View source for Copyright

{{Short description|Legal concept regulating rights of a creative work}}
{{Redirect-distinguish|Copyrighting|Copywriting}}
{{hatnote group|{{About|the legal right|the symbol|Copyright symbol|the band|Copyright (band)}}{{for|the Wikipedia policy|Wikipedia:Copyrights|selfref=yes}}}}
{{Pp-semi-indef}}
{{Pp-move}}
{{Use American English|date=September 2023}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2025}}
{{Intellectual property}}

A '''copyright''' is a type of [[intellectual property]] that gives its owner the exclusive legal right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a [[creative work]], usually for a limited time.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Definition of copyright |url=https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/copyright |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160929180424/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/copyright |url-status=dead |archive-date=29 September 2016 |publisher=[[Oxford Dictionaries (website)|Oxford Dictionaries]] |access-date=20 December 2018 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite encyclopedia |title=Definition of Copyright |url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/copyright |dictionary=[[Merriam-Webster]] |access-date=20 December 2018 |language=en }}</ref><ref>Nimmer on Copyright, vol. 2, §&nbsp;8.01.</ref><ref>"Intellectual property", ''Black's Law Dictionary'', 10th ed. (2014).</ref><ref name="World Intellectual Property Organization">{{Cite web |url=https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_909_2016.pdf |title=Understanding Copyright and Related Rights |website=World Intellectual Property Organization |page=4 |access-date=6 December 2018 }}</ref> The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form. Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/faqs/copyright-basics/ |title=Copyright Basics FAQ |last=Stim |first=Rich |website=The Center for Internet and Society Fair Use Project |publisher=Stanford University |access-date=21 July 2019 |date=27 March 2013 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotected.html#ideas |title=Works Unprotected by Copyright Law |publisher=Bitlaw |author=Daniel A. Tysver }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise9.html |title=Legal Protection of Digital Information |page=''Chapter 1: An Overview of Copyright'', Section II.E. Ideas Versus Expression |author=Lee A. Hollaar }}</ref> A copyright is subject to [[Limitations and exceptions to copyright|limitations]] based on public interest considerations, such as the [[fair use]] doctrine in the United States and [[fair dealing]] doctrine in the United Kingdom.

Some jurisdictions require "fixing" copyrighted works in a tangible form. It is often shared among multiple authors, each of whom holds a set of rights to use or license the work, and who are commonly referred to as rights holders.<ref>{{Citation |title=Copyright |publisher=University of California |year=2014 |url=http://copyright.universityofcalifornia.edu/ownership/joint-works.html |access-date=15 December 2014 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.jetlaw.org/publish/journal-conventions/ |title=Journal Conventions |website=Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law |access-date=7 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140313001457/http://www.jetlaw.org/publish/journal-conventions/ |archive-date=13 March 2014}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |title=Sports Marketing Agreements: Legal, Fiscal and Practical Aspects |first=Ian S. |last=Blackshaw |date=20 October 2011 |publisher=Springer Science & Business Media |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kz1F6uAHtaEC |via=Google Books |isbn=9789067047937 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |title=Publishing Forms and Contracts |first=Roy |last=Kaufman |date=16 July 2008 |publisher=Oxford University Press |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xD_iBwAAQBAJ |via=Google Books |isbn=9780190451264 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1839527 |title=Significance of Fixation in Copyright Law |date=2011 |last1=Ahmad |first1=Tabrez |last2=Snehil |first2=Soumya |website=SSRN |ssrn=1839527 |access-date=7 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180603211523/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1839527 |archive-date=3 June 2018}}</ref> These rights normally include reproduction, control over [[derivative work]]s, distribution, [[Performing rights|public performance]], and [[moral rights]] such as attribution.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Copyright Basics |url=https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf |archive-date=9 October 2022 |url-status=live |publisher=U.S. Copyright Office |access-date=20 February 2019 }}</ref>

Copyrights can be granted by public law and are in that case considered "territorial rights". This means that copyrights granted by the law of a certain state do not extend beyond the territory of that specific jurisdiction. Copyrights of this type vary by country; many countries, and sometimes a large group of countries, have made agreements with other countries on procedures applicable when works "cross" national borders or national rights are inconsistent.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://worldcopyrightlaw.com/copyrightsurvey |title=International Copyright Law Survey |date=13 October 2021 |publisher=Mincov Law Corporation }}</ref>

Typically, the public law [[Copyright term|duration of a copyright]] expires 50 to 100 years after the creator dies, [[List of countries' copyright lengths|depending on the jurisdiction]]. Some countries require certain [[copyright formalities]]<ref name="World Intellectual Property Organization" /> to establishing copyright, others recognize copyright in any completed work, without a formal registration. When the copyright of a work expires, it enters the [[public domain]].

== History ==
{{Main|History of copyright}}
[[File:European Output of Books 500–1800.png|thumb|European output of books before the advent of copyright, 6th century to 18th century. Blue shows printed books. [[Log-lin plot]]; a straight line therefore shows an exponential increase.]]

=== Background ===
The concept of copyright developed after the [[printing press]] came into use in Europe<ref name=histpersp/> in the 15th and 16th centuries.<ref>Joanna Kostylo, "From Gunpowder to Print: The Common Origins of Copyright and Patent", in Ronan Deazley et al., ''Privilege and Property: Essays on the History of Copyright'' (Cambridge: Open Book, 2010), 21-50; online at books.openedition.org/obp/1062</ref> It was associated with a common law and rooted in the civil law system.{{Sfn|Goldstein|Hugenholtz|2019|p=3}} The printing press made it much cheaper to produce works, but as there was initially no copyright law, anyone could buy or rent a press and print any text. 

Popular new works were immediately re-[[Typesetting|set]] and re-published by competitors, so printers needed a constant stream of new material. Fees paid to authors for new works were high and significantly supplemented the incomes of many academics.<ref name="reason">{{cite news |last1=Thadeusz |first1=Frank |date=18 August 2010 |title=No Copyright Law: The Real Reason for Germany's Industrial Expansion? |url=https://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-law-the-real-reason-for-germany-s-industrial-expansion-a-710976.html |work=Spiegel Online}}</ref>

Printing brought [[print culture|profound social changes]]. The rise in [[literacy]] across [[Europe]] led to a dramatic increase in the [[demand]] for reading matter.<ref name="histpersp">''Copyright in Historical Perspective'', p. 136–137, Patterson, 1968, Vanderbilt Univ. Press</ref> Prices of reprints were low, so publications could be bought by poorer people, creating a mass audience. In German-language markets before the advent of copyright, technical materials, like academic papers and handbooks, were inexpensive and widely available; it has been suggested this contributed to Germany's industrial and economic success.<ref name="reason" />

=== Conception ===
The concept of copyright first developed in [[England]]. In reaction to the printing of "scandalous books and pamphlets", the [[Parliament of England|English Parliament]] passed the [[Licensing of the Press Act 1662]],<ref name=histpersp/> which required all intended publications to be registered with the government-approved [[Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers|Stationers' Company]], giving the Stationers the right to regulate what material could be printed.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.1086/677787 |title=''Cum privilegio'': Licensing of the Press Act of 1662 |journal=The Library Quarterly |volume=84 |issue=4 |pages=494–500 |url=https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/1/17219056/1/677787.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/1/17219056/1/677787.pdf |archive-date=9 October 2022 |url-status=live |year=2014 |last1=Nipps |first1=Karen |s2cid=144070638  | issn=0024-2519}}</ref>

The [[Statute of Anne]], enacted in 1710 in England and Scotland, provided the first legislation to protect copyrights (but not authors' rights). The [[Copyright Act 1814]] extended more rights for authors but did not protect British publications from being reprinted in the US. The [[Berne convention|Berne International Copyright Convention]] of 1886 finally provided protection for authors among the countries who signed the agreement, although the US did not join the Berne Convention until 1989.<ref name="Day O'Connor-2002">{{Cite journal|last=Day O'Connor|first=Sandra|date=2002|title=Copyright Law from an American Perspective|journal=Irish Jurist|volume=37|pages=16–22|jstor=44027015}}</ref>

In the US, the Constitution grants Congress the right to establish copyright and patent laws. Shortly after the Constitution was passed, Congress enacted the ''[[Copyright Act of 1790]]'', modeling it after the Statute of Anne. While the national law protected authors' published works, authority was granted to the states to protect authors' unpublished works. The most recent major overhaul of copyright in the US, the ''[[Copyright Act of 1976]]'', extended federal copyright to works as soon as they are created and "fixed", without requiring publication or registration. State law continues to apply to unpublished works that are not otherwise copyrighted by federal law. This act also changed the calculation of copyright term from a fixed term (then a maximum of fifty-six years) to "life of the author plus 50 years". These changes brought the US closer to conformity with the Berne Convention, and in 1989 the United States further revised its copyright law and joined the Berne Convention officially.<ref name="Day O'Connor-2002" />

Copyright laws allow products of creative human activities, such as literary and artistic production, to be preferentially exploited and thus incentivized. Different cultural attitudes, social organizations, economic models and legal frameworks are seen to account for why copyright emerged in Europe and not, for example, in Asia. In the [[Middle Ages]] in Europe, there was generally a lack of any concept of literary property due to the general relations of production, the specific organization of literary production and the role of culture in society. The latter refers to the tendency of oral societies, such as that of Europe in the medieval period, to view knowledge as the product and expression of the collective, rather than to see it as individual property. However, with copyright laws, intellectual production comes to be seen as a product of an individual, with attendant rights. The most significant point is that patent and copyright laws support the expansion of the range of creative human activities that can be commodified. This parallels the ways in which [[capitalism]] led to the [[commodification]] of many aspects of social life that earlier had no monetary or economic value perse.<ref>Bettig, Ronald V. (1996). ''Copyrighting Culture: The Political Economy of Intellectual Property. Westview Press''. p. 9–17. {{ISBN |0-8133-1385-6 }}.</ref>

Copyright has developed into a concept that has a significant effect on nearly every modern industry, including not just literary work, but also forms of creative work such as [[Sound recording and reproduction|sound recordings]], [[film]]s, [[photograph]]s, [[software]], and [[architecture]].

