Copyright is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time. Generally, it is "the right to copy", but also gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other related rights. It is an intellectual property form (like the patent, the trademark, and the trade secret) applicable to any expressible form of an idea or information that is substantive and discrete.^{[clarification needed][1]}

Copyright initially was conceived as a way for government to restrict printing; the contemporary intent of copyright is to promote the creation of new works by giving authors control of and profit from them. Copyrights are said to be territorial, which means that they do not extend beyond the territory of a specific state unless that state is a party to an international agreement. Today, however, this is less relevant since most countries are parties to at least one such agreement. While many aspects of national copyright laws have been standardized through international copyright agreements, copyright laws of most countries have some unique features.^[2] Typically, the duration of copyright is the whole life of the creator plus fifty to a hundred years from the creator's death, or a finite period for anonymous or corporate creations. Some jurisdictions have required formalities to establishing copyright, but most recognize copyright in any completed work, without formal registration. Generally, copyright is enforced as a civil matter, though some jurisdictions do apply criminal sanctions.

Most jurisdictions recognize copyright limitations, allowing "fair" exceptions to the creator's exclusivity of copyright, and giving users certain rights. The development of digital media and computer network technologies have prompted reinterpretation of these exceptions, introduced new difficulties in enforcing copyright, and inspired additional challenges to copyright law's philosophic basis. Simultaneously, businesses with great economic dependence upon copyright have advocated the extension and expansion of their copy rights, and sought additional legal and technological enforcement.

Justification[link]

Some take the approach of looking for coherent justifications of established copyright systems, while others start with general ethical theories, such as utilitarianism and try to analyse policy through that lens. Another approach denies the meaningfulness of any ethical justification for existing copyright law, viewing it simply as a result (and perhaps an undesirable result) of political processes.

Another widely debated issue is the relationship between copyrights and other forms of "intellectual property", and material property. Most scholars of copyright agree that it can be called a kind of property, because it involves the exclusion of others from something. But there is disagreement about the extent to which that fact should allow the transportation of other beliefs and intuitions about material possessions.

There are many other philosophical questions which arise in the jurisprudence of copyright. They include such problems as determining when one work is "derived" from another, or deciding when information has been placed in a "tangible" or "material" form.

Some critics claim copyright law protects corporate interests while criminalizing legitimate use, while proponents argue the law is fair and just.^[3]

History[link]

Copyright was invented after the advent of the printing press and with wider public literacy. As a legal concept, its origins in Britain were from a reaction to printers' monopolies at the beginning of the 18th century. Charles II of England was concerned by the unregulated copying of books and passed the Licensing of the Press Act 1662 by Act of Parliament,^[4] which established a register of licensed books and required a copy to be deposited with the Stationers' Company, essentially continuing the licensing of material that had long been in effect.

The Statute of Anne came into force in 1710

The British Statute of Anne (1710) further alluded to individual rights of the artist, beginning: "Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing... Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors... to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families:"^[5] A right to benefit financially from the work is articulated, and court rulings and legislation have recognized a right to control the work, such as ensuring that the integrity of it is preserved. An irrevocable right to be recognized as the work's creator appears in some countries' copyright laws.

Aside from the role of governments and the church, the history of copyright law is in essential ways also connected to the rise of capitalism and the attendant extension of commodity relations to the realm of creative human activities, such as literary and artistic production. Similarly, different cultural attitudes, social organizations, economic models and legal frameworks are seen to account for why copyright emerged in Europe and not, for example, in Asia. In the Middle Ages in Europe, there was generally a lack of any concept of literary property due to the general relations of production, the specific organization of literary production and the role of culture in society. The latter refers to the tendency of oral societies, such as that of Europe in the medieval period, to view knowledge as the product, expression and property of the collective. Not until capitalism emerges in Europe with its individualist ideological underpinnings does the conception of intellectual property and by extension copyright law emerge. Intellectual production comes to be seen as a product of an individual and their property, rather than a collective or social product which belongs in the commons. The most significant point is that under the capitalist mode of production, patent and copyright laws support in fundamental and thoroughgoing ways the expansion of the range of creative human activities that can be commodified. This parallels the ways in which capitalism led to the commodification of many aspects of social life that hitherto had no monetary or economic value per se.^[6]

The Statute of Anne was the first real copyright act, and gave the publishers rights for a fixed period, after which the copyright expired.^[7] Copyright has grown from a legal concept regulating copying rights in the publishing of books and maps to one with a significant effect on nearly every modern industry, covering such items as sound recordings, films, photographs, software, and architectural works.

