Quote:
Originally Posted by pdurrant
How copyright applies to unpublished works is certainly something that would need to be set out in copyright law.
Here's my ideal:
1. Copyright is automatic, and applies as soon as a work is in a fixed form.
...
1. Copyright is automatic, as at present.
|
Actually it also applies to music, software, electronic designs, paintings, sculpture, building plans, photography, movies/TV and many other things.
It exists as soon as the "work" starts to be created. It can't be linked to being published. Often software and electronic designs are not published in source form ever, but the source is still copyright.
Trade Secrets may include content that is copyright, thus use of leaked or stolen information that's never been published is copyright violation.
Other Issues:
See Hardy Boys etc. Copyright should only be LICENSED to a company; even if the writers, programmers, engineers are employed. In the case of a software team the bulk should belong to the designers, but for writers it should be the writers, not the person who did the plot, outline etc as those are often very generic and not very original.
I actually had an employee contract once where the company would have exclusive rights for x period of time, pay a royalty based on sales, not "profit" (as profit can be creatively vanished) and lose all rights if the development wasn't commercially used.
Most patents are a scam. The USPTO is a failure. Most should only be covered by copyright and no franchise process should be patentable or copyright, no software should be patentable.
Patents: - No prior art.
- Not obvious in a few days study to anyone versed in the art.
- Sufficiently novel.
- Not broad.
- A working prototype, or if very expensive, agreement by 3rd parties (peer review) that it should work (e.g. Starship, Fusion Reactor).
- Not software, mathematics or organisational (Franchise, management), but a physical thing, including a manufacturing process for things or stuff.
Disclaimer: I wrote a patent. I designed all it. It was assigned to the company. It shouldn't have been approved by the USPTO.
All of those are currently being ignored by the USPTO. They USED to be the requirements. Design Patents (UK = Registered Design) should need to pass a higher bar than copyright for unique appearance, i.e. the fluted Coke bottle is OK, the iPhone case is not, nor is any GUI. The USPTO Design Patents is particularly bad. This has happened because they make more money from approvals than rejections, expert searches and review is costly and the attitude that it can be tested in court. The "testing" in court favours the big rich company and the local one vs foreign.
You can't ignore Corporate funded production, patents, registered designs (US Design Patents, appearance of a product) and Trademarks in any copyright review and revision.
I'd like to see copyright being 25 years from creation (not publishing). The best that can be hoped for is to slap down the Corporations that keep lobbying to extend it. It's already too long in USA and countries bullied by their trade treaties. Fair Use needs better defined. It's too broad in USA and in some countries (UK?) there is really no legal Fair Use defined, it's being set by publishers. Maybe the best that can be achieved is not eroding consumer rights further, or limiting to life + 50 for individuals, or creation + 50 for Corporate works. I think real reform is impossible due to the lack of regulation of Multinational companies and the fact many are more powerful than all but China, Russia, USA or the EU. Also generally only China, Russia, or the EU are prepared to oppose them. Sometimes the State of California, see "dot org" sell off contemplated by ICANN. ICANN is a microcosm of the ills of Corporate regulation in the world.
Google, Social Media etc are obviously publishers and should be treated the same as newspapers, magazines and TV/Streaming channels with regard to copyright. Safe harbour should only apply to providing hosting, connectivity, not public facing services and websites, which was the original intention.