=== National copyrights ===
{{See also|Statute of Anne |History of copyright law of the United States }}
[[File:Statute of anne.jpg|thumb|left|The [[Statute of Anne]] (the Copyright Act 1709) came into force in 1710.]]
Often seen as the first real copyright law, the 1709 British [[Statute of Anne]] gave authors and the publishers to whom they did chose to license their works, the right to publish the author's creations for a fixed period, after which the copyright expired.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Rethinking copyright: history, theory, language |page=13 |last=Ronan |first=Deazley |isbn=978-1-84542-282-0 |year=2006 |publisher=Edward Elgar Publishing. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dMYXq9V1JBQC |via=Google Books }}</ref> It was "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or the Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned." 

The act also alluded to individual rights of the artist. It began:

{{quote|"Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing&nbsp;... Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors&nbsp;... to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families:".<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.copyrighthistory.com/anne.html |title=Statute of Anne |publisher=Copyrighthistory.com |access-date=8 June 2012 }}</ref>}}

A right to benefit financially from the work is articulated, and court rulings and legislation have recognized a right to control the work, such as ensuring that the integrity of it is preserved. An irrevocable right to be recognized as the work's creator appears in some countries' copyright laws.

The [[Copyright Clause]] of the United States, Constitution (1787) authorized copyright legislation: "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." That is, by guaranteeing them a period of time in which they alone could profit from their works, they would be enabled and encouraged to invest the time required to create them, and this would be good for society as a whole. A right to profit from the work has been the philosophical underpinning for much legislation extending the duration of copyright, to the life of the creator and beyond, to their heirs. Yet scholars like Lawrence Lessig have argued that copyright terms have been extended beyond the scope imagined by the Framers. Lessig refers to the Copyright Clause as the "Progress Clause" to emphasize the social dimension of intellectual property rights.<ref>Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture (Penguin, 2004), 131ff.</ref>

The original length of copyright in the United States was 14 years, and it had to be explicitly applied for. If the author wished, they could apply for a second 14‑year monopoly grant, but after that the work entered the [[public domain]], so it could be used and built upon by others.

=== Continental law ===
In many jurisdictions of the European continent, comparable legal concepts to copyright did exist from the 16th century on but did change under Napoleonic rule into another legal concept: ''[[authors' rights]]'' or ''creator's right'' laws, from French: ''droits d'auteur'' and German ''[[Copyright law of Germany|Urheberrecht]]''.<ref>In French civic law the ''droit d'auteur'' is part of the ''[https://www.economie.gouv.fr/apie/propriete-intellectuelle-publications/droit-auteur-image-numerique-1 Code de la propriété intellectuelle]''</ref><ref>The Italian state of Venetia, adopting Napoleon's law, calls it "diritto d’autore" as part of the "proprietà intellettuale": "''la più preziosa e la più sacra delle proprietà''" - see: {{Cite web |title=Governare istruzione e stampa. Le riforme Napoleoniche |url=https://123dok.org/article/governare-istruzione-e-stampa-le-riforme-napoleoniche.q05p4vnx |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231214185743/https://123dok.org/article/governare-istruzione-e-stampa-le-riforme-napoleoniche.q05p4vnx |archive-date=14 December 2023 |website=123dok}}</ref> In many modern-day publications the terms copyright and authors' rights are being mixed, or used as translations, but in a juridical sense the legal concepts do essentially differ.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |author1= Philipp Otto Aktualisierung |author2=Valie Djordjevic Sebastian Deterding |date=15 July 2013 |title=Urheberrecht und Copyright |url=https://www.bpb.de/themen/digitalisierung/urheberrecht/169971/urheberrecht-und-copyright/ |access-date=11 December 2023 |website=bpb.de |language=de}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Dommerink |first=Egbert |date=2004 |title=Lessen uit de geschiedenis van het auteursrecht |url=https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/lessen.PDF |journal=University of Amsterdam, Institute for Information Law / Publications |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230803203521/https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/lessen.PDF |archive-date= 3 August 2023 }}</ref> Authors' rights are, generally speaking, from the start absolute property rights of an author of original work that one does not have to apply for. The law is automatically connecting an original work as intellectual property to its creator.<ref>{{Cite web |date=28 July 2015 |title=Le droit d'auteur |url=https://www.inpi.fr/comprendre-la-propriete-intellectuelle/les-autres-modes-de-protection/le-droit-dauteur |access-date=11 December 2023 |website=INPI.fr |language=fr}}</ref> Although the concepts throughout the years have been mingled globally, due to international treaties and contracts, distinct differences between jurisdictions continue to exist.<ref name="Britannica-2023">{{Cite web |date=18 November 2023 |title=Copyright {{!}} Definition, Examples, & Facts |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/copyright |access-date=11 December 2023 |website=Britannica  |language=en}}</ref>

Creator's law was enacted rather late in [[Copyright law of Germany|German speaking states]] and the economic historian Eckhard Höffner argues that the absence of possibilities to maintain copyright laws in all these states in the early 19th century, encouraged the publishing of low-priced paperbacks for the masses. This was profitable for authors and led to a proliferation of books, enhanced knowledge, and was ultimately an important factor in the ascendency of Germany as a power during that century.<ref>{{Cite magazine |author=Frank Thadeusz |date=18 August 2010 |title=No Copyright Law: The Real Reason for Germany's Industrial Expansion? |url=http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,710976,00.html |magazine=[[Der Spiegel]] |access-date=11 April 2015 |quote=Sigismund Hermbstädt, for example, a chemistry and pharmacy professor in Berlin, who has long since disappeared into the oblivion of history, earned more royalties for his "Principles of Leather Tanning" published in 1806 than British author Mary Shelley did for her horror novel "Frankenstein," which is still famous today. }}</ref> After the introduction of creator's rights, German publishers started to follow English customs, in issuing only expensive book editions for wealthy customers.<ref>Famous writer [[Heinrich Heine]] for example, asked his publisher in 1854: "Due to the tremendously high prices you have established, I will hardly see a second edition of the book anytime soon. But you must set lower prices, dear Campe, for otherwise I really don't see why I was so lenient with my material interests."</ref>

Empirical evidence derived from the exogenous differential introduction of author's right (Italian: ''diritto d'autore'') in Napoleonic Italy shows that "basic copyrights increased both the number and the quality of operas, measured by their popularity and durability".<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Giorcelli |first1=Michela |last2=Moser |first2=Petra |date=March 2020 |url=https://www.nber.org/papers/w26885 <!-- doi is PDF --> |title=Copyright and Creativity. Evidence from Italian Opera During the Napoleonic Age |doi=10.3386/w26885 |doi-access=free |journal=National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series}}</ref>

=== International copyright treaties ===
{{See also |International copyright agreements |List of parties to international copyright agreements }}
[[File:Joseph Ferdinand Keppler - The Pirate Publisher - Puck Magazine - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg|thumb|upright=1.35|''The Pirate Publisher—An International [[Victorian burlesque|Burlesque]] that has the Longest Run on Record'', from ''[[Puck (magazine)|Puck]]'', 1886, satirizes the then-existing situation where a publisher could profit by simply copying newly published works from one country, and publishing them in another, and vice versa.]]
The 1886 [[Berne Convention]] first established recognition of authors' rights among [[Sovereignty|sovereign nations]], rather than merely bilaterally. Under the Berne Convention, protective rights for [[creative works]] do not have to be asserted or declared, as they are automatically in force at creation: an author need not "register" or "apply for" these protective rights in countries adhering to the Berne Convention.<ref name="Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works Article 5">{{Cite web |url=https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/283693 |title=Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works Article 5 |access-date=18 November 2011 |publisher=World Intellectual Property Organization |archive-date=11 September 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120911051959/http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P109_16834 |url-status=dead }}</ref> As soon as a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all intellectual property rights in the work, and to any derivative works unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them, or until the rights expires. The Berne Convention also resulted in foreign authors being treated equivalently to domestic authors, in any country signed onto the convention. The UK signed the Berne Convention in 1887 but did not implement large parts of it until 100 years later with the passage of the [[Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988]]. Specially, for educational and scientific research purposes, the Berne Convention provides the developing countries issue compulsory licenses for the translation or reproduction of copyrighted works within the limits prescribed by the convention. This was a special provision that had been added at the time of 1971 revision of the convention, because of the strong demands of the developing countries. The United States did not sign the Berne Convention until 1989.<ref>Garfinkle, Ann M; Fries, Janet; Lopez, Daniel; Possessky, Laura (1997). "Art conservation and the legal obligation to preserve artistic intent". [[JAIC]] 36 (2): 165–179.</ref>

The United States and most [[Latin America]]n countries instead entered into the [[Buenos Aires Convention]] in 1910, which required a copyright notice on the work (such as ''[[all rights reserved]]''), and permitted signatory nations to limit the duration of copyrights to shorter and renewable terms.<ref>[http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf "International Copyright Relations of the United States"], U.S.&nbsp;Copyright Office Circular No.&nbsp;38a, August 2003.</ref><ref>[http://www.unesco.org/culture/copyright/html_eng/ucc52ms.pdf Parties to the Geneva Act of the Universal Copyright Convention] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080625003242/http://www.unesco.org/culture/copyright/html_eng/ucc52ms.pdf |date=25 June 2008 }} as of 1 January 2000: the dates given in the document are dates of ratification, not dates of coming into force. The Geneva Act came into force on 16 September 1955, for the first twelve to have ratified (which included four non-members of the Berne Union as required by Art.&nbsp;9.1), or three months after ratification for other countries.</ref><ref>[http://www.copyright.ht/en 165&nbsp;Parties to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160306215357/http://copyright.ht/en |date=6 March 2016 }} as of May 2012.</ref> The [[Universal Copyright Convention]] was drafted in 1952 as another less demanding alternative to the Berne Convention, and ratified by nations such as the [[Soviet Union]] and developing nations.