Prior to the passage of the United States Constitution, several States passed their own various copyright laws between 1783 and 1787, the first State having done so being Connecticut.^[8] Contemporary scholars and patriots such as Noah Webster, John Trumbull, and Joel Barlow were instrumental in securing the passage of these statutes.^[8]

The Copyright Act of 1790 in the Columbian Centinel

The Copyright Clause of the United States Constitution (1787) authorized copyright legislation: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." That is, by guaranteeing them a period of time in which they alone could profit from their works, they would be enabled and encouraged to invest the time required to create them, and this would be good for society as a whole. A right to profit from the work has been the philosophical underpinning for much legislation extending the duration of copyright, to the life of the creator and beyond, to his heirs.

The original length of copyright in the US was 14 years, and it had to be explicitly applied for. If the author wished, he could apply for a second 14 year monopoly grant, but after that the work entered the public domain, so it could be used and built upon by others.

Thomas Jefferson, who strongly advocated the ability of the public to share and build upon the works of others, proposed as part of the Bill of Rights that a short timespan be protected:

Art. 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature and their own inventions in the arts for a term not exceeding — years but for no longer term and no other purpose.^[9]

The 1886 Berne Convention first established recognition of copyrights among sovereign nations, rather than merely bilaterally. Under the Berne Convention, copyrights for creative works do not have to be asserted or declared, as they are automatically in force at creation: an author need not "register" or "apply for" a copyright in countries adhering to the Berne Convention.^[10] As soon as a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work, and to any derivative works unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them, or until the copyright expires. The Berne Convention also resulted in foreign authors being treated equivalently to domestic authors, in any country signed onto the Convention. The UK signed the Berne Convention in 1887 but did not implement large parts of it until 100 years later with the passage of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988. The USA did not sign the Berne Convention until 1989.^[11]

The United States and most Latin American countries instead entered into the Buenos Aires Convention in 1910, which required a copyright notice (such as "all rights reserved") on the work, and permitted signatory nations to limit the duration of copyrights to shorter and renewable terms.^[12][13][14] The Universal Copyright Convention was drafted in 1952 as another less demanding alternative to the Berne Convention, and ratified by nations such as the Soviet Union and developing nations.

The regulations of the Berne Convention are incorporated into the World Trade Organization's TRIPS agreement (1995), thus giving the Berne Convention effectively near-global application.^[15] The 2002 WIPO Copyright Treaty enacted greater restrictions on the use of technology to copy works in the nations that ratified it.

With the intense lobbying of Disney, each time its works came close to entering into the public domain under normal conditions, the US Congress has extended copyright length, to the point where it is now 70 years after the death of the author.

Scope[link]

Copyright may apply to a wide range of creative, intellectual, or artistic forms, or "works". Specifics vary by jurisdiction, but these can include poems, theses, plays, other literary works, movies, dances, musical compositions, audio recordings, paintings, drawings, sculptures, photographs, software, radio and television broadcasts, and industrial designs. Graphic designs and industrial designs may have separate or overlapping laws applied to them in some jurisdictions.^[16][17]

Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed.^[18] For example, the copyright to a Mickey Mouse cartoon restricts others from making copies of the cartoon or creating derivative works based on Disney's particular anthropomorphic mouse, but does not prohibit the creation of other works about anthropomorphic mice in general, so long as they are different enough to not be judged copies of Disney's.^[18] In many jurisdictions, copyright law makes exceptions to these restrictions when the work is copied for the purpose of commentary or other related uses (See Fair Use, Fair Dealing). Meanwhile, other laws may impose additional restrictions that copyright does not — such as trademarks and patents.

Copyright laws are standardized somewhat through international conventions such as the Berne Convention and Universal Copyright Convention. These multilateral treaties have been ratified by nearly all countries, and international organizations such as the European Union or World Trade Organization require their member states to comply with them.

Obtaining and enforcing copyright[link]

A copyright certificate for proof of the Fermat theorem, issued by the State Department of Intellectual Property of Ukraine

Typically, a work must meet minimal standards of originality in order to qualify for copyright, and the copyright expires after a set period of time (some jurisdictions may allow this to be extended). Different countries impose different tests, although generally the requirements are low; in the United Kingdom there has to be some 'skill, labour and judgment' that has gone into it.^[19] In Australia and the United Kingdom it has been held that a single word is insufficient to comprise a copyright work. However, single words or a short string of words can sometimes be registered as a trademark instead.

Copyright law recognises the right of an author based on whether the work actually is an original creation, rather than based on whether it is unique; two authors may own copyright on two substantially identical works, if it is determined that the duplication was coincidental, and neither was copied from the other.

In all countries where the Berne Convention standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights.^[10] However, while registration isn't needed to exercise copyright, in jurisdictions where the laws provide for registration, it serves as prima facie evidence of a valid copyright and enables the copyright holder to seek statutory damages and attorney's fees. (In the USA, registering after an infringement only enables one to receive actual damages and lost profits.)

The original holder of the copyright may be the employer of the author rather than the author himself, if the work is a "work for hire".^[20] For example, in English law the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides that if a copyrighted work is made by an employee in the course of that employment, the copyright is automatically owned by the employer which would be a "Work for Hire."

