|
I'm not sure how one applies to the other. There is a difference between using pieces of say Charles Dickens writings (like Oliver Twist and David Copperfield) to show how his early life influenced his writings and having access to his work simply for reading those two books for pleasure for example. Most of us want access to works by writer's (who have died) simply for the pleasure of reading them. Those who want to write a biographical work on an author however have the concept of free use to help them (even if the author is still living). So the one doesn't always apply to the other. If Mr. Dickens was still alive and I wanted to use small parts of his works to show how his life had had an influence on his writing I could do so as long as I stayed within the fair use guidelines. Copyright on the other hand is a different matter. Were he still alive I couldn't get his works for free unless it was via the library or if he had released them as creative commons. As far as the Government not being able to be charged with copyright violations since they give the author the copyright in the 1st place I don't think that is right either. The government should not be above the law simply because they make the law what it is. If someone in a branch of the government breaks the law that the governnment themselves make then they should be prosecuted just like anyone else. If a law doesn't apply to everyone equally then is it actually a law to begin with? The law must apply to everyone or else it applies to no one.
|