The regulations of the [[Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works|Berne Convention]] are incorporated into the [[World Trade Organization]]'s [[Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights|TRIPS]] agreement (1995), thus giving the Berne Convention effectively near-global application.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=_Iwcn4pT0OoC |via=Google Books |page=39 |author1=MacQueen, Hector L |author2=Charlotte Waelde |author3=Graeme T Laurie |isbn=978-0-19-926339-4 |year=2007 |publisher=Oxford University Press }}</ref>

In 1961, the [[United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property]] signed the [[Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations]]. In 1996, this organization was succeeded by the founding of the [[World Intellectual Property Organization]], which launched the 1996 [[WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty]] and the 2002 [[World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty|WIPO Copyright Treaty]], which enacted greater restrictions on the use of technology to copy works in the nations that ratified it. The [[Trans-Pacific Partnership]] includes intellectual property provisions relating to copyright.

Copyright laws and authors' right laws are standardized somewhat through these international conventions such as the Berne Convention and Universal Copyright Convention. These multilateral treaties have been ratified by nearly all countries, and [[international organizations]] such as the [[European Union]] require their member states to comply with them. All member states of the [[World Trade Organization]] are obliged to establish minimum levels of copyright protection. Nevertheless, important differences between the national regimes continue to exist.<ref name="Britannica-2023" /><ref name=":4" />

== Obtaining protection ==
=== Ownership ===
The original holder of the copyright may be the employer of the author rather than the author themself if the work is a "[[work for hire]]".<ref>17 U.S.C. §&nbsp;201(b); Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989)</ref><ref>[[Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid]]</ref> For example, in [[English law]] the [[Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988]] provides that if a copyrighted work is made by an employee in the course of that employment, the copyright is automatically owned by the employer which would be a "Work for Hire". Typically, the first owner of a copyright is the person who created the work i.e. the [[author]].<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/faqs/copyright-ownership/ |title=Copyright Ownership: Who Owns What? |last=Stim |first=Rich |website=The Center for Internet and Society Fair Use Project |publisher=Stanford University |access-date=21 July 2019 |date=27 March 2013 }}</ref> But when more than one person creates the work, then a case of [[joint authorship]] can be made provided some criteria are met.

=== Eligible works ===
Copyright may apply to a wide range of creative, intellectual, or artistic forms, or "works". Specifics vary by [[jurisdiction]], but these can include [[poem]]s, [[theses]], [[Copyright Protection for Fictional Characters|fictional characters]], [[drama|plays]] and other [[book|literary works]], [[film|motion pictures]], [[choreography]], [[music]]al compositions, [[sound recording]]s, [[painting]]s, [[drawing]]s, [[sculpture]]s, [[photography|photographs]], [[computer software]], [[radio]] and [[television]] [[Broadcasting|broadcasts]], and [[industrial design]]s. Graphic [[designs]] and industrial designs may have separate or overlapping laws applied to them in some jurisdictions.<ref name="yu-2006">
{{cite book
 | editor-last1 = Yu | editor-first1 = Peter K
 | title = Intellectual property and information wealth: copyright and related rights
 | date = 30 December 2006
| publisher = Praeger
 | location = Westport, Connecticut, US
 | isbn = 978-0-275-98882-1
}}  Praeger is part of the Greenwood Publishing Group.  Hardcover.  Possible alternative ISBN 978-0-275-98883-8.
</ref><ref>{{Cite book |url=http://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4081 |format=PDF |last=World Intellectual Property Organization |title=Understanding Copyright and Related Rights |year=2016 |publisher=WIPO |access-date=1 December 2017 |page=8 |doi=10.34667/tind.28946 |isbn=9789280528046 }}</ref>

Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed. For example, the copyright to a [[Mickey Mouse]] cartoon restricts others from making copies of the cartoon or creating [[derivative work]]s based on [[The Walt Disney Company|Disney's]] particular [[anthropomorphic]] mouse, but does not prohibit the creation of other works about anthropomorphic mice in general, so long as they are different enough not to be judged copies of Disney's.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Simon |first=Stokes |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=h-XBqKIryaQC |title=Art and copyright |publisher=Hart Publishing |year=2001 |isbn=978-1-84113-225-9 |pages=48–49 |via=Google Books}}</ref>

=== Originality ===
{{Main |Threshold of originality }}
Typically, a work must meet [[Threshold of originality|minimal standards of originality]] in order to qualify for copyright, and the copyright expires after a set period of time (some jurisdictions may allow this to be extended). Different countries impose different tests, although generally the requirements are low; in the [[United Kingdom]] there has to be some "skill, labour, and judgment" that has gone into it.<ref>''Express Newspaper Plc v News (UK) Plc'', F.S.R. 36 (1991)</ref> In [[Australia]] and the United Kingdom it has been held that a single word is insufficient to comprise a copyright work. However, single words or a short string of words can sometimes be registered as a [[trademark]] instead.

Copyright law recognizes the right of an author based on whether the work actually is an [[Original work|original creation]], rather than based on [[Plagiarism checker|whether it is unique]]; two authors may own copyright on two substantially identical works, if it is determined that the duplication was coincidental, and neither was copied from the other.

=== Registration ===
{{Main |Copyright registration }}
In all countries where the [[Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works|Berne Convention]] standards apply, copyright is automatic and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce their exclusive rights.<ref name="Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works Article 5" /> However, while registration is not needed to exercise copyright, in jurisdictions where the laws provide for registration, it serves as ''[[prima facie]]'' evidence of a valid copyright and enables the copyright holder to seek [[statutory damages for copyright infringement|statutory damages]] and attorney's fees.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright |url=http://copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.pdf |archive-date=9 October 2022 |url-status=live |website=copyright.gov |access-date=4 June 2015 }}</ref> (In the US, registering after an infringement only enables one to receive actual damages and lost profits.)

A widely circulated strategy to avoid the cost of copyright registration is referred to as the [[poor man's copyright]]. It proposes that the creator send the work to themself in a sealed envelope by registered mail, using the [[postmark]] to establish the date. This technique has not been recognized in any published opinions of the United States courts. <!-- Note to editors: The previously-worded statement, "This technique has not been recognized by any United States court" is overbroad because not all such cases are reported, and it is impossible to know whether this is correct.--> The [[United States Copyright Office]] says the technique is not a substitute for actual registration.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Copyright in General (FAQ) |url=http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#poorman |publisher=U.S. Copyright Office |access-date=11 August 2016 }}</ref> The [[United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office]] discusses the technique and notes that the technique (as well as commercial registries) does not constitute dispositive proof that the work is original or establish who created the work.<ref>[http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-claim/c-register.htm "Copyright Registers"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131005014901/http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-claim/c-register.htm |date=5 October 2013 }}, United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office</ref><ref>[http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about/c-auto.htm "Automatic right"], United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office</ref> <!-- Note to editors: The previously-worded statement, "The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office discusses the technique but does not recommend its use." overstates the UK IPO position; the IPO does NOT recommend against the PMC approach.-->

=== Fixing ===
The [[Berne Convention]] allows member countries to decide whether creative works must be "fixed" to enjoy copyright. Article 2, Section 2 of the Berne Convention states:

{{quote|"It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to prescribe that works in general or any specified categories of works shall not be protected unless they have been fixed in some material form."}}

Some countries do not require that a work be produced in a particular form to obtain copyright protection. For instance, Spain, France, and Australia do not require fixation for copyright protection. The United States and Canada, on the other hand, require that most works must be "fixed in a tangible medium of expression" to obtain copyright protection. US law requires that the fixation be stable and permanent enough to be "perceived, reproduced or communicated for a period of more than transitory duration". Similarly, Canadian courts consider fixation to require that the work be "expressed to some extent at least in some material form, capable of identification and having a more or less permanent endurance".<ref>See Harvard Law School, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/copyrightforlibrarians/Module_3:_The_Scope_of_Copyright_Law#Fixation ''Module 3: The Scope of Copyright Law'']. See also Tyler T. Ochoa, [http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol20/iss4/5 ''Copyright, Derivative Works and Fixation: Is Galoob a Mirage, or Does the Form(GEN) of the Alleged Derivative Work Matter?''], 20 {{smallcaps|Santa Clara High Tech.}} L.J. 991, 999–1002 (2003) ("Thus, both the text of the Act and its legislative history demonstrate that Congress intended that a derivative work does not need to be fixed in order to infringe."). The legislative history of the Copyright Act of 1976 says this difference was intended to address transitory works such as ballets, pantomimes, improvised performances, dumb shows, mime performances, and dancing.</ref>

Note this provision of US law:

{{quote|''c) Effect of Berne Convention.—No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Any rights in a work eligible for protection under this title that derive from this title, other Federal or State statutes, or the common law, shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto.''<ref>See [https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html US copyright law]</ref>}}

=== Copyright notice ===
{{Main |Copyright notice }}
[[File:Copyright.svg|thumb|alt=©|class=skin-invert-image|A copyright symbol used in copyright notice]]
[[File:Vitprägel.jpg|thumb|A copyright symbol embossed on a piece of paper]]

Before 1989, United States law required the use of a copyright notice, consisting of the [[copyright symbol]] (©, the letter '''C''' inside a circle; Unicode {{unichar|00A9}}), 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.<ref>{{USPL|94|553|Copyright Act of 1976}}, 90 Stat. 2541, §&nbsp;401(a) (19 October 1976)</ref><ref>{{USPL |100 |568 |The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (BCIA)}}, 102 Stat. 2853, 2857. One of the changes introduced by the BCIA was to section&nbsp;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&nbsp;402, dealing with copyright notices on phonorecords.</ref> 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]] (℗, the letter '''P''' inside a circle, Unicode {{unichar|2117}}), which indicates a sound recording copyright, with the letter '''P''' indicating a "[[phonorecord]]". In addition, the phrase ''[[All rights reserved]]'' which indicates that the copyright holder reserves, or holds for their own use was once required to assert copyright, but that phrase is now legally obsolete. Almost everything on the Internet has some sort of copyright attached to it. However, these works often are not watermarked, signed, or contain any other indication of copyright.<ref>{{Cite book |title=The People's Platform: Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age. |last=Taylor |first=Astra |publisher=Picador |year=2014 |isbn=978-1-250-06259-8 |location=New York City, New York, US |pages=144–145 }}</ref>

In 1989 the United States enacted the ''[[Berne Convention Implementation Act]]'', amending the Copyright Act of 1976 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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf |archive-date=9 October 2022 |url-status=live |title=U.S. Copyright Office – Information Circular |access-date=7 July 2012 }}</ref> 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.<ref>[[17 U.S.C.]]{{UnitedStatesCodeSec |17 |401(d) }}</ref>

===Publisher's copyright===
In the UK, the publisher of a work automatically owns the copyright in the "typographical arrangement of a published work", i.e. its layout and general appearance as a published work. This copyright lasts for 25 years after the end of the year in which the edition containing that arrangement was first published.<ref>Society of Authors, [https://www2.societyofauthors.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Guide-to-Copyright-and-Permissions.pdf Guidance on Copyright and Permissions], version 2, Section 1(b)(iv), published in September 2016, accessed on 7 October 2024</ref>

== Enforcement ==
Copyrights are generally enforced by the holder in a [[Civil law (private law)|civil law]] court, but there are also criminal infringement statutes in some jurisdictions. While [[copyright registry|central registries]] are kept in some countries which aid in proving claims of ownership, registering does not necessarily prove ownership, nor does the fact of copying (even without permission) necessarily [[legal proof|prove]] that copyright was infringed. Criminal sanctions are generally aimed at serious counterfeiting activity, but are now becoming more commonplace as copyright collectives such as the [[RIAA]] are increasingly targeting the [[file sharing]] home Internet user. Thus far, however, most such cases against file sharers have been settled out of court. (''See [[Legal aspects of file sharing]]'')

In most jurisdictions the copyright holder must bear the cost of enforcing copyright. This will usually involve engaging legal representation, administrative or court costs. In light of this, many copyright disputes are settled by a direct approach to the infringing party in order to settle the dispute out of court.

{{quote|"...&nbsp;by 1978, the scope was expanded to apply to any 'expression' that has been 'fixed' in any medium, this protection granted automatically whether the maker wants it or not, no registration required."<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Taylor |first1=Astra |title=The People's Platform: Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age |date=2014 |publisher=Picador |location=New York, New York |isbn=978-1-250-06259-8 |page=148 }}</ref>}}

=== Self-enforcement measures ===
	
With older technology like paintings, books, phonographs, and film, it is generally not feasible for consumers to make copies on their own, so producers can simply require payment when transferring physical possession of the storage medium. The equivalent for digital online content is a [[paywall]].
	
The introduction of the [[photocopier]], [[cassette tape]], and [[videotape]] made it easier for consumers to copy materials like books and music, but each time a copy was made, it lost some fidelity. Digital media like text, audio, video, and software (even when stored on physical media like [[compact disc]]s and [[DVD]]s) can be copied losslessly, and shared on the [[Internet]], creating a much bigger threat to producer revenue. Some have used [[digital rights management]] technology to restrict non-playback access through encryption and other means. [[Digital watermark]]s can be used to trace copies, deterring infringement with a more credible threat of legal consequences. [[Copy protection]] is used for both digital and pre-Internet electronic media.

=== Copyright infringement ===
{{Main|Copyright infringement}}

For a work to be considered to infringe upon copyright, its use must have occurred in a nation that has domestic copyright laws or adheres to a bilateral treaty or established international convention such as the [[Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works|Berne Convention]] or [[World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty|WIPO Copyright Treaty]]. Improper use of materials outside of legislation is deemed "unauthorized edition", not copyright infringement.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Owen|first1=L.|doi=10.1087/09531510125100313|title=Piracy|journal=Learned Publishing|volume=14|pages=67–70|year=2001|s2cid=221957508|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Statistics regarding the effects of copyright infringement are difficult to determine. Studies have attempted to determine whether there is a monetary loss for industries affected by copyright infringement by predicting what portion of pirated works would have been formally purchased if they had not been freely available.<ref>Butler, S. Piracy Losses "Billboard" 199(36)</ref> Other reports indicate that copyright infringement does not have an adverse effect on the entertainment industry, and can have a positive effect.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ejpd.admin.ch/content/ejpd/de/home/dokumentation/mi/2011/2011-11-30.html|title=Urheberrechtsverletzungen im Internet: Der bestehende rechtliche Rahmen genügt|publisher=Ejpd.admin.ch|access-date=28 July 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140819222007/http://www.ejpd.admin.ch/content/ejpd/de/home/dokumentation/mi/2011/2011-11-30.html|archive-date=19 August 2014|url-status=dead}}</ref> In particular, a 2014 university study concluded that free music content, accessed on [[YouTube]], does not necessarily hurt sales, instead has the potential to increase sales.<ref>{{Cite journal|publisher=Social Science Electronic Publishing|ssrn=2425386|title=Video Killed the Radio Star? Online Music Videos and Digital Music Sales|issn=2042-2695|year=2014|author1=Tobias Kretschmer|author2=Christian Peukert|journal=Cep Discussion Paper}}</ref>

According to the IP Commission Report the annual cost of [[intellectual property infringement]] to the US economy "continues to exceed $225 billion in counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade secrets and could be as high as $600 billion."<ref>{{cite web |title=IP Commission Report |url=https://www.nbr.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/publications/IP_Commission_Report_Update.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.nbr.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/publications/IP_Commission_Report_Update.pdf |archive-date=9 October 2022 |url-status=live |website=NBR.org |access-date=1 September 2021}}</ref> A 2019 study sponsored by the [[Global Innovation Policy Center|US Chamber of Commerce Global Innovation Policy Center]] (GIPC), in partnership with [[NERA Economic Consulting]] "estimates that global online piracy costs the U.S. economy at least $29.2 billion in lost revenue each year."<ref>{{cite web |title=Impacts of Digital Piracy on the U.S. Economy |url=https://www.theglobalipcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Digital-Video-Piracy.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.theglobalipcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Digital-Video-Piracy.pdf |archive-date=9 October 2022 |url-status=live |website=GlobalInnovationPolicyCenter.com |access-date=2 September 2021}}</ref> An August 2021 report by the [[Digital Citizens Alliance]] states that "online criminals who offer stolen movies, TV shows, games, and live events through websites and apps are reaping $1.34 billion in annual advertising revenues." This comes as a result of users visiting pirate websites who are then subjected to pirated content, malware, and fraud.<ref>{{cite web |title=Advertising Fuels $1.34 Billion Illegal Piracy Market, Report by Digital Citizens Alliance and White Bullet Finds |url=https://www.digitalcitizensalliance.org/news/press-releases-2021/advertising-fuels-1.34-billion-illegal-piracy-market-report-by-digital-citizens-alliance-and-white-bullet-finds/ |website=Digital Citizens Alliance |access-date=2 September 2021}}</ref>

== Rights granted ==
According to [[World Intellectual Property Organization|World Intellectual Property Organisation]], copyright protects two types of rights. Economic rights allow right owners to derive financial reward from the use of their works by others. Moral rights allow authors and creators to take certain actions to preserve and protect their link with their work. The author or creator may be the owner of the economic rights, or those rights may be transferred to one or more copyright owners. Many countries do not allow the transfer of moral rights.<ref name="World Intellectual Property Organisation-2019">{{Cite web |url=https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_909_2016.pdf |title=World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). |date=20 April 2019 }}</ref>

=== Economic rights ===
With any kind of property, its owner may decide how it is to be used, and others can use it lawfully only if they have the owner's permission, often through a license. The owner's use of the property must, however, respect the legally recognised rights and interests of other members of society. So the owner of a copyright-protected work may decide how to use the work and may prevent others from using it without permission. National laws usually grant copyright owners exclusive rights to allow third parties to use their works, subject to the legally recognised rights and interests of others.<ref name="World Intellectual Property Organisation-2019" /> Most copyright laws state that authors or other right owners have the right to authorise or prevent certain acts in relation to a work. Right owners can authorise or prohibit:

* reproduction of the work in various forms, such as printed publications or sound recordings;
* distribution of copies of the work;
* public performance of the work;
* broadcasting or other communication of the work to the public;
* translation of the work into other languages; and
* adaptation of the work, such as turning a novel into a screenplay.

