A Legal Clarification by Sliver

In the past few days, STEB has made claims that it is illegal for us to touch the images they have created because they are not in "Public Domain". I've checked out some law resources, and what I've found is very interesting. Let's have a little read.

Below is the an excerpt from USC Title 17 Chapter 2 Section 201 - Ownership of copyright:
� 201. Ownership of copyright

	(a) Initial Ownership. - Copyright in a work protected under this title vests 
	initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are 
	coowners of copyright in the work. 

	(b) Works Made for Hire. - In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or 
	other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes 
	of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written 
	instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright. 

	(c) Contributions to Collective Works. - Copyright in each separate contribution to 
	a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and 
	vests initially in the author of the contribution. In the absence of an express 
	transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the 
	collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and 
	distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision 
	of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series. 

	(d) Transfer of Ownership. - 

		(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any 
		means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or 
		pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession. 

		(2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any 
		subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred 
		as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular 
		exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the 
		protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title. 

		(e) Involuntary Transfer. - When an individual author's ownership of a 
		copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, has not 
		previously been transferred voluntarily by that individual author, no action 
		by any governmental body or other official or organization purporting to seize, 
		expropriate, transfer, or exercise rights of ownership with respect to the 
		copyright, or any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, shall be given 
		effect under this title, except as provided under title 11. 


As stated under section a, Initial Ownership, STEB (or the individual who created the specific image in question) does have legal ownership and copyright of the item. But, look at the next excerpt, USC Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 107 - Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair use:

� 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

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
(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. 


Hmmm now... what's this? Reproduction of materials for use of criticism or comment (which includes parody) is NOT an infringement of copyright? That would make everything that we have done so far legal as it is claimable under one or more methods.

Once again, we prove you wrong.

Return to Main Page