such cartouches are characteristically stretched, pierced and scrolling, another cartouche figures prominently in the title page of Giorgio Vasaris Lives, framing a minor vignette with a device of pierced and scrolling papery cartoccia. The engraved trade card of the London clockmaker Percy Webster shows a vignette of the shop in a scrolling cartouche frame of Rococo design that is composed entirely of scrolling devices