=== Moral rights ===
{{Main|Moral rights}}
Moral rights are concerned with the non-economic rights of a creator. They protect the creator's connection with a work as well as the integrity of the work. Moral rights are only accorded to individual authors and in many national laws they remain with the authors even after the authors have transferred their economic rights. In some EU countries, such as France, moral rights last indefinitely. In the UK, however, moral rights are finite. That is, the right of attribution and the right of integrity last only as long as the work is in copyright. When the copyright term comes to an end, so too do the moral rights in that work. This is just one reason why the moral rights regime within the UK is often regarded as weaker or inferior to the protection of moral rights in continental Europe and elsewhere in the world.<ref name="Copyright User">{{Cite web |url=https://www.copyrightuser.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CU_CaseFile_11.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.copyrightuser.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CU_CaseFile_11.pdf |archive-date=9 October 2022 |url-status=live |title=The Mutilated Work |website=Copyright User }}</ref> The Berne Convention, in Article 6bis, requires its members to grant authors the following rights:

# the right to claim authorship of a work (sometimes called the right of paternity or the right of attribution); and
# the right to object to any distortion or modification of a work, or other derogatory action in relation to a work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honour or reputation (sometimes called the right of integrity).

These and other similar rights granted in national laws are generally known as the moral rights of authors. The Berne Convention requires these rights to be independent of authors' economic rights. Moral rights are only accorded to individual authors and in many national laws they remain with the authors even after the authors have transferred their economic rights. This means that even where, for example, a film producer or publisher owns the economic rights in a work, in many jurisdictions the individual author continues to have moral rights.<ref name="World Intellectual Property Organisation-2019" /> Recently, as a part of the debates being held at the [[US Copyright Office]] on the question of inclusion of Moral Rights as a part of the framework of the [[Copyright law of the United States|Copyright Law in United States]], the Copyright Office concluded that many diverse aspects of the current moral rights patchwork – including copyright law's derivative work right, state moral rights statutes, and contract law – are generally working well and should not be changed. Further, the Office concludes that there is no need for the creation of a blanket moral rights statute at this time. However, there are aspects of the US moral rights patchwork that could be improved to the benefit of individual authors and the copyright system as a whole.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.copyright.gov/policy/moralrights/full-report.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.copyright.gov/policy/moralrights/full-report.pdf |archive-date=9 October 2022 |url-status=live |title=authors, attribution, and integrity: examining moral rights in the united states |date=April 2019 |website=U.S. Copyright Office }}</ref>

In the [[copyright law of the United States]], several exclusive rights are granted to the holder of a copyright, as are listed below:

* protection of the work;
* to determine and decide how, and under what conditions, the work may be marketed, publicly displayed, reproduced, distributed, etc.
* to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies; (including, typically, electronic copies)
* to import or export the work;
* to create [[derivative work]]s; (works that adapt the original work)
* to perform or display the work publicly;
* to sell or cede these rights to others;
* to transmit or display by radio, video or internet.<ref name="yu-2006"/>

The basic right when a work is protected by copyright is that the holder may determine and decide how and under what conditions the protected work may be used by others. This includes the right to decide to distribute the work for free. This part of copyright is often overseen. The phrase "exclusive right" means that only the copyright holder is free to exercise those rights, and others are prohibited from using the work without the holder's permission. Copyright is sometimes called a "negative right", as it serves to prohibit certain people (e.g., readers, viewers, or listeners, and primarily publishers and would be publishers) from doing something they would otherwise be able to do, rather than permitting people (e.g., authors) to do something they would otherwise be unable to do. In this way it is similar to the [[unregistered design right]] in [[English law]] and [[European law]]. The rights of the copyright holder also permit them to not use or exploit their copyright, for some or all of the term. There is, however, a critique which rejects this assertion as being based on a [[Philosophy of copyright|philosophical interpretation of copyright law]] that is not universally shared. There is also debate on whether copyright should be considered a [[property right]] or a [[Moral rights (copyright law)|moral right]].<ref>Tom G. Palmer, [http://www.tomgpalmer.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/morallyjustified.pdf "Are Patents and Copyrights Morally Justified?"] Accessed 5 February 2013.</ref>

[[UK copyright law]] gives creators both economic rights and moral rights. While 'copying' someone else's work without permission may constitute an infringement of their economic rights, that is, the reproduction right or the right of communication to the public, whereas, 'mutilating' it might infringe the creator's moral rights. In the UK, moral rights include the right to be identified as the author of the work, which is generally identified as the right of attribution, and the right not to have your work subjected to 'derogatory treatment', that is the right of integrity.<ref name="Copyright User" />

[[Copyright law of India|Indian copyright law]] is at parity with the international standards as contained in [[TRIPS Agreement|TRIPS]]. The Indian ''Copyright Act, 1957'', pursuant to the amendments in 1999, 2002 and 2012, fully reflects the Berne Convention and the Universal Copyrights Convention, to which India is a party. India is also a party to the [[Geneva Phonograms Convention|Geneva Convention for the Protection of Rights of Producers of Phonograms]] and is an active member of the [[World Intellectual Property Organization]] (WIPO) and [[UNESCO|United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization]] (UNESCO). The Indian system provides both the economic and moral rights under different provisions of its Indian Copyright Act of 1957.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/655852/Copyright/Copyright+Law+In+India+Everything+You+Must+Know|title=Copyright Law In India|last=Dalmia|first=Vijay Pal|date=14 December 2017|website=Mondaq}}</ref>

===Duration===<!-- This section is linked from [[Little Nemo]] -->
{{Main|Copyright term |List of countries' copyright length }}
[[File:Extended Tom Bell's graph showing extension of U.S. copyright term over time.svg|thumb|upright=1.35|Expansion of US copyright law (currently based on the date of creation or publication)]]
Copyright subsists for a variety of lengths in different jurisdictions. The length of the term can depend on several factors, including the type of work (e.g. musical composition, novel), whether the work has been [[Publication|published]], and whether the work was created by an individual or a corporation. In most of the world, the default length of copyright is the life of the author plus either 50 or 70 years. In the United States, the term for most existing works is a fixed number of years after the date of creation or publication. Under most countries' laws (for example, the United States<ref>{{UnitedStatesCode |17 |305 }}</ref> and the United Kingdom),<ref>The Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995, [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19953297_en_3.htm part II], Amendments of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988</ref> copyrights expire at the end of the calendar year in which they would otherwise expire.

The length and requirements for copyright duration are subject to change by legislation, and since the early 20th century there have been a number of adjustments made in various countries, which can make determining the duration of a given copyright somewhat difficult. For example, the United States used to require copyrights to be [[Copyright renewal in the United States|renewed]] after 28 years to stay in force, and formerly required a copyright notice upon first publication to gain coverage. In Italy and France, there were post-wartime extensions that could increase the term by approximately 6 years in Italy and up to about 14 in France. Many countries have extended the length of their copyright terms (sometimes retroactively). International treaties establish minimum terms for copyrights, but individual countries may enforce longer terms than those.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Copyright: Sacred Text, Technology, and the DMCA |last=Nimmer |first=David |publisher=Kluwer Law International |year=2003 |isbn=978-90-411-8876-2 |oclc=50606064 |page=63 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RYfRCNxgPO4C |via=Google Books }}</ref>

In the United States, all books and other works, except for sound recordings, published before 1929 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain. The applicable date for sound recordings in the United States is before 1923.<ref>"[https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States]"., ''[[Cornell University]]''.</ref> In addition, works published before 1964 that did not have their copyrights renewed 28 years after first publication year also are in the public domain. Hirtle points out that the great majority of these works (including 93% of the books) were not renewed after 28 years and are in the public domain.<ref>See Peter B. Hirtle, "Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States 1 January 2015" [https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm online at footnote 8] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150226112433/http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm |date=26 February 2015 }}</ref> Books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this renewal requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country.

But if the intended exploitation of the work includes publication (or distribution of derivative work, such as a film based on a book protected by copyright) outside the US, the terms of copyright around the world must be considered. If the author has been dead more than 70 years, the work is in the public domain in most, but not all, countries.

