![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've just switched the "nicknames" around, as it's universally known as the Berne Convention (754,000 Google hits when coupled with the word copyright) and is only very rarely (seems to be by some U.S. authorities only) referred to as the Berne Union (646 Google hits, once you have removed references to the Swiss credit institution called Berne Union and the US school district with the same name). Thomas Blomberg 10:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The article states:
Is it worth clarifying how this applies to articles not recorded on a conventional medium, but hosted on a server and published to the internet? I presume the Berne Convention applies to such cases. -- Chriswaterguy talk 22:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
U.S. copyright law says the following in regard to Berne. [quote] Effect of Berne Convention. No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Any rights in a work eligible for protection under this title that derive from this title, other Federal or State statutes, or the common law, shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. [/quote]
That statement says, that I can tell, that anything in Berne not specifically said in the actual U.S. code was unagreed to by the United States Congress. The implication, in my view, is that Berne only applies to U.S. citizens in as much as it is codified in U.S. law. (it doesn't matter if the president accepted it or not: it must be passed by both the president and Congress to become law).
This means for example, that translations of works such as for example, fan translations which do not actually distribute the work but instead offer a medium altering patch (like the IPS format used for ROMs and ISOs), may not constitute copyright infringement in the U.S.. Tcaudilllg ( talk) 10:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Accoarding to the map, Guyana hasn't signed up. But accoarding to the linked page of "List of parties to international copyright treaties" it signed up in 1994, which is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.134.118 ( talk) 09:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Assuming the Berne Convention as a default starting point, what are thus the implied permissions and prohibitions of copyright? i.e. how does Copyright#Exclusive rights apply and what are the permitted actions that are not restricted to the exclusive use of the copyright holder? In particular I'm asking in relation to the Creative Commons model of licences for copyrighted works and their default assumptions underlying their Rights Expression Language? This vocabulary does assume a set of assumed defaults, supposedly based on the Berne Convention, but it's hard to find a clear statement of just what they are.
Working backwards from the ccREL schema itself, I infer that Berne can be represented as (using the terms vocabulary from ccREL):
Any comments? A citable reference on what usage under the terms of Berne does permit? Thanks Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I am really suprised that an article with such detail that doesn't have a single footnoted source didn't raise immediate alarm bells with anyone else. So low and behold the vast majority of the article (e.g. the entire "history" section which was written by Waheedan Jariwalla, a U.S. Attorney who specializes in Intellectual Property) was copied and pasted from various internet sources. I was going to do the whole copyvio bit but I'm just far too amused by the fact that an article on the Berne Convention is in fact an uncredited rip off of someone else's work. The irony of that is just too good to actually destroy it. Anyone who has read this article either doesn't care about such things or is too dumb to see the obvious telltale signs that the entire thing is a mere copy and paste job, so me pointing it out won't do anything. I just wanted to point out the amusing irony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.201.242 ( talk) 05:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works → Berne Convention – Now we've agreed this is the primary topic for "Berne Convention", it seems appropriate to use that concise and common name as the article title. Kotniski ( talk) 09:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Done
The infobox is currently headed with "Maritime Labour Convention". This can't be right. Eclecticology ( talk) 18:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the lede should say something about what relevance this old convention has today. Is the Berne Convention the basis for copyright policy today, or is it superceded? I am not sure what to say. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe the statement referring to the ucc as nearly obsolete is inaccurate. after all the Berne convention des not apply to works conceived prior to the passing of the convention in a said country, does it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.226.141.108 ( talk) 09:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
"it introduced the concept that a copyright exists the moment a work is "fixed""
does fixed mean created? can a more intuitive term be used instead please? can there be a more layman-ish explanation that's easier to understand? the text is very heavy to read
does it mean that once I create my work, it is automatically copyrighted and that I'm protected without doing anything? does it only protect physical work or is digital media also protected? -- 2A02:2F02:4F:FFFF:0:0:6460:D9 ( talk) 19:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The article does not mention that when applying the Berne Convention to a dispute, it is important to determine which version was signed by a country and ratified as national law. As with most international treaties, when the text is modified the current signatories do not automatically become signatories to the new text. For example, if a country signed the 1928 version of the BC and then later signed the 1967 version, that last one of 1967 is applicable law and not the newer 1971 version. RISadler ( talk) 12:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Looking for any and all information of a painter signed all his work with C Costas. I have a piece that came to Canada from England with the Trouton family. Jamie Trouton I have learned is a well known Canadian Kayak racer/champion. Adopted son Graham lives in Quesnel b.c. any info on this artist would be welcome. Thank you. 50.69.164.150 ( talk) 08:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Has Iran become a member of the Bern Convention regarding the issue of copyright? Has it signed the Bern Treaty? Or is only the Iran Export Guarantee Fund a member of this convention? 5.209.103.43 ( talk) 09:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've just switched the "nicknames" around, as it's universally known as the Berne Convention (754,000 Google hits when coupled with the word copyright) and is only very rarely (seems to be by some U.S. authorities only) referred to as the Berne Union (646 Google hits, once you have removed references to the Swiss credit institution called Berne Union and the US school district with the same name). Thomas Blomberg 10:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The article states:
Is it worth clarifying how this applies to articles not recorded on a conventional medium, but hosted on a server and published to the internet? I presume the Berne Convention applies to such cases. -- Chriswaterguy talk 22:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
U.S. copyright law says the following in regard to Berne. [quote] Effect of Berne Convention. No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Any rights in a work eligible for protection under this title that derive from this title, other Federal or State statutes, or the common law, shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. [/quote]
That statement says, that I can tell, that anything in Berne not specifically said in the actual U.S. code was unagreed to by the United States Congress. The implication, in my view, is that Berne only applies to U.S. citizens in as much as it is codified in U.S. law. (it doesn't matter if the president accepted it or not: it must be passed by both the president and Congress to become law).
