Podcast #128: We chat with Kent C Dodds about why he loves React and discuss what life was like in the dark days before Git. Listen now.
21

US Laws are Free of Copyright Federal Works 17 USC 105 says: Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. The phrase "work of the United States Government"...


7

Short answer? No, the WTFPL offers no protection. A software license is a contract between the software vendor and the end user defining the terms and conditions under which the end user is permitted to use the software. Often, traditional software licenses contain terms that limit the vendor's liability. For example: "End User accepts the risk that this ...


7

More generally, the university gets to set whatever rules it wants, unless there is a law limiting what it can do. For example, in the US a government university (qua arm of government) cannot require you to have a particular religion or profess a particular creed, but a private one can. An employer could require you to be in your office from 9 to 5, even ...


7

You are correct that it is quite expensive to patent something in U.S. law. Under U.S. patent law, once an idea is publicly published, if no one else has a patent application for the same idea that is pending, the idea enters the public domain and no one can obtain a patent of that idea. The publication become "prior art" with respect to any future patent ...


6

Is an article licensed under an Open Access license equivalent to a public domain work? No. Intellectual property practitioners and professors often describe copyright as "a bundle of sticks." This means that intellectual property laws grant the creator of a copyrightable work a large number of rights, and the creator can grant or deny others each of those ...


6

As the quote in your question notes (albeit in contrapositive form), Asimov's fiction may be made legally available for free download on the net with the permission of his estate. It is either that case that Princeton University's physics department (or whatever individual person or agency put up the story online) has obtained permission from Asimov's ...


6

I know that classical music is public domain, so no-one can claim that they own classical music. That's not quite right, at least not under US law. First off, "classical music" is a style, and music in that style is not automatically in the public domain. The rule for if music is in the public domain depends on when it was written, not what style it's in. ...


6

German perspective: In German law, there is the concept of Schöpfungshöhe (threshold of originality), which is required for authorship rights (Urheberrecht) to apply to a work. Basically, the idea is that a minimum of creativity is required for something to be protected. However, that bar is rather low. Thus, for example: Literary works are protected ...


6

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is indeed public domain so you are free to use that character. However, a lot of what we think of as "Frankenstein" is not Mary Shelly, for example, the iconic Frankenstein look dates from the 1931 film which may still be under copyright. You can use elements that are public domain, you can't use elements that aren't.


5

In a hypothetical case like you are describing, you could make a contract with them regarding the duplication of the content, irrespective of copyright law. Their violation of that contract would not necessarily be a copyright violation (which would allow statutory damages), but you might win a breach of contract lawsuit. But if someone took it from them ...


5

At least in the United States (and I'm pretty sure this is true around the world), facts and information cannot be copyrighted. Just because a work is copyrighted, doesn't mean every part of that work is copyrighted, and factual information conveyed by the work is a part which is not subject to copyright. Copyright on a collection of facts is limited to the ...


5

Not in US law, at least. Under the 1999 decision Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp (36 F. Supp. 2d 191) such images are not protected by copyright. As the Wikipedia article says, the court here ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality. Even ...


5

There isn’t a legal restriction Which is to say they could show replica’s if they wanted to; they just don’t want to. This is fairly typical - art museums display art, not reproductions of art. They also tend to be interested in displaying the art they have, not telling the life story of the artist.


4

In the U.S. this is a notoriously perilous area of the law, particularly because the laws regarding recording vary so much between the states. A good source for this question is the RCFP. To give you an example: In Pennsylvania it is a felony to record "oral communication" in any circumstance in which the speaker would be justified in expecting it to not ...


4

I would argue that no, there is no copyright for the restored work. Independent copyright is only possible for any original material added, as previously discussed on this site. In this case, the added work was a technical process rather than a creative process, and technical processes cannot be protected by copyright. Copyright licenses would therefore be ...


4

Prima facie all flags would be artistic works with copyright vesting in their creators; either the designer or the designer's employer. The copyright is probably owned by the government of the relevant country either by virtue of the creator being an employee or by transfer. However, a significant number would be in the public domain because: They were ...


4

You misunderstand the nature of copyright. Holding copyright allows you to decide how the work can be copied: there is no obligation on you to publish it if you don't want to. After your copyright expires you don't have to publish it either: the only thing that has changed is you can no longer prevent anyone making a copy. The lost works of Aristotle are ...


4

Under US copyright law, all works are protected by copyright except for US Government works. The concept of "public domain" is not legally well-defined, and is used colloquially to refer to government works, works whose protection has expired, works available to all, and works not copyrightable (such as scientific laws or old software). Under older copyright ...


4

Under US law, the particular work is not protected by copyright, being a government work. Therefore, an infringement suit in the US would go nowhere. Under the Berne Convention Article 7(8), the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed; however, unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the ...


4

Bridgeman Art is only binding in New York's Southern District, but the reasoning from its line of cases has been adopted by the Seventh Circuit and Tenth Circuit, and by district courts in California and New Mexico, and it has been tacitly accepted by the Eleventh Circuit. I'm not particularly surprised that Wikimedia is relying on it, as it seems like an ...


4

See http://uscode.house.gov/download/download.shtml to start. But what exactly do you mean by a "law"? Lots falls under that term: do you include case law? SCOTUS decisions? Administrative policies? Read earlier Law SE question Naive approach to aggregating all US Federal Laws?


4

According to US law according to Cornell, copyright applies to derivative works. A derivative work is an original work based on a previous work (Definitions), so the adaptations would be copyrightable unless they were held to be unoriginal. In general, the courts don't require much creativity to consider a work original. Translations are original works. ...


4

No, it is certainly not legally safe to sell a shirt with such an image printed on it. There are two compatible facts to consider: Wikipedia is correct that the image is not covered by copyright in the United States. The image is likely protected by trademark law, which Wikipedia also notes, directly under the public domain information: This work ...


4

So as per recent Supreme Court decision in Matal v. Tam, the phohibitation of the registration of trademarks that may "disparage" persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols was ruled Unconstititutional. At issue, Tam, the bassist and founder of an all Asian-American band that was named after a slur for Asians (the linked article contains the Band ...


4

Whether published or unpublished, they are still protected by copyright. (They are probably unpublished for copyright purposes, but in the US this makes little difference for any recently created work (that is anything after 2002). For older work see the Cornell chart.) They cannot be copied or distributed without permission, unless an exception to ...


3

The duration of copyright varies according to different laws; however generally copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author(s), and you can check if the author died on Wikipedia or on the internet. Once copyright expires, books are considered public domain and you don't need permission to reproduce or copy etc. Books, as well other types of ...


3

In the US, you have a 1 year grace period from the time of public disclosure to the deadline for filing the patent application. This can lead to a US patent, which can be used to sue anyone infringing the patent within the US. However, most foreign countries do not offer this grace period, and so the possibility of protection in these countries for the ...


3

Although a paper containing experimental data can be copyrighted, the data itself can not. As for citing the original publication, it is completely up to you. It is not uncommon to cite a handbook or database containing a compilation of data from hundreds of sources rather than the original works.


3

No Let's consider a similar scenario. If you made a beverage which poisoned a number of people, would you be absolved of liability because you gave it away for free? Of course not. As there is no contract between you, they would have to bring an action against you in the tort of negligence or negligent misstatement OR under consumer protection law. To ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible