Do ghost writers have a claim of copyright? Do ghost writers have a claim of copyright? I am seriously wondering. Can a ghostwriter have a claim of copyright when they redact your work? Let's say they write a novel out of your manuscript, what would be the possibilities? Let's say that you didn't have a manuscript, is their claim of copyright much stronger? I am thinking if you tell them to write a novel and you don't contribute in any way, they would have 100% of the rights. Let's assume the country is the United States.
This depends on the agreement between the person commissioning the work and the ghostwriter; but it is entirely possible that the ghostwriter would have no claim of copyright if it is a &quot;work for hire&quot;. This circular (PDF) from the US Copyright Office lays out the possibilities. Under the US Copyright Act, a work may be considered a &quot;work for hire&quot; if it is: a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or a work specially ordered or commissioned ... if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. If (in the second case) the commissioner and the ghostwriter sign a written contract saying that the work is a &quot;work for hire&quot; (see p. 3 of the PDF), then the commissioner gets the copyright, not the ghostwriter: If a work is a work made for hire, the employer or the party that specially ordered or commissioned that work is the author of that work. If a work is made for hire, the employer or the party that specially ordered or commissioned that work is the initial owner of the copyright in the work unless the employer or the commissioning party has signed a written agreement to the contrary with the work’s creator. However, it is also possible for ghostwriters to negotiate some rights to their own work in the contract process. This FAQ describes one possibility: Question: How can I bargain for a better ghostwriter agreement? Answer: If you are commissioned to create a work, and you don’t feel comfortable signing a ghostwriter for hire contract (perhaps you want to use the characters you create for another project, etc), then you can negotiate to grant less extensive rights and sign a “freelance writer for hire” agreement instead. Limit the amount of time the Client owns exclusive rights, whereby you can initiate a termination of transfer. If this doesn’t fly, bargain for more money. You may also propose that if the Client decides to abandon the project, then the copyright can revert to you.
Almost none. It is a legacy of the era when copyright protection was a function of year of publication. Including it is appropriate, however, to meet the formal requirements for a legal notice of claim of copyright which has some procedural implications if it is omitted.
I would argue that no, there is no copyright for the restored work. Independent copyright is only possible for any original material added, as previously discussed on this site. In this case, the added work was a technical process rather than a creative process, and technical processes cannot be protected by copyright. Copyright licenses would therefore be ineffective. However, I believe one could still impose a license based on owning the copy as opposed to the copyright (contract might be a better term in this case). However, if a third party managed to obtain a copy through some other avenue, any such contract would not be binding on them and nothing could be enforced against them unlike with copyright laws. Another way a license might be imposed is through patent protections, as technical processes can be protected via patents. However, I'm not as familiar with patent law, and this doesn't appear to be the claim being made.
It depends on the nature of the quote. Quotes from Buddha, Aristotle and Lincoln are out of copyright. Otherwise, the two basic questions are: who put that quote in fixed form, and is copying it "fair use"? If for example you happen to be at a political rally where a politician makes a noteworthy extemporaneous quote, you could be the copyright holder, because copyright law protects the person who first puts the work into fixed form. (If he's reading from prepared text, the speech writer or his employer would hold copyright). You can also quote small bits from any source, such as "Don't think about your errors or failures; otherwise, you'll never do a thing". It would not be "fair use" to chop up a novel into a sequence of 2-3 sentence quotes. This assumes that you manually assemble the quotes from legal sources, such as a print copy of "The Martian". Whether or not you can legally pull the data from an online source depends on the terms of service for that site. That lets out brainyquote as a source, so check the TOS for whatever source you get the material from.
Graffiti artists are routinely found financially liable for their work, but assertions of copyright infringement by graffiti artists are vanishingly rare, so I don't know if that has ever happened in that context. In many jurisdictions, filing a lawsuit against someone waives any statute of limitations defense you may have against counterclaims filed by the person you are suing in any related matter. So, if that rule applies, a counterclaim for financial loss from graffiti could be brought in a copyright infringement lawsuit, even though the statute of limitations on the damages claim would otherwise have run. But, I don't know if such a rule applies to copyright infringement claims filed in federal court.
Copyright exists whether they make that statement or not. Giving such notice informs the public that the work is copyrighted, who owns it, and when it was published. If the work is infringed, the defendant will not be able to use an innocent infringement defense. There's nothing special about using the domain name, as it's probably the name or DBA of the business that owns the domain.
I'm wondering whos responsible for this code if people start using it? The user. Can the people using it that think its under GPL in any way get in trouble for it or be made to remove it from their projects? Yes, they can be sued (successfully) for copyright violation. It’s not enough that you think you have permission from the copyright holder - you actually have to have permission. The law places the onus on the copier to seek out and get permission from the copyright holder. In theory, someone deceived in this way could sue the repo poster(s) for misrepresentation, however, there are practical issues about finding them, having them in an accessible jurisdiction and if they are judgement proof. Copyright law was created to protect physical books and paintings - it doesn’t really fit with digital methods of reproduction but it is the law. It doesn’t matter that complying with it can be hard bordering on impossible - comply with it you must.
Primary Theory I suspect there might not be a legal answer to this question. I have always suspected a sort of pseudo-intellectual elitism (or simple preference or carelessness) with passive voice sentence construction in general. I sense license writers have not (yet) escaped this general trend. I would love someone to prove this theory incorrect. But, alas, I doubt it will happen. Alternative Theory But because this is a Law Q&amp;A site, I will advance the following alternative theory. I don't believe it's correct. But I will advance it because it's the only possible explanation I can think of that might be even remotely based on legal reasoning... Maybe they are just basing their construction on the way the law itself is written? For example, if the law says, "Permission must be granted..." Then it would follow that a writer who wants to comply with the law might choose, "Permission is hereby granted..." instead of something like "The authors hereby grant permission..." or, as the OP suggested, "You may..."