What You Need to Know about Copyright

What is Copyright, and Why is it Needed?

Copyright is a widely misunderstood concept, and it is absolutely crucial for the freedom of speech. If there were no copyright, creators for their support would have to rely on allowance from patrons, or from the State. In both instances, the financier would in fact exercise censorship and have the final word on what may be expressed and what should be suppressed. An effective copyright is the only way a creator of text, pictures, music, etc., can reasonably support himself by his work, and still determine what to create. Just imagine a literature where nothing disliked by the State can ever be published! Those are the conditions in some parts of the world. With a weak copyright, that is how it would be everywhere. The State, and a few persons and institutions with the financial means to support a writer, would control the production and access of texts, and ultimately, the flow of ideas.

That all creative work should be done for free by amateurs who must do other things for their support, as some people suggest, is an unrealistic idea, which would lead to cultural decline. That is a pattern suitable for a small group of people, but not for the cultural sector in general.

Internet is, or could be, instrumental in reducing the middlemen - publishers, record companies, and so on - and thereby increase the diversity and the freedom of the arts. Unfortunately, it has become a tool for large scale theft instead. Consumers have lost all logic ability and got into their mind that they have the RIGHT to freely use the result of other peoples' work. This is an intellectual meltdown. The spoiled parasites of the welfare state do not understand that one has no right at all to get anything at another person's cost. Someone creating something MAY give it away, but has no obligation to do so. If you build yourself a house, you hardly accept that others have the RIGHT to use it. You can allow them to do so, with or without compensation, that is your decision - but they have no right to it.

The problem here is that a creative work is immaterial; an immaterial work stored in a material vehicle. When you buy a book, you do not pay mainly for the material book, but for taking part of its content. Then you own the material book - but you do not buy the content, only the right to read it. If there weren't a small compensation to the creator for every reader, he would have to charge enormously for the one original he could sell. And then we would be stuck in censorship again, because the one who could buy the original and make it freely available would be the State or something similar.

Copyright law varies between jurisdictions, but even though definitions and interpretations may vary, the principles are basically the same. International conventions exist to ensure borderless copyright. The most extensive one is the Berne Convention, but there are others. Here we will discuss general principles only. For exact information about specific countries, check with applicable laws of the jurisdictions in question.

Control and Profit

The first general principle is that a creator is ensured control of what he creates. It may not be used by anyone - not copied, not published, not translated, not edited, not adapted, not anything - without the creator's permission. If you write something, you own it, and you decide how it may be used. You are also the one who may profit from it. By a licence, you can transfer this right or parts of it to someone else, for a limited or unlimited time. As when a publisher receives certain rights to spread a work and receive compensation for that, or when a film maker buys the rights from an author to make a movie based on a book. You can also limit or disclaim your rights, should you wish to do so.

You also have the right to decide in which connection your works may be exposed. You can, for any reason - you do not have to declare why - refuse to be associated with certain others, certain ideas, situations or contexts.

This copyright always ceases after a certain period. In the case of literature, for instance, copyright ends a certain number of years after the creator's death; often 50-70, sometimes 100 years, depending on jurisdiction.

If the material has a corporate copyright holder, or if his identity is unknown (secret pseudonym, or anonymous writer), so there is no creator's death to go by, the right normally lasts the same number of years after publication.

A work where copyright has ceased is said to belong to the public domain. Anyone may publish, edit or use it, make film or a play of it, etc. without permission from anyone, and without compensating anyone for the use.

Should he so wish, a creator of a copyrighted work can use his copyright to deliberately place his work in the public domain, or to partly limit his rights for a certain work. That possibility is a part of his unquestionable right to control. He can use his control to limit or disclaim the same control for the future.

Note that a work does not belong to the public domain just because it is published. This is a common misunderstanding. Some people think that, if they found a text (image, video) on the net, it belongs to the public domain and they can use it. This is wrong and a violation of copyright. The public domain contains everything for which the copyright has ceased - either because the designated period has passed since the author's death, or because the creator deliberately placed his work there. That a work is published, however, reveals nothing about whether or not there is a valid copyright.

If you intend to use someone else's text (or other creative work), it is your own responsibility to investigate its copyright status.

Moral Right to Credit

Another part of copyright, we can call it the second principle, is the moral right of the creator to be credited for his work - and that right never ceases. This has nothing to do with whether or not his work belongs to the public domain. The writings of Plato, for instance, are in the public domain. He died over 2000 years ago. You can publish them as you want, copy them, spread them, translate them, etc.; yet you should not quote him or publish his works without attributing them to him.

This principle is moral in nature, it is not enforceable by law in all jurisdictions, but violation is generally considered as intellectual dishonesty, always reflecting negatively on the perpetrator.

There is one exception to this, and that is if the original author has released his/her work to the public domain with a license also stating: “No Attribution Required”.

What is Required to Justify Copyright?

You have copyright to everything you write or otherwise express, which has a minimum of originality, and which has taken a fixed form. It does not have to be published first. Strictly, someone replying to an email, including a copy of the original - which is common - is violating the copyright of the original author - even if the recipient is the original author himself. The returned copy is illegal spreading of copyrighted material. By existing in an email, the original text has a fixed form. More than that is not needed.

No one normally interprets the law this strictly, it would be ridiculous. But the example illustrates the principle.

Note that you do not have to mark the text or other creation with a © any longer. The copyright is automatic anyway. Yet, to avoid undeliberate violations, it is better to be clear. A copyright mark and "All rights reserved" eliminate the chance for a violator to claim ignorance of the copyright status. So, when you write something you publish, or distribute to more than a handful private friends, include a copyright notice stating that you reserve all rights and/or - if applicable - if you permit any exceptions from that. A lack of clarity always leads to misinterpretations, which can sometimes be intentional by those who seek chances for abuse.

Registering copyright with the government or other official body, which is common in, for instance, the United States, is no longer a precondition for copyright in most countries (including the United States). It just makes it easier to bring violators to court.

Exceptions from Copyright

Law and practice allow certain exceptions, often (but not always) referred to as fair use or fair dealing (here we will call it “fair use”). That is, under certain conditions you may quote someone without the creator's advance permission (but you still have to attribute the text to the original author). This is a legal greyzone. Normally you may quote a text when your aim is seriously to criticise or comment on it, when you need to refer to what someone else has written (as in a work of science), or when the purpose is satirical. But you may never in this way quote a whole text, or even a major part of it. Neither may your use negatively affect the creator financially, directly or indirectly, unless it is a case of pertinent and serious criticism.

In a dispute, the court will pay attention to these points, but the outcome can sometimes be hard to predict. There is too much subjective judgement involved. Very short quotations, however, are mostly acceptable. But never forget the moral right of the author to be credited for his work.

Given this, and the general complexity of copyright disputes, it is always better to ask the creator before quoting him, if at all possible. Better ask too many times than too few, thus eliminating the risk for future problems. Few authors refuse fair quoting. And should someone say no, respect that. If you respect the integrity of others, they will be more inclined to respect yours.

Fair use can sometimes apply to other media than texts as well, such as an image, for the same basic reasons as for a text. But then it is even more difficult to evaluate the criteria.

Trademarks

A trademark is a sign, in the broadest sense, used to identify a product or service. It can be a symbol, a picture, a word, or a string of words. Such a distinctive sign is automatically protected, and does not expire as long as the product or service exists. Registration is not required but can make it easier to bring violators to court. If it is registered, it can be marked with ®, meaning registered trademark. An unregistered trademark can be designated by ™, but none of these symbols are necessary. They are merely a warning to presumptive violators that the sign is considered a trademark by its owner, who reserves all rights to its use.

To Use Images in a Blog Post

Images can be more difficult than text, when it comes to determine what is free to use or not, namely because there can be more than one independent copyright involved. For a photo, there is one copyright of the photographer, but there can also be an object on the photo that is under its creator's or designer's still valid copyright. Moreover, there can be a trademark, which may not be publicly used by anyone else than its owner. That is complicated.

So, what to do?

Use either your own photos, although be careful if the motive is anything that can be under its own copyright; or images which are officially released to the public domain, which is the same as CC0. You find a lot of good photos at unsplash.com, pixabay.com, and other websites dedicated to supply free-to-use images. As a rule, they are also licensed as no-attribution-required, which means that nobody requires any credit for the image (although you may credit the photographer, if you so like). However, that means that you can use the image without attribution - but not with a false attribution, you cannot claim that it is your own image.

An image released to public domain (CC0) may be used in any way you want, even commercially, and you may change it or create derivative works of it as you see fit. These are the best images to use without risk for mistakes with copyright matters.

There are also various licensed images, which may be freely used with restrictions – various forms of Creative Commons, followed by a number, other than “0”. No commercial use, you must attribute the creator, you must include a certain license, etc. If you know what you do and follow all these requirements, these images can be used, but if you are unsure, better stay away from them and use only images released to public domain (CC0). Then there is no risk for mistakes.

As with read.cash, I also want to warn about that there is money involved, which might make a dispute about copyright extra complicated. The Read.cash fund could possibly make it to commercial use. So there we are again, better use public domain images from websites such as unsplash.com and pixabay.com. Then you won't risk any trouble.

Copyright © 2020, 2021 Meleonymica. All Rights Reserved.

You find all my writings on Read.Cash, sorted by topic, here.