#21891
How do I insert a watermark in a PDF document?
Becker, Edward. PDFzone (2005). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright>Adobe Acrobat
#27124
Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to Science
Scientists who study encryption or computer security or otherwise reverse engineer technical measures, who make tools enabling them to do this work, and who report the results of their research face new risks of legal liability because of recently adopted rules prohibiting the circumvention of technical measures and manufacture or distribution of circumvention tools. Because all data in digital form can be technically protected, the impact of these rules goes far beyond encryption and computer security research. The scientific community must recognize the harms these rules pose and provide guidance about how to improve the anticircumvention rules.
Samuelson, Pamela. Science (2001). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#18892
Applying Copyleft To Non-Software Information
Copyleft contains the normal copyright statement, asserting ownership and identification of the author. However, it then gives away some of the other rights implicit in the normal copyright: it says that not only are you free to redistribute this work, but you are also free to change the work. However, you cannot claim to have written the original work, nor can you claim that these changes were created by someone else. Finally, all derivative works must also be placed under these terms.
Stutz, Michael. GNU. Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright>Open Source
#18858
It's getting more tempting to infringe on copyright when creating presentations, thanks to many new scanning and duplicating technologies as well as proliferating Web content. But writers, designers, artists and copyright owners are becoming more aggressive, using new tactics and technologies to enforce their rights. If you don't know the rules, you could end up on the wrong side of a lawsuit.
Zielinski, Dave. 3M (2002). Presentations>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#10193
With the advent of powerful networked desktop computers and the World Wide Web, authors have for the first time acquired control of the technology for scholarly communication. That radical change prompts the question of how authors have in the past fared under copyright law, and how they might fare in the future. Anglo-American copyright law has always attempted to regulate the interests of three parties: the author, the publisher, and the public. Before there was a formal copyright law, royal patents granted to the Stationer's Company created printing monopolies and facilitated state censorship. The concerns of authors were hardly considered. The 1710 Statute of Anne, our first formal copyright law, left printers the dominant power in relations between printers and authors. What is most remarkable about the Statute of Anne is that the state's interest began to shift from censorship toward the creation of a public domain for intellectual property.
Bennett, Scott. Journal of Electronic Publishing (1999). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright>History
#27095
A Brief History of US Fair Use
In our role as writing teachers, we’ve been asked to adopt 'post-modern practice' by releasing old-fashioned notions of single authorship and obsolete pedagogy that forbids plagiarism under a 'detect-and-punish' regime. Instead, we are to teach 'digital ethics' and Fair Use. But what exactly is 'Fair Use'? This is a doctrine we as writing teachers need to understand because while public figures such as Lawrence Lessig, Jessica Litman, and Siva Vaidhyanathan argue that the law needs to be changed, in the meantime we have classes to teach. Writing teachers increasingly teach writing on networked computers, and therefore our need to understand the basic doctrine of Fair Use is as great as our need to understand the rules of anti-plagiarism. This paper first reviews current US Copyright Law, and then briefly traces the concept of 'Fair Use' from its inception as 'fair abridgment' in 1700’s England to its current interpretation in US case law. US Copyright policy, the regime legally defining invention, imitation, compilation, and appropriation, is set through complex interactions between a variety of players. These influential interactions include the habits of writers. The tension between stakeholders who wish to share, and stakeholders who wish to contain and control information is viewed as a 'battle,' 'war,' and 'fight'. In this fight, the writing student and teacher thus become actors, willingly or not, determining how copyright operates. Because we as teachers are key players in the continual remediation of copyright policy, we should have a basic critical understanding of US Copyright Law and how Fair Use is situated within our copyright regime.
Rife, Martine Courant. Social Science Research Network (2006). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright>History
#29488
But There's Only So Many Ways to do Something, Right?
We're often victims of design piracy. Roughly once a week someone emails us with an anonymous tip that someone has ripped off our "UI look and feel" and is using it for their own site or their own app. It's amazing what people and businesses think they can get away with. We send the violators an email letting them know they can't take our work, our words, our code, or our design. 98% of the time the violators respond favorably and take the design down or alter it sufficiently that it's no longer recognizable as our design. 1% of the time it takes a few emails before they acquiesce. And 1% of the time it requires legal intervention.
Signal vs. Noise (2007). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright>Web Design
#21042
Clearing Rights for Multimedia Works 
The ground-breaking aspects of undertaking to create a multimedia work are more than just technological; much as the technology is growing by leaps and bounds in response to the needs of creators and consumers, so also must the methods and techniques for transferring from owners to new creators the rights to utilize existing works. As this industry began to take on form and vision, much excited speculation and wonder quickly turned to disbelief, if not outright horror, as creators began to understand what a labyrinth 'clearing rights' would be.
Harper, Georgia K. University of Texas (2003). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright>Multimedia
#21718
On November, 2, 2002, the TEACH Act (Act) became law, fully revising Section 110(2) of the U.S. Copyright Act, governing lawful uses of works protected by copyright in distance education. By complying with the TEACH Act, certain copyrighted works may be used for distance education without permission from, or payment of royalties to, the copyright owner—and without copyright infringement.