Copyrights are generally enforced by the holder in a civil law court, but there are also criminal infringement statutes in some jurisdictions. While central registries are kept in some countries which aid in proving claims of ownership, registering does not necessarily prove ownership, nor does the fact of copying (even without permission) necessarily prove that copyright was infringed. Criminal sanctions are generally aimed at serious counterfeiting activity, but are now becoming more commonplace as copyright collectives such as the RIAA are increasingly targeting the file sharing home Internet user. Thus far, however, most such cases against file sharers have been settled out of court. (See: Legal aspects of file sharing)

Cost of enforcing copyright[link]

In most jurisdictions the copyright holder must bear the cost of enforcing copyright. This will usually involve engaging legal representation, administrative and or court costs. These costs, including time, should be taken into consideration when evaluating the benefits of enforcing copyright. In light of this many copyright disputes are settled by a direct approach to the infringing party in order to settle the dispute out of court.

Copyright notices in the U.S.[link]

A copyright symbol used in copyright notice

Prior to 1989, use of a copyright notice — consisting of the copyright symbol (©, the letter C inside a circle), the abbreviation "Copr.", or the word "Copyright", followed by the year of the first publication of the work and the name of the copyright holder — was part of United States statutory requirements.^[21][22] Several years may be noted if the work has gone through substantial revisions. The proper copyright notice for sound recordings of musical or other audio works is a sound recording copyright symbol (℗, the letter P inside a circle), which indicates a sound recording copyright, with the letter "p" indicating a "phonorecord." Similarly, the phrase All rights reserved was once required to assert copyright.

In 1989, the U.S. enacted the Berne Convention Implementation Act, amending the 1976 Copyright Act to conform to most of the provisions of the Berne Convention. As a result, the use of copyright notices has become optional to claim copyright, because the Berne Convention makes copyright automatic.^[23] However, the lack of notice of copyright using these marks may have consequences in terms of reduced damages in an infringement lawsuit — using notices of this form may reduce the likelihood of a defense of "innocent infringement" being successful.^[24]

"Poor man's copyright"[link]

A widely circulated strategy to avoid the cost of copyright registration is referred to as the "poor man's copyright". It proposes that the creator send the work to himself in a sealed envelope by registered mail, using the postmark to establish the date. This technique has not been recognized in any published opinions of the United States courts. The United States Copyright Office makes it clear that the technique is no substitute for actual registration.^[25] The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office discusses the technique but does not recommend its use.^[26][27]

Exclusive rights[link]

Several exclusive rights typically attach to the holder of a copyright:

• to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies (including, typically, electronic copies)
• to import or export the work
• to create derivative works (works that adapt the original work)
• to perform or display the work publicly
• to sell or assign these rights to others
• to transmit or display by radio or video^[16]

The phrase "exclusive right" means that only the copyright holder is free to exercise those rights, and others are prohibited from using the work without the holders permission. Copyright is sometimes called a "negative right", as it serves to prohibit certain people (e.g., readers, viewers, or listeners, and primarily publishers and would be publishers) from doing something they would otherwise be able to do, rather than permitting people (e.g., authors) to do something they would otherwise be unable to do. In this way it is similar to the unregistered design right in English law and European law. The rights of the copyright holder also permit him/her to not use or exploit their copyright, for some or all of the term. There is, however, a critique which rejects this assertion as being based on a philosophical interpretation of copyright law that is not universally shared. There is also debate on whether copyright should be considered a property right or a moral right.^{[citation needed]}

Useful articles[link]

If a pictorial, graphic or sculptural work is a useful article, it is copyrighted only if its aesthetic features are separable from its utilitarian features. A useful article is an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. They must be separable from the functional aspect to be copyrighted.^[28]

Limitations and exceptions to copyright[link]

Idea-expression dichotomy and the merger doctrine[link]

The idea-expression divide differentiates between ideas and expression, and states that copyright protects only the original expression of ideas, and not the ideas themselves. This principle, first clarified in the 1879 case of Baker v. Selden, has since been codified by the Copyright Act of 1976 at 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).

The first-sale doctrine and exhaustion of rights[link]

Copyright law does not restrict the owner of a copy from reselling legitimately obtained copies of copyrighted works, provided that those copies were originally produced by or with the permission of the copyright holder. It is therefore legal, for example, to resell a copyrighted book or CD. In the United States this is known as the first-sale doctrine, and was established by the courts to clarify the legality of reselling books in second-hand bookstores. Some countries may have parallel importation restrictions that allow the copyright holder to control the aftermarket. This may mean for example that a copy of a book that does not infringe copyright in the country where it was printed does infringe copyright in a country into which it is imported for retailing. The first-sale doctrine is known as exhaustion of rights in other countries and is a principle which also applies, though somewhat differently, to patent and trademark rights. It is important to note that the first-sale doctrine permits the transfer of the particular legitimate copy involved. It does not permit making or distributing additional copies.

