Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Why do I feel like this happens a lot?

I know a lot of individuals that scan documents, manuals, defunct school books and sell them on Ebay. They just scan the document, and state they own the copyright. They don't just claim ownership to the scanned usually PDF; they claim they own the original copyright.

There's a Seller on Ebay who digitized Chicago School of Watchmaking(old trade school closed down in 60's, or 70's?). He's been selling it for years. If he sees competition from other sellers, or free versions online he claims copyright infringement to Ebay, and to "offending" domain owners. Ebay takes down alleged copy written item, and website owners usually cave in too. (It's not easy to verify older copy written material.)

I wonder if it's a crime to state copyright ownership on a piece of work if the original owner of copyright died, and didn't transfer the copyright? Or, the work was never copy-written?



Copyright law itself creates strong incentives for copyfraud. The Copyright Act provides for no civil penalty for falsely claiming ownership of public domain materials. There is also no remedy under the Act for individuals who wrongly refrain from legal copying or who make payment for permission to copy something they are in fact entitled to use for free. While falsely claiming copyright is technically a criminal offense under the Act, prosecutions are extremely rare. These circumstances have produced fraud on an untold scale, with millions of works in the public domain deemed copyrighted, and countless dollars paid out every year in licensing fees to make copies that could be made for free. Copyfraud stifles valid forms of reproduction and undermines free speech.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=787244


He holds copyright to the container in which he put the scans. He also holds copyright to the pattern of bits he scanned. If the free, and/or competitive versions, are copies of his scans, he is correct. He does not hold copyright to the words which his pattern of bits might conveniently translate to.

http://chart.copyrightdata.com/Colorization.html


Scanning doesn't generate a new copyright, in the USA at least, since it's not considered "creative" enough. See for example http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/who-owns-the-copyright-...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: