U.S. copyright law (revisited) A revisiting of this question. Hypothetical facts Alice buys a hardback book from the publisher for $70. On Wednesday, Wanda pays Alice $10 rent for the exclusive right to use the physical book in question for that day. On Wednesday, Wanda makes a digital copy of the book and posts it online to an account only Wanda can access. Wanda returns the book to Alice on Wednesday evening. On Friday, Wanda opens her digital file copy of the book Wanda rented from Alice Wednesday. Question Have any copyright laws been broken? If so, when were they broken? Was Wanda guilty on Wednesday? Thursday? Or Friday? On Friday was Wanda guilty before opening the file? How about after opening the file but before reading the file? How about after reading the file?
Yes Wanda is guilty, probably when she created the file, certainly when she no longer had a right (through rental) to the original. Unlike Alice, she would have a much harder time arguing fair use in relation to creating a 'backup' when her right to the original was for such a limited period of time. Even if she could show this, her right to have any copy ceased when she returned the original.
First off, the work is almost certainly not in the public domain in the US. Works are generally copyrighted upon creation or publication, but in this case the work was probably explicitly copyrighted. The fact that a work is out of print generally has no bearing on its copyright status. US copyright law changed several times in the last century. The 1985 copyright year means the board game was probably published then, and it's since it's a Disney copyright it's a corporate work, which would give it a copyright term of 95 years, meaning that it should be covered under copyright until 2080. See this factsheet on copyright from the US Copyright office. Works Created on or after January 1, 1978 For works made for hire and anonymous and pseudonymous works, the duration of copyright is 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter International laws will vary, but many countries adhere to the Berne Convention, which means that international laws will probably be at least similar. Either way, the work isn't very old from an intellectual property perspective. Fair use is an exception to copyright law that allows portions of copyrighted works to be used without permission or compensation in certain circumstances; academic or scholarly use is one of them. Generally, your use of the work has to be the minimum necessary amount to serve your purposes, and cannot harm the commercial value of the work. (The fact that the work is out of print may help with the latter.) The problem with fair use is that it's always determined on a case by case basis. The only way to know for sure if a particular use is fair use is to wait for the copyright holder to sue you and then make a fair use defense in court. I was going to suggest that you discuss this with the editor of your journal, but re-reading your question it looks like you're planning to publish to a personal blog rather than an academic journal. In the end, it's up to you (or your attorney, if you choose to hire one) to analyze the relevant legal concepts and rules and decide if and how much of the work to use.
You're largely correct, though there's some vocabulary you're using that could go either way in terms of proper understanding. My comments on your understanding, presuming we're dealing with two Berne countries (UCC is largely irrelevant these days): My understanding of copyright is that it grants the author an exclusive right to distribute their work in whatever manner they'd like for some amount of time (determined by the copyright duration in a country). Generally correct though there can be many exceptions here (fair use, technical/temporary copying, first-sale doctrine, etc.). Can a person in Country A legally use the adapted work? I'm assuming no [...], Basically correct, whoever holds rights to the original work could theoretically still assert their rights in Country A on any portion of the derivative work that was part of the original. [...] does that mean that the author of the work created in Country B does not technically have all the rights to the work they created, since they have no control over whether their work can be distributed in Country A? This is splitting hairs, but while the derivative author has the rights given to them by copyright law, they aren't absolute. In particular in this case, regardless of which country, they still don't have any inherent exclusive rights over the original work. With respect to country B, those exclusive rights have expired so they don't bind the derivative author, but they haven't expired in country A. If that is the case, then would these rights be &quot;granted&quot; to the author of the adaptation when the copyright finally expires in Country A? Again splitting hairs, but its more helpful to express that no rights are actively granted by the expiration of copyright in Country A, it's just that no one holds those rights anymore (here there might be a language issue too, generally in copyright law &quot;rights&quot; refers to those exclusive actions that may be taken by the copyright holder, and not always to the &quot;right&quot; i.e. &quot;freedom&quot; for someone to do something).
In addition to the other answer which, correctly, notes that the publisher is more likely to be in a position of being able to pay any damages awarded, there is one other good reason to sue the publisher rather than the journalist... The journalist cannot print a retraction or correction with the same reach as the original article - only the publisher can do that, and they won’t necessarily do it just because the journalist wants them to.