In addition, copyright, in most cases, does not prohibit one from acts such as modifying, defacing, or destroying his or her own legitimately obtained copy of a copyrighted work, so long as duplication is not involved. However, in countries that implement moral rights, a copyright holder can in some cases successfully prevent the mutilation or destruction of a work that is publicly visible.

Fair use and fair dealing[link]

Copyright does not prohibit all copying or replication. In the United States, the fair use doctrine, codified by the Copyright Act of 1976 as 17 U.S.C. Section 107, permits some copying and distribution without permission of the copyright holder or payment to same. The statute does not clearly define fair use, but instead gives four non-exclusive factors to consider in a fair use analysis. Those factors are:

1. the purpose and character of your use
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. what amount and proportion of the whole work was taken, and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.^[29]

In the United Kingdom and many other Commonwealth countries, a similar notion of fair dealing was established by the courts or through legislation. The concept is sometimes not well defined; however in Canada, private copying for personal use has been expressly permitted by statute since 1999. In Australia, the fair dealing exceptions under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) are a limited set of circumstances under which copyrighted material can be legally copied or adapted without the copyright holder's consent. Fair dealing uses are research and study; review and critique; news reportage and the giving of professional advice (i.e. legal advice). Under current Australian law it is still a breach of copyright to copy, reproduce or adapt copyright material for personal or private use without permission from the copyright owner. Other technical exemptions from infringement may also apply, such as the temporary reproduction of a work in machine readable form for a computer.

In the United States the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act Codified in Section 10, 1992) prohibits action against consumers making noncommercial recordings of music, in return for royalties on both media and devices plus mandatory copy-control mechanisms on recorders.

Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.^[30]

Later acts amended US Copyright law so that for certain purposes making 10 copies or more is construed to be commercial, but there is no general rule permitting such copying. Indeed making one complete copy of a work, or in many cases using a portion of it, for commercial purposes will not be considered fair use. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits the manufacture, importation, or distribution of devices whose intended use, or only significant commercial use, is to bypass an access or copy control put in place by a copyright owner.^[16] An appellate court has held that fair use is not a defense to engaging in such distribution.

Accessible copies[link]

It is legal in several countries including the United Kingdom and the United States to produce alternative versions (for example, in large print or braille) of a copyrighted work to provide improved access to a work for blind and visually impaired persons without permission from the copyright holder.^[31][32]

Transfer and licensing, and assignment[link]

A copyright, or aspects of it, may be assigned or transferred from one party to another.^[33] For example, a musician who records an album will often sign an agreement with a record company in which the musician agrees to transfer all copyright in the recordings in exchange for royalties and other considerations. The creator (and original copyright holder) benefits, or expects to, from production and marketing capabilities far beyond those of the author. In the digital age of music, music may be copied and distributed at minimal cost through the Internet, however the record industry attempts to provide promotion and marketing for the artist and his or her work so it can reach a much larger audience. A copyright holder need not transfer all rights completely, though many publishers will insist. Some of the rights may be transferred, or else the copyright holder may grant another party a non-exclusive license to copy and/or distribute the work in a particular region or for a specified period of time.

A transfer or licence may have to meet particular formal requirements in order to be effective,^[34] for example under the Australian Copyright Act 1968 the copyright itself must be expressly transferred in writing. Under the U.S. Copyright Act, a transfer of ownership in copyright must be memorialized in a writing signed by the transferor. For that purpose, ownership in copyright includes exclusive licenses of rights. Thus exclusive licenses, to be effective, must be granted in a written instrument signed by the grantor. No special form of transfer or grant is required. A simple document that identifies the work involved and the rights being granted is sufficient. Non-exclusive grants (often called non-exclusive licenses) need not be in writing under U.S. law. They can be oral or even implied by the behavior of the parties. Transfers of copyright ownership, including exclusive licenses, may and should be recorded in the U.S. Copyright Office. (Information on recording transfers is available on the Office's web site.) While recording is not required to make the grant effective, it offers important benefits, much like those obtained by recording a deed in a real estate transaction.

Copyright may also be licensed.^[33] Some jurisdictions may provide that certain classes of copyrighted works be made available under a prescribed statutory license (e.g. musical works in the United States used for radio broadcast or performance). This is also called a compulsory license, because under this scheme, anyone who wishes to copy a covered work does not need the permission of the copyright holder, but instead merely files the proper notice and pays a set fee established by statute (or by an agency decision under statutory guidance) for every copy made.^[35] Failure to follow the proper procedures would place the copier at risk of an infringement suit. Because of the difficulty of following every individual work, copyright collectives or collecting societies and performing rights organizations (such as ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC have been formed to collect royalties for hundreds (thousands and more) works at once. Though this market solution bypasses the statutory license, the availability of the statutory fee still helps dictate the price per work collective rights organizations charge, driving it down to what avoidance of procedural hassle would justify.