This means for example, that translations of works such as for example, fan translations which do not actually distribute the work but instead offer a medium altering patch (like the IPS format used for ROMs and ISOs), may not constitute copyright infringement in the U.S.. Tcaudilllg ( talk) 10:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Accoarding to the map, Guyana hasn't signed up. But accoarding to the linked page of "List of parties to international copyright treaties" it signed up in 1994, which is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.134.118 ( talk) 09:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Assuming the Berne Convention as a default starting point, what are thus the implied permissions and prohibitions of copyright? i.e. how does Copyright#Exclusive rights apply and what are the permitted actions that are not restricted to the exclusive use of the copyright holder? In particular I'm asking in relation to the Creative Commons model of licences for copyrighted works and their default assumptions underlying their Rights Expression Language? This vocabulary does assume a set of assumed defaults, supposedly based on the Berne Convention, but it's hard to find a clear statement of just what they are.
Working backwards from the ccREL schema itself, I infer that Berne can be represented as (using the terms vocabulary from ccREL):
Any comments? A citable reference on what usage under the terms of Berne does permit? Thanks Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I am really suprised that an article with such detail that doesn't have a single footnoted source didn't raise immediate alarm bells with anyone else. So low and behold the vast majority of the article (e.g. the entire "history" section which was written by Waheedan Jariwalla, a U.S. Attorney who specializes in Intellectual Property) was copied and pasted from various internet sources. I was going to do the whole copyvio bit but I'm just far too amused by the fact that an article on the Berne Convention is in fact an uncredited rip off of someone else's work. The irony of that is just too good to actually destroy it. Anyone who has read this article either doesn't care about such things or is too dumb to see the obvious telltale signs that the entire thing is a mere copy and paste job, so me pointing it out won't do anything. I just wanted to point out the amusing irony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.201.242 ( talk) 05:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works → Berne Convention – Now we've agreed this is the primary topic for "Berne Convention", it seems appropriate to use that concise and common name as the article title. Kotniski ( talk) 09:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Done
The infobox is currently headed with "Maritime Labour Convention". This can't be right. Eclecticology ( talk) 18:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the lede should say something about what relevance this old convention has today. Is the Berne Convention the basis for copyright policy today, or is it superceded? I am not sure what to say. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe the statement referring to the ucc as nearly obsolete is inaccurate. after all the Berne convention des not apply to works conceived prior to the passing of the convention in a said country, does it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.226.141.108 ( talk) 09:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
"it introduced the concept that a copyright exists the moment a work is "fixed""
does fixed mean created? can a more intuitive term be used instead please? can there be a more layman-ish explanation that's easier to understand? the text is very heavy to read
does it mean that once I create my work, it is automatically copyrighted and that I'm protected without doing anything? does it only protect physical work or is digital media also protected? -- 2A02:2F02:4F:FFFF:0:0:6460:D9 ( talk) 19:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The article does not mention that when applying the Berne Convention to a dispute, it is important to determine which version was signed by a country and ratified as national law. As with most international treaties, when the text is modified the current signatories do not automatically become signatories to the new text. For example, if a country signed the 1928 version of the BC and then later signed the 1967 version, that last one of 1967 is applicable law and not the newer 1971 version. RISadler ( talk) 12:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Looking for any and all information of a painter signed all his work with C Costas. I have a piece that came to Canada from England with the Trouton family. Jamie Trouton I have learned is a well known Canadian Kayak racer/champion. Adopted son Graham lives in Quesnel b.c. any info on this artist would be welcome. Thank you. 50.69.164.150 ( talk) 08:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Has Iran become a member of the Bern Convention regarding the issue of copyright? Has it signed the Bern Treaty? Or is only the Iran Export Guarantee Fund a member of this convention? 5.209.103.43 ( talk) 09:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)