In 1998, the length of a copyright in the United States was increased by 20 years under the ''[[Copyright Term Extension Act]]''. This legislation was the subject of substantial criticism following allegations that the bill was strongly promoted by corporations which had valuable copyrights which otherwise would have expired.<ref>Lawrence Lessig, ''Copyright's First Amendment'', 48 UCLA L. Rev. 1057, 1065 (2001)</ref>

== Limitations and exceptions ==
{{Main|Limitations and exceptions to copyright }}

In many jurisdictions, copyright law makes exceptions to these restrictions when the work is copied for the purpose of commentary or other related uses. United States copyright law does not cover names, titles, short phrases or listings (such as ingredients, recipes, labels, or formulas).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf |archive-date=9 October 2022 |url-status=live|title=Works Not Protected by Copyright |date=2021 |publisher= U.S. Copyright Office}}</ref> However, there are protections available for those areas copyright does not cover, such as [[trademark]]s and [[patent]]s.

=== Idea–expression dichotomy and the merger doctrine ===
{{Main|Idea–expression divide }}

The idea–expression divide differentiates between ideas and expression, and states that copyright protects only the original expression of ideas, and not the ideas themselves. This principle, first clarified in the 1879 case of ''[[Baker v. Selden]]'', has since been codified by the ''[[Copyright Act of 1976]]'' at 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).

=== The first-sale doctrine and exhaustion of rights ===

{{Main|First-sale doctrine |Exhaustion of rights }}
Copyright law does not restrict the owner of a copy from reselling legitimately obtained copies of copyrighted works, provided that those copies were originally produced by or with the permission of the copyright holder. It is therefore legal, for example, to resell a copyrighted book or [[compact disc|CD]]. In the United States this is known as the [[first-sale doctrine]], and was established by the [[court]]s to clarify the legality of reselling books in second-hand [[bookstore]]s.

Some countries may have [[parallel importation]] restrictions that allow the copyright holder to control the [[aftermarket (merchandise)|aftermarket]]. This may mean for example that a copy of a book that does not infringe copyright in the country where it was printed does infringe copyright in a country into which it is imported for retailing. The first-sale doctrine is known as [[exhaustion of rights]] in other countries and is a principle which also applies, though somewhat differently, to [[patent]] and [[trademark]] rights. While this doctrine permits the transfer of the particular legitimate copy involved, it does not permit making or distributing additional copies.

In ''[[Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.]]'',<ref>{{cite web |title=11-697 Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. |website=Supreme Court of the United States |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170702033641/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf |archive-date=2 July 2017 }}</ref> in 2013, the [[United States Supreme Court]] held in a 6–3 decision that the first-sale doctrine applies to goods manufactured abroad with the copyright owner's permission and then imported into the US without such permission. The case involved a plaintiff who imported Asian editions of textbooks that had been manufactured abroad with the publisher-plaintiff's permission. The defendant, without permission from the publisher, imported the textbooks and resold on [[eBay]]. The Supreme Court's holding severely limits the ability of copyright holders to prevent such importation.

In addition, copyright, in most cases, does not prohibit one from acts such as modifying, defacing, or destroying one's own legitimately obtained copy of a copyrighted work, so long as duplication is not involved. However, in countries that implement [[Moral rights (copyright law)|moral rights]], a copyright holder can in some cases successfully prevent the mutilation or destruction of a work that is publicly visible.

=== Fair use and fair dealing ===
{{Main|Fair use |Fair dealing }}
{{See also|Section 230}}
Copyright does not prohibit all copying or replication. In the United States, the [[fair use]] doctrine, codified by the [[United States Copyright Act of 1976|''Copyright Act of 1976'']] as 17 U.S.C. Section 107, permits some copying and distribution without permission of the copyright holder or payment to same. The statute does not clearly define fair use, but instead gives four non-exclusive factors to consider in a fair use analysis. Those factors are:
# the purpose and character of one's use;
# the nature of the copyrighted work;
# what amount and proportion of the whole work was taken;
# the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html |title=17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use  |publisher=Legal Information Institute |access-date=16 June 2009 }}</ref>

In the [[United Kingdom]] and many other [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] countries, a similar notion of fair dealing was established by the [[court]]s or through [[legislation]]. The concept is sometimes not well defined; however, in [[Canada]], private copying for personal use has been expressly permitted by statute since 1999. In ''[[Alberta (Education) v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright)]]'', 2012 SCC 37, the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] concluded that limited copying for educational purposes could also be justified under the fair dealing exemption. In Australia, the fair dealing exceptions under the ''[[Copyright Act 1968]]'' (Cth) are a limited set of circumstances under which copyrighted material can be legally copied or adapted without the copyright holder's consent. Fair dealing uses are research and study; review and critique; news reportage and the giving of professional advice (i.e. [[legal advice]]). Under current [[Law of Australia|Australian law]], although it is still a breach of copyright to copy, reproduce or adapt copyright material for personal or private use without permission from the copyright owner, owners of a legitimate copy are permitted to "format shift" that work from one medium to another for personal, private use, or to "time shift" a broadcast work for later, once and only once, viewing or listening. Other technical exemptions from infringement may also apply, such as the temporary reproduction of a work in machine readable form for a computer.

In the United States the AHRA (''[[Audio Home Recording Act]]'' Codified in Section 10, 1992) prohibits action against consumers making noncommercial recordings of music, in return for [[royalties]] on both media and devices plus mandatory copy-control mechanisms on recorders.

{{blockquote|Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.}}

Later acts amended US copyright law so that for certain purposes making 10 copies or more is construed to be commercial, but there is no general rule permitting such copying. Indeed, making one complete copy of a work, or in many cases using a portion of it, for commercial purposes will not be considered fair use. The ''[[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]]'' prohibits the manufacture, importation, or distribution of devices whose intended use, or only significant commercial use, is to bypass an access or copy control put in place by a copyright owner.<ref name="yu-2006"/><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf |title=The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 - U.S. Copyright Office Summary |date=December 1998 |publisher=Copyright Office |access-date=7 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20031008155729/https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf |archive-date=8 October 2003}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.ala.org/advocacy/copyright/dmca |title=DMCA: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act |website=American Library Association |access-date=7 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120319192433/https://www.ala.org/advocacy/copyright/dmca |archive-date=19 March 2012}}</ref> An appellate court has held that fair use is not a defense to engaging in such distribution.{{citation needed|reason=Undocumented claim|date=February 2022}} In ''[[Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.]],'' the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] affirmed the lower court decision, holding that "fair use is 'authorized by the law' and a copyright holder must consider the existence of fair use before sending a takedown notification" under the ''Digital Millennium Copyright Act''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145 |url=https://casetext.com/case/lenz-v-universal-music-corp-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220124061935/https://casetext.com/case/lenz-v-universal-music-corp-17 |url-status=dead |archive-date=24 January 2022 |access-date=24 August 2024 |website=Casetext Search + Citator }}</ref> 

[[Copyright law of the European Union|EU copyright laws]] recognise the right of EU member states to implement some national exceptions to copyright. Examples of those exceptions are:
* photographic reproductions on paper or any similar medium of works (excluding sheet music) provided that the rightholders receives fair compensation;
* reproduction made by libraries, educational establishments, museums or archives, which are non-commercial;
* archival reproductions of broadcasts;
* uses for the benefit of people with a disability;
* for demonstration or repair of equipment;
* for non-commercial research or private study;
* when used in [[parody]].

=== Accessible copies ===
It is legal in several countries including the United Kingdom and the United States to produce alternative versions (for example, in large print or braille) of a copyrighted work to provide improved access to a work for blind and visually impaired people without permission from the copyright holder.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#121 |title=Chapter 1 – Circular 92  |website=U.S. Copyright Office |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240826072748/http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#121 |archive-date= 26 August 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/publicwebsite/public_cvipsact2002.hcsp |title=Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act 2002 |publisher=Royal National Institute of Blind People |date=1 January 2011 |access-date=11 August 2016 |archive-date=7 September 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090907085056/http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/PublicWebsite/public_CVIPsAct2002.hcsp |url-status=dead }}</ref>

=== Religious Service Exemption ===
In the US there is a Religious Service Exemption (1976 law, section 110[3]), namely "performance of a non-dramatic literary or musical work or of a dramatico-musical work of a religious nature or display of a work, in the course of services at a place of worship or other religious assembly" shall not constitute infringement of copyright.<ref>[https://www.copyright.gov/reports/guide-to-copyright.pdf "General Guide to the Copyright Act of 1976", US Copyright Office, ch.8, p.11, September 1977].</ref>

=== Useful articles ===
In Canada, items deemed ''useful articles'' such as clothing designs are exempted from copyright protection under the ''[[Copyright Act (Canada)|Copyright Act]]'' if reproduced more than 50 times.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Monastero |first1=Alessia |title=More Than Just a Trend: The Copyright Protection of Fashion Designs |url=https://www.oba.org/JUST/Practice_List/2019/More-than-Just-a-Trend-The-Copyright-Protection-o |date=5 December 2019 |website=Ontario Bar Association |access-date=31 August 2023 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230831013915/https://www.oba.org/JUST/Practice_List/2019/More-than-Just-a-Trend-The-Copyright-Protection-o |archive-date= 31 August 2023 }}</ref> [[Fast fashion]] brands may reproduce clothing designs from smaller companies without violating copyright protections.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Moran |first1=Padraig |url=https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/dupes-online-shopping-fast-fashion-1.6908904 |date=17 July 2023 |title=Dupes offer cheap fashion to Canadians, but small businesses say they're paying the price|website=CBC Radio |access-date=31 August 2023}}</ref>

