text:
The Copyright Law of the United States encourages the creation of art and culture by rewarding authors and artists with a set of exclusive rights. Federal Copyright law grants authors and artists the exclusive right to make and sell copies of their works, the right to create derivative works, and the right to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time limit, and generally expire 70 years after the author's death.
US Copyright law is governed by the federal Copyright Act of 1976. The constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to create copyright law. Specifically, Congress has the power:
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. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, (the Copyright Clause)
The United States Copyright Office handles copyright registration, recording of copyright transfers, and other administrative aspects of copyright law.
Copyright in Colonial AmericaEdit
The British Statute of Anne did not apply to the American colonies, although some scholars have asserted otherwise. The colonies' economy was largely agrarian, hence copyright law was not a priority, resulting in only three private copyright acts being passed in America prior to 1783. Two of the acts were limited to seven years, the other was limited to a term of five years. In 1783 several authors' petitions persuaded the Continental Congress "that nothing is more properly a man's own than the fruit of his study, and that the protection and security of literary property would greatly tend to encourage genius and to promote useful discoveries." But under the Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress had no authority to issue copyright, instead it passed a resolution encouraging the States to "secure to the authors or publishers of any new book not hitherto printed... the copy right of such books for a certain time not less than fourteen years from the first publication; and to secure to the said authors, if they shall survive the term first mentioned,... the copy right of such books for another term of time no less than fourteen years.[1] Three states had already enacted copyright statutes in 1783 prior to the Continental Congress resolution, and in the subsequent three years all of the remaining states except Delaware passed a copyright statute.[2] Seven of the States followed the Statute of Anne and the Continental Congress' resolution by providing two fourteen-year terms. The five remaining States granted copyright for single terms of fourteen, twenty and twenty one years, with no right of renewal.[3]
Copyright Clause of the U.S. ConstitutionEdit
At the Constitutional Convention 1787 both James Madison of Virginia and Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina submitted proposals that would allow Congress the power to grant copyright for a limited time.[4] These proposals are the origin of the Copyright Clause in the United States Constitution.
The US Constitution grants Congress the power to enact copyright laws in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 (the Copyright Clause). The Copyright Clause states that congress shall have the power:
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.
The Copyright Clause forms the basis for both U.S. copyright law ("Science", "Authors", "Writings") and patent law ("useful Arts", "Inventors", "Discoveries"), and requires that these exclusive rights expire ("for limited Times").
Early Federal Copyright LawEdit
The U.S. Congress first exercised its copyright powers with the Copyright Act of 1790.
The 1790 Act granted authors the exclusive right to publish and vend "maps, charts and books" for a term of 14 years. This 14 year term was renewable for one additional 14 year term, if the author was alive at the end of the first time. With exception of the provision on maps and charts the Copyright Act of 1790 is copied almost verbatim from the Statute of Anne.[3]
The 1790 Act did not regulate other kinds of writings, such as musical compositions or newspapers and specifically noted that it did not prohibit copying the works of foreign authors. The vast majority of writings were never registered — between 1790 and 1799, of approximately 13,000 titles published in the United States, only 556 works were registered.(Citation needed)
Under the 1790 Act, federal copyright protection was only granted if the author met certain "statutory formalities." For example, authors were required to include a proper copyright notice. If formalities were not met, the work immediately entered into the public domain.
In 1834 the Supreme Court ruled in Wheaton v. Peters (a case similar to the British Donaldson v Beckett of 1774) that although the author of an unpublished work had a common law right to control the first publication of that work, the author did not have a common law right to control reproduction following the first publication of the work.[3]
During the American Civil War, the law of the Confederate States on copyright was broadly the same as that of the existing Copyright Act of 1831; twenty-eight years with an extension for fourteen, with mandatory registration. This was passed into law by an act in May 1861, shortly after the outbreak of hostilities. A later amendment, in April 1863, provided that any copyright registered in the United States before secession, and held by a current Confederate citizen or resident, was legally valid within the Confederacy. Confederate copyrights were apparently honoured after the end of the war; when federal copyright records were transferred to the Library of Congress in 1870,[5]
Pre-1976 Dual State and Federal Copyright lawEdit
Before the 1976 Copyright Act, copyright protection was provided by a dual system under both federal and state laws. Federal law provided "statutory copyright" and the laws of each state provided "common law copyright." Roughly speaking, the old "statutory copyright" protected works that were registered and the old "common-law copyright" protected unregistered works.
With the 1976 Copyright Act, Congress abolished the dual federal-and-state copyright system, replacing it with a single federal copyright system. Federal preemption is codified at Template:Uscsub, which states:
On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright ... in works of authorship that ... come within the subject matter of copyright ... are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State.
The preemption is complete insofar as works fall within the federal copyright statute. A work that falls generally within the subject matter of copyright (such as, a writing) must either qualify to be protected under federal law, or it cannot be protected at all. State law cannot provide protection for a work that federal law does not protect.[6] It covers enforcement too. A person accused of copyright infringement cannot be prosecuted in state courts.[7][8]
State copyright law is not preempted by non-protected works. For example, those that have "not been fixed in any tangible medium of expression are not covered."[9] "Examples would include choreography that has never been filmed or notated, an extemporaneous speech, original works of authorship communicated solely through conversations or live broadcasts, a dramatic sketch or musical composition improvised or developed from memory and without being recorded or written down."[10]
Major Amendments to U.S. Copyright LawEdit
Since 1790, Congress has amended US Copyright law several times. Major amendments include:
- Copyright Act of 1790 - established U.S. copyright with term of 14 years with 14-year renewal
- Copyright Act of 1831 - extended the term to 28 years with 14-year renewal
- Copyright Act of 1909 - extended term to 28 years with 28-year renewal
- Universal Copyright Convention - ratified by the U.S. in 1954, and again in 1971, this treaty was developed by UNESCO as an alternative to the Berne Convention
- Copyright Act of 1976 - extended term to either 75 years or life of author plus 50 years (prior to this, "[t]he interim renewal acts of 1962 through 1974 ensured that the copyright in any work in its second term as of September 19, 1962, would not expire before Dec. 31, 1976.");[11] extended federal copyright to unpublished works; preempted state copyright laws; codified much copyright doctrine that had originated in case law
- Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 - established copyrights of U.S. works in Berne Convention countries
- Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 - removed the requirement for renewal
- Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) of 1994 - restored U.S. copyright for certain foreign works
- Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 - extended terms to 95/120 years or life plus 70 years
- Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 - criminalized some cases of copyright infringement
Key international agreements affecting U.S. copyright law include:
- Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
- Universal Copyright Convention
- Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
The United States became a Berne Convention signatory in 1988. The Berne Convention entered into force in the U.S. a year later, on March 1, 1989. The U.S. is also a party to TRIPS, which itself requires compliance with Berne provisions, and is enforceable under the WTO dispute resolution process.
To meet the treaty requirements, copyright protection was extended to architecture (where previously only building plans were protected, not buildings themselves), and certain moral rights of visual artists.
Purpose of copyrightEdit
The purpose of copyright law is ostensibly "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.".[12] Current copyright law has expanded coverage to include the idea of stimulating the creation of as many works of art, literature, architecture, music, and other works of authorship. Historically, the United States recognized no absolute, natural right in an author to prevent others from copying or otherwise exploiting his/her work, but court and legislative attitudes in this regard have rapidly changed since the 1970s.
Although copyright limits freedom of speech, it generally avoids giving rights in the idea being expressed, or in facts or other elements of the public domain which an author may incorporate into his work. Others are free to express the same idea as the author did, or use the same facts, as long as they do not copy the author's original way of expressing the ideas or facts. In addition, even those rights granted in the author's expression are limited in duration and are subject to certain exceptions permitting public use under limited circumstances.
As with many legal doctrines, the effectiveness of copyright law in achieving its stated purpose is a matter of debate. An 800-page academic study of German copyright law concludes copyright hinders the proliferation of knowledge and the progress of science.[13]
Works subject to copyright law Edit
The United States copyright law protects "original works of authorship,"[14] including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works.
Copyright law includes the following types of works
- Literary
- Musical
- Dramatic
- Pantomimes and choreographic works
- Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
- Audiovisual works
- Sound recordings
- Derivative works
- Compilations
- Architectural works
Idea/expression dichotomyEdit
Copyright law protects the expression of an idea, but copyright does not protect the idea itself. This limitation is called the idea/expression dichotomy.
The distinction between "idea" and "expression" is fundamental, but not always clear. From the 1976 Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 102):
- In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
A paper describing a political theory, for example, is copyrightable; it may not be reproduced without the author's permission. But the theory itself (which is an idea rather than a specific expression) is not copyrightable. Another author is free to describe the same theory in her own words without infringing on the original author's copyright. In fact, the second author does not even need to credit the original author (although failing to credit the source of an idea may be plagiarism, an ethical transgression).
For novels and films, there are no clear rules separating the story's ideas from the expression of those ideas. As Judge Learned Hand put it,
- "Obviously, no principle can be stated as to when an imitator has gone beyond copying the 'idea,' and has borrowed its 'expression.' Decisions must therefore inevitably be ad hoc." Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487 (2d Cir. 1960).
Compilation of Facts and the Sweat of the Brow DoctrineEdit
Since facts are considered "ideas" or "discoveries", they are not copyrightable. However, compilations of facts are treated differently. The Copyright Act, Template:UnitedStatesCodeSec, allows copyright protection for "compilations," as long as there is some "creative" or "original" act involved in developing the compilation, such as in the selection (deciding which facts to include or exclude), and arrangement (how facts are displayed and in what order). Copyright protection in compilations is limited to the selection and arrangement of facts, not to the facts themselves.
The Supreme Court decision in Feist v. Rural clarified the requirements for copyright in compilations. The Feist case denied copyright protection to a "white pages" phone book (a compilation of telephone numbers, listed alphabetically). In making this ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the "sweat of the brow" doctrine. That is, copyright protection requires creativity, and no amount of hard work ("sweat of the brow") can transform a non-creative list (like an alphabetical listing of phone numbers) into copyrightable subject matter. A mechanical, non-selective collection of facts ordered in a non-creative way cannot be protected by copyright.
Useful articlesEdit
Copyright protects artistic expression. Copyright does not protect useful articles, or objects with some useful functionality. The Copyright Act states:
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. An article that is normally a part of a useful article is considered a "useful article".
"the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article."[15]
However, many industrial designers create works that are both artistic and functional. Under these circumstances, Copyright Law only protects the artistic expression of such a work, and only to the extent that the artistic expression can be separated from its utilitarian function (what courts call "conceptual separability"). If the aesthetic aspects cannot be separated from the functional aspects, copyright protection is not available.
It can be difficult to gauge whether the artistic aspects of a work can be separated from its useful aspects. Courts often rely on the Denicola test, which asks whether the artistic design was significantly influenced by functional considerations. If so, copyrightability depends on the extent to which the work reflects the artistic expression inhibited by functional considerations. As discussed by Judge Oakes:
Copyrightability "ultimately should depend on the extent to which the work reflects artistic expression uninhibited by functional considerations." To state the Denicola test in the language of conceptual separability, if design elements reflect a merger of aesthetic and functional considerations, the artistic aspects of a work cannot be said to be conceptually separable from the utilitarian elements. Conversely, where design elements can be identified as reflecting the designer's artistic judgment exercised independently of functional influences, conceptual separability exists.[16]
Definition of "copy" Edit
Several important rights exist under the United States copyright law only for "copies" of works — material objects in which the work is embodied.[17] Section 106(1) prohibits the reproduction only of copies of works, and section 106(3) prohibits the distribution only of copies of works.[18] Thus, as the Ninth Circuit held in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., a link (even a deep link or inline link) to an image does not involve reproduction of a copy of the image by the person on whose web page the link appears.[19] An instruction to a browser to jump to an URL is not a reproduction or distribution of a copy of what is at the referenced URL.[20]
Furthermore, a three-dimensional counterpart of a two-dimensional drawing is usually not a "copy" of the drawing. Thus, the copyright of a drawing of the approach to the Triboro Bridge is not infringed when the bridge approach is built.[21] On the other hand, because the essence of what is protected in a cartoon is captured by a doll depicting the cartoon figure, courts have repeatedly held unauthorized dolls to infringe the copyright of the underlying cartoons.[22]
Works by the federal governmentEdit
Template:USC withholds copyright from most publications produced by the United States Government, and its agents or employees while in their employment. All such work is therefore in the public domain in some sense. The specific language is as follows:
Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.
The intent of the section is to place in the public domain all work of the United States Government, which is defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101 as work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties. In most cases, contractors are not employees.
The government may restrict access to works it has produced through other mechanisms. For instance, confidential or secret materials are not protected by copyright, but are restricted by other applicable laws. However, even in case of non-secret materials there are specific prohibitions against automatic access to work otherwise covered under Template:Usc for commercial purposes.[23]
Federal and state laws are not copyrightedEdit
- Main article: Edict of government
Federal statutes are in the public domain and no copyright attaches to them. The same is true of court decisions. It is not difficult to see the motivations behind this:
The citizens are the authors of the law, and therefore its owners, regardless of who actually drafts the provisions, because the law derives its authority from the consent of the public, expressed through the democratic process. (State of Georgia v Harrison Co, 548 F Supp 110, 114 (ND Ga 1982))
Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments. (Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices section 206.01 [1] Paragraph 3.6 at 14 February 2006)
In the United States the exclusion of legislation from the scope of copyright laws dates to 1834, when the Supreme Court interpreted the first federal copyright laws and held that "no reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by this Court". In the same case it was argued – and accepted by the Court – that "it would be absurd, for a legislature to claim the copyright; and no one else can do it, for they are the authors, and cause them to be published without copyright … Statutes were never copyrighted." Further, "it is the bounden duty of government to promulgate its statutes in print". "[A]ll countries ... subject to the sovereignty of the laws" hold the promulgation of the laws, from whatever source, "as essential as their existence." "If either statutes or decisions could be made private property, it would be in the power of an individual to shut out the light by which we guide our actions." (Wheaton v. Peters, 33 US (8 Pet) 591, 668 (1834))
That the public interest is the primary determinant is clear from Banks v Manchester (128 US 244, 9 S Ct 36 (1888)). In this the United States Supreme Court denied a copyright to a court reporter in opinions of the Ohio Supreme Court, on the grounds that "There has always been a judicial consensus, from the time of the decision in the case of Wheaton v. Peters, that no copyright could, under the statutes passed by Congress, be secured in the products of the labor done by judicial officers in the discharge of their judicial duties. The whole work done by the judges constitutes the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all, whether it is a declaration of unwritten law, or an interpretation of a constitution or statute."
The law, as thus (widely) defined, is in the public domain, and therefore not amenable to copyright. In Howell v Miller, (91 F 129 (1898)) Justice Harlan denied an injunction sought for the compiler of Michigan statutes, holding that "no one can obtain the exclusive right to publish the laws of the state in a book prepared by him." The question of formal ownership of the text of laws and decisions is perhaps secondary to the question of the dissemination of the law.
An interesting situation arises when a governing body adopts copyrighted works to serve as legal standards. For example, in Veeck vs. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l, 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002), the court determined that once the copyrighted model building codes of the plaintiff had been adopted into law by a municipality, its copyright protections were outweighed by the policies favoring unfettered access by members of the public to republish the laws in any manner they see fit. However, Veeck recognized a distinction between verbatim recitations of copyrighted materials in the law itself, as opposed to mere references in the law which point to copyrighted materials. For example, the 9th Circuit Court of appeals held that a law that instructs physicians to adopt copyrighted standards developed by the American Medical Association to assign codes to medical procedures does not place the copyrighted work in the public domain. Practice Management Info. Corp. v. American Medical Ass'n, 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997), opinion amended by 133 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 1998). These two holdings are not capable of being reconciled, despite the distinguishing facts in each case, since it is apparent that even when a law requires compliance with a copyrighted standard by mere reference, it is no less "the law."
Exclusive rightsEdit
There are six basic rights protected by copyright, sometimes called the six "pillars" of copyright.(Citation needed) The owner of copyright has the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
- To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
- To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
- To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
- To publicly perform the work, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
- To publicly display the work, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work.
- To digitally transmit sound recordings by means of digital audio transmission;
A violation of any of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder is said to be a copyright infringement.
First owner of copyrightEdit
The author of a work is the initial owner of the copyright in it, and may exploit the work himself or transfer some or all the rights conferred by the copyright to others.[25] The author generally is the person who conceives of the copyrightable expression and fixes it or causes it to be fixed in a tangible form. Exceptions and special cases in determining the author are:
- Works for hire. If a work is made "for hire" within the meaning of the Copyright Act, the employer or commissioning party, who paid for the work and took the economic risk of it, is deemed the author for copyright purposes and is the initial owner of the copyright.[26] Any other work done by that writer on his own without compensation and without using company resources usually is owned by the writer (though employers often try to claim ownership of such work). The circumstances under which a work may be found to be a work for hire are:
- Work prepared by an employee within the scope of his employment. In Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989), the Supreme Court held that the term "employee" in this context should be interpreted according to common law agency principles. If the person doing the work is an "employee" within the meaning of the common law, and the work was done within the scope of his employment (whether the work is the kind he was employed to prepare; whether the preparation takes place primarily within the employer's time and place specifications; and whether the work was activated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer), then the work is a work for hire and the employer is the initial owner of the copyright, rather than the employee who actually conceived and fixed the expression.[26]
- Specially ordered or commissioned works. Works created by independent contractors (rather than employees) can be deemed works for hire only if two conditions are satisfied. First, the work must fit into one of these categories: a contribution to a collective work, part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, a translation, a supplementary work, a compilation, an instructional text, a test, answer material for a test, or an atlas. Second, the parties must expressly agree in a written, signed instrument that the work will be considered a work made for hire.[26]
- Ownership of copyright in a joint work. The authors of a joint work are co-owners of a single copyright in the work. A joint work is "a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or independent parts of a unitary whole."[26][27]
- Ownership of copyright in a collective work: A collective work is a collection of independent, separately copyrightable works of authorship, such as a newspaper, magazine, or encyclopedia.[26] In the absence of an express assignment of copyright, the author of each individual work in the collection retains copyright in that work.[25] The compiler, or author of the collection, owns copyright in the expression he or she contributed, which is primarily the selection and arrangement of the separate contributions, but may include such things as a preface, advertisements, etc., that the collective author created.[26]
Transfers and licensesEdit
Three types of transfers exist for copyrighted works.
- Assignment
- Exclusive License
- Non-exclusive License
The first two, assignment and exclusive licenses, require the transfer to be in writing. Nonexclusive licenses need not be in writing and they may be implied by the circumstances. Transfers of copyright always involve one or more of the exclusive rights of copyright. For instance, a license may provide a right to perform a work, but not to reproduce it or to prepare a derivative work (adaptation right).(Citation needed)
The terms of the license is governed by the applicable contract law, however there is substantial academic debate about to what extent the Copyright Act preempts state contract law principles.(Citation needed)
An author, after transferring a copyright, can terminate the transfer under certain circumstances. This right to terminate the transfer is absolute and cannot be waived.[28]
Registration procedureEdit
While copyright in the United States automatically attaches upon the creation of an original work of authorship, registration with the Copyright Office puts a copyright holder in a better position if litigation arises over the copyright. A copyright holder desiring to register his or her copyright should do the following:
- Obtain and complete appropriate form.
- Prepare clear rendition of material being submitted for copyright
- Send both documents to U.S. Copyright Office in Washington, D.C.
Registration of copyright refers to the act of registering the work with the United States Copyright Office, which is an office of the Library of Congress. As the United States has joined the Berne Convention, registration is no longer necessary to provide copyright protection. However, registration is still necessary to obtain statutory damages in case of infringement.
Copyright Act § 407 provides that the owner of copyright in a published or unpublished work may, at any time during the copyright, register the work with the Copyright Office. The purpose of the registration provisions is to create as comprehensive a record of U.S. copyright claims as is possible. To register, the registrant must complete an application form and send it, along with the filing fee and copies or phonorecords of the work, to the Copyright Office.
The Copyright Office reviews applications for obvious errors or lack of copyrightable subject matter, and then issues a certificate of registration.
Registration as a prerequisite to claim of moral rights violation: it's not necessary for any author to register prior to bringing suit for violation of the rights of attribution or integrity in a work of visual art, pursuant to Copyright Act § 106A.
Deposit requirementEdit
The United States Copyright Office requires that applicants for registration must deposit with that office copies of the work for which protection is sought. This requirement serves two purposes. First, if an action arises from the infringement of the work, the owner may prove that the material that is infringed is exactly the same material for which the owner has secured a registration. Second, this requirement assists the Library of Congress in building its collection of works.
The Copyright Office has authority to make some exceptions to this rule by regulation, and has done so. Failure to comply with the deposit requirement, as modified by Copyright Office regulations, is punishable by fine, but does not result in forfeiture of copyright.
Deposits can be made electronically through the eCO Online System.
Copyright noticesEdit
- Main article: Copyright notice
Prior to 1989, use of a copyright notice — consisting of the copyright symbol (Template:Unicode, 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.[29][30] 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 (Template:Unicode, the letter P inside a circle), which indicates a sound recording copyright. 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.[31] 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.[32]
Duration of copyrightEdit
Works created in or after 1978 are extended copyright protection for a term defined in Template:Usc. With the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, these works are granted copyright protection for a term ending 70 years after the death of the author. If the work was a work for hire (e.g., those created by a corporation) then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter.
The § 302 term above also applies to works created before 1978 that were not yet published or registered prior to 1978, with the exception that such copyrights would not expire before 2003. Prior to 1978, works had to be published or registered to receive copyright protection. Upon the effective date of the 1976 Act (January 1, 1978) this requirement was removed and these works received protection despite having not been published or registered. However, Congress intended to provide an incentive for these authors to publish their unpublished works. To provide that incentive, these works, if published before 2003, will not have their protection expire before 2048.
Works published or registered before 1978 currently have a maximum copyright duration of 95 years from the date of publication, if copyright was renewed during the 28th year following publication[33] (such renewal was made automatic by the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992; prior to this the copyright would expire after 28 years if not renewed). The date of death of the author is not a factor in the copyright term of such works.
All copyrightable works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain;[34] works created before 1978 but not published until recently may be protected until 2047.[35] For works that received their copyright before 1978, a renewal had to be filed in the work's 28th year with the Library of Congress Copyright Office for its term of protection to be extended. The need for renewal was eliminated by the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, but works that had already entered the public domain by non-renewal did not regain copyright protection. Therefore, works published before 1964 that were not renewed are in the public domain. With rare exception (such as very old works first published after 2002), no additional copyrights will expire (thus entering the public domain) until at least 2019 due to changes in the applicable laws.
Before 1972, sound recordings were not subject to federal copyright, but copying was nonetheless regulated under various state torts and statutes, some of which had no duration limit. The Sound Recording Amendment of 1971 extended federal copyright to recordings fixed on or after February 15, 1972 (the effective date of the act), and declared that recordings fixed before that date would remain subject to state or common law copyright. The Copyright Act of 1976 maintained this until February 15, 2047, which was subsequently extended by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act to the same date in 2067.[36] As a result, no sound recording can reliably be considered in the public domain in the United States before that date, even if the recording was in existence before 1923 and even if it originated in another country where it has entered the public domain.[37]
Limitations on copyright and defensesEdit
US copyright law includes numerous defenses, exceptions, and limitations.
Some of the most important include:
- Copyright applies only to certain subject matter, codified within Template:Usc. Works that are not "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression" are not subject to copyright. Template:Uscsub codifies that copyright protection does not extend to ideas, procedures, processes, systems, etc. Facts may not be copyrighted. This doctrine was explored in some detail in the Feist case discussed above.
- Copyright law excludes typeface designs (Eltra Corp. v. Ringer), fashion design, useful articles (lamps, computer monitors, bathroom sinks), blank forms, titles, names, short phrases, slogans, lists of ingredients and contents, domain names and band names.[38] Trademark and patent protection is available for some of these items. Architecture and architectural plans gained protection on December 1, 1990.
- The "fair use" exception is codified at Template:Usc, and states that "the fair use of a copyrighted work ... is not an infringement of copyright." The section lists four factors that must be assessed to determine whether a particular use is fair.
- The first sale doctrine is codified at Template:Usc, and limits the rights of copyright holders to control the distribution and display of copies of their works. The owner of a particular copy is entitled to "sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy" and to "display the copy publicly ... to viewers present at the place where the copy is located."
- The "good faith" defense (Section 504(c)(2)) protects educational institutions, libraries, archives, and public broadcasters, by permitting the court to limit statutory damages to only $200 if they reasonably believed their infringement was a fair use under Template:Usc.
- Template:Usc and Template:Usc include specific exemptions for types of works and particular entities, such as libraries (Template:USCSec), public broadcasters (Template:USCSec and Template:USCSec), braille (Template:USCSec), software backup copies (Template:USCSec), "cover license" permitting sound recording covers (Template:USCSec), and jukebox compulsory licenses (Template:USCSec).
- Section 512 ("OCILLA", passed as part of the DMCA in 1998) provides a contingent "safe harbor" for online service providers from secondary liability for their users' copy infringements.
- An obscenity defense exists for pornographic work that is judged obscene by the miller test. Some courts have suggested pornography may be protected by copyright (Mitchell Brothers Film Co v. Cinema Adult Theater, 5th Cir. 1979, Jartech, Inc. v. Clancy, 9th Cir. 1982), but other courts have held the opposite (Dvils Films, Inc. v. Nectar Video, NY 1998), and the issue remains ambiguous.[39][40]
Although a parody can be considered a derivative work under United States Copyright Law, and thus within the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, it may qualify for the "fair use" exception to the exclusive rights, which is codified at Template:Usc. Parodic works are not automatically fair use of the material parodied, however. The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody (transformative) "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works." That commentary function provides some justification for use of the older work; in contrast, a satire (exaggerated) (which is not targeted at the work borrowed from) does not require use of the original work to make its point. (See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.)
Provisions for the handicappedEdit
There is specific statutory provision for reproduction of material for the blind or other persons with disabilities. Specific legislation permits the reproduction of copyright works in Braille, audio, electronic, Web-Braille, or other necessary formats. The program is administered by the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS).
Infringement is defined in Template:Usc. Infringement requires
- a protected work
- that the defendant copied the protected work
- that the defendant's copying of the protected work was an infringement
If a work is not protectable it cannot be infringed upon. For instance, spoken conversations that are unrecorded ("fixed in a tangible medium of expression") are not protectable. Similarly, if two individuals both create a story that by pure coincidence is nearly identical, but each without knowledge of the other, there is no infringement since there is no copying. Typically this is referred to as the defense of independent creation; however, technically this is not a defense since without copying there is not an infringement to begin with. Even if a defendant copied protected works that act might be permissible under one of the defenses or limitations. Fair use is one such defense. Quoting from a book in a review might be a copying of protected material, however this copying may well be permissible under Template:Usc. The fair use factors are described below.
Subject matter jurisdictionEdit
The United States district courts have exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over copyright infringement cases.[41]
Government infringementEdit
The U.S. government, its agencies and officials, and corporations owned or controlled by it, are subject to suit for copyright infringement. All infringement claims against the U.S. that did not arise in a foreign country must be filed with the United States Court of Federal Claims within three years of the infringing action.[42] Claims filed in the wrong court are dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The government and its agencies are also authorized to settle the infringement claims out of court.
Relief available for infringementEdit
A copyright owner whose exclusive rights have been infringed may pursue relief. There is no "copyright police" that enforces copyright without the copyright owner taking action.(Citation needed) For example, the FBI investigates cases of criminal infringement (mostly audio and video products), but even then, it does not do so on its own, only on cases where a complaint is received from the copyright holder. The FBI has its own guidelines on which cases to investigate.
Ownership of copyright Edit
US law requires a copyright holder to establish ownership of a valid copyright and the copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.[43] Assuming the plaintiff proves ownership of a valid copyright, the holder must then establish both actual copying and improper appropriation of the work. The burden lies with the plaintiff to establish these three elements in what is known as the prima facie case for infringement.Copyright owners are required to actively enforce rights.
A plaintiff establishes ownership by authorship (by the plaintiff itself or by one who assigned rights to the plaintiff) of (1) an original work of authorship that is (2) fixed in a tangible medium (e.g. a book or musical recording). Registration is not required for copyright itself, but in most cases is a jurisdictional requirement to bring the suit. Registration is also useful because it gives rise to the presumption of a valid copyright, and eliminates the innocent infringement defense, and (if timely made) it allows the plaintiff to elect statutory damages, and to be eligible for a possible award of attorney fees.
Works that are not sufficiently original, or which constitute facts, a method or process cannot enjoy copy protection.[44] U.S. Courts do not recognize the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, which originally allowed protection for those who labored to collect and organize facts. To combat this, business which assemble databases of information have relied on contract law where copyright law offers no protection.[45] For a work to be original, it must possess a "modicum of creativity", which is a "low threshold" although some creativity must exist.[46]
Copyright protects the fixed expression of ideas, but not the ideas themselves.[47] Nevertheless, an expression must exist in a fixed tangible medium.[48] A movie script writer who discusses a plot idea which has not yet been written would not be protected if another heard his idea and wrote a screenplay himself. Whether RAM constitutes a "fixed medium" is a contentious issue in copyright litigation because of the transitory nature of RAM.[49]
A plaintiff establishes actual copying with direct or indirect evidence. Direct evidence is satisfied either by a defendant's admission to copying or the testimony of witnesses who observed the defendant in the act. More commonly, a plaintiff relies on circumstantial or indirect evidence. A court will infer copying by a showing of a "striking similarity" between the copyrighted work and the alleged copy, along with a showing of both access and use of that access.[50] A plaintiff may establish access by proof of distribution over a large geographical area, or by eyewitness testimony that the defendant owned a copy of the protected work. Access alone is not sufficient to establish infringement. The plaintiff must show a similarity between the two works, and the degree of similarity will affect the probability that illicit copying in fact occurred in the court's eyes.[51] Even then, the plaintiff must show that the copying amounted to improper appropriation. Indeed, the US Supreme Court has held that not all copying constitutes infringement and a showing of misappropriation is necessary.[52]
Misappropriation Edit
A copyrighted work may contain elements which are not copyrightable, such as facts, ideas, themes, or content in the public domain. A plaintiff alleging misappropriation must first demonstrate that what the defendant appropriated from the copyrighted work was protectible. Second, a plaintiff must show that the intended audience will recognize substantial similarities between the two works. The intended audience may be the general public, or a specialized field. The degree of similarity necessary for a court to find misappropriation is not easily defined. Indeed, "the test for infringement of a copyright is of necessity vague."[53] Two methods are used to determine if unlawful appropriation has occurred: the subtractive method and the totality method.
The subtractive method, also known as the "abstraction/subtraction approach" seeks to analyze what parts of a copyrighted work are protectible and which are not.[54] The unprotected elements are subtracted and the fact finder then determines whether substantial similarities exist in the protectible expression which remains. For instance, if the copyright holder for West Side Story alleged infringement, the elements of that musical borrowed from Romeo and Juliet would be subtracted before comparing it to the allegedly infringing work because Romeo and Juliet exists in the public domain.
The totality method, also known as the "total concept and feel" approach takes the work as a whole with all elements included when determining if a substantial similarity exists. This was first formulated in Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co (1970)[55] The individual elements of the alleged infringing work may by themselves be substantially different from their corresponding part in the copyrighted work, but nevertheless taken together be a clear misappropriation of copyrightable material.[56]
Modern courts may sometimes use both methods in its analysis of misappropriation.[57] In other instances, one method may find misappropriation while the other would not, making misappropriation a contentious topic in infringement litigation.[58]
Civil remediesEdit
Barring investigation by law enforcement, therefore, a copyright holder must file a lawsuit in federal court to pursue his or her remedies. These remedies fall into two general categories: Injunctions and damages.
Injunctions: Copyright Act § 502 authorizes courts to grant both preliminary and permanent injunctions against copyright infringement and against violations of the author's rights of attribution and integrity in works of visual art. There are also provisions for impounding allegedly infringing copies, phonorecords, and other materials used to infringe, and for their ultimate destruction upon a final judgment of infringement.
Damages and/or profits: Section § 504 of the 1976 Act gives the copyright owner/author a choice of recovering: (1) their actual damages and any additional profits of the defendant; or (2) statutory damages.
Equitable reliefEdit
Both temporary and permanent injunctions are available to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.[59] Where the infringer is the government, however, injunctions are not available and the copyright holder can only seek monetary damages.[59]
One form of equitable relief that is available in copyright cases is a seizure order. At any time during the lawsuit, the court may order the impoundment of any and all copies of the infringing products. The seizure order may include materials used to produce such copies, such as master tapes, film negatives, printing plates, etc. Items that are impounded during the course of the lawsuit can, if the plaintiff wins, be ordered destroyed as part of the final decree.
Monetary damagesEdit
A copyright holder can also seek monetary damages. Injunctions and damages are not mutually exclusive. One can have injunctions and no damages, or damages and no injunctions, or both injunctions and damages. There are two types of damages: actual damages and profits, or statutory damages.[60]
United States law permits both equitable (injunction) and monetary damages. The copyright owner may recover the profits he or she would have earned absent the infringement(actual damages) and any profits the infringer might have made as a result of the infringement but that are not already considered in calculating actual damages.[61] In addition, under certain conditions, the infringing goods may be impounded and destroyed, and the copyright owner's costs and reasonable attorney's fees may also be part of the remedies awarded by the court.[62] To recover actual damages, the plaintiff or, more often, a suitable expert witness, must prove to the court that, in the absence of the infringement, the copyright owner would have been able to make additional sales, perhaps been able to charge higher prices on all sales of the infringed work, and that this would have resulted in profits given the owner's cost structure.[63] In some cases, the copyright owner may not have commercially exploited the infringed work, but the infringer may have profited from it. In these circumstances, the copyright owner can recover those profits.[64] Alternatively and at the copyright owner's election, if the work's copyright was registered within three months of publication or before the infringement, an infringer can be liable for statutory damages[65] Statutory damages can be awarded by the court within the range of $750 to $30,000, but this can be lowered if the infringement is deemed inadvertent, or increased significantly if the infringement is willful.[66]
Statutory damages are available as an alternative to actual damages and profits.[67] This is sometimes preferable if actual damages and profits are either too small, or too difficult to prove, or both. There are, however, situations where statutory damages are not available. Template:Usc provides:
- Statutory damages are not available if the work is unpublished and the infringement began before the effective date of its registration.
- Statutory damages are not available if the work is published but the infringement commenced after the first publication and before the effective date of its registration, unless registration is made within three months after the first publication.
Statutory damages are calculated per work infringed.[67] Statutory damages range from a few hundred dollars to hundreds of thousands:
- Statutory damages range from $750 per work to $150,000 per work
- In case of "innocent infringement", the range is $200 to $150,000 per work. "Innocent" is a technical term. In particular, if the work carries a copyright notice, the infringer cannot claim innocence.[68]
- In case of "willful infringement" (again, "willful" is a technical term), the range is $750 to $300,000 per work.
Damages in copyright cases can be very high. In Lowry's Reports, Inc. v. Legg Mason Inc.,[69] a 2003 lawsuit between a publisher of stock analysis newsletters against a company that buys one copy of the newsletters and makes multiple copies for use in-house, the jury awarded damages - actual damages for some newsletters and statutory damages for other newsletters - totaling $20 million.
During the course of the lawsuit, the copyright holder can ask the court for both, in the alternative. However, at the end of the case, they are mutually exclusive: Only one can be awarded and not the other.[67]
Attorney's feesEdit
Cost and attorney fees: Copyright Act § 505 permits courts, in their discretion, to award costs against either party and to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.
The court may (but is not required to) award to the "prevailing party" reasonable attorney's fees.[70] This applies to both the winning plaintiff (rightsholder) and the winning defendant (accused infringer).[71] However, attorney's fees award is not available against the government. Like statutory damages, attorney's fees are not available if the work infringed is not registered at the time of infringement.
Criminal penaltiesEdit
In addition to the civil remedies, the Copyright Act provides for criminal prosecution in some cases of willful copyright infringement. There are also criminal sanctions for fraudulent copyright notice, fraudulent removal of copyright notice, and false representations in applications for copyright registration. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act imposes criminal sanctions for certain acts of circumvention and interference with copyright management information. There are not criminal sanctions for violating the rights of attribution and integrity held by the author of a work of visual art.
Criminal penalties for copyright infringement include:
- A fine of not more than $500,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, for the first offense.
- A fine of not more than $1 million and imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, for repeated offenses.
Nonprofit libraries, archives, education institutions and public broadcasting entities are exempt from criminal prosecution.
Felony penalties for first offenses begin at seven copies for audiovisual works, and one hundred copies for sound recordings.[72]
Public domainEdit
- Main article: Public domain in the United States
Works are in the public domain if they are not covered by intellectual property rights, such as copyright, at all, or if the intellectual property rights to the works has expired.[73] A number of times Congress has re-instated lapsed copyrights: "After World War I and after World War II, there were special amendments to the Copyright Act to permit for a limited time and under certain conditions the recapture of works that might have fallen into the public domain, principally by aliens of countries with which we had been at war."[74] Works published with notice of copyright or registered in unpublished form in the years 1964 through 1977 automatically had their copyrights renewed for a second term. Works published with notice of copyright or registered in unpublished form on or after January 1, 1923, and prior to January 1, 1964, had to be renewed during the 28th year of their first term of copyright to maintain copyright for a full 95-year term.[75] With the exception of maps, music, and movies, the vast majority of works published in the United States before 1964 were never renewed for a second copyright term.[76]
Works "prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties" are automatically in the public domain by law.[77] Examples include military journalism, federal court opinions (but not necessarily state court opinions), congressional committee reports, and census data. However, works created by a contractor for the government are still subject to copyright. Even public domain documents may have their availability limited by laws limiting the spread of classified information.
The claim that "pre-1923 works are in the public domain" is correct only for published works; unpublished works are under federal copyright for at least the life of the author plus 70 years. For a work made for hire, the copyright in a work created before 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or registered for copyright, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first.[78] If the work was created before 1978 but first published 1978–2002, the federal copyright will not expire before 2047.
Until the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the lack of a proper copyright notice would place an otherwise copyrightable work into the public domain, although for works published between January 1, 1978 and February 28, 1989, this could be prevented by registering the work with the Library of Congress within five years of publication. After March 1, 1989, an author's copyright in a work begins when it is fixed in a tangible form; neither publication nor registration is required, and a lack of a copyright notice does not place the work into the public domain.[79]
In the United States, the images of Frank Capra's film It's a Wonderful Life (1946) entered into the public domain in 1974, because the copyright holder failed to file a renewal application with the Copyright Office during the 28th year after the film's release or publication. However in 1993, Republic Pictures utilized the 1990 United States Supreme Court ruling in Stewart v. Abend to enforce its claim of copyright because the film was a derivative work of a short story that was under a separate, existing copyright, to which Republic owned the film adaptation rights, effectively regaining control of the work in its complete form.[80]
Charles Chaplin re-edited and scored his 1925 film The Gold Rush for reissue in 1942. Subsequently, the 1925 version fell into the public domain when Chaplin's company failed to renew its copyright in 1953, although the 1942 version is still under US copyright.[81]
The distributor of the cult film Night of the Living Dead, after changing the film's title at the last moment before release in 1968, failed to include a proper copyright notice in the new titles, thereby immediately putting the film into the public domain after its release.[82] This provision of US copyright law was revised with the United States Copyright Act of 1976, which allowed such negligence to be remedied within five years of publication.[83]
Orphan works Edit
- Main article: Orphan works in the United States
The "orphan works" problem arose in the United States with the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1976, which eliminated the need to register copyrighted works, instead declaring that all "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression"[84] fall into copyright status. The elimination of registration also eliminated a central recording location to track and identify copyright-holders. Consequently, potential users of copyrighted works, e.g., filmmakers or biographers, must assume that many works they might use are copyrighted. Where the planned use would not be otherwise permitted by law (for example, by fair use), they must themselves individually investigate the copyright status of each work they plan to use. With no central database of copyright-holders, identifying and contacting copyright-holders can sometimes be difficult; those works that fall into this category may be considered "orphaned".
Ashcan copy Edit
Numerous comic books and some films have been made purely to satisfy copyright laws, never being intended for actual release. These are known as ashcan copy.
See alsoEdit
- Copyright term and public domain in the United States
- Bilateral copyright agreements of the United States
- Copyright Catalog
- Copyright Clearance Center
- Digital Millennium Copyright Act
- International Copyright Act
- Public Domain Enhancement Act
- Sweat of the brow
- TEACH Act (Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2002)
- United States copyright law in the performing arts
- United States No Electronic Theft Act
- United States patent law
- United States trademark law
- Fair Use Project
- White-Smith Music Publishing Company v. Apollo Company (1908)
- Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc. (1982)
- Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony (1884)
- Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (1991)
- Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp. (1999)
Idea/expression dichotomyEdit
- Baker v. Selden (1880)
- Whelan v. Jaslow (1986)
- Broderbund v. Unison (1986)
- Computer Associates Int. Inc. v. Altai Inc. (1992)
Fair useEdit
- Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin (11th Cir. 2001) (re Parody)
- ↑ Peter K, Yu (2007). Intellectual Property and Information Wealth: Copyright and related rights. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 142. ISBN 978-0-275-98883-8. http://www.google.com/books?id=tgK9BzcF5WgC&dq=statute+of+anne+copyright&lr=&as_brr=3&source=gbs_navlinks_s.
- ↑ Brian Pelanda. "Declarations of Cultural Independence: The Nationalistic Imperative Behind the Passage of Early American Copyright Laws, 1783-1787". http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1941506. , 58 Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 431 (2011).
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Peter K, Yu (2007). Intellectual Property and Information Wealth: Copyright and related rights. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 143. ISBN 978-0-275-98883-8. http://www.google.com/books?id=tgK9BzcF5WgC&dq=statute+of+anne+copyright&lr=&as_brr=3&source=gbs_navlinks_s.
- ↑ Donner, Irah (July 1992). "The Copyright Clause of the U. S. Constitution: Why Did the Framers Include It with Unanimous Approval?". The American Journal of Legal History 36 (3): 361–378. JSTOR 845426.
- ↑ Robinson, Raymond V. (1936). "Confederate copyright entries". The William and Mary Quarterly 16 (2): 248–266. JSTOR 1918805. , pp. 248-9
- ↑ H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., at 131 (1976)
- ↑ Crow v. Wainwright, 720 F.2d 1224 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 819 (1984).
- ↑ But see New Hampshire v. Nelson 150 N.H. 569 (2004). In Nelson, the defendant's conviction for receiving stolen property was affirmed. The "property" at issue was scanned copies of photographs that the defendant had removed from another's home. The defendant had returned the photographs, and the lack of any intent to permanently deprive the owner of the photos prevented prosecution based on removal of the physical photographs themselves. Thus, Nelson's conviction was based upon making and retaining the scanned copies. The issue of whether the statute was preempted by § 301 was not discussed. Bauer, Joseph P. (Fall 2007). "Addressing the Incoherency of the Preemption Provision of the Copyright Act of 1976". Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 10 (1): 1–119, 90, n.383. http://law.vanderbilt.edu/publications/journal-entertainment-technology-law/archive/download.aspx?id=2415.
- ↑ S. Rpt. 94-473
- ↑ S. Rpt. 94-473. See also Legislative history of Template:USPL
- ↑ Bell, Tom W.. "Trend of Maximum U.S. General Copyright Term". Personal Website. http://www.tomwbell.com/writings/(C)_Term.html. Retrieved 23 October 2011. ; see also Tom W. Bell, "Escape From Copyright: Market Success vs. Statutory Failure in the Protection of Expressive Works," (originally published in the University of Cincinnati Law Review 69), but consult footnote 202 in HTML version found here: http://www.tomwbell.com/writings/(C)Esc.html
- ↑ US Constitution, Article 1 section 8
- ↑ http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,710976,00.html
- ↑ Template:Usc
- ↑ U.S. Copyright Act, Section 101 (Definitions)
- ↑ Brandir Int'l v. Cascade Pacific, 834 F.2d 1142 (2nd Cir. 1987).
- ↑ See Template:Usc (defining "copy").
- ↑ 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1) and 106(3).
- ↑ See Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing.
- ↑ See Transformativeness.
- ↑ See Muller v. Triboro Bridge Authority, 43 F. Supp. 298 (S.D.N.Y. 1942).
- ↑ See King Features Syndicate v. Fleischer, 299 F. 533 (2d Cir. 1924) (finding copying in defendant's creating three-dimensional "Sparky" figure based on copyrighted two-dimensional cartoon); Geisel v. Poynter Prods. Inc., 295 F. Supp. 331 (S.D.N.Y. 1968) (according copyright protection to three-dimensional Dr. Seuss dolls based upon two-dimensional cartoon); Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. Freundlich, 5 F. Supp. 808 (S.D.N.Y. 1934) (according copyright protection to three-dimensional Betty Boop doll based upon two-dimensional cartoon).
- ↑ For example, the current Seal of the President of the United States is in public domain as a government work, but its commercial use is limited by Template:Usc.
- ↑ Template:Usc
- ↑ 25.0 25.1 Template:Usc
- ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 26.3 26.4 26.5 Template:Usc
- ↑ Margoni & Perry (2012). Ownership in Complex Authorship: A Comparative Study of Joint Works. ssrn. pp. 16. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1992610.
- ↑ Template:Usc(a)(5); Template:Usc(c)(5) ("Termination of the grant may be effected notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, including an agreement to make a will or to make any future grant.")
- ↑ Copyright Act of 1976, Template:USPL, 90 Stat. 2541, § 401(a) (October 19, 1976)
- ↑ The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (BCIA), Template:USPL, 102 Stat. 2853, 2857. One of the changes introduced by the BCIA was to section 401, which governs copyright notices on published copies, specifying that notices "may be placed on" such copies; prior to the BCIA, the statute read that notices "shall be placed on all" such copies. An analogous change was made in section 402, dealing with copyright notices on phonorecords.
- ↑ U.S. Copyright Office - Information Circular
- ↑ 17 U.S.C. Template:UnitedStatesCodeSec
- ↑ Template:Usc
- ↑ "Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States 1 January 2008.", Cornell University.
- ↑ Template:Usc
- ↑ Template:Usc
- ↑ Capitol Records v. Naxos of America (2005). New York Court of Appeals. Four exceptions are: 1. Sound recordings created by the U.S. government after February 14, 1972, 2. Sound recordings dedicated to the public domain by their owners, 3. Sound recordings first published in the U.S. from February 15, 1972 through December 31, 1977 that failed to carry a proper copyright notice on the recording or its cover, 4. Sound recordings first published in the U.S. from Jan 1, 1978 through February 28, 1989 that failed to carry a proper copyright notice or were not subsequently registered with the US copyright office.
- ↑ http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html
- ↑ Bartow, Ann (2008). Pornography, Coercion, and Copyright Law 2.0. Vanderbilt Journal. pp. 833.
- ↑ http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/03/43613.htm
- ↑ 28 U.S.C. Template:UnitedStatesCodeSec
- ↑ Template:Uscsub-Template:Uscsub.
- ↑ see Feist v. Rural Telephone 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991)
- ↑ see Feist v. Rural Telephone 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (holding that an arrangement of telephone numbers in alphabetical order was not sufficiently original to garner copyright protection)
- ↑ see e.g., ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that a software license agreement was not preempted by copyright law and could legally restrain the purchaser of a database from copying under contract law).
- ↑ Feist at 346.
- ↑ see Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1880)
- ↑ see Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc. 574 F.Supp. 999, aff'd, 704 F.2d 1009 (7th Cir 1982) (holding the computer ROM of Pac Man to be a sufficient fixation even though the game changes each time played.)
- ↑ see Mai Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993) (program in RAM memory a fixation).
- ↑ see Ty, Inc. v. GMA Accessories, Inc. 132 F.3d 1167 (7th Cir. 1997).
- ↑ Id. 132 F.3d 1167
- ↑ see Feist at 361
- ↑ Judge Learned Hand, Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2nd Cir. 1960).
- ↑ see Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119 (2nd Cir. 1930)
- ↑ Lehman, Bruce A. (1995-10-01). Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights. DIANE Publishing. p. 104. ISBN 978-0-7881-2415-0. http://books.google.com/books?id=x1vERuaJxIgC&pg=PA104. Retrieved 2012-06-23.
- ↑ see Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977) (holding that a series of McDonald's commercials portraying "McDonaldland" had used as its basis the "H.R. Pufnstuf" television show. Corresponding characters to each, while displaying marked differences, taken altogether demonstrated that McDonald's had captured the total concept and feel of the show and had thus infringed).
- ↑ see Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, 150 F.3d 132, 140 (2nd Cir. 1998).
- ↑ see Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, (2nd Cir. 1992) (where court chose the subtraction method for two computer programs whose total concept were the same. Individual copied elements of the program were non-protectible material because they constituted a process or idea in the program, their utilitarian aspects barring copyright protection; no infringement found).
- ↑ 59.0 59.1 Template:Usc
- ↑ Template:Usc
- ↑ Title 17, U.S.C. Section 504 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504
- ↑ Title 17, U.S.C. Sections 503 & 505 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#503
- ↑ Gordon V. Smith & Russel L. Parr, "Intellectual Property: Valuation, Exploitation, and Infringement Damages," John Wiley & Sons, 2005, pp 617-630.
- ↑ R. B. Troxel and W.O. Kerr, "Assets and Finance: Calculating Intellectual Property Damages", West, 2009, pp 367-369.
- ↑ Title 17, U.S.C. Section 504(c) http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504
- ↑ See, inter alia, http://ipmetrics.net/blog/2010/06/17/copyright-infringement-damages/
- ↑ 67.0 67.1 67.2 Template:Usc
- ↑ Template:Uscsub
- ↑ Lowry's Reports, Inc. v. Legg Mason Inc., 271 F. Supp. 2d 737 (D. Md. 2003)
- ↑ Template:Usc
- ↑ Fogerty v. Fantasy, Template:Ussc
- ↑ http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/71mcrm.htm
- ↑ Boyle, James (2008). The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind. CSPD. pp. 38. ISBN 0-300-13740-0, 9780300137408. http://www.google.com/books?id=Fn1Pl9Gv_EMC&dq=public+domain&source=gbs_navlinks_s.
- ↑ Testimony of Dorothy Schrader, general counsel of the U.S. copyright office, hearing for House Resolution 1623, serial 100/50.
- ↑ U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright: Provisions of the Law Dealing with the Length of Copyright Protection.
- ↑ Stephen Fishman, The Public Domain, 4th ed., Nolo, 2008, p. 383–384. ISBN 978-1-4133-0858-7.
- ↑ Template:Usc Subject matter and scope of copyright
- ↑ Template:Usc Duration of Copyright
- ↑ Copyright Notice, U.S. Copyright Office Circular 3, 2008.
- ↑ James Bates, "Company Town Yule With Less 'Wonderful Life'? Tune In", Los Angeles Times, November 23, 1993, p. D4.
- ↑ Film Superlist: Motion Pictures in the US Public Domain. Created by Walter E. Hurst; updated edition by D. Richard Baer. Hollywood Film Archive, 1992–94.
- ↑ George Romero talks about Land of the Dead, About.com, June 21, 2005.
- ↑ "Circular #3", Copyright Notice, US Copyright Office Circular 3, January 2008. (PDF)
- ↑ Template:Usc.
External linksEdit
- Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States
- Year-by-year graph for determining renewal and expiration dates of U.S. copyright terms
- United States Copyright Office
- Copyright Office list of circulars
- USPTO Stopfakes.gov Small Business Resources
- Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding copyright
- Copyright Timeline: A History of Copyright in the U.S.
- Copyright and Culture by Christopher D. Hunter
- Text of every version of U.S. Copyright Act for 1909 to the present
- Question-and-answer trees and tables to determine copyright status of a work
- Digital copyright slider to determine copyright status of a work
- "How Can I Tell Whether a Copyright Was Renewed?". The Online Books Page. University of Pennsylvania. http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/renewals.html.
|This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia. (view article). (view authors).


text:
- Font:
- +
- -
BEIJING — The family of a baby whose death has been blamed on toxic milk filed suit against one of China's largest dairies Monday, while another dairy ensnared in the scandal said it was a victim of unscrupulous subcontractors.
The lawsuit against Shijiazhuang Sanlu Group Co. was filed over the May 1 death of 6-month-old Yi Kaixuan in the northwestern city of Lanzhou, the family's lawyer said.
It is the first to be filed over a child who died from drinking the tainted milk and asks for almost $160,000 in damages.
Milk collection stations and individual farmers are accused of watering down milk to increase volume, then adding the industrial chemical melamine to increase protein levels. Melamine, used mainly in plastics and fertilizer, is high in nitrogen and can make milk appear to contain more protein, which is what quality tests measure.
The practice has been blamed for causing the deaths of four infants and sickening 54,000 others, with 10,000 still hospitalized.
Speaking on a television talk show late Sunday, the president of Bright Dairy said his company, one of the largest in the Chinese dairy industry, had been "too nice" toward milk collection stations that bought milk from farmers.
Large dairy companies typically buy raw milk gathered from small farmers at milking stations and collection centers, often by subcontractors responsible for safety testing. Safeguards were often lax and major milk producers have been criticized for not carrying out adequate testing.
The comments appeared aimed at restoring consumer confidence in the wake of the scandal that has dinged the reputation of some of China's best-known food companies.
"We thought they were operating in good conscience," Guo Benheng said on state television's economics channel.
"I'd say we made an innocent mistake, although an innocent mistake is still a mistake. We are definitely making corrections," Guo said, according to a transcript of his remarks posted on official Web sites Monday.
Appearing on the same show, the vice president of Mengniu Dairy, one of the country's largest, said the scandal had affected the company profoundly.
Don't miss these Health stories
More women opting for preventive mastectomy - but should they be?
Rates of women who are opting for preventive mastectomies, such as Angeline Jolie, have increased by an estimated 50 percent in recent years, experts say. But many doctors are puzzled because the operation doesn't carry a 100 percent guarantee, it's major surgery -- and women have other options, from a once-a-day pill to careful monitoring.
- Larry Page's damaged vocal cords: Treatment comes with trade-offs
- Report questioning salt guidelines riles heart experts
- CDC: 2012 was deadliest year for West Nile in US
- What stresses moms most? Themselves, survey says
- More women opting for preventive mastectomy - but should they be?
"This sort of thing just tears your heart apart," Zhao Yuanhua said.
The Yi family's lawyer, Dong Junming, said he turned the lawsuit in at Lanzhou's No. 2 Intermediate People's Court where clerks told him they would notify him Tuesday as to whether it would be accepted.
At least two other lawsuits have been filed against Sanlu — the company at the center of the uproar — in recent weeks by parents of children suffering from kidney stones. It is not clear if courts will allow these suits to progress.
Product liability lawsuits are still relatively rare in China, and lawyers have complained of government pressure to withdraw from the cases.
Chinese milk powder and other food products have been banned from more than a dozen countries, worsening an increasingly painful downturn in China's crucial export sector and threatening household incomes in the vast, mostly poor countryside.
The scandal has struck a blow to China's efforts to build global brand names and establish healthy business practices.
Newspapers on Monday reported Chinese beverage-maker Hangzhou Wahaha Group was considering buying dairy assets from Sanlu Group, the milk-maker accused of attempting to cover up melamine tainting.
Sanlu is 43 percent owned by New Zealand dairy giant Fonterra Group, which has already slashed the value of its investment. China's government took over and suspended Sanlu's operations last month, and company heads have been detained for investigation.
China's dairy industry has sped ahead in recent years, far outpacing regulatory structures aimed at ensuring safety and quality. Since the tainting scandal broke last month, strict standards for allowable melamine levels in food have been set and 5,000 government inspectors dispatched to provide 24-hour supervision over the industry.
Last week, police arrested a dairy farmer accused of producing 600 tons of melamine-spiked protein powder. Eight dairy farm owners and milk buyers were also arrested for purchasing the powder.
© 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Make Your Choice…
Occupy Everywhere
Stop Hydrofracking!
Popular Posts
- JobsRadar.com: An "Employment" Scam Selling Your Personal Information (21,277)
- Camp Bisco X: The Volunteer Experience (2,688)
- Fertility 2.0 Burning In The Dust )°( (2,281)
- Worshiping the Cargo Cult: The (de?)Commodification of Burning Man Marches On (1,778)
- Lakes of Fire – Michigan Was On Fire When We Got There )°( (1,634)
- Searching Out the Abandoned Quarry at Clark Reservation (1,626)
- Ludum et Refugium: Treehousing Portland's CORE Amidst a Cargo Cult (1,407)
- The Argument Against Horizontal Hydraulic Fracturing (Part I) (1,357)
- Hitching to Burn )°( (1,003)
- The Occupation of Wall Street and the Brooklyn Bridge (1,002)
Daily Popular
frowning disapprovingly at social media since 20 aught 3
Tag Archives: madness
Montréal, Lachine & Igloofest ft. Vilify, Mimosa & Foreign Beggars
Montréal – Made a run at the border to see what would happen. A polite officer who did her job & a few hours later found Rue Sainte-Catherine bustling through the short lived January sunshine. Disposable camera purchased with recently … Continue reading
Posted in Electrocution, Festivals, Muzak, Wanderings Tagged border patrol out of control, canadia, drunk french kids, everything, foreign beggars, igloofest, live, madness, mimosa, montreal, musick, muzak, Orifice Vulgatron, parc rené-lévesque, public art, the failure of america, uhhmerica, vilify, womps Leave a comment
Ay Fast – Nice Arps
This review was written for and originally published by Upstate Soundscape a radio show on 91.3 WBNY out of Buffalo, NY bringing you the best in experimental sounds cooked up across New York Tuning through the galactic interference of interstellar … Continue reading
Posted in Albums, Electrocution Tagged ay fast, electronica, experimental, humanity, madness, nice arps, upstate soundscape Leave a comment


text:
June 1st, 2020
Update: come to our Discord server: https://discord.gg/YYxV6CQ
MyAnimeList Updater Features
This program connects to the website with your MAL user account and retrieves your Anime list.
From here on there's a lot you can do:
- Start watching some Anime in one of the supported players, and MalU will detect which Anime and episode it is, and update your MAL list automatically with the last episode you have watched.
- That's right: malu will check your video players and identify the Anime and episode.
- See how many people are watching the same Anime at the same time, and open a chat window with them
- Manually sort and update your list from MalU (episode watched, score, status, etc)
- Tell MalU to search in your hard disk for the next episode of the Anime you are currently watching, or from any in your list, and launch it in your default player.
- You can even use a HotKey and hook a mouse button for this. There is also an option so that malu automatically launches the next episode when you close the player
- Have it automatically check TokyoTosho for torrents of new episodes for the Anime in your list, have it download and launch the .torrents automatically according to some filters, and even tell uTorrent to store each file in its own Anime folder, if you have set it for every show. You can even have it automatically discard either MKV or AVI when both versions are present.
- Check your hard disk to see which Anime have new episodes available, and how many
- Show in MSN and mIRC what you are watching, including your score, ep/eptotal and a URL to information of the Anime.
- You don't need to install any extra plugins or scripts in msn or mirc for this.
- Show in mIRC what you are listening to in either winamp or Last.fm. No extra plugins/scripts either for this
- You can make your own php forum signature which shows what you are currently watching, your last updates etc..
- Batch rename your Anime files to some criteria like Fansub – Anime Name – Episode
- Send your computer system info to a mIRC channel (ok this is unrelated to Anime, but you can use this to replace any script/dlls you are currently using).
- It has full 64-bit support and detects more than 4GB of ram
- Easily move and rename entire folders of Anime with a batch tool.
More info in the MAL club: http://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?cid=907


text:
Can you guess which Governor pictured above is the Pro-Life Republican and which is the Pro-Choice Democrat?
Answer: It's a trick question. They both support mandatory state funding of the cloning and killing of babies for medical research, to the profit of large corporations. Of course, they both will try to mislead you about this horror, euphemistically known as embryonic stem cell research.
Neither is Pro-Life. Neither is Pro-Choice. The culture of death is mandatory.


text:
Shandong ChemSta Machinery Manufacturing Co.,Ltd.
All Products
Oils And Fats Project
Vegetable Protein Project
Natural Plant Pigment Project
ASME Pressure Vessel
Horizontal Type Dryer
Harmless Disposal Of Livestock Project
Project Example
Product Categories
Oils And Fats Project
Vegetable Protein Project
Natural Plant Pigment Project
ASME Pressure Vessel
Horizontal Type Dryer
Harmless Disposal Of Livestock Project
Project Example
(Total 24 Products for Vegetable Oil Processing)
CHEMSTA Oil Cooker With ISO Approved
Min. Order: 1 Bag/Bags
Model No.: ZC1000
Transportation: Ocean
Softener Cooker The crushed beans enter the softening kettle through the air lock and are softened for a long time at a low temperature The softening time is about 90 minutes and the temperature is 80 90 C by circulating hot water Using hot water heating it is easier to control the softening temperature of soybeans...
Contact Now
Oil Evaporater with High Quality & ISO Approved
Model No.: ZFQ
Oil Evaporater 1 Function oil evaporator belongs to tubular heat exchange equipment In the process of edible oils and fats processing solvent in miscella vaporized and separated by using the method of heating miscella thereby increases miscella concentration and enables the solvent to be recycled for circulating use 2...
Peanut Oil Sunflower Seed Oil Production Project
Peanut Oil Sunflower Seed Oil Production Project 800t d peanut deep processing production line is designed by Shandong Chemsta Machinery Manufacturing Co Ltd and is responsible for processing manufacturing installation and commissioning for the equipment of the production line The whole production line adopts full...
Oil Extraction Production Line
Model No.: 100-6000t/d
Vegetable Oil Extraction Line Major Devices extractor desolventizer toaster with integrated dryer cooler negative pressure evaporator horizontal stainless pipe bundle condenser filtering system for removing meal foam from miscella system for recycling solvent from exhaust gas circulating system for separating water...
Oil Refining Production Line
Model No.: 50-1000t/d
Vegetable Oil Refining Line Our vegetable oil and fat refining line is used to refine various oils including soybean oil rapeseed oil cottonseed oil peanut oil sunflower seed oil maize germ oil and rice bran oil This production line features a capacity of 30 1 000 tons of crude oil per day and is able to eliminate...
Soybean Oil Production Project
Soybean Oil Production Project The 3 000 tons day soybean peeling and extrusion extraction production line constructed by Chemsta Company was successfully put into operation in 2014 The project is located in Jining City Shandong Province Since its operation the equipment has been continuous and stable All the economic...
Oilseed Pressing Production Line
Model No.: 100-1000t/d
Oilseed Pressing Line The purpose of preparation is to extract a portion of oil by mechanical pressing while providing pressing cakes for extraction plant It is a succession of several of the following processes Seed Cleaning Weighing Cracking Dehulling Flaking Cooking Pressing Oil Residue Separation Process Workflow...
Oilseed Pretreatment Production Line
Transportation: Ocean,Land,Air
Oilseed Pretreatment Line We are always designing and manufacturing vegetable oil pre treatment and pressing line based on characteristics of different vegetable oils as well as customers requirements In this way we are able to ensure optimum conditions of the oil obtained by enhancing oil yield improving protein...
Cottonseed Oil Production Project
Cottonseed Oil Production Project The 600t d cottonseed extrusion extraction and miscella refining production line of Xinjiang Xinli Vegetable Protein Science Technology Co Ltd which was constructed by Shandong Chemsta Machinery Manufacturing Co Ltd was successfully tested in one time at the whole line and all...
Palm Oil Production Project
CHEMSTA also provide large scale drying machines chemical pressure vessels electrical control systems and common mechanical equipment With top of the line processing equipment a complete manufacturing system and expert manufacturing and installation teams we have successfully established over 200 vegetable oil...
Rice Bran Oil Production Project
CHEMSTA have accomplished a number of technological achievements including numerous awards 30 national utility patents and a software copyright We have also been rated as a provincial technology research center for the production of grain and oil processing equipment as well as a provincial enterprise technology...
Corn Germ Oil Production Project
CHEMSTA employ about 460 people including application researchers senior engineers and engineers Our fixed assets are worth 180 million yuan and our factory covers 66 000 square meters We operate on a concept of sustainable development that is guaranteed by thinking from the customer s perspective With over 30 years...
Rapeseed Oil Production Project
As an international supplier for vegetable oil equipment and vegetable protein equipment we are well known throughout the oil and protein industry Our product catalogue is extensive and includes vegetable oil production lines refining lines low temperature soybean meal production lines soybean protein concentrate...
Safety Oil Tank in Extraction Workshop
1 Function applicable scope and performance characteristics Safety oil tank is used to temporarily store miscella outflow from extractor It is suitable for storing liquid and solid materials without corrosive medium of oils and fats chemical industry pharmaceutical food industries and etc Performance characteristics...
3000t/d Oilseed Pressing Production Line
Model No.: 3000t/d
Shandong ChemSta Machinery Manufacturing Co Ltd is a national high tech enterprise integrating scientific research manufacturing installation and service into one trusted name Located in the high tech development zone of Jining City in the Shandong Province we are located near the Beijing Shanghai high speed railway...
