Or a standard cover-your-ass move to prevent his work becoming a copyright free-for-all.That's not how copyrights work.
Quick rule of all things intellectual property: if rights are not asserted over something, future rights can be waived. -- diosWow, dios. I havn't seen you here in forever. But anyway, you're totally wrong. Copyrights and patents lose no value if they're not protected. Look at the Unisys GIF patent, for example. They let their compression algorithm be used all over the place until a couple years before the patent was set to expire, at which point they tried to cash in. Copyright is the same. You have to explicitly wave your copyright in order to lose it. An example would be the film It's a wonderful life. For years it was believed to be in the public domain, and shown on TV all the time. Then later someone made a claim based on the copyright of the underlying story, and now license fees are charged (which is a little different then how I remembered it, but the point stands)
No, I'm not.Earlier in the thread...
I can certainly cite you to caselaw from US courts indicating such if you would like.Yes, lets see that case law.
Alternatively, Jalbert waived his right to pursue an infringement action against LeBlanc. A copyright holder can waive an infringement claim by acting in a way that can be “construed as a relinquishment of [his] rights under the Copyright Act.” Dream Dealers Music v. Parker, 924 F.Supp. 1146, 1152 (S.D.Ala.1996). “Waiver may occur by an express and affirmative act, or may be inferred by a party's conduct, where the conduct is consistent with and indicative of an intent to relinquish voluntarily a particular right such that no other reasonable explanation of the conduct is possible.” KACT, Inc., v. Rubin, 62 Mass.App.Ct. 689, 695, 819 N.E.2d 610 (2004); see also Irons v. F.B.I, 880 F.2d 1446, 1452 (1st Cir.1989) (“Courts sometimes infer from an individual's statements or conduct that the individual wishes to forego a protection.”). It is undisputed that Jalbert's mother not only did not tell LeBlanc that she had done anything wrong, but that she hoped LeBlanc's son enjoyed the print and told his friends about it. The only reasonable inference from Mrs. Jalbert's conduct is that she approved of LeBlanc's actions, and intended to waive any claim Jalbert may have had against LeBlanc for taking the print home.Jalbert v. Gratuski, 554 F. Supp. 2d 57, 70 (D. Mass 2008).
"If an author permit his intellectual production to be published either serially or collectively, his right to a copyright is lost as effectually as the right of an inventor to a patent upon an invention which he deliberately abandons to the public, and this, too, irrespective of his actual intention not to make such abandonment."Holmes v. Hurst, 174 U.S. 82 (1899).
I can go on; that's just the first result from the Westlaw search.Hahah, no kidding. I find this absolutely hilarious. You either didn't even bother to read the abstract you posted or don't understand the topic at all. It's ought to be obvious to anyone that you can voluntarily give up rights under copyrights. That's the legal basis for all Creative Commons type licenses and the billion-dollar Open Source software industry. of course you can wave your copyrights.
But that's the sidetrack we got on when someone tried to tell me that there is no such thing as waiver in copyright law.No one said that, you tried to sidetrack the argument into something irrelevant in order to avoid admitting mistake in your first comment. You first said that if you don't take steps to protect your copyright, you would lose it.
Now, you've said some pretty dumb things in your time dios, but that is simply breathtaking. 1899? Are you even aware that copyright law has changed since then?"If an author permit his intellectual production to be published either serially or collectively, his right to a copyright is lost as effectually as the right of an inventor to a patent upon an invention which he deliberately abandons to the public, and this, too, irrespective of his actual intention not to make such abandonment."Now... what is wrong with the following statement again?
Holmes v. Hurst, 174 U.S. 82 (1899).
Quick rule of all things intellectual property: if rights are not asserted over something, future rights can be waived.
posted by dios at 10:45 AM on December 4
But I got hold of a copy of computer graphics software Photoshop and my stencils have improved. It's very hard cutting out large stencils as it takes a lot of time and hurts your wrist.WAAAH! Modern art is hurting my wrist! Come to think of it, the art I do sometimes gives me tennis elbow, do you think someone might want to buy my artworks?
I consider my work artistic and creative, not mindless rubbish designed to annoy people.YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG
“Waiver may occur by an express and affirmative act, or may be inferred by a party's conduct, where the conduct is consistent with and indicative of an intent to relinquish voluntarily a particular right such that no other reasonable explanation of the conduct is possible.” (My emphasis)Are you really not reading what you copied and pasted into this thread, or do you genuinely not understand what a fucking enormous hurdle that is, or what?
You need to go back and read what I said. And by this, I mean you should go back and read what I said. Not what you think I said.Well, this is what you actually said.
Quick rule of all things intellectual property: if rights are not asserted over something, future rights can be waived.I think most people would read that, in the context of the news story as claiming that IP not actively protected, such as through a lawsuit, could be lost. Now you're saying that it was simply a declarative sentence that future rights can be waived, which isn't even relevant.
When a legal right can be waived, a prudential person will be rigorous in assuring that the right is not waived.Ah, I see. If he hadn't sued the kid, people might get confused and think he slapped a creative commons license on his work or through some other means explicitly relinquished copyright.
Perhaps you disagree with that statement. But if you want to argue with me, argue with what I am saying and not something else.
« Older Marc Bousquet does interviews with "Faculty ... | "The best man was Kirk "Spanky... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Joe Beese at 7:42 AM on December 4, 2008 [1 favorite]