[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 
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.

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