800t/d Oilseed Pressing Production Line
Model No.: 800t/d
Oilseed Pressing Line Cold press is suitable for high added value oilseeds Such as grape seed camellia seed walnut almond flaxseed etc Cold press has advantages of low oil temperature when pressing light color abundant nutrients small protein damage saving steam high protein content in cake Suitable oilseeds Rapeseed...
600t/d Oilseed Pressing Production Line
Model No.: 600t/d
100t/d Oilseed Pressing Production Line
Model No.: 100t/d
Oilseed Pressing Line Cleaning Weighing Section Sunflower seeds from daily bin or warehouse is treated by magnetic separator weighing scale and screener to remove impurities We are always designing and manufacturing vegetable oil pressing line based on characteristics of different vegetable oils as well as customers...
4000t/d Oilseed Pressing Production Line
Model No.: 4000t/d
We also provide the following project and equipment Oilseed Pretreatment Project Oilseed Pressing Project Oil Extraction Project Oil Refining Project Cottonseed Miscella Refining Project Low Temperature and Edible Soybean Meal Project Soy Protein Concentrate Project Soy Protein Isolate Project Cottonseed Protein...
2000t/d Oilseed Pressing Production Line
Model No.: 2000t/d
With over 30 years of experience in oil production technology and enterprise management we are able to provide high quality reliable products We also pay strict attention to technological research and development for energy conservation environmental protection and control system intelligence to create more customer...
1200t/d Oilseed Pressing Production Line
Model No.: 1200t/d
Inverter driven feeding device is able to ensure even distribution of materials An air lock valve is installed at the feeder to guarantee normal feeding Generally soybeans or other seeds will be thrown against each other from various directions which results in intense collision Hence hulling efficiency is highly...
500t/d Oilseed Pressing Production Line
Model No.: 500t/d
300t/d Oilseed Pressing Production Line
Model No.: 300t/d
The flaking mill features user friendliness stable performance and easy maintenance It is able to ensure automatic control of material level inverter driven feeding mode and uniform material layout It is fitted with a reversible powerful magnet thus making it convenient to remove impurities attached to the magnet...
200t/d Oilseed Pressing Production Line
Model No.: 200t/d
WRG B series horizontal drum softening and conditioning machine is one of our patented products It consists of rotating heating element air intake system drainage system automatic air extraction system and transmission system The drainage system is specially designed to ensure continuous drainage of all condensate...
Joakim Ahlin
Aug 25, 2020
Svs Enterprises
Aug 18, 2020
Jozef Fischer
Aug 08, 2020
According to the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the first two months of 2019 a total of 253 800 tons of flax sunflower rapeseed and safflower seeds were exported to foreign...
Recently The installation of equipment for 100 000 tons of high oleic acid peanut oil production line of Zhengyang Luhua Flavor Peanut Oil Co Ltd which was constructed by Shandong ChemSta Machinery...
High Quality Products
Soybean Protein Concentrate Production Line
Low Temperature and Edible Soybean Meal Production Line
Oilseed Pretreatment Production Line
Oilseed Pressing Production Line
Oil Extraction Production Line
Oil Refining Production Line
Soy Protein Isolate Production Line
Exporting To Canada & America ASME Heat Exchanger
High Pressure Three Phase Separator
ASME High Pressure Steam Generator
Full Fat Soybean Powder Production Line
Natural Plant Pigment Machine
High Quality Horizontal Disc Dryer
High Quality Horizontal Roller Dryer
Cottonseed Protein Production Line
Cottonseed Miscella Refining Production Line
High Quality ASME Pressure Vessel
High Quality Carbon Steel ASME Pressure Vessel
Send Us a Message
We didn't put all products on website. If you can't find the product you're looking for, please contact us for more information.
Related Products List


text:
Invite Freelancer to Project
You don't seem to have an active project at the moment. Why not post a project now? It's free!Post a Project
1 reviews
Jaipur, India
Member since February 19, 2004
0 Recommendations
Online Offline
Hi I along with a team of 10 professionals involved in Web Design, Development and Deployment are currently working for USA / UK / Canada & Australia based Web Solutions companies and provide them complete Web Solutions ranging from Static Page design, custom php scripting, Flash Intros, Multimedia Presentations and Ecommerce as well as E-Learning Solutions. We are based at Jaipur, Rajasthan in India. Our expertise is in the field of creative design and custom web solutions. We have worked for them on a number of web based projects and have a major ecommerce project accomplished. It features a shopping mall with 24 independent stores with their independent shopping carts and different ways of online payment processing like Payment gateways, Paypal, E-check, Cash on Delivery etc. We provide our services currently on all the three prevalent methods of billing ... i.e. Hourly Basis, Per page basis or project fees basis. Our Fees for all development and design work is as low as $5/hr. I would really love to hear from you and explore this opportunity. Kindly do give me and my team an opportunity to be of service to you and your company. Following is detailed list of skills we have : Creative Design Adobe Photoshop Macromedia Flash Swift 3D Swish CoreDraw Web Design HTML DHTML JavaScript FrontPage Macromedia DreamWeaver Web Development PHP mySQL PERL JSP Servlets Ecommerce Shopping Cart Development Opensource Shopping Cart Customization Payment Gateway Integration SSL Certificate installation Regards Vinay K Singh A complete portfolio with details of work done is available on request. _____________________________ Vinay K Singh Vizual Esolutions Pvt. Ltd. 2 Jacob Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur - 302 006 (Rajasthan) INDIA Call : +91-141-3090759 [ 10 AM to 10 PM IST]
$10 USD/hr
- 100%Jobs Completed
- 100%On Budget
- 100%On Time
- N/ARepeat Hire Rate
Portfolio Items
Recent Reviews
No reviews.
Facebook Connected
Preferred Freelancer
Payment Verified
Phone Verified
Identity Verified
- Email Verified
My Top Skills
Browse Similar Freelancers
Previous User Next User


text:
proudly present Mashed in Plastic: The David Lynch Mash-Up Album
Mashed in Plastic is available two ways: as two long tracks (sides A and B) or as
eighteen separate tracks with unbroken transitions and film audio excerpts.
If listened to track-by-track, please do us the honor of listening to the album in
its intended order. The reasons behind this request will become apparent upon listening.
DISCLAIMER: All content on this website has been created because of our love of film,
music and most of all, the work of David Lynch. If you enjoy the music and videos
we've provided then please support the original artists - buy the soundtracks, watch
the DVDs, get yourself an Eraserhead mug and enjoy a cup of David Lynch brand coffee.
Any copyright holders who wish to contact us about these works can email us at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Alternative Download SiteCourtesy of Sound Unsound
18 track version TORRENT
You see those page links at the top and bottom of each page? They invite you to explore
other chambers of the mind, other avenues of aural and visual immersion. Look.
01. the voice of love is crying : COLATRON02. blue rigby : WAX AUDIO03. twin hearts
: COLATRON04. heaven's drive-in : PHIL RETROSPECTOR05. tori's deranged : WAX AUDIO06.
something stupid this way comes : G3RSt
07. i'll be there in twin peaks : COLATRON08. the pink jack : WAX AUDIO09. lauren's
opus : THE REBORN IDENTITY10. frank's here : THE WHO BOYS
11. the elephant connection : THE REBORN IDENTITY12. i've told every little pumpkin
: TOTOM13. violent at heart : THE REBORN IDENTITY14. don't go all wicked on me :
NEILTOMO15. eraserhead serenade : RIAA
16. velvet dreams : VOICEDUDE17. in my twin life : PHIL RETROSPECTOR
18. this is David Lynch : NEILTOMO
Additional audio production by WAX AUDIO


text:
You have no items in your shopping cart.
Dispatch in 48 hours, Delivery in 2-7 days.
Get Free Shipping on all orders above Rs.500
Join our newsletter to get discounts and offers.
How we work?
The Printing Shop offer personalized gifts in India.
Just upload your image & text, and let our professionals to design and print a unique personalized gift.
Go unique with our personalized gifts, designed just for you.
Thanks For Visiting The Printing Shop
Happy E-Shopping!
Popular Categories


text:
Product Description
Our Anchors Pure crisp white 100% cotton with a superior printed pattern make this tablecloth a stylish and classic dressing for any table. Suitable for formal or informal dining and whether accompanied with napkins or with a runner, it will present a striking table display.
Napkins and table runners are made in any size and are available in a vast range of colours. Other products are customisable as shown by the made to measure calculators.
This superb fabric has a beautiful drape and is resistant to wear and washing.
You can customise any size depending on the fabric width of this tablecloth, please check our customization calculators above.
Customising a Tablecloth:
You can customise a tablecloth by selecting any of the customisation calculators above "Customise a tablecloth" or "tablecloth by table size" due to the fabric width is 140, the tablecloth maximum will be 137cm, and any length can be any size.
Customise a Stripe Border Tablecloth:
You can customise a stripe boarder tablecloth by selecting the "Stripe Border Tablecloth", the maximum width is 189cm, and the length can be any length.
Customise a Table Runner:
You can customise a table runner by selecting the "Customise a table Runner" calculator above and follow the steps.
Our Products
To meet our orders and to maintain our reputation for fast delivery, we utilise our capacity from our two operational bases to stock thousands of meters of linen from a wide range of materials (plain and non-plain) in a generous selection of colours and shades. We offer several 100% Polyester table linen products which feel like cotton with the resilience of Polyester and stock hundreds of metres of Polycotton and many sizes of cotton tablecloths and napkins. We also stock hundreds of metres of table protector (table shield and table guardian) now available in several colours and can be cut to any size to the satisfaction of our customers. Sample swatches are available on request which can be placed online or by email.