[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: International definition of "fair use"
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Endre Jarraux Walls skrev:
Question - would that mean that works performed within the IETF,
regardless
of where they're done would fall under US copyright laws?
That's exactly what it means because the publisher entity is physically
located in the US. Also realize that most IETF NoteWell Submissions are
in fact derivatives of other IP's which the IETF may not own the rights
to in any form. The IETF's claim it owns underlying IP rights to
something I (or anyone discusses) is more than ludicrous its a lie. It
may own my words but that's all. It DOES NOT own any rights to the IP I
was discussing
I can't imagine a plausible scenario where this would be true.
Oh its pretty simple Harald, the IETF is a US Corporation and so
anything it publishes through its US based publication gateways is in
fact controlled by US Copyright. Is that really that far beyond your
imagination?
(if I put a song into an I-D, published from Norway, the I-D is under
my Norwegian copyright,
No its not. The I-D is under the copyright laws of its publisher's
jurisdiction. The real question you should be asking Harald is whether
a IP work published in one country or jurisdiction can have the laws of
other jurisdictions control it???
From my Lay Understanding in civil contracts where a choice of law is
selected this sometimes works, but in the instance of a work published,
that work would be controlled by the copyright laws of the Jurisdiction
of the publisher and not the sponsoring entity.
The reason is that copyright fraud is a criminal matter and fraud by
wire in copyright violation would open that party to further claims
including possibly a RICO one as well. That means that no jurisdictional
selection can be made.
which is licensed, not transferred, to the IETF trust.
I disagree. The "permanenet license" in fact "functionally transfers
control" of that instance of the IP to the Trust so they in fact do
control that IP within the scope of the grant to the trust.
If you then sing it at a French IETF meeting in a WG session, the
performance is probably (c) you and licensed to the Trust since it
occured at an IETF meeting, but will be under French copyright law
since it occured in France.)
I dont think so, the public performance rights to something cannot be
transferred to the IETF just because it was performed at a IETF Meeting
- that's really stupid. Also what if I stand up and sing a Beatles tune
like Yellow Submarine at a meeting. Does that mean that the IETF owns
the lyric to Yellow Submarine itself or my performance of it? Be real
careful here ...
But I'm not a lawyer, so my imagination might be limited.
It is
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg