posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 04:12 PM
reply to post by TheKeyMaster
but I have knowledge about copyright law...
I take the chance to reply to you but cover most posts.
writing non-fiction books or is it in fact possible to use copyright law to suppress the discovery of information related to conspiracy theories
No factual data can't be copyrighted what you can't reproduce is creative material, you can duplicate information just not the exact way that the
information is presented in any copyright work. You should also consider all work to be under copyright ownership unless specifically stated. You may
copy small parts of original text but not in bulk, a phrase alone shouldn't be considered copyrightable but a paragraph may have sufficient
intellectual property to be copyrightable.
Plagiarisms is not equal to copyright infringement, plagiarisms covers any type of content not generated by yourself that you claim authorship
Imagine the government assigns many disinfo agents to pose as legitimate researchers who have discovered key information regarding well known
conspiracies. These researchers all document their discoveries and theories in individual books websites and videos that are all pieces of the puzzle
yet they mix in a bit of disinfo to take people off the actual trail.
See my first reply in any case you make no real sense in your argument since then there wouldn't be any need for governmental control over media like
there is. Note that all US government content is public domain, unless specifically stated.
be on the lookout for the term "Fair Use."
Fair use is a slippery slope, you should avoid fair use unless you are certain that the use of the infringement of copyright is allowed, I think
satiric and criticism use if possible but avoid exact duplication in quality and be certain to provide acknowledgments to the source. The use of Fair
use for commercial gain should be doubly avoided as you will be a primary target to be sued, most non commercial and free use of fair use benefit from
the fact that they are not directed to provide monetary gains from the right over works infringed.
I could try to contact these people and ask to use material.. but guess what... if you do that and they say no then you will get in more trouble than
if you didn't ask at all from my understanding.
This rule does not apply to copyright and will only applies circumstantially to patents but that is another issue in intellectual property law.
From my understanding if I try to reproduce these same elements in the same order I could be screwed.
You understanding is in error, unless you infringe in a specific patent for commercial purposes/mass production you can reproduce the work of others
and document the findings.
is correct on his assertions.
Like a book report you did for school.
School and Universities most of the time retain the rights over the work of their students, if you produce any intellectual property that you intend
sell or offer freely be certain to check out how the institution works (what you signed over to them). A similar situation occurs if you are employed
if you produce creative work while at work (or even at home), check your contract and if you do intend to produce and control any work especially if
in line with the work you were contracted to do by your employer to have an exclusion included in your employment contract, or at least that
guarantees you some advantage by doing it (a percentage of earnings for example).