Two quick questions with regard to copyright infringement

[jv1597]

Again, the conclusions you are drawing from what you are reading are wrong. I strongly recommend you consult with an attorney in your area who can go over with you all the reasons why you are wrong, this prior to developing and marketing your app.

Good luck.

Wrong, or incorrect?

I think I got it down, you're argument is that copyrighted works are covered in-part, and my argument is that copyrighted works are not covered in-part.

 

[quincy]

Wrong, or incorrect?

I think I got it down, you're argument is that copyrighted works are covered in-part, and my argument is that copyrighted works are not covered in-part.

Webster's New World Dictionary defines in part the word wrong as 1. Not in accordance with justice, law, morality, etc.: unlawful, immoral, or improper.

Webster's New World Dictionary defines in part the word incorrect as not correct; specifically, a. improper b. untrue; inaccurate; wrong; faulty.

Take your pick.

For a part versus whole argument, search online for copyright infringement cases involving the appropriation artist Jeff Koons (he is sued a lot). These cases have in-depth discussions on how much can be too much to borrow of a copyrighted work.

A copyright protects a work, in part or in whole, from use by others without authorization from the copyright holder - with a few fact-specific fair use exceptions.

I recommend you seek assistance from an attorney local to you who can personally look at your app plans and personally advise you on the legal risks you face with your app. The attorney can provide guidance on how best to reduce these risks.

Good luck.

 

[jv1597]

Webster's New World Dictionary defines in part the word wrong as 1. Not in accordance with justice, law, morality, etc.: unlawful, immoral, or improper.

Webster's New World Dictionary defines in part the word incorrect as not correct; specifically, a. improper b. untrue; inaccurate; wrong; faulty.

Take your pick.

For a part versus whole argument, search online for copyright infringement cases involving the appropriation artist Jeff Koons (he is sued a lot). These cases have in-depth discussions on how much can be too much to borrow of a copyrighted work.

A copyright protects a work, in part or in whole, from use by others without authorization from the copyright holder - with a few fact-specific fair use exceptions.

I recommend you seek assistance from an attorney local to you who can personally look at your app plans and personally advise you on the legal risks you face with your app. The attorney can provide guidance on how best to reduce these risks.

Good luck.

I was just wondering if attorneys are supportive of the part-and-whole perspective as de-se/de-facto, or is there any real valid proof of law code which is directly pertinent to protection of copyrights in-part? Can you please cite your city, state, country, and source?

Thanks.

 

[jv1597]

Webster's New World Dictionary defines in part the word wrong as 1. Not in accordance with justice, law, morality, etc.: unlawful, immoral, or improper.

Webster's New World Dictionary defines in part the word incorrect as not correct; specifically, a. improper b. untrue; inaccurate; wrong; faulty.

Take your pick.

By the way, I was asking because "wrong" is a morality-based term, and "incorrect" is an objective term. I was trying to get an idea as to whether this 'copyright protection in-part' issue is handled as a matter of preference by the court, and council, or as a matter of law, because I haven't found enough information to convince me that copyright is, or should be covered in-pars.

As far as I can tell 'display' rights should apply only to 'copyrighted display material'. That would be the correct way to handle the matter. Like, for example, a movie with various scenes, and a 'display' consisting of a trailer containing several scenes.

So a theater company sets up a 'display' in the lobby of the theater to show the previews to the public. So I figure the movie production company assembles a trailers, with the scenes the movie company wants displayed for publicity, and copyrights it individually as an official movie trailer, for use as copyrighted display material.

On another occasion, the same movie theater company wants to setup a public 'display' for the movie in question to show the movie to the public, and decides to splice together its own trailer, with scenes other than those that are copyrighted by the movie company for their official movie trailer. The theater company decides to set the display up for twenty-five cents per playback for movie consumers.

How is it that the official movie trailer is specifically copyrighted is protected, yet the custom movie trailer, which was not specifically copyrighted by the movie company, is liable to be considered to be a copyright infringement?

So one opinion is that the custom display material might not be copyrighted, but is still substantially covered by copyright.
A second opinion is that the custom display material might have a substantial effect on the market, which is not in the best interest of the movie company.

Looks to me like copyright infringement is not necessarily viewed as a matter of law, but rather as a matter of opinion passed on by the court.

Thanks.

 

[jv1597]

Along those same lines, if you have 10 million users listing their personal movie/music collections for each other to stream without profit, reproduction, duplication, performance, or distribution of any form, by means of a streaming media server which restricts inducement of copyright infringement of any form, do the purchased licenses belonging to each user for each copyrighted work in their personal movie/music collection cover the fair use of the content, or does each user need to acquire a license for every potential use of the content by other users across the Internet?

 

[Zigner]

By the way, I was asking because "wrong" is a morality-based term, and "incorrect" is an objective term.

You're interpretation of the word "wrong" is wrong, as are your conclusions on this matter. Get thyself to an attorney for further clarification.

 

[quincy]

I was just wondering if attorneys are supportive of the part-and-whole perspective as de-se/de-facto, or is there any real valid proof of law code which is directly pertinent to protection of copyrights in-part? Can you please cite your city, state, country, and source?

