Maybe. Where is the fanfic being displayed? Is the site making any kind of revenue? If they're generating ad revenue by having fanfic of famous people there, I think you could make the case that it falls within the statute.
Disney's influence on copyright law started long before that. Here's an article giving an overview. It all started with Mickey Mouse in the animated short, Steamboat Willie. Disney had been burned over a previous cartoon creation, so he wanted to make sure he didn't lose control of Mickey. Ironically, Steamboat Willie was based on a Buster Keaton short, Steamboat Bill Junior, a clear violation of Keaton's copyright which Keaton didn't pursue because he believed in artistic freedom.
Thanks - that's an interesting article. I'm leery of the argument that Disney was behind the 1976 Act, given that we were in the UCC, and had been for some time while moving slowly to change our copyright laws accordingly, and we were looking ahead at getting into the Berne Convention as well, which we did about ten years later. I think the argument around the 1998 Act is more compelling, though not everyone agrees: http://copyright.nova.edu/sonny-bono-copyright-extension/
I did a quick Google of this and came up with Upper Canada College as well as some other things I'm sure were way off the mark. United Copyright Convention? Universal Copyright Committee? Unusual Copyright Claims?
It's because Google likes to massage results based on the searcher's location. Being in Canada, well...
@Steerpike I'd be interested if you ever get around to putting your talk into some sort of electronic format. I'm not in anyway demanding. I did not know about this! Considering I love the re-telling of fairytales in Romances, have read a few family unfriendly versions within the genre and plan to re-tell one when I'm feeling inspired, I do not like this one bit.
Hi, Linny. Sorry to have missed your post. I may very well do that. I typically have a PowerPoint presentation that I use with the talk, but it generally isn't much use on its own. Instead of having slides full of info and reading from them, my slides are fairly minimal, maybe with some references, or nice pictures or videos I want to use to emphasize a point. But it wouldn't be difficult for me to put the talk into electronic form to provide some basic information on Intellectual Property law for authors.
A YouTube vid @Steerpike, that would be fabulous. So yes, we get to hear your lovely voice. Just keep it low and smooth, with just a bit of raspy and the information will flow into our brains and we'll be mesmerized. No pressure! Sorry, I can't help being silly online (hehe) but I am serious. About the info not the sexy voice! It's good to know we have a resident brain on IP. Does my head in whenever I read up on that stuff on the web. Annoys me that you'll read all this stuff and then it ends with, but talk to a lawyer! At least here, we might be able to pick your brain a little bit more, if you have the time and we're really confused. I'm always interested WF opinions since I consider here my home forum. Thank you for even considering to do this.
Oooh, I have a new question! I don't care if you've already given the talk - I want ANSWERS!!! How does jurisdiction work for copyright issues? Like, if I'm Canadian, and am plagiarized by someone in, say, China, does registering my copyright with US copyright office (where my books are published) do a damn bit of good? If I register my copyright in Canada, does it count as registered in terms of getting statutory damages under US law? etc.
The phrase "Berne Convention" floats to my mind, and then my mind lies down and takes a nap in a catlike-denial sort of state. I realize that you're asking Steerpike anyway.
Yeah, I think the Berne convention is probably going to be an important part of the answer... I just don't know what the OTHER parts of the answer will be!
My reading of this implies that, if I write something that features, say, Johnny Depp, and it turns into a best-seller, Johnny should only be able to sue me for the damages that he has sustained. And since I'm not stupid enough to defame somebody that famous, he would have sustained no damage; in fact, by featuring him in my best-seller, I've actually increased how well-known he is, and thus I've done the opposite of damaging him or his reputation. Even if I put him there simply to increase my own sales, how is that damaging to him?
That's not the entire statute. The law in California provides for statutory damages (damages awarded without any proof of monetary damages). It also allows for punitive damages and for the awarding of attorneys fees. If you actually went to court, the attorneys fees alone would be significant. You're putting damages considerations into the hands of a judge or jury, and there have been some high punitive damages awards (around a couple million, for example, which is above and beyond any compensatory damages). Those should be reserved for egregious cases however. Also, the statute explicitly recognizes increased sales attributable to the use as damages to the person, so they don't have to have been actually damaged financially.
If I register my copyright in Canada, does it count as registered in terms of getting statutory damages under US law? [/QUOTE] No, I don't believe so. I am pretty sure the case law indicates that you have to comply with U.S. registration requirements to get statutory damages, attorney's fees, etc. provided for by U.S. law.
