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.

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.

The main objective of this study is to present a compact overview analysis of intellectual property laws, specifically copyright-related provisions applicable to generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in the Indian context.

The paper adopts a qualitative research methodology that is grounded in secondary sources of information. The data were gathered from the Scopus database for a systematic literature review.

GenAI technology has given rise to numerous questionable issues within the domain of intellectual property that need resolution in the form of policy solutions. Based on the findings of this paper, it can be deduced that Indian copyright laws are not adequate for addressing the rights pertaining to AI and its creations and outputs. Different countries like the United States, European Union and China have approached the regulation and protection of AI-generated content within the realm of copyright law in different ways. The future of law, as it has been established thus far, seems to be on a path of substantial evolution.

The study has implications for policymakers globally as there is a need to create feasible policy solutions that can efficiently safeguard against risks stemming from large language models (LLMs) and other GenAI models, while also promoting innovation, technical advancement and adoption.

The paper discusses the copyright-related issues in GenAI technology in the context of an emerging economy, India.

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 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.