[PD] Percolate
marius schebella
marius.schebella at gmail.com
Sun Mar 11 18:35:02 CET 2007
I don't think "copyright" is the same as urheberrecht. I would rather
compare it to authorship. the copyright goes always to the "owner". for
example, when you work for a big Pd company and your boss says, write a
pd patch for that exhibition, than you would be the author, but since
that would be considered a "work for hire", your boss would have the
copyright.
in europe this is slightly different, because as the author/urheber you
have some default rights on your work, which you maybe do not have in
the US.
some general rules about the us copyright:
copyright protects creative output, (compositions, lyrics, expressions,
also gestures, lighting.....) but not ideas or facts. the important
thing is always sufficiant creativity.
it protects the copyright holder against unauthorized reproduction,
display, performance, or derivative works. (of course this is only the
short version.)
one speciality for example is the "joined work", when several people
work as a group on an artwork and you cannot split up the whole thing,
then everybody would have the right to grant rights, but not "exclusive
rights", which can only be granted, when all participants of the group
agree on that...
anyway, the biggest discussions in the US at the moment are about "fair
use". lat's talk about that another time.
marius.
mik wrote:
> copyright is the english (language) equivalent of urheberrecht. there's
> no difference.
> this is an area everybody typically has a strong opinion about. sadly
> this opinion is mostly based on severe misconceptions.
>
>
> m
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list