Search results

Copyright can be confusing and intimidating for schools. Copyright is difficult enough to understand when dealing with paper, but as new technologies enter the mix, copyright is often ignored as obsolete or is so confusing that even beneficial and legal uses are avoided. While copyright places restrictions on some use of material, educators have many rights to use work created by others. This chapter helps guide educators through the issues relating to copyright and technology so copyright is not used as an automatic “no” to legitimate uses or an automatic “yes” for questionable uses.

Though originality is a requirement for copyright protection, the term is not defined, leaving room for differing interpretations. Over the years, there has been a shift in the yardstick for determining originality. The lack of definition gives room for ambiguity and creates hurdle for protection. The difficulty in assessment of originality is more felt in certain forms of work like music, which has its own theories and limitations. Absence of determining tests creates uncertainty for the authors to draw the line between inspiration and infringement. This paper aims to define originality as applicable to each subject matter.

The methodology used is a qualitative analytical approach and draws from theories and relevant case laws.

The requirement of “originality” as laid down in the Copyright Act has to be defined with precision. The requirement of originality for different categories of subject matter encompassed within copyright law will differ and so the term should be redefined with respect to each subject matter.

This paper is an original work and canvasses for a definition of the term originality in the Copyright Act with reference to the various subject matter entitled to protection.

The purpose of this paper is to summarize the current Korean copyright law and its effect on electronic document delivery services in Korea, and to recommend solutions for Korean libraries and information centers.

The authors present information based on their own professional experience at a national document supply center.

Korean libraries have five options for pursuing copyright clearance for materials published outside of Korea: negotiate an agreement directly with publishers; establish an agreement with, and pay royalties to, copyright collectives; establish bilateral treaties with national copyright collectives; establish a framework agreement with the organizations representing copyright holders; and incorporate extended collective licensing into the Korean copyright law.

The Korean copyright law was amended in 2011 and this paper presents the most current research on the law's impact on electronic document delivery services in Korea.

Following an overview of the historical context of copyright legislation, this paper discusses copyright within the scholarly communication process and the role of libraries in providing access to copyright materials in the digital age. The argument is made that the balance of “rights” and “exceptions” that has been maintained for 300 years needs to be reconsidered for scholarly communications, such as theses and dissertations, as well as for articles in electronic journals. This type of information is fact‐based, often resulting from public funds, and is part of the intellectual heritage of academic institutions, and so is very different to creative works within the entertainment industries.

In recent decades, the reproduction of copyrighted materials has become a subject of controversy, due in large part to the advent of photocopiers. Legislators, authors, publishers, educators, and librarians often differ in their interpretations of copyright law. In this article, Jean E. Koch explains the Copyright Revision Act of 1976 and illuminates the debate over its meaning.

The underlying concern of copyright is with communication; the purpose of the copyright system as it exists today is to stimulate those who have something to communicate—ideas, information, visions—to express them in a form in which they can be communicated to other human beings. The copyright system seeks to encourage authors to write, musicians to compose, artists to paint, and to provide incentives for the dissemination of their output by giving them rights of control over the use to which these forms of expression—literature, music, visual art—may be put by the public. The copyright law today is entirely statutory, subject, of course, to judicial interpretation as and when disputes come before the courts. The present statute is the Copyright Act 1956; its principal effect may be summarised in the following way:

This column aims to look at the results of the US Copyright Office's request for comments about orphan copyrights.

It uses a form of Game Theory called the Prisoner's Dilemma Game to analyze the comments that are available on the Copyright Office web site.

Some change seems likely, if only because the opponents of change may discover that they can gain more for themselves when they stop defending the interests of those who have abandoned their copyrights already.

If some form of cooperation between intellectual property consumers and rights holders could be worked out for orphan copyrights, it might lead to further “tit‐for‐tat” reactions that help to address other copyright issues.

Provides useful information on orphan copyrights.

Many librarians are asked questions about copyright and intellectual property. They may be expected to advise on copyright or provide copyright education as part of their duties. Others may be “voluntold” to take on copyright, which may come as an unexpected addition to their workload. This case study provides suggestions for librarians to increase their copyright knowledge and create copyright education programs.

This case study showcases two copyright education programs created by a librarian in a college and another in a university. The librarians collaborated to learn more about the state of copyright education within academic libraries and explore their commonalities and differences. This case study introduces two copyright education programs and summarizes the state of copyright education within library and information science (LIS) and academic libraries.

The following themes within the two copyright education programs were identified through a case study: the complexity of copyright, the engagement (or lack thereof) across a college or university, the necessity of including copyright in information literacy instruction and the calls for professional development with copyright.

This case study covers two differing institutions so its conclusions may not be applicable to all libraries or educational settings.

Many individuals who are in disciplines or occupations that regularly work with copyright may generate ideas for creating and providing continuing education within their organizations.

Library or education professionals can use the case study’s conclusions to inform and support their ongoing work with teaching and learning about copyright and intellectual property. By doing so, they can better support their students, faculty and institutions.

The expansion of copyright and the shrinking of the public domain did not begin with the Internet, but the Internet has exacerbated the problem. The threat posed by digital technology has led industries to obtain increasingly absolute protection over their “property.” In this paper I will argue that developing a vibrant public domain is essential for resisting the overextension of copyrights and patents. Developing the public domain as a counterpoint to copyright and patent law is vital to an energized public sphere and by extension a democratic system.

This paper argues that the revolution in intellectual property rights is not forward-looking, but backward looking, and that it is not consonant with the purposes of the patent and copyright clause. It is animated by the theory of common law copyright, which deliberately reconceptualizes social relations in order to recast them as property, and which has been with us for centuries. This paper investigates the “mythology of common law copyright,” showing how this reconceptualization has worked both historically and in the present day to push the law in a direction that is ostensibly author-centered, but is actually focused on the rights of intermediaries.