Copyright and/or Plagiarism?
Distinguishing between legality and ethics
 |
| "maybe" public domain |
 |
| public domain |
Plagiarism: the act
of using another person's words or ideas without giving credit to that person :
the act of plagiarizing something
Copyright: the legal right to be the only one to reproduce,
publish, and sell a book, musical recording, etc., for a certain period of time
2.an
encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege
A Plagiarism Today post titled Copyright
Infringement, Plagiarism and Fair Use attempts to clarify the relativity
and the important differences between these terms.
The most prominent difference is legality; violating the
terms of copyright material is illegal, punishable by civil and sometimes
criminal charges. The terms of copyright can be complex, the PT article says:
“You can infringe upon a copyright in many different ways.
You can duplicate a work, rewrite a piece, perform a written work or do
anything that is normally considered to be the exclusive right of the copyright
holder. As such, copyright infringement is a very broad term that describes a
variety of acts.”
So, you can violate copyright agreements even while
praising the original artist and clearly declaring that they are the
creator/author…or the person or entity who now holds the copyright.
Plagiarism specifically requires the lack of attribution;
while you can plagiarize and violate copyright at the same time, you can
violate copyright without plagiarizing. PT points out that plagiarism is:
“considered to be a much more morally heinous act as it
involves deception (lying to others about the origins of the work) and
generally has a much greater impact on the copyright holder.”
The earliest copyright laws of course concerned written
works. The first United States copyright law came into being in 1790, granting
exclusive ownership of a work for up to 2 consecutive 14 year periods, after
which the work necessarily became public domain. This original law has been
amended many times as new technology demands; The Copyright Act of 1831 was
amended to include musical compositions, and the first period of ownership was
doubled to 28 years; a 1912 amendment included “motion pictures” and a 1971
amendment included sound recordings, and so on and so forth, with additional
copyright term extensions along the way. (www.historyofcopyright.org)
Copyright protects so many aspects of our “common”
experience that we are often still surprised that certain things are not free
to use.
Take for example the happy birthday song. While it’s fair
use to sing the song to your friend, brother or grandma in the privacy of your
own home and for noncommercial use, Happy Birthday had a hefty price tag
attached anytime you heard it on the radio, saw it recited on television or in
movies…or even had it sung to you by over-zealous and underpaid chain
restaurant staff, much to your embarrassment.
According to a Claims
Journal article, Warner-Chappell Music Group (a division of Time Warner)
owned copyright of the song from 1988 until a court hearing last September,
brought against Warner-Chappell from disgruntled artists sick of paying steep
fees for the songs use. The suit traced the songs long copyright history, from
the melody’s creation by two sisters in Kentucky in 1893 whose song “Good
Morning to All” had nothing to do with birthdays (although one sister later
claimed rights to the ubiquitous birthday lyrics too), to their publisher the
Clayton F. Summy Co./Birchtree, to Warner-Chappell.
A detail in the copyright was found to have given Clayton
F. Summy Co. rights to the tune and piano arrangement, but no claim to any
lyrics. Thus, Warner-Chappell could no longer proclaim ownership, either.
Jay Morgenstern, executive vice president of Warner-Chappell
at the time the New York Times/Associated Press article Happy
Birthday and the Money It Makes was published in 1989, was quoted as
revealing that at that time, the company was rewarded up to $50,000 each time
the song was used in a film, and $750-$5,000 for use in television.
As part of a more recent court ruling, according to this Reuters/Hindustan
Times article, Warner-Chappell will be the one paying up now…$14,000,000 in
settlement fees since their copyright claims unraveled.
For more about this intriguing example of the intricacies
of copyright, see:
No comments:
Post a Comment