So, the article was published despite the owner's refusal to grant permission for its use? If so, will the owner now be on the alert? I agree there are times when there is no need to ask for permission, when the use is clearly within bounds of fair use.
from the House Report accompanying the 1909 Act: "The Constitution does not establish copyrights, but provides that Congress shall have the power to grant such rights if it thinks best. Not primarily for the benefit of the author, but primarily for the benefit of the public, such rights are given."
WIPO seems to have a need to justify its existence by creating yet more monopoly rights. Instead of dealing with just one rights holder, does this mean that every performer in an audiovisual production is now also a rights holder?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by TobeL.
So, the article was published despite the owner's refusal to grant permission for its use? If so, will the owner now be on the alert? I agree there are times when there is no need to ask for permission, when the use is clearly within bounds of fair use.
for the public, not the authors, it is not a new idea
from the House Report accompanying the 1909 Act: "The Constitution does not establish copyrights, but provides that Congress shall have the power to grant such rights if it thinks best. Not primarily for the benefit of the author, but primarily for the benefit of the public, such rights are given."
WIPO seems to have a need to justify its existence by creating yet more monopoly rights. Instead of dealing with just one rights holder, does this mean that every performer in an audiovisual production is now also a rights holder?