39 lines
8.5 KiB
Markdown
39 lines
8.5 KiB
Markdown
# Copyright
|
|
|
|
Copyright (better called copyrestriction) is one of many types of so called [intellectual property](intellectual_property.md) (IP), i.e. a legal concept that allows ownership (restriction) of certain kind of information. Copyright specifically allows to own (i.e. restrict other people's rights to) [art](art.md) creations such as images, songs or texts, which include source code of computer programs. Copyright is not to be confused with [trademark](trademark.md) or [patent](patent.md). Copyright is symbolized by C in a circle or in brackets: (C).
|
|
|
|
When someone creates something that can even remotely be considered artistic expression (even such things as e.g. a mere collection of already existing things), they automatically gain copyright on it, without having to register it anywhere or let it be known anywhere. They then have practically full control over the work and can successfully sue anyone who basically just touches it in any way. Therefore **any code without a [free](free_software.md) license attached is implicitly fully owned by its creator** (so called "all rights reserved") and can't be used by anyone without permission. It is said that copyright can't apply to ideas, only to expressions of ideas, however that's [bullshit](bs.md), the line isn't clear and is arbitrarily drawn by judges; for example regarding stories in books it's been established that the story itself can be copyrighted, not just its expression (you can't rewrite the Harry Potter story in different words and start selling it).
|
|
|
|
This current form of copyright (as well as other types of IP such as software patents) has been highly criticized by many people, even those whom it's supposed to "protect" (e.g. small game creators). Strong copyright laws basically benefit corporations and "trolls" on the detriment of everyone else. It smothers creativity and efficiency by prohibiting people to reuse, remix and improve already existing works. Most people are probably for *some* form of copyright but still oppose the current extreme form which is pretty crazy: copyright applies to everything without any registration or notice and last usually 70 years (!!!) **after** the author has died (!!!). This is 100 years in some countries. In some countries it is not even possible to waive copyright to own creations. Some people are against the very idea of copyright (those may either use waivers such as [CC0](cc0.md) or [unlicense](unlicense.md) or protest by not using any licenses and simply ignoring copyright which however will actually discourage other people from reusing their works).
|
|
|
|
Prominent critics include [Lawrence Lessig](lessig.md) (who established [free culture](free_culture.md) and [Creative Commons](creative_commons.md)) as a response), [Nina Paley](nina_paley.md) and [Richard Stallman](rms.md).
|
|
|
|
The book *Free Culture* by Lessig talks, besides others, about how copyright has started and how it's been shaped by corporations to becoming their tool for monopolizing art. The concept of copyright has appeared after the invention of [printing press](printing_press.md). The so called *Statute of Anne* of 1710 allowed the authors of books to control their copying for **14 years** and only after **registartion**. The term could be prolonged by anothert 14 years if the author survived. The laws started to get more and more strict as control of information became more valued and eventually the term grew to **life of authour plus 70 years**, without any need for registration or deposit of the copy of the work. Furthermore with new technologies, the scope of copyright has also extended: if copyright originally only limited *copying* of books, in the Internet age it started to cover basically any use, as any manipulation with digital data in the computer age requires making local copies. Addidionally the copyright laws were passing despite being unconstitutional as the US constitution says that copyright term has to be finite -- the corporations have found a way around this and simply regularly increased the copyright's term, trying to make it de-facto infinite. Their reason, of course, was to firstly forever keep ovenership of their own art but also, maybe more importantly, to **kill the [public domain](public_domain.md)**, i.e. prevent old works from entering the public domain where they would become a completely free, unrestricted work for all people, competing with their proprietary art. Nowadays, with coprporations such as [YouTube](youtube.md) and [Facebook](facebook.md) de-facto controlling most of infromation sharing among common people, the situation worsens further: they can simply make their own laws that don't need to be passed by the government but simply implemented on the platform they control. This way they are already killing e.g. the right to [fair use](fair_use.md), they can simply remove any content on the basis of "copyright violation", even if such content would normally NOT violate copyright because it would fall under fair use. This would normally have to be devided by court, but a corporation here itself takes the role of the court itself. So in terms of copyright, corporations have now a greater say than governments, and of course they'll use this power against the people (e.g. to implement censorship and surveillance).
|
|
|
|
Copyright rules differ greatly by country, most notably the US measures copyright length from the publication of the work rather than from when the author died. It is possible for a work to be copyrighted in one country and not copyrighted in another. It is sometimes also very difficult to say whether a work is copyrighted because the rules have been greatly changing (e.g. a notice used to be required for some time), sometimes even retroactively copyrighting public domain works, and there also exists no official database of copyrighted works (you can't safely look up whether your creation is too similar to someone else's). All in all, copyright is a huge mess, which is why we choose [free licenses](free_software.md) and even [public domain](public_domain.md) waivers.
|
|
|
|
[Copyleft](copyleft.md) (also share-alike) is a concept standing against copyright, a kind of anti-copyright, invented by [Richard Stallman](rms.md) in the context of [free software](free_software.md). It's a license that grants people the rights to the author's work on the condition that they share its further modification under the same terms, which basically hacks copyright to effectively spread free works like a "virus".
|
|
|
|
Copyright does **not** apply to facts (including mathematical formulas) (even though the formulation of them may be copyrighted), ideas (though these may be covered by [patents](patent.md)) and single words or short phrases (these may however still be [trademarked](trademark.md)). As such copyright can't e.g. be applied to game mechanics of a computer [game](game.md) (it's an idea). It is also basically proven that copyright doesn't cover [computer languages](programming_language.md) (Oracle vs Google). Depending on time and location there also exist various peculiar exceptions such as the freedom of panorama for photographs or uncopyrightable utilitarian design (e.g. no one can own the shape of a generic car). But it's never good to rely on these peculiarities as they are specific to time/location, they are often highly subjective, fuzzy and debatable and may even be retroactively changed by law. This constitutes a huge legal [bloat](bloat.md) and many time legal unsafety. Do not stay in the gray area, try to stay safely far away from the fuzzy copyright line.
|
|
|
|
A work which is not covered by copyright (and any other IP) -- which is nowadays pretty rare due to the extent and duration of copyright -- is in the **[public domain](public_domain.md)**.
|
|
|
|
[Free software](free_software.md) (and free art etc.) is **not** automatically public domain, it is mostly still copyrighted, i.e. "owned" by someone, but the owner has given some key rights to everyone with a free software license and by doing so minimized or even eliminated the negative effects of full copyright. The owner may still keep the rights e.g. to being properly credited in all copies of the software, which he may enforce in court. Similarly software that is in public domain is **not** automatically free software -- this holds only if source code for this software is available (so that the rights to studying and modifying can be executed).
|
|
|
|
## See Also
|
|
|
|
- [copyleft](copyleft.md)
|
|
- [fair use](fair_use.md)
|
|
- [creative commons](cc.md)
|
|
- [license](license.md)
|
|
- [patent](patent.md)
|
|
- [trademark](trademark.md)
|
|
- [public domain](pd.md)
|
|
- [intellectual property](intellectual_property.md)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|