Indiana University (2003). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright>Education
#27119
The Constitutional Law of Intellectual Property After Eldred v. Ashcroft 
The past decade has witnessed an extraordinary blossoming of scholarship on the constitutional law of intellectual property, much of which focuses on copyright law. This article suggests that the scholarly debate will and should continue and that the proponents of constitutional limits are likely to enjoy some successes in the future, even if they did not do so in the Eldred case itself.
Samuelson, Pamela. University of California Berkeley (2003). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright>Case Studies
#20780
Copyfight: The Politics of Intellectual Property
Explores the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill policy-making, technical standards development and technological innovation that creates--and will recreate--the networked world as we know it.
#13307
As original content takes on new forms in the rapidly developing and ever-changing digital publishing environment, copyright issues become increasingly important. Publishers that work with those authors who choose to link the information from their printed books to web pages can ensure that copyright violations do not occur.
Lemiski, Karen J. STC Proceedings (2000). Presentations>Intellectual Property>Copyright>Online
#19535
A Copyright Cold War? The Polarized Rhetoric of the Peer-to-Peer Debates 
Participants in the United States’ ongoing debates over peer-to-peer transfers of potentially copyrighted files have regularly trafficked in the rhetoric of warfare. While it is easy to understand how copyright holders would view peer-to-peer file transfers as a kind of attack, the rhetorical turn toward the discourse of military conflict has radiated throughout the debate. Individuals from across the spectrum of opinions on peer-to-peer file transfers both accept and reproduce the positioning of this public policy debate as a life-or-death struggle. The weaknesses of this comparison are illustrated through reference to the history of the Cold War, often cited as a model for the post-Napster period. Further, the relative immaturity of the peer-to-peer debate is demonstrated through reference to rhetorical analysis techniques suggested by stasis theory. This article concludes by suggesting ways in which the currently stalemated debate might be revitalized by principled interventions from scholars and concerned citizens.
Logie, John. First Monday (2003). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#28155
Copyright is extremely important in our economy today. Intellectual property fuels our economy to a great extent: 1/3 of the market of US stock, and 42% of gross domestic product. A copyright protects authorship, either now known or later developed. There are fundamental concepts of copyright: it needs to be in a tangible form and it needs to be eligible.
Kinder, Meredith. Carolina Communique (2006). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#27133
The Clinton administration, through its white paper on intellectual property, is proposing a wholesale giveaway to its supporters in the copyright industry--at your expense.
Samuelson, Pamela. Wired (1996). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#25271
Copyright in the Twenty-First Century: The Exclusive Right to Read
The hottest of hot topics in the copyright community these days is the information superhighway, officially dubbed the National Information infrastructure.
Litman, Jessica. Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal (1994). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#13699
A PowerPoint presentation on recent developments in intellectual property law, and their cultural significance to content producers and consumers.
Johnson-Eilola, Johndan. Clarkson University (2001). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#21717
Learn basic copyright information quickly.
Indiana University. Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#21715
A collection of links to high-quality intellectual property websites that focus on copyright.
Stanford University. Resources>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#27135
Copyright, Commodification, And Censorship: Past As Prologue--But To What Future?
Copyright, commodification, and freedom of expression have often been viewed as harmonious and complementary concepts. In Harper and Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, for example, the Supreme Court characterized copyright law as the 'engine of free expression.' Holding a left-leaning news magazine liable for copyright infringement for publishing excerpts from Gerald Ford's forthcoming memoirs was not, in the Court's view, to condone an act of private censorship. It was in harmony with first amendment principles because copyright incentives would ensure that these memoirs would reach the public through the normal operation of the marketplace.
Samuelson, Pamela. University of California Berkeley (1999). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#19391
Someone owns just about everything. Fair use lets you use their things - but not as much as you'd like to. Sometimes you have to ask for permission. Sometimes you are the owner - think about that!
Harper, Georgia K. University of Texas (2001). Resources>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#31426
Creative Commons: A New Way to Think About Copyright
PR people have been in the business of giving away content to reporters for so long that the matter of who owns the content—or who may use it under what circumstances— hasn't much concerned us. But our thinking about content and copyright is beginning to change as we put a rapidly expanding range of content on the web.
Forbush, Dan. Communication World Bulletin (2005). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#13636
Soon there may be an easy way to avoid stepping on someone else's digital music rights. (Yes, I know, information wants to be free and all, but you need to pay attention to digital rights. Just look at Napster.)
Cox, Beth. Internet.com (2002). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#19375
CyberLaw and You: What New Media Communicators Must Know
As our world changes, so, too, do the laws to which we are subject. Gone are the days of the 'wild, wild web.' Here are the days of increasing regulation, at both the state and Federal levels, of the Internet. Recently enacted Federal legislation includes the Copyright Extension Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Digital Theft Deterrence Act and the Anti-Cybersquatting and Consumer Protection Act. Looming on the horizon in a number of states is the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA), which, when enacted by the individual states, will force significant changes to how anyone operating in the computer industry will conduct his or her business. In addition, case law continues to evolve in trademark, jurisdiction and other areas related to the Internet and electronic content.
Juillet, Christopher. STC Proceedings (2002). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright>Online
#18743
En este artículo vamos a introducir los conceptos básicos sobre Derecho de Autor (copyright), prestando especial atención a las obras y recursos publicados en el entorno Web.
Fernandez, Francisco Jesus Martin and Yusef Hassan Montero. Nosolousabilidad.com (2003). (Spanish) Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright>Online
