Does showing an image as part of a presentation fall within the domain of copyright? I am interested on the following situation due to its importance in an academic setting (which makes question about it common on Academia SE): Suppose I legally obtain some digital image created by somebody else (e.g., by downloading from a public website). I then show this image as part of a presentation for my talk during an academic conference. Attendees (including me) have to pay a fee or be invited to participate in the conference, i.e., the conference is not freely open to everybody. The talk is not recorded or broadcast; the presentation is not distributed. My question is whether this situation falls in the domain of copyright, i.e.: Is showing an image in such a fashion something that is an exclusive right of the copyright holder (unless specified otherwise)? I am interested in the general international situation, e.g., the Berne Convention. Note that this is not about this action being allowed by exception (e.g., fair use) but about whether it falls within what is protected by copyright in the first place. My research/thoughts so far According to this summary of the Berne convention, the protected rights include: the right to translate, the right to make adaptations and arrangements of the work, the right to perform in public dramatic, dramatico-musical and musical works, the right to recite literary works in public, the right to communicate to the public the performance of such works, the right to broadcast […], the right to make reproductions in any manner or form […], the right to use the work as a basis for an audiovisual work, and the right to reproduce, distribute, perform in public or communicate to the public that audiovisual work [4]. The only point that I can think of covering the action in question, is the last one, if the presentation is considered an audiovisual work that is performed in public, but that does not seem to be the intention of this point to me. Looking into the convention itself, the only applying paragraph (if any) seems to be Article 11bis, 1 iii: Authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing: (iii) the public communication by loudspeaker or any other analogous instrument transmitting, by signs, sounds or images, the broadcast of the work. I wouldn’t call the action in question “transmitting the broadcast of the work” though. If the action in question would fall within the domain of copyright, so would showing my desktop background before I launch my presentation.
Here's where you went wrong legally: Suppose I legally obtain some digital image created by somebody else (e.g., by downloading from a public website). That, right there, is copyright infringement- unless the copyright owner has granted permission or the image is public domain you cannot copy it - this breaches "the right to make reproductions". By posting it on the web (assuming that it isn't itself an infringing copy) they have given implied permission for you to look at it in a web browser but not to copy it into a presentation even if that presentation is never presented. If it is presented then that makes the infringement worse - it adds breaches of "the right to communicate to the public" and "the right to use the work as a basis for an audiovisual work". How is this different from the computer wallpaper? It isn't. If you are using the one of the defaults that shipped with the OS then the license gives you permission. If you are using someone else's copyright without permission then it's a breach. There are defenses to copyright infringement but these are quite nationally variable - search this or other sites for "fair dealing" and "fair use".
Often, but not always If the speech is &quot;fixed in a tangible medium&quot; it is protected by copyright. That includes a prepared written version, and an audio recording made as the speech is delivered. Note that fixation only counts if it is done &quot;by or under the authority of the author&quot;. Someone else recording or writing down the speech does not make it fixed unless the author has directed that this be done, or at least authorized it. However, if the speech is neither written down, nor recorded, nor in any other way &quot;fixed&quot; then it is not protected until it is fixed. Someone who took notes or simply memorized the speech would be free to use it as long as it is not protected. All the above is true in the US, and in all other countries that adhere to the Berne Copyright Convention or the TRIPS Agreement. Almost all countries adhere to one or both of those. In many cases there is an exception to copyright for news reporting, but not always. In the US this is covered under fair use and is subject to the normal four-factor test for fair use. In the UK this is covered by fair dealing. In many countries there is a specific exception for news reporting, but such exceptions generally have limits, and the individual law's terms will matter. US Law on Fixation 17 USC 101 provides that: A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission.
What licence should I display in the footer of my website? None unless you want people to copy and reuse the content. The content (except for mere facts) will be protected by copyright regardless. When you expect people to want to copy and reuse it, it makes sense to tell them in advance under what conditions they can do it (instead of being bothered by their questions). This is what displaying a licence is for. If you were a visual designer then a licence would make sense as visuals are likely to be wanted to be copied and used. But a CV, list of projects and comments from customers are probably not likely to be wanted for reuse and distribution, though it is ultimately for you to decide. If you think someone will want to copy and further distribute your content, you'll need to figure out under what conditions you want to allow it, and then search for a licence that fits. If none found, just create your own.
No, you can’t For at least 1 and up to 4 reasons You don’t own the copyright in the photograph. You risk the tort of passing off by implying that Jim endorses your company when he in fact knows nothing about it. While it may be well understood in the memosphere that there is no such endorsement, you are taking it outside that context. In jurisdictions with laws against misleading and deceptive conduct, the same facts that lead to passing off are also likely misleading and deceptive. In jurisdictions which protect personality rights or require model releases, you don’t have consent.
As stated in the answer to What is considered &quot;public&quot; in the context of taking videos or audio recordings?; if either of the participants is in Australia than unless all parties have given consent then the recording is illegal. Notwithstanding its legality, property in the recording vests in the person who made it. There is no law against him keeping it. There is no law against him publishing it unless the material contained is offensive, hate speech or defamatory (see Customer feedback gathering in Australia).
Each episode of the show as a whole, and all the individual images in it, are protected by copyright, but the idea of a holophonor, or indeed any idea, is not. The more closely anyone else's drawing of a gadget resembles one from the show, the more likely it would be to be found to infringe copyright. The same is true of a character image. The more distinctive and original the image, and the more closely someone copies it, the more likely a finding of infringement would be.
There is no special exemption where academic work is unprotected by copyright. You can quote from academic sources to the same extent that you can copy from non-academic sources, without getting permission. In fact, it is legally impossible to tell if a source of &quot;academic&quot; versus &quot;non-academic&quot;. Attribution is not particularly relevant for copyright, what matters is permission (when required). It may be that a copyright holder will grant permission for an extensive quote provided you attribute the source, and it may be that academic publishers or authors are more willing to grant permission than other publishers / authors. On the other hand, many academic works are very expensive, so that distributing the text for free may have more &quot;effect on market&quot;, and may result in disinclination to grant permission to quote. On the third hand, such quotes are more likely to be squarely directed at the &quot;commentary&quot; motivation behind fair use law. The point here is that there isn't a special law about just academic sources.
Publicly performing a work is one of the rights protected by copyright. Doing so, particularly for money, without authorization would be copyright infringement. It is possible to obtain authorization via a mechanical license. This is a license created by statute. In US law this is covered by 17 USC 115. That section provides that when a musical work has already been recorded and placed on sale or offered to the public, another person may send a notice of intention to make and distribute recordings to the copyright owner, or the copyright office if the owner is not known. The person must pay a royalty established by the law, and comply with various other conditions. Or permission may be obtained from the copyright owner or the owner's agent, often for a fee. In the absence of such authorization or permission, making and distributing recordings of performances of the musical work is infringement, and the copyright owner may sue and collect damages. The site, MyMusicSheet, includes a TOS document that implies that rights are granted to the user when music is purchased. But this document is not at all clear on just what rights are purchased with the sheet music. In particular, it does not say if the purchase includes a license to perform the music, and if so, if it includes doing so commercially. Perhaps after one signs up with the service, more detailed information is provided. If the purchase includes a license to perform the work commercially, and to distribute recordings of such performances, all would be well. If not, doing so might well be copyright infringement unless the user goes through the steps to obtain a mechanical license, or gets permission from the copyright owner directly.