Copyright: Additional Resources

American copyright law has undergone an unappreciated conceptual transformation over the course of the last century. Originally conceived of as a form of private law--focusing on horizontal rights, privileges, and private liability--copyright law is today understood principally through its public-regarding goals and institutional apparatus, in effect as a form of public law. This transformation is the result of changes in the ideas of law and lawmaking that occurred in American legal thinking following World War II, manifested in the deeply influential philosophy of the Legal Process School of jurisprudence which shaped the modern American copyright landscape. In the Legal Process conception, determining the substantive content of the law is fundamentally a matter of identifying the institution with formal competence (and legitimacy) to decide the matter, and then deciphering its policies and directives for an area of law in a purposive manner. The heyday of the Legal Process School, the 1950s and 1960s, coincided with the period during which the current U.S. copyright regime was being constructed. Several of its core lessons find direct veneration therein, including: the centrality of legislation as the harbinger of copyright's policy and purposes; the primacy of collectivist copyright policy over individual copyright principles; a recognition of the limitations of courts and judge-made law; and the treatment of copyright as a specialized but autonomous body of law requiring expert administration. As this Article argues, the U.S. copyright regime is today better conceived of as a "legal process," wherein the law is dynamic, purposive, and multi-institutional in origin. Modern copyright thinking would do well to embrace this reality and develop mechanisms to deal with this fundamental--yet unacknowledged-- transformation, which explains a variety of perceived anomalies and puzzles within the working of the system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright is a legal term that defines the rights that are given to the owners of the works in return for their intellectual and artistic works (according to the World Intellectual Property Organization). It establishes an appropriate balance between the benefits of the owner of the work and the common good. Apart from the exclusive rights of the owner of the work, this term also includes the regulations for public access to the works protected by the copyrights and the utility of these works for the common good. In this respect, with the copyright, the work owner is subject to some exceptions and limitations for the common good. Copyright restrictions are set depending on the development and needs of society. To ensure a fair balance of private, social, and public interests, copyright provides for the free use of works without the author's consent and without payment of remuneration. Such restrictions are necessary for the progressive development of society in all areas. Of course, one of the essential copyright restrictions that stimulate the development of new technologies and innovations is limitations for scientific and educational purposes.

Bowman, H. (2020). How to Avoid Copyright Infringement. Training & Development (1839-8561), 47(3), 22–25.

Background: The evolution in digital technologies has had an enormous impact on traditional copyright notions. Works in digital form have uniform characteristics and these works can be copied, distributed and stored with ease. Objectives: The focus of this article was how to attain a balance between the need to promote access to works and therefore knowledge and learning, on the one hand, and the protection of the interests of copyright holders, on the other. Method: Technological protection measures (TPMs) are applied to copyright works in digital form to curb infringement. The authors explore the extent to which TPMs impact on access the knowledge and learning. Results: The findings of this article suggest a need for possible countermeasures in promoting knowledge and literacy through legislative reform that address the needs of creators and users in developing communities. Conclusion: The authors conclude that TPMs may hinder data literacy, access to works, teaching and learning, particularly in developing communities. For example, recent attempts to revise South African copyright law have not attained a balanced approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Privative" copyright claims are infringement actions brought by authors for the unauthorized public dissemination of works that are private, unpublished, and revelatory of the author's personal identity. Driven by considerations of authorial autonomy, dignity, and personality rather than monetary value, these claims are almost as old as Anglo-American copyright law itself. Yet modern thinking has attempted to undermine their place within copyright law and sought to move them into the domain of privacy law. This Article challenges the dominant view and argues that privative copyright claims form a legitimate part of the copyright landscape. It shows how privative copyright claims derive from considerations that are genuinely authorial and seek to redress a form of harm that is unique to the nature of the work involved--a harm best described as "disseminative." Tracing the historic evolution of privative copyright claims in Anglo-American copyright law, it develops a theoretical basis for understanding the workings of these claims and offers a framework for courts to deploy in adjudicating them, which addresses the concerns about free speech and censorship that have contributed to the ignominy that privative copyright claims continue to encounter in modern copyright jurisprudence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bradley, T. C. (2020). Recent Developments in Copyright Law. Business Lawyer, 76(1), 305–311.