== <span class="anchor" id="Transfer and licensing, and assignment"></span> Transfer, assignment and licensing ==
{{See also|Collective rights management |Extended collective licensing |Compulsory license |Copyright transfer agreement }}
[[File:All rights reserved.jpg|thumb|right|upright=1.35|alt=Text engraved on a DVD: ...ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, TM, ® & COPYRIGHT © 2007 BY...|Generic DVD: ''[[All rights reserved]]'']]
A copyright, or aspects of it (e.g. reproduction alone, all but moral rights), may be assigned or transferred from one party to another.<ref name="WIPO Guide on the Licensing of Copyright and Related Rights">{{Cite book |title=WIPO Guide on the Licensing of Copyright and Related Rights |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LvRRvXBIi8MC |isbn=978-92-805-1271-7 |year=2004 |publisher=World Intellectual Property Organization |page=15 }}</ref> For example, a musician who records an album will often sign an agreement with a record company in which the musician agrees to transfer all copyright in the recordings in exchange for royalties and other considerations. The creator (and original copyright holder) benefits, or expects to, from production and marketing capabilities far beyond those of the author. In the digital age of music, music may be copied and distributed at minimal cost through the [[Internet]]; however, the [[record industry]] attempts to provide promotion and marketing for the artist and their work so it can reach a much larger audience. A copyright holder need not transfer all rights completely, though many publishers will insist. Some of the rights may be transferred, or else the copyright holder may grant another party a non-exclusive license to copy or distribute the work in a particular region or for a specified period of time.

A transfer or license may have to meet particular formal requirements in order to be effective,<ref>{{Cite book |title=WIPO Guide on the Licensing of Copyright and Related Rights |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LvRRvXBIi8MC |page=8 |isbn=978-92-805-1271-7 |year=2004 |publisher=World Intellectual Property Organization }}</ref> for example under the Australian [[Copyright law of Australia#Copyright Act 1968|Copyright Act 1968]] the copyright itself must be expressly transferred in writing. Under the US Copyright Act, a transfer of ownership in copyright must be memorialized in a writing signed by the transferor. For that purpose, ownership in copyright includes exclusive licenses of rights. Thus, exclusive licenses, to be effective, must be granted in a written instrument signed by the grantor. No special form of transfer or grant is required. A simple document that identifies the work involved and the rights being granted is sufficient. Non-exclusive grants (often called non-exclusive licenses) need not be in writing under [[Law of the United States|US law]]. They can be oral or even implied by the behavior of the parties. Transfers of copyright ownership, including exclusive licenses, may and should be recorded in the U.S. Copyright Office. (Information on recording transfers is available on the Office's web site.) While recording is not required to make the grant effective, it offers important benefits, much like those obtained by recording a deed in a [[real estate]] transaction.

Copyright may also be [[license]]d.<ref name="WIPO Guide on the Licensing of Copyright and Related Rights" /> Some jurisdictions may provide that certain classes of copyrighted works be made available under a prescribed [[statutory license]] (e.g. musical works in the United States used for radio broadcast or performance). This is also called a [[compulsory license]], because under this scheme, anyone who wishes to copy a covered work does not need the permission of the copyright holder, but instead merely files the proper notice and pays a set fee established by statute (or by an agency decision under statutory guidance) for every copy made.<ref>{{Cite book |title=WIPO Guide on the Licensing of Copyright and Related Rights |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LvRRvXBIi8MC |page=16 |isbn=978-92-805-1271-7 |year=2004 |publisher=World Intellectual Property Organization }}</ref> Failure to follow the proper procedures would place the copier at risk of an infringement suit. Because of the difficulty of following every individual work, [[copyright collective]]s or [[collecting societies]] and [[performance rights organisation|performing rights organizations]] (such as [[ASCAP]], [[Broadcast Music Incorporated|BMI]], and [[SESAC]]) have been formed to collect royalties for hundreds (thousands and more) works at once. Though this market solution bypasses the statutory license, the availability of the statutory fee still helps dictate the price per work collective rights organizations charge, driving it down to what avoidance of procedural hassle would justify.

=== Free licenses ===
{{Main|Free license}}
{{See also|Open-source license}}

Copyright licenses known as ''open'' or free licenses seek to grant several rights to licensees, either for a fee or not. ''Free'' in this context is not as much of a reference to price as it is to freedom. What constitutes free licensing has been characterised in a number of similar definitions, including by order of longevity the [[Free Software Definition]], the [[Debian Free Software Guidelines]], the [[Open Source Definition]] and the [[Definition of Free Cultural Works]]. Further refinements to these definitions have resulted in categories such as [[copyleft]] and [[permissive license|permissive]]. Common examples of free licenses are the [[GNU General Public License]], [[BSD license]]s and some [[Creative Commons licenses]].

Founded in 2001 by [[James Boyle (academic)|James Boyle]], [[Lawrence Lessig]], and [[Hal Abelson]], the [[Creative Commons]] (CC) is a non-profit organization which aims to facilitate the legal sharing of creative works. To this end, the organization provides a number of generic copyright license options to the public, [[gratis versus libre|gratis]]. These licenses allow copyright holders to define conditions under which others may use a work and to specify what types of use are acceptable.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Creative Commons Website |url=https://creativecommons.org/ |access-date=24 October 2011 |website=creativecommons.org}}</ref>

Terms of use have traditionally been negotiated on an individual basis between copyright holder and potential licensee. Therefore, a general CC license outlining which rights the copyright holder is willing to waive enables the general public to use such works more freely. Six general types of CC licenses are available (although some of them are not properly free per the above definitions and per Creative Commons' own advice). These are based upon copyright-holder stipulations such as whether they are willing to allow modifications to the work, whether they permit the creation of derivative works and whether they are willing to permit commercial use of the work. {{As of |2009 }} approximately 130 million individuals had received such licenses.<ref>Rubin, R. E. (2010) 'Foundations of Library and Information Science: Third Edition', Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc., New York, p. 341</ref>

== Criticism ==
{{Main |Criticism of copyright }}
Some sources are critical of particular aspects of the copyright system. This is known as a debate over [[copynorms]]. Particularly to the background of uploading content to internet platforms and the digital exchange of original work, there is discussion about the [[copyright aspects of downloading and streaming]], the [[copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing]].

Concerns are often couched in the language of [[digital rights]], digital freedom, [[database right]]s, [[open data]] or [[censorship]].<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://edri.org/press-release-meps-ignore-expert-advice-and-vote-for-mass-internet-censorship/ |title=MEPs ignore expert advice and vote for mass internet censorship |publisher=European Digital Rights |access-date=24 June 2018 |date=20 June 2018 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Copyright Week 2019: Copyright as a tool of censorship|url=https://edri.org/our-work/copyright-week-2019-copyright-as-tool-of-censorship/|access-date=27 February 2021|website=European Digital Rights (EDRi)|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=23 May 2016|title=Revealed: How copyright law is being misused to remove material from the internet|url=http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/23/copyright-law-internet-mumsnet|access-date=27 February 2021|website=The Guardian|language=en}}</ref>  Discussions include ''[[Free Culture (book)|Free Culture]]'', a 2004 book by [[Lawrence Lessig]]. Lessig coined the term [[permission culture]] to describe a worst-case system. The documentaries ''[[Good Copy Bad Copy]]'' and ''[[RiP!: A Remix Manifesto]]'' discuss copyright. Some suggest an [[alternative compensation system]]. In Europe consumers are acting up against the rising costs of music, film and books, and as a result [[Pirate Party|Pirate Parties]] have been created. Some groups reject copyright altogether, taking an [[Copyright abolition|anti-copyright]] stance. The perceived inability to enforce copyright online leads some to advocate [[Crypto-anarchism|ignoring legal statutes when on the web]].

== Public domain ==
{{Main |Public domain }}
Copyright, like other [[intellectual property rights]], is subject to a statutorily determined term. Once the term of a copyright has expired, the formerly copyrighted work enters the public domain and may be used or exploited by anyone without obtaining permission, and normally without payment. However, in [[paying public domain]] regimes the user may still have to pay royalties to the state or to an authors' association. Courts in common law countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, have rejected the doctrine of a [[common law copyright]]. Public domain works should not be confused with works that are publicly available. Works posted in the [[internet]], for example, are publicly available, but are not generally in the public domain. Copying such works may therefore violate the author's copyright.