As mentioned in the comments, there is no general method for this, but there are certainly good ways to get started. Note that copyright status is determined on a country by country basis, so "the country" in this answer refers to one you are living in, in this case Canada. First, there's a quick test to determine if a work is definitely copyright. Most countries have signed the Berne Convention which provides for copyright lasting a minimum of 50 years after the author's death for literary works. In general, it also provides that a country treat works published in other Berne countries as if it were published in its own, with respect to copyright. I'll call this the equality rule. So we have that: If the country acceded to the Berne Convention before the publication date of the book and the author is still living, or died less than 50 years ago, the book is under copyright. If the above did not apply, there are still steps you can take: Look up the country's copyright term. Find the legislation that established the copyright term. If the country has changed copyright terms over the years, the legislation will often provide for how books published before term changes are to be treated with respect to the new legislation. For Berne parties, does the country apply the rule of the shorter term? This is the main exception to the equality rule. The country may choose to use the country of origin's term instead of its own if it is shorter. If this is the case, then, you must read the country of origin's legislation with respect to copyright terms. The vast majority of legislation introduced affecting copyright terms has served to increase its length. Thus, if you pretend that the current copyright term applied back when the book was published, and find that the book is no longer under copyright, you can almost always assume that is actually the case. For an example of how complicated this can be, see this analysis on whether public domain works in the US are copyright in the UK. The UK has been a Berne party from the start, but has at times changed its term length, and whether or not it applies the rule of the shorter term. The US has only been a Berne party since 1989. Before this, they required copyright registration and didn't always base the copyright term on the author's death. In general, the factors you mentioned have the following effect: For Berne parties (as of publication date), this is only relevant for those applying the rule of the shorter term. Important to know this date when reading copyright legislation, as the applicable term often depends on this. Mostly relevant to pre-Berne accession, especially in the US Same as 3. Important, to know what laws ultimately apply. An additional factor you usually need: date of author's death (longest living author in case of multiple authors), as the term is based on this for Berne parties.
Probably not I think this question represents a misunderstanding of the linked article, and in any case of the specifically US doctrine of fair use. Fair use is always based on a part of a copyrighted work copied without authorization. If there was authorization, there would be no need to resort to the defense of fair use. The article discusses the commercial use of short sections of musical works used for commercial purposes. It points out that the idea that any use of an excerpt of less than 30 seconds is permitted is a myth. In this it is correct. While the amount of a copyrighted work used is one of the four factors to be considered in deciding wither a use is a fair use, it is not the only one, and no specific amount is always permitted. In Harper &amp; Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) The US Supreme Court held that quotes amounting to about 3-400 words from a 500-page book were an infringement, and were not a fair use, because they were the &quot;heart of the book&quot;. The linked article says that one should ask &quot;Was the work obtained from a legal source, in a lawful manner?&quot; and asserts that &quot;taking a copy from an unapproved source invalidates fair use.&quot; Nothing in 17 USC 107 says this, and I don't know of any authoritative source for such a statement. The article also says that &quot;Commercial, for-profit use is not fair use, while commentary or criticism may be.&quot; This is simply incorrect. While a commercial purpose tends to weigh against fair use, it does not preclude it, and commercial use has been held to be fair use in some cases. Even in the case of Harper &amp; Row v. Nation Enterprises linked above, fair use was seriously considered, and was not denied simply because the use was commercial. No one o0f the four fair use factors is final taken alone. I do not think the linked article is a reliable guide to US copyright law. In the case described by the question, an unreleased game has been distributed without authorization over the internet, and reviews written based on that unauthorized copy. Whoever copied the game committed copyright infringement, but a suit might not provide substantial damages unless actual economic harm could be demonstrated. (And, of course, the identity of the infringer would need to be proved.) But a review based on such a leaked copy would not necessarily be an infringement. If the review described the game, but did not quote any of its dialog or other text, and did not reproduce any sounds or images from the game, there would be no infringement. If the review did quote from the unauthorized copy, the usual fair use analysis would apply. The fact that the copy had been unauthorized would not determine the outcome. Fair use is defined by 17 USC 107. This provides: Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. Note that criticism is one of the specified purposes for which fair use is designed, and an unpublished work is still subject to fair use. If the review quoted so much of the game that the potential market for it was harmed, that would weigh against fair use, but it is hard for me to see how a mere review could do that to an interactive game. (17 USC 107(4)) is normally applied when an infringing copy serves as a replacement for the authorized version, and sales are lost as a result. I suppose it might be argued that a bad review that was a direct result of an infringement came under this provision, but it is a strech at best, and US First Amendment considerations would tend to prevent such a ruling. In short, it seems unlikely that any normal review would be an infringement, and that the game was leaked would not make it one.
See Golan v. Holder (2012). This related to an extension of copyright protection for works that had already fallen into the public domain. an extension of copyright is still a &quot;limited time&quot; allowed by the Constitution historical practice, including by the first congress, is evidence that giving copyright protection to previously unprotected works is okay there is a rational basis that such extensions promote the progress of science fair use continues to be available as a defence/exception Further, no one is liable for copies of works made while a work was in the public domain. This was not imposing retroactive, ex post facto punishment. But see Justice Stevens's dissent in Eldred v. Ashcroft (2002) for such an argument—not in the punishment sense, but analogizing to a taking (the majority held that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was constitutional).
The Apache 2.0 license purports to be irrevocable, but it also presupposes that the supposed licensor has the right to grant permission to copy. In this case, that is untrue, so there never was a proper license and nothing to revoke (the copyright owner grants permission in the form of "a license" which is a legal abstraction, that normally is specified in the license document). An end-user snared by this illegal license might attempt to sue the author because of the legal screw-up but paragraph 9 says that the supposed licensor cannot be held liable. In this case, though, "licensor" is defined not as the person who hands you the license document, but as the copyright owner. So it's the employer who would be not liable under the terms of the document (but since the employer had nothing to do with the license, it's as though the license never existed). The end-user is a secondary infringer (the employee is the primary infringer, in illegally distributing the material). Under US law, that doesn't matter, the user is still liable. Under UK law, secondary infringement includes the element that you have to have reason to know that the copy is infringing, which in the scenario that you describe is not the case.