Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More state control. Not a fan of it. I thought the intension of it was to allow a company to brand a product and then prevent others from selling under that brand, not to prevent social commentary.
You're mixing up trademarks and copyright, they are separate. A trademark covers short names, phrases, logos etc. An example here is you can claim to be an American airline but couldn't claim to be the American Airline.
Copyright covers larger bodies of creative work and would include text, video, photographs, code, designs, sculpture etc. Copyright is instantly granted upon creation, this post I'm making is copyrighted by me. Thje reason CD can display it is because I've agreed to their TOS to allow them to. There is limited use of copyrighted works under fair use, quoting a few sentences of a news article for example and posting it here. These memes are really pushing the boundaries of what fair use is to begin with.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
As it stands now the authors of these copyrighted works could issue a DMCA for takedown and there is a path for you to claim fair use. The site publishing the content in question would be obliged to remove it as they would be liable otherwise.
They could also pursue you in civil court but costs can exceed any judgement.
As it stands now the authors of these copyrighted works could issue a DMCA for takedown and there is a path for you to claim fair use. The site publishing the content in question would be obliged to remove it as they would be liable otherwise.
They could also pursue you in civil court but costs can exceed any judgement.
Exactly lol
Does the world now really want to eliminate and kill the internet so badly when everything has issues?
As it stands now the authors of these copyrighted works could issue a DMCA for takedown and there is a path for you to claim fair use. The site publishing the content in question would be obliged to remove it as they would be liable otherwise.
They could also pursue you in civil court but costs can exceed any judgement.
But now they'll make sure nothing from those forgotten orphaned works will be used without permission and payment.
I wonder if American media outlets will catch into reporting the story
Well, seems like the Trump memes offended the liberals over there in Europe quite a bit, eh?
Jokes aside, why would they do such a thing?
The legislation has to be passed by the European Parliament then each member state has to pass it in to law through it's own Parliaments where it is subject to change. Each member states can introduce some exemptions/derogations to the legislation, so there is some flexibility.
Every country which is adopting the current GDPR will have it's own act of Parliament incorporating the general provisions of the act, however there is some flexibility in relation to certain exceptions and derogations from parts of the GDPR. For instance in the UK, the legislation will be passed in relation to the new Data Protection Act which must go through bot the Houses of Commons and Lords and can be subject to significant change.
There are also examples of EU countries opting out of legislation, so just becase the EU says something does not mean National Parliaments are going to adopt and ratify it in it's entirety.
It also should be noted that the European Council (made up of member state countries), can veto decisions taken by the European Commission and the Parliament, and it's unlikely that the European Council and National Goverments will support this type opf over-bearing legislation in it's current form.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