== See also ==
{{Portal |Law }}
{{Div col}}
* [[Adelphi Charter]]
* [[Artificial scarcity]]
* [[Authors' rights]] and [[related rights]], roughly equivalent concepts in [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]] countries
* [[Conflict of laws]]
* [[Copyfraud]]
* [[Copyleft]]
* [[Copyright abolition]]
* [[Copyright Alliance]]
* [[Copyright alternatives]]
* [[Copyright for Creativity]]
* [[Copyright in architecture in the United States]]
* [[Copyright on the content of patents and in the context of patent prosecution]]
* [[Creative Commons license]]s and [[List of free-content licenses]]
* [[Criticism of copyright]]
* [[Intellectual property#Criticisms|Criticism of intellectual property]]
* [[Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market]] (European Union)
* [[Copyright infringement]]
* [[Copyright Remedy Clarification Act]] (CRCA)
* [[Digital rights management]]
* [[Digital watermarking]]
* [[Entertainment law]]
* [[Freedom of panorama]]
* [[Information literacy]]
* [[Intellectual property protection of typefaces]]
* [[List of Copyright Acts]]
* [[List of copyright case law]]
* [[Literary property]]
* [[Model release]]
* [[Paracopyright]]
* [[Philosophy of copyright]]
* [[Photography and the law]]
* [[Pirate Party]]
* [[Printing patent]], a precursor to copyright
* [[Private copying levy]]
* [[Production music]]
* [[Rent-seeking]]
* [[Reproduction fees]]
* [[Samizdat]]
* [[Software copyright]]
* [[Threshold pledge system]]
* [[World Book Day|World Book and Copyright Day]]
{{Div col end}}

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== Further reading ==
{{Refbegin}}
* Armstrong, E. (1990). ''Before copyright: the French book-privilege system, 1498-1526''. Cambridge University Press.
*Atkinson, Juliette.(2012). {{"'}}Alexander the Great': Dumas's Conquest of Early-Victorian England". ''Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America'' 106 (4): 417–47.
* {{Cite book
  |last=Dowd
  |first=Raymond J.
  |title=Copyright Litigation Handbook
  |publisher=Thomson West |edition=1st |year=2006
  |isbn=0-314-96279-4
  |ref=Dowd, Litigation handbook
}}
* Ellis, Sara R. ''Copyrighting Couture: An Examination of Fashion Design Protection and Why the DPPA and IDPPPA are a Step Towards the Solution to Counterfeit Chic'', 78 Tenn. L. Rev. 163 (2010), ''available at'' [https://ssrn.com/abstract=1735745 Copyrighting Couture: An Examination of Fashion Design Protection and Why the DPPA and IDPPPA are a Step Towards the Solution to Counterfeit Chic].
* [[Shuman Ghosemajumder|Ghosemajumder, Shuman]]. ''[http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/8438 Advanced Peer-Based Technology Business Models]''. [[MIT Sloan School of Management]], 2002.
* Johns, A. (2009). ''Piracy: the intellectual property wars from Gutenberg to Gates''. University of Chicago Press.
* [[Bruce Lehman|Lehman, Bruce]]: ''[https://web.archive.org/web/20170812095023/https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/doc/ipnii/ Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure]'' (Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, 1995)
* Lindsey, Marc: ''Copyright Law on Campus.'' [[Washington State University]] Press, 2003. {{ISBN|978-0-87422-264-7}}.
* Loewenstein, J. (2002). ''The author's due: printing and the prehistory of copyright''. The University of Chicago Press.
* Mazzone, Jason. ''[[Copyfraud]]''. [https://ssrn.com/abstract=787244 SSRN]
* McDonagh, Luke. ''Is Creative use of Musical Works without a licence acceptable under Copyright?'' International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC) 4 (2012) 401–426, available at [https://ssrn.com/abstract=2521081 SSRN]
* {{Cite book |last=Nimmer |first=Melville |author-link=Melville Nimmer |author2=David Nimmer |title=Nimmer on Copyright |publisher=Matthew Bender |year=1997 |isbn=0-8205-1465-9 |title-link=Nimmer on Copyright }}
* {{Cite book |title=Copyright in Historical Perspective |last=Patterson |first=Lyman Ray |year=1968 |publisher=Vanderbilt University Press |isbn=0-8265-1373-5 |version=Online Version }}
* Rife, by Martine Courant. ''Convention, Copyright, and Digital Writing'' (Southern Illinois University Press; 2013) 222 pages; Examines legal, pedagogical, and other aspects of online authorship.
* Rose, M. (1995). ''Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright''. Harvard University Press.
* {{cite book |last=Rosen |first=Ronald |title=Music and Copyright |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford Oxfordshire |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-19-533836-2 }}
* Shipley, David E. "[https://ssrn.com/abstract=1076789 Thin But Not Anorexic: Copyright Protection for Compilations and Other Fact Works]" UGA Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-001; ''Journal of Intellectual Property Law'', Vol. 15, No. 1, 2007.
* Silverthorne, Sean. ''[http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=4206&t=innovation Music Downloads: Pirates- or Customers?]''. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060630024153/http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=4206&t=innovation |date=30 June 2006 }}. [[Harvard Business School]] Working Knowledge, 2004.
* Sorce Keller, Marcello. "Originality, Authenticity and Copyright", ''Sonus'', VII(2007), no. 2, pp.&nbsp;77–85.
* {{Cite book |author1=Steinberg, S.H. |author2=Trevitt, John |title=Five Hundred Years of Printing |location=London and New Castle |publisher=The British Library and Oak Knoll Press |edition=4th |year=1996 |isbn=1-884718-19-1 |ref=Steinberg, Five hundred years }}
* {{Cite book |title=The Copy/South Dossier: Issues in the Economics, Politics and Ideology of Copyright in the Global South |url=http://copysouth.org/en/documents/csdossier.pdf |editor1=Story, Alan |editor2=Darch, Colin |editor3=Halbert, Deborah |year=2006 |publisher=Copy/South Research Group |isbn=978-0-9553140-1-8 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130816113145/http://copysouth.org/en/documents/csdossier.pdf |archive-date=16 August 2013 }}
* {{Cite book |last=Ransom |first=Harry Huntt |year=1956 |title=The First Copyright Statute |location=Austin |publisher=University of Texas |isbn=9780292732353 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lvZEAAAAMAAJ }}
* {{cite web |first1=Alden |last1=Abbott |first2=Kevin |last2=Madigan |first3=Adam |last3=Mossoff |first4=Kristen |last4=Osenga |first5=Zvi |last5=Rosen |title=Holding States Accountable for Copyright Piracy |url=https://regproject.org/wp-content/uploads/Paper-Holding-States-Accountable-for-Copyright-Piracy.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://regproject.org/wp-content/uploads/Paper-Holding-States-Accountable-for-Copyright-Piracy.pdf |archive-date=9 October 2022 |url-status=live |website=Regulatory Transparency Project |access-date=15 May 2021 }}
* {{Cite book |last1=Goldstein |first1=Paul |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IvarDwAAQBAJ |title=International Copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice |last2=Hugenholtz |first2=P. Bernt |date=30 August 2019 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-006063-3 |language=en}}
{{Refend}}

== External links ==
{{Commons}}
{{Wikiquote}}
{{EB9 Poster|Copyright}}
{{EB1911 poster |Copyright}}
{{Wikisource|Wikisource:Copyright law |Copyright law}}
{{Library resources box}}
*{{cite web | title=Copyright Law In 2020 Explained In One Page | date=2 October 2020 | website=WhoIsHostingThis.com | url=https://www.whoishostingthis.com/resources/copyright-guide/ | first=Frank | last=Moraes | access-date=13 December 2024 | archive-date=16 May 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210516193743/https://www.whoishostingthis.com/resources/copyright-guide/ | url-status=dead }} A simplified guide.
* [https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/ WIPOLex] from [[WIPO]]; global database of treaties and statutes relating to intellectual property
* [https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?country_id=ALL&start_year=ANY&end_year=ANY&search_what=C&treaty_id=15 Copyright Berne Convention: Country List] List of the 164 members of the Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works
*"[https://www.copyright.gov/policy/state-sovereign-immunity/Sovereign%20Immunity%20Report%20final.pdf Copyright and State Sovereign Immunity]", August 2021, U.S. Copyright Office
*"[https://illusionofmore.com/podcast-the-multi-billion-dollar-piracy-industry-with-tom-galvin-of-digital-citizens-alliance/ The Multi-Billion-Dollar Piracy Industry with Tom Galvin of Digital Citizens Alliance]", 27 August 2021 by David Newhoff, ''The Illusion of More'' podcast
* Education
** [https://copyrightcortex.org/ Copyright Cortex]
** [http://www.lawtech.jus.unitn.it/index.php/copyright-history/bibliography A Bibliography on the Origins of Copyright and Droit d'Auteur]
** [http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-912-introduction-to-copyright-law-january-iap-2006/ MIT OpenCourseWare 6.912 Introduction to Copyright Law] Free self-study course with video lectures as offered during the January 2006, Independent Activities Period (IAP)
* US
** [http://copyright.gov/title17/ Copyright Law of the United States Documents], US Government
** [https://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo55676 Compendium of Copyright Practices] (3rd ed.) [[United States Copyright Office]]
** [https://web.archive.org/web/20160304054823/http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/us/copyrite.htm Copyright] from ''UCB Libraries GovPubs''
** [https://www.loc.gov/rr/rarebook/coll/067.html Early Copyright Records] From the [https://www.loc.gov/rr/rarebook/ Rare Book and Special Collections Division at the Library of Congress]
* UK
** [https://www.gov.uk/topic/intellectual-property/copyright Copyright: Detailed information] at the UK Intellectual Property Office
** [https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law Fact sheet P-01: UK copyright law] (Issued April 2000, amended 25 November 2020) at the UK Copyright Service

{{Copyright law by country}}
{{Intellectual property activism}}

{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Copyright law| ]]
[[Category:Data management]]
[[Category:Intellectual property law]]
[[Category:Monopoly (economics)]]
[[Category:Product management]]
[[Category:Public records]]
[[Category:Intangible assets]]