Creative Commons[link]

Founded in 2001, Creative Commons (CC) is a non-profit organization^[36] which aims to facilitate the legal sharing of creative works. To this end the organization provides a number of copyright license options to the public, free of charge. These licenses allow copyright holders to define conditions under which others may use a work and to specify what types of use are acceptable.^[36] Terms of use have traditionally been negotiated on an individual basis between copyright holder and potential licensee. Therefore, a general CC license outlining which rights the copyright holder is willing to waive enable the general public to use such works more freely. Four general types of CC licenses are available. These are based upon copyright holder stipulations such as whether he or she is willing to allow modifications to the work, whether he or she permits the creation of derivative works and whether he or she is willing to permit commercial use of the work.^[37] Individuals may register for a CC license via the Creative Commons website. As of 2009 approximately 130 million individuals had received such licenses.^[37]

Duration[link]

Copyright term[link]

Expansion of U.S. copyright law (Assuming authors create their works at age 35 and live for seventy years)

Copyright subsists for a variety of lengths in different jurisdictions. The length of the term can depend on several factors, including the type of work (e.g. musical composition, novel), whether the work has been published, and whether the work was created by an individual or a corporation. In most of the world, the default length of copyright is the life of the author plus either 50 or 70 years. In the United States, the term for most existing works is a fixed number of years after the date of creation or publication. Under most countries' laws (for example, the United States^[38] and the United Kingdom^[39]), copyrights expire at the end of the calendar year in question.

The length and requirements for copyright duration are subject to change by legislation, and since the early 20th century there have been a number of adjustments made in various countries, which can make determining the duration of a given copyright somewhat difficult. For example, the United States used to require copyrights to be renewed after 28 years to stay in force, and formerly required a copyright notice upon first publication to gain coverage. In Italy and France, there were post-wartime extensions that could increase the term by approximately 6 years in Italy and up to about 14 in France. Many countries have extended the length of their copyright terms (sometimes retroactively). International treaties establish minimum terms for copyrights, but individual countries may enforce longer terms than those.^[40]

In the United States, all books and other works published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain.^[41] In addition, works published before 1964 that did not have their copyrights renewed 28 years after first publication year also are in the public domain, except that books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country (see How Can I Tell Whether a Copyright Was Renewed for more details).

But if the intended exploitation of the work includes publication (or distribution of derivative work, such as a film based on a book protected by copyright) outside the U.S., the terms of copyright around the world must be considered. If the author has been dead more than 70 years, the work is in the public domain in most, but not all, countries. Some works are covered by copyright in Spain for 80 years after the author's death.^[42]

In 1998 the length of a copyright in the United States was increased by 20 years under the The Copyright Term Extension Act. This legislation was strongly promoted by corporations which had valuable copyrights which otherwise would have expired, and has been the subject of substantial criticism on this point.^[43]

As a curiosity, the famous work Peter Pan, or The Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up has a complex – and disputed – story of copyright expiry.^[44]

Public domain[link]

Copyright, like other intellectual property rights is subject to a statutorily-determined term. Once the term of a copyright has expired, the formerly copyrighted work enters the public domain and may be freely used or exploited by anyone. Courts in the United States and the United Kingdom have rejected the doctrine of a common law copyright. Public domain works should not be confused with works that are publicly available. Works posted in the internet for example, are publicly available, but are not generally in the public domain. Copying such works may therefore violate the author's copyright.

Copyright infringement[link]

Street hackers and mp3 pirates in Afghanistan

Piracy is considered to be the illegitimate use of materials held by copyright.^[45] For the history of the term "piracy" see Copyright infringement. For a work to be considered pirated, its illegitimate use must have occurred in a nation that has domestic copyright laws and/or adheres to a bilateral treaty or established international convention such as the Berne Convention or WIPO Copyright Treaty. Improper use of materials outside of this legislation is deemed "unauthorized edition", not piracy.^[46]

Piracy primarily targets software, film and music. However, the illegal copying of books and other text works remains common, especially for educational reasons. Statistics regarding the effects of piracy are difficult to determine. Studies have attempted to estimate a monetary loss for industries affected by piracy by predicting what portion of pirated works would have been formally purchased if they had not been freely available.^[47] Estimates in 2007^{[according to whom?]} stated 18.2 billion potential losses in consumer dollars lost as a result of piracy activities in the United States.^[48] International estimates^{[according to whom?]} suggest losses in the billions throughout the last decade.^[48] However other reports indicate that piracy does not have an adverse effect on the entertainment industry.^[49]

See also[link]

	Philosophy portal
	Law portal

Treaties and international agreements[link]

• Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of 1886
• Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations of 1961
• Universal Copyright Convention of 1952
• WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996
• WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996
• The World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), of 1994

Sui generis[link]

