SWNID hears remarks. Sometimes we think that we ought to respond with SWNIDish wisdom. Generally, we restrain ourselves. This is not one of those times.
Of late we've heard at least two people offer remarks that reflect a widely held point of view that is inaccurate in a way that could prove damaging to people who hold the view. We herein provide corrective, protective service.
In essence, the false and dangerous view is this: that written material is not under copyright if the copyright has not been overtly declared by the author or registered with the government. Hence, if a person finds material in a publication or on the Internet that does not declare a copyright or indicate its registration in Washington, the material is free for the taking. That is, the material may be used without attribution in student papers or even attributed use in reprinting.
Such, of course, is not the case. Copyright exists whether it is explicitly declared or not and whether it is officially registered or not. If disputed, it is easier to prove if declared or registered. But intellectual property doesn't need to be branded as such, any more than a TV set is less mine because I didn't engrave my social security number on its chassis.
And it matters not that the re-use of another's written material is not for profit, as in a student paper, for example. The material belongs to the author or the person to whom the author assigns rights. That person has the right to forbid its publication entirely, if he so chooses. That's what the "right" of "copyright" is: the power to decide whether and how written work will be copied.
Students who do such are not just representing another's work as their own. They are also using another's property without permission.
The same, by the way, is true of oral discourse. Using another's sermon, sermon outline or sermon illustration as if it were one's own is a tawdry example of intellectual theft, even if it is a relatively common one.
Of course, it should go without saying that one can never distribute copies of another's work without that person's permission. That includes dissemination on the internet, by the way. Again, the absence of overt declaration of copyright is in no way a surrender of copyright, any more than failing to double lock the front door means that a person who comes into the house without an invitation is therefore not trespassing.
So the rules are: (a) attribute quotations; (b) get explicit permission for any publication or distribution of portions beyond the bounds of limited, attributed quotation.
In this end of the academic season, soon to turn to the beginning of another, we mention this factoid to help our gentle readers avoid the embarrassment that comes when one inappropriately appropriates intellectual property.
3 comments:
While legally you are correct this does create quite a conundrum for the average person in an average life. As illustrated in this paper written by a law professor in which he points out that the current state out copyright law makes each of us essentially serial copyright offenders liable for damage of something on the order of $5 billion a year.
At some point the law becomes a ridiculous farce that gets ignored.
We agree that the law needs clarifying and updating: that's a truism, as the article you link points out. But note well our core point: without permission, a person shouldn't ever copy another's work for distribution, and one should never use parts of another's work without proper attribution. And this applies to another's written work,whether printed or electronic, whether the copyright is registered, merely declared, nor not declared at all.
There's a "penumbra" of the copyright law that allows for spontaneous use in educational settings without permission, giving latitude to a teacher to make copies at the last minute of a recent article for students without getting permission. There's also an allowance for parody. The law isn't totally silly on such points, though it has and can be used by many in ways that are hardly in keeping with its primary purpose.
We oppose legal farces (see our occasional discussion of immigration law). But there's still something about intellectual property law that isn't farcical.
I think we're on the same page here, for copyright to mean anything some revisions are necessary, the reduction of damages, expanded and well-defined fair use, and a safe harbor provision for individuals that cease and desist after being served with cease and desist requests are the least of what needs to happen for people to do something other than laugh at copyright law.
Post a Comment