!!Экзамен зачет 2023 год / text
.docxThe aim of my presentation is to characterize the Limitations on Copyright Protection. The problem here is to find the balance.
On the one hand, there is copyright. It is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it. It’s really important to protect authors against violations of their rights. This is also true as to protect property owners from infringements on their property.
But no right can be unlimited. That’s why the law imposes certain restrictions on the authors’ implementation of their exclusive right. Today you will find out:
What to do if someone claims they thought of your idea first
Why works that are purely “useful” can’t be copyrighted
What constitutes “fair use” or copyrighted material for educational purposes
Why it may not be copyright infringement if you publicly spoof or make fun of someone’s work
Doctrine of Independent Creation helps us to answer the first question.
Imagine a situation when two independent writers decided to portray life of some historical figure. There was a real case concerning biography of Sally Hemings the slave with whom Thomas Jefferson is said to have had an affair and several illegitimate children. Obviously both products were similar. That’s why each manuscript was admitted as independent creation and copyrightable work.
The Utility Doctrine explains why useful works are not copyrighted.
The situation is quite strange at first sight. You invent something useful, write, for example, a book about it and suddenly learn that only expressive aspects of your work are copyrighted, while functional aspects are not. Why is it so?
First of all, giving protection to ideas would allow a copyright holder to enjoy a virtual monopoly on a topic.
And secondly, there is Patent right specially for inventions.
What difficulty may arise?
Sometimes it’s rather difficult to distinguish artistic part from functional. A good example of the difficulty of this distinction is the classic pedestal chair, designed by Eero Saarinen, in the 1950’s. The chair rests on a single pedestal instead of four legs. On the one hand – it’s a design, but on the other – it’s a technical construction.
But despite the fact that design may be expressive and artistic it won’t be copyrighted without separation from functional aspects.
The Doctrine of Fair Use applies in each case concerning copyright infringement.
The main element of the Doctrine of Fair Use is “Four factors test”. It helps to understand whether a copyright infringement takes place or not.
Firstly, considering cases involving copyright infringement courts pay attention to the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.
Precisely this fact allows restricting copyrights for educational purposes. There is no need to have an author’s permeation to use his production during lessons at the school.
The second step in the test determines the nature of the copyrighted work. This is perhaps the vaguest of the four factors identified in the statute. And courts define it in every particular case.
The third is the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. Obviously, the less you copy, the greater the chance that the court will be on your side.
And the last step of the test is to estimate the effect of the use upon the potential market or value of the copyrighted work.
If you remember the questions to which I promised to give answers, you will see that only one is left.
Why spoof is not copyright infringement?
It’s also the scope of the Four factors test. Court examines parody against all four counts, and if one is broken, it makes a decision not in favor of the parodist.
In closing, I’d like to say that my topic is very deep and varied, and I’ve tried to show you the most interesting aspects.