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Dowd, Raymond J. (2006). Copyright Litigation Handbook (1st ed.). Thomson West. ISBN 0-314-96279-4. 
• Gantz, John & Rochester, Jack B. (2005). Pirates of the Digital Millennium. Financial Times Prentice Hall. ISBN O-13-146315-2. 
• Ghosemajumder, Shuman. Advanced Peer-Based Technology Business Models. MIT Sloan School of Management, 2002.
• Lehman, Bruce: Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure (Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, 1995)
• Lindsey, Marc: Copyright Law on Campus. Washington State University Press, 2003. ISBN 978-0-87422-264-7.
• Mazzone, Jason. Copyfraud. SSRN
• Nimmer, Melville; David Nimmer (1997). Nimmer on Copyright. Matthew Bender. ISBN 0-8205-1465-9. 
• Patterson, Lyman Ray (1968). Copyright in Historical Perspective. Vanderbilt University Press. ISBN 0-8265-1373-5. 
• Pievatolo, Maria Chiara. Publicness and Private Intellectual Property in Kant's Political Thought. http://bfp.sp.unipi.it/~pievatolo/lm/kantbraz.html
• Rosen, Ronald (2008). Music and Copyright. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-533836-7. 
• Shipley, David E. Thin But Not Anorexic: Copyright Protection for Compilations and Other Fact Works UGA Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-001; Journal of Intellectual Property Law, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2007.
• Silverthorne, Sean. Music Downloads: Pirates- or Customers?. Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, 2004.
• Sorce Keller, Marcello. "Originality, Authenticity and Copyright", Sonus, VII(2007), no. 2, pp. 77–85.
• Steinberg, S.H. & Trevitt, John (1996). Five Hundred Years of Printing (4th ed.). London and New Castle: The British Library and Oak Knoll Press. ISBN 1-884718-19-1. 
• Story, Alan; Darch, Colin & Halbert, Deborah, ed. (2006). The Copy/South Dossier: Issues in the Economics, Politics and Ideology of Copyright in the Global South [1]. Copy/South Research Group. ISBN 978-0-9553140-1-8. 
• WhyNotAskMe.org: Organization demanding democratic participation in copyright legislation and a moratorium on secret and fast-tracked copyright negotiations http://whynotaskme.org/

External links[link]

Wikisource has the text of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article Copyright.

Wikisource has original text related to this article: Copyright law

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Copyright

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Copyright

Listen to this article (info/dl)

This audio file was created from a revision of the "Copyright" article dated 2008-12-30, and does not reflect subsequent edits to the article. (Audio help)

More spoken articles

• Copyright at the Open Directory Project
• Collection of laws for electronic access from WIPO – intellectual property laws of many countries
• Copyright from UCB Libraries GovPubs
• About Copyright at the UK Intellectual Property Office
• A Bibliography on the Origins of Copyright and Droit d'Auteur
• 6.912 Introduction to Copyright Law taught by Keith Winstein, MIT OpenCourseWare January IAP 2006
• Copyright Berne Convention: Country List List of the 164 members of the Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works.
• UK Copyright Law fact sheet (April 2000) a concise introduction to UK Copyright legislation
• IPR Toolkit – An Overview, Key Issues and Toolkit Elements (September 2009) by Professor Charles Oppenheim and Naomi Korn at the Strategic Content Alliance
• MIT OpenCourseWare 6.912 Introduction to Copyright Law Free self-study course with video lectures as offered during the January 2006, Independent Activities Period (IAP)

v t e Copyright law by country Copyright Acts by country · Copyright case law by country · Copyright terms by country · International copyright agreements (by country) · Rule of the shorter term Africa Egypt · South Africa Americas Argentina · Canada · Chile · United States Asia Afghanistan · Azerbaijan · China (Hong Kong) · India · Iran · Japan · Jordan · Malaysia · Pakistan · Philippines · Tajikistan · Thailand Europe European Union France · Germany · Greece · Ireland · Italy · Netherlands · Poland · Spain · United Kingdom Other countries Russia (USSR · Russian Federation) · Serbia · Switzerland · Turkey Oceania Australia · New Zealand Category:Copyright law by country · Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights

Rand Paul
United States Senator from Kentucky
Incumbent
Assumed office January 3, 2011 Serving with Mitch McConnell
Preceded by	Jim Bunning
Personal details
Born	Randal Howard Paul (1963-01-07) January 7, 1963 (age 49) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Political party	Republican
Spouse(s)	Kelley Ashby Paul (m. 1990)
Relations	Ron Paul Carol Wells Paul (parents)
Children	William, Robert, and Duncan
Residence	Bowling Green, Kentucky
Alma mater	Baylor University (1981–1984) Duke University (M.D., 1988)
Occupation	Ophthalmologist (Physician), Politician
Religion	Presbyterian[1] (baptized Episcopalian)
Website	paul.senate.gov Rand Paul 2010

Randal Howard "Rand" Paul (born January 7, 1963) is the junior United States Senator for Kentucky. He is a member of the Republican Party. A member of the Tea Party movement, he describes himself as a "constitutional conservative"^[2] and a libertarian.^[3] He is the son of Republican Congressman and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas and had never previously held political office. Paul first received national attention in 2008 when making political speeches on behalf of his father. Rand Paul is the first United States Senator in history to serve alongside a parent in the United States House of Representatives.