Thanks.

Read the Koons cases. The whole v. part is long-settled and accepted. I provided you with the factors a court will look all when deciding if the amount of copyrighted material used by an unauthorized user is infringement or fair use.

 

[quincy]

... Looks to me like copyright infringement is not necessarily viewed as a matter of law, but rather as a matter of opinion passed on by the court ....

Read the law here: http://www.copyright.gov

Read the cases to see how courts interpret and apply the law to the facts presented in any one case.

See an IP attorney in your area for a personal review of the facts of your (real or pretend) app to see how you might fare in court if your app gives rise to a lawsuit (or criminal charges).

 

[jv1597]

Read the law here: http://www.copyright.gov

Read the cases to see how courts interpret and apply the law to the facts presented in any one case.

See an IP attorney in your area for a personal review of the facts of your (real or pretend) app to see how you might fare in court if your app gives rise to a lawsuit (or criminal charges).

Thanks for your help, I'll do that.

 

[jv1597]

You're interpretation of the word "wrong" is wrong, as are your conclusions on this matter. Get thyself to an attorney for further clarification.

Did you even bother reading quincy's previous post?

 

[quincy]

Thanks for your help, I'll do that.

I think that would be smart. I see too many areas of legal concern with your proposed app to believe you can move ahead safely without the review.

Good luck, jv1597. And thanks for the thanks. They are appreciated.

 

[Zigner]

Did you even bother reading quincy's previous post?

Of course I did
My answer doesn't change.

 

[quincy]

As to the definition of "wrong" that I provided earlier: I used Webster's definition number one when definition number four probably would have been more appropriate. Definition (4) reads, "contrary to fact, reason, some set standard, etc.; incorrect; false.

In trying to read and understand laws - perhaps especially IP laws - it is not hard to be wrong or incorrect with an interpretation. It is the different interpretations of laws that fuel litigation.

That said, there is a good body of case law and recognized guidelines to refer to when questioning whether use of a portion of a copyrighted work is infringing on the rights of the copyright holder. Because determinations are fact-specific, however, it often takes a costly legal action to resolve the matter.

The goal should almost always be to avoid costly legal actions by taking proper precautions in advance.

Again, good luck with your app development.

 

[jv1597]

As to the definition of "wrong" that I provided earlier: I used Webster's definition number one when definition number four probably would have been more appropriate. Definition (4) reads, "contrary to fact, reason, some set standard, etc.; incorrect; false.

In trying to read and understand laws - perhaps especially IP laws - it is not hard to be wrong or incorrect with an interpretation. It is the different interpretations of laws that fuel litigation.

That said, there is a good body of case law and recognized guidelines to refer to when questioning whether use of a portion of a copyrighted work is infringing on the rights of the copyright holder. Because determinations are fact-specific, however, it often takes a costly legal action to resolve the matter.

The goal should almost always be to avoid costly legal actions by taking proper precautions in advance.

Again, good luck with your app development.

Thanks, I think I have a work-around, but I probably won't get anywhere with it. If ever get this app going, I would like to get it done without having to acquire licensing from the media corporations, but knowing from experience, I probably wouldn't get much support from legal sources anyway. It seems "Opinion of the Court" is common practice these days.


This is what I found on Opinion of the Court at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_opinion:
In law, a majority opinion is a judicial opinion agreed to by more than half of the members of a court. A majority opinion sets forth the decision of the court and an explanation of the rationale behind the court's decision.

Not all cases have a majority opinion. At times, the justices voting for a majority decision (e.g., to affirm or reverse the lower court's decision) may have drastically different reasons for their votes, and cannot agree on the same set of reasons. In that situation, several concurring opinions may be written, none of which is the view of a majority of the members of the court. Therefore, the concurring opinion joined by the greatest number of judges is referred to as the plurality opinion.

Normally, appellate courts (or panels) are staffed with an odd number of judges to avoid a tie. Sometimes and in some jurisdictions, when judicial positions are vacant or a judge has recused himself from the case, the court may be stuck with a tie, in which case the lower court's decision will be affirmed without comment by an equally divided court.

A majority opinion in countries which use the common law system becomes part of the body of case law.


Isn't "explanation of the rationale" nothing more than a professional manner of speaking?


And here http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/insights/teaching_legal_docs/reading_a_supremecourtbrief/opinion_of_the_court.html:
In legal terms, the opinion suggests a group of judges have issued a decision, explains that decision, and details the legal principles and rationale that the justices relied upon to reach their decision.


Legal principles, and rationale, not facts.


It's not an argument, I'm just disappointed in the legal system. It seems no matter what the project entails, I can't seem to get around the principality in the legal system to get any business done.

 

[quincy]

I don't think you can blame the legal system for the difficulties you are having with your app.

You just need to develop an app that does not infringe on the rights of others. I know this can be done because it is done with some frequency.

Again, review your app plans with a professional in your area to see what of your original idea can be salvaged and what needs to be reworked and revised to make it less vulnerable to a lawsuit.

Good luck.