The answers to my questions were concise and specific. I did notice a pattern with some answers however. My attorney would answer “that depends” and then describe a range of scenarios that would change the ruling.
"In addition to separately licensing basic copyright rights, a copyright owner can separately license subparts of each right." Patent, Copyright & Trademark; Richard Stim, page 227
An example is when I asked about what recourse I had if I created some artwork and wasn’t paid for it. The first part of his response was questions of his own. He asked if I was an employee of a company. He then continued to assume that I am a subcontractor and as such I own all the copyrights to anything I create, unless I sign an agreement which grants those copyrights to someone else.
"Unless the original developer transfers all of the five exclusive rights set out above to one or more parties, that original developer is still considered by the U.S. Copyright Office to be the copyright owner." Patent, Copyright & Trademark; Richard Stim, page 227
This was very enlightening. I had no idea I owned the copyrights. This means I can move forward and get copyright registrations for these creative works. He also stated that regardless of who owns the copyright; if I am not paid I can sue for breach of contract based on failure to pay.
Another thing I found interesting was the term “intellectual property.” I now see that my attorney isn’t just a copyright attorney. The fact that he is an intellectual property attorney means that he deals with patent rights, trademark rights, trade secret rights, copyrights, and fair competition rights. I knew there was more to the creative industry than just copyrights, but I had no idea it could be this complex.
"Intellectual property law consists of several separate and overlapping legal disciplines, each with their own characteristics and terminology." Patent, Copyright & Trademark; Richard Stim, page 5
One very important question I asked regarded the use of pirated software. I won’t name any names, but I know for a fact that most students use pirated software while they attend school.
"The Computer Software Protection Act of 1980 defines archival copies as copies of software made by a software owner strictly for backup purposes - tat is, to use if something happens to the original copy..." Patent, Copyright & Trademark; Richard Stim, page 202
The fact that Adobe Creative Suite Master Collection has an initial start up cost of over $2,500 means that a “starving student” won’t generally be able to afford it. This motivates them to use pirated software. I my attorney asked if I was liable to any legal action for the use of pirated software in free lance designs. He said he was slightly confused by the question and continued to elaborate on what could probably happen. He basically said that as long as I wasn’t copying the software and distributing it to others I would probably only be liable for paying the licensing fee. On the other hand, if I was distributing it, I could probably be liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal damages.
"...But if the purchaser sells or gives away the original software to a new owner, all archival copies must either be included in the transfer or destroyed. The intention is to prevent two or more people from legally possessing copies of a program that has only been purchased from the copyright owner once." Patent, Copyright & Trademark; Richard Stim, page 202
No comments:
Post a Comment