A graduate of the Duke University School of Medicine, Paul has been a practicing ophthalmologist in Bowling Green, Kentucky, since 1993, and established his own clinic in December 2007. In 1994, he founded Kentucky Taxpayers United, of which he is still the chairman.^[4]

In 2010, Paul ran as the Republican candidate for the United States Senate seat being vacated by retiring Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky and defeated Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway. As a supporter of the Tea Party movement, Paul has been vocal in advocating for term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and the Read the Bills Act, in addition to the widespread reduction of federal spending and taxation. He has gained prominence for his independent positions on many political issues, often clashing with both Republicans and Democrats.^[5]

Early life and education[link]

Paul at a rally in Erlanger, Kentucky, on October 2, 2010, along with his father, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, and his son, William Paul.

Randal Howard Paul^[6] was born on January 7, 1963, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to Carol Wells Paul and Ron Paul. Paul's father is a physician and U.S. Representative of Texas's 14th congressional district. The middle child of five, his siblings are Ronald "Ronnie" Paul Jr., Lori Paul Pyeatt, Robert Paul and Joy Paul-LeBlanc.^[7] Paul was baptized in the Episcopal Church^[8] and identified as a practicing Christian as a teenager.^[9] Despite his father's libertarian views and strong support for individual rights,^[9][10] the novelist Ayn Rand was not the inspiration for Paul's first name; he went by "Randy" while growing up.^[11] His wife shortened his name to "Rand".^[9][12][13]

The Paul family moved to Lake Jackson, Texas, in 1968,^[11][14] where Rand was raised^[15][16] and his father began his medical practice and for an extent of time was the only obstetrician in Brazoria County.^[11][14] When Paul was 13, his father was elected to the United States House of Representatives.^[17] In his teenage years, Paul studied the Austrian economists that his father respected, as well as Ayn Rand.^[11] Paul went to Brazoswood High School and was on the swimming team and played defensive back on the football team.^[9][15] Paul attended Baylor University from fall 1981 to summer 1984. Paul was enrolled in the honors program at Baylor, and had scored approximately in the 90th percentile on the Medical College Admission Test.^[18] During Paul's time at Baylor, he was involved in the swim team and Young Conservatives of Texas and was a member of a secret organization known as the NoZe Brotherhood.^[19] Paul left Baylor early when he was accepted into the Duke University School of Medicine, where he earned his Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) degree in 1988 and completed his residency in 1993.^[18]

Personal life[link]

Paul arriving at the Bowling Green-Warren County Regional Airport on November 1, 2010, in Bowling Green, Kentucky, along with his wife Kelley, sons Duncan and Robert, and a campaign staffer.

In Atlanta, Paul met Kelley Ashby, a Rhodes College English major. Paul and Ashby were married on October 20, 1990, and moved to Bowling Green, Kentucky, less than 30 miles (48 km) from her hometown of Russellville, Kentucky, in 1993.^[20]

Kelley Paul is a freelance writer, and she manages payroll and marketing communications for Paul's surgical practice.^[21] The couple have three sons: William, Duncan and Robert.^[22]

Medical career[link]

Paul has held a state-issued medical license since moving to Bowling Green in 1993.^[23] He received his first job from Dr. John Downing of Downing McPeak Vision Centers, which brought him to Bowling Green after completing his residency. Paul worked for Downing for about five years before parting ways. Afterwards, he went to work at the Graves-Gilbert Clinic, a private medical group in Bowling Green, for 10 years before creating his own practice in a converted one-story house across the street from Downing's office.^[24] After his election to the U.S. Senate, Paul merged his practice with Downing's medical practice.^[25] Paul has had two malpractice lawsuits filed against him since 1993. Paul was cleared in one case and the other was settled for $50,000.^[24] Regardless, his medical work has been praised by Downing and Paul has medical privileges at two Bowling Green hospitals.^[23][24] Paul specializes in cataract and glaucoma surgeries, LASIK procedures, and corneal transplants.^[12]

As a member of the Bowling Green Noon Lions Club, Paul founded the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic to help provide eye surgery and exams for those who cannot afford to pay.^[26] He is a regular presenter at the annual Men's Health and Safety Day conference held by The Medical Center of Bowling Green since 1998.^[27] In 1999 Paul founded the Non-profit organization National Board of Ophthalmology (NBO).^[28]

Board certification[link]

