Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A copyright holder cannot both retain non-free copyright elsewhere over their content, and license it for one-time use here with their permission, because Wikipedia's licensing scheme requires that its readers and end users be able to reuse the content under the free license notice that is posted at the bottom of every page.
The court said that in the case of copyright infringement, the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law – certain exclusive rights – is invaded, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights ...
An intellectual property (IP) infringement is the infringement or violation of an intellectual property right. There are several types of intellectual property rights, such as copyrights , patents , trademarks , industrial designs , plant breeders rights [ 1 ] and trade secrets .
An anti-copyright notice is a specific statement that is added to a work in order to encourage wide distribution. Such notices are legally required to host such specific media; under the Berne Convention in international copyright law , works are protected even if no copyright statement is attached to them.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, along with other civil society organisations published principles on user generated content, calling for the protection of legitimate use of copyright protected works, prior notification of the uploader before removal or the placement of ads on the content, use of the DMCA counter notice system, including ...
Therefore, a new copyright is created when the picture is taken. Therefore, pictures of public domain 3D works are not free unless it was created by the uploader. In addition, in some countries such as the United Kingdom, simple diligence is enough for a work to be copyrightable (including reproductions of public domain works).
A violation of FREER is a violation of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, and a violation of FREER means the non-free use rationale for that particular use would be invalid; neither of those two things have anything to do with fair use per se. Something can be violation of Wikipedia policy and still be fine as fair use; similarly not ...
Since the settlement agreement covers the previously digitized books and provides a revenue model for future digitization, it "[gives] Google control over the digitizing of virtually all books covered by copyright in the United States." [30] As the license agreement is non-exclusive, it does not necessarily tie publishers to Google's service.