In 2010 the Louisville Courier-Journal reported that Paul, who described himself as a "board-certified" ophthalmologist, was not certified by the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO).^[23] In 1995, Paul passed the American Board of Ophthalmology boards earning his certification under the ABO for a term of one decade. In 1997, after a dispute with the American Board of Ophthalmology over recertification requirements,^[29] Paul, along with 200 ophthalmologists formed the National Board of Ophthalmology (NBO).^[30] A spokesperson for the American Board of Medical Specialties stated: "He [Paul] is not board-certified."^[23]

Paul's ABO certification lapsed on December 31, 2005, and Paul has since been certified by the NBO.^[23] ABO administrator Beth Ann Slembarski says that over 95 percent of the nation’s practicing ophthalmologists have American Board of Ophthalmology certification.^[31] Regardless of his additional certifications, Paul has been licensed by the state to practice medicine in Kentucky since 1993, and his license is in good standing with no history of disciplinary action. The Courier-Journal reported: "There is no indication that Paul isn't qualified to practice ophthalmology."^[23]

Political activism[link]

Rand Paul in 2011 speaking at the Night of the Rising Stars.

As founder and chairman of the anti-tax organization Kentucky Taxpayers United (KTU) since 1994, Paul regularly presents "taxpayers' friend" awards to state legislators. KTU, which regards itself as nonpartisan, but is criticized for being ideologically conservative,^[32][33] examines legislator records on taxation and spending to inform voters where their own lawmakers stand on the issues.^[34] Paul's editorial commentary on behalf of KTU has been published and recognized in the Kentucky Post.^[35]

KTU sponsors the Taxpayer's Pledge of Americans for Tax Reform, encouraging politicians to pledge publicly to vote uniformly against tax raises.^[35] Nine of fifteen Northern Kentucky legislators signed the pledge,^[36] such as Senator Dick Roeding^[35] and Representative Royce Adams in 1996.^[37] In 2000, these legislators considered a hotel room tax hike (favored by Governor Paul Patton for helping expand the Dr. Albert B. Sabin Convention Center in nearby Cincinnati), even though the increase might "incur the wrath of Paul's group," as two newspapers put it.^[36][38]

Paul stated that Patton's argument for "revenue recovery" was merely a euphemism for taxes^[39] and said that KTU would fight reelection of any pledge-breakers; Adams requested in writing that Paul's group release him from his pledge, stating that it only applied to his first term.^[37] By the close of session in April, the tax increase had failed, although Patton had achieved most of his intended budget; Paul stated legislators were pressured to finalize the budget by deadline rather than to "face accusations of shutting down government."^[40]

Paul often speaks on his father's behalf,^[22][41] and he and his son William attended the third Republican presidential debate of 2007 in New Hampshire, as well as campaigned door-to-door in the state for his father.^[42] At a New Hampshire rally with 250 in attendance (plus 30 members of his own family), Paul repeated a campaign meme by pretending to take a call from Rudy Giuliani during his remarks, and joking that Giuliani needed campaigners and wanted to borrow the Paul family.^[43]

On December 16, 2007, the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, Paul spoke at Faneuil Hall in favor of small government principles,^[44] calling for what CNN termed a "modern day revolution."^[45] He continued campaigning across the country for his father in 2008,^[21] traveling as far as Montana.^[26]

Paul has co-authored a book entitled The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Jack Hunter, released on February 22, 2011.^[46] It defends the Tea Party movement.^[47]

Electoral history[link]

Paul in Louisville, November 2009

Primary campaign[link]

In the beginning of 2009, Paul was the focus of an online grassroots movement to draft him in a bid to replace beleaguered Republican Kentucky senator Jim Bunning. The news of his potential candidacy became a topic of national interest and was discussed in the Los Angeles Times^[48] and locally in the Kentucky press.^[49] Commenting on Paul's possible candidacy, Congressman Ron Paul noted that "Should Senator Bunning decide not to run, I think Rand would make a great U.S. Senator."^[50]

On May 1, 2009, Paul officially confirmed that if Bunning, whose fundraising in 2009 has matched his poor numbers in opinion polling for the 2010 election,^[51] declined to seek a third term, he would almost certainly run in the Republican Party primary to succeed him,^[52] and formed an exploratory committee soon after, while still promising to stay out of the race if Bunning had ultimately decided to run for re-election. Paul made this announcement on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, though the news was first broken by a local Kentucky news site.^[53]

On July 28, 2009, Bunning announced that he would not run for re-election, after facing insufficient fundraising. This announcement left only Paul and Secretary of State Trey Grayson as the remaining candidates for the Republican nomination,^[54] with Paul announcing on August 5, 2009 that he would officially run for the U.S. Senate as a Republican. The announcement was made through a series of national TV events, radio, and other programs, as well as through newspapers in Kentucky.^[55][56][57]

Early fundraising success[link]

On August 20, 2009, Paul's grassroots planned a moneybomb to kick off his campaign for United States Senate. The official campaign took in $433,509 in 24 hours.^[58] According to Paul,^[59] This set a new record in Kentucky's political fundraising history in a 24-hour period.