The law does not recognize if you are unaware of copyright laws. So, don’t put yourself in an illegal situation when it is so easy and affordable to use Royalty Free Music from music production libraries. And don’t base your online actions on hearsay.

This article attempts to bust some common myths that abound in the virtual world, and put you on the right side of the law.

Myth 1: It is legal to use any music for 7 seconds

Fact: No. Unlawful use of even a short excerpt from a song is enough to land you in a copyright infringement case. Don’t believe anyone who tells you otherwise, unless he is a copyright attorney! Remember, there is nothing like free to use music – not for 30 seconds, not for 7 seconds, not even for the first eight bars! You need a license to use music without landing into trouble.

Myth 2: I bought a music CD, I can use the music on my website since I paid for it.

Fact: Wrong. You bought the CD – not the music! Buying a legitimate CD gives you the right to play the music privately. You definitely need permission from the composer of the music as well as the sound recording company to use the music on the CD as background music for your website.

Myth 3: The composer is dead, his music is no longer under copyright.

Fact: Untrue. The copyright for a music composition lasts for approximately 70 years from the death of the composer. It does not automatically expire with its creator. And even if the composer is dead since a long time – like Mozart for example – you still don’t have the right to use someone’s interpretation of their music without a license.

Myth 4: It’s for a non-profit organization, so I can use any music I want for free.

Fact: False. Your project (website, presentation, video, anything) may be non-profit, but when it becomes available to other people, you are allowing them to hear music they didn’t purchase. That is a breach of the copyright law, no matter if you are making money on the project or not.

Myth 5: I can use this music for free because I found it on the Internet.

Fact: Absolutely not. All music found on the internet is under copyright. If you reproduce, perform, or distribute musical compositions and sound recordings without the requisite licensing, you are violating copyright law.

Myth 6: I can use music because the website did not carry a copyright notice.

Fact: Beginning March 1, 1989, it is no longer mandatory to display the copyright notice to protect one’s intellectual property, in this case, music.

And if you are still not convinced, consider this: Would you pick up produce from a farm and walk away without leaving money for what you took? Most certainly not! You wouldn’t deprive a hard working farmer from his rightful income. Likewise, if you violate copyright law, you deprive a composer of the royalties derived from the purchase of their work. Think about it!

So what is copyright, anyway? When you own the copyright of a piece of work, it means literally that you have the “right to make copies” of that work. By extension you also have the right to license that work to others who want to use it. It is a form of intellectual property law that protects an original piece of work from being pirated and used without permission of its creator

To avoid getting on the wrong side of the law, consider purchasing a legal music license from royalty free music libraries. Whether you are looking for production music for your video or background music for a multimedia presentation, you can choose from literally thousands of royalty free soundtracks. What’s more, buying royalty free music online is really easy and affordable.

Stay clear of unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted music, and keep the copyright police from knocking at your door!

Under the Universal Copyright Convention, generally speaking, a work by a national or domiciliary of a country that is a member of the Universal Copyright Convention or a work first published in a Universal Copyright Convention country may claim protection under the Convention. If the work bears the notice of copyright in the form and position specified by the Universal Copyright Convention, this notice will satisfy and substitute for any other formalities a Universal Copyright Convention member country would otherwise impose as a condition of copyright. A Universal Copyright Convention notice should consist of the symbol accompanied by the name of the copyright proprietor and the year of first publication of the work. To qualify for copyright protection in countries that are only members of the Universal Copyright Convention, it is necessary that works bear, in a prominent place and from the time of first publication, the copyright symbol – © – together with the name of the owner of the copyright and the year of first publication, for example: © Kaltons Internet and Technology Solicitors 2002.

However, under the Berne Convention, generally, a work first published in a Berne Union is eligible for protection in all Berne member countries. There are no special requirements like affixing the copyright symbol.

Use of the copyright symbol was significant when the US was not a member of the Berne Convention and it would only recognise copyright where the © symbol was used in accordance with the UCC. The UCC has been largely overtaken by the other treaties that do not require any formalities.

However, using the © symbol, while having little legal effect, alerts others that copyright is claimed in the material in question, and removes any argument that the user relied on an implied licence to use the work.

http://www.kaltons.co.uk

When you understand the implications of it, copyright infringement lawsuits aren’t frivolous as some people think. For the most part, the average person’s familiarity with a copyright infringement lawsuit is taking down copyrighted material after receiving a nasty email.

If you use works from record albums by major recording stars (like Britney Spears or 50 Cent) to make a different recording as your own, then you can be sued for copyright infringement. Usually these suits will be lost because it’s rather hard to prove inspiration, but they are rather costly and draining, especially if there isn’t a large backing legal team.

Copyright infringement lawsuits for large enterprises can be costly and time consuming. If you work for someone, and you plagiarize someone on the company blog, the whole company can be sued, and you can be fired, for that infraction. Another large copyright infringement lawsuit is the eminent MySpace v. Universal Music Group, who is claiming that MySpace is knowingly committing copyright infringement by allowing users to upload copyrighted material. Even then, Universal Music Group has been negotiating with MySpace and couldn’t come to an agreement — then they filed suit.

Universal Music Group has an agreement with YouTube, where YouTube agrees to follow Universal’s rules. It’s worked out well thus far, and I think with an agreement in place “user created content” will retain a destination on the Internet.

This is a testament we all need to be with social networking sites and ‘user created content.’ We need to watch ourselves, because many times we may not realize the veracity of our actions.

Sometimes, people break copyright laws on purpose. There is a huge market for pirated software — from Windows to Photoshop to The Sims. It’s very easy to share peer-to-peer, and because of that, people can resell pirated copies for a high price — all profit. Or they’ll download MP3 and resell them; or eBooks. People who resell these items get nasty penalties — with both copyright infringement lawsuits and criminal cases. They’ll pay a hefty fine and go to jail.

Copyright infringement lawsuits can affect any one of us — from our friends on MySpace to our employer, to the computer geek down the street. It’s easy to violate copyrights, and you have to watch yourself. The chances are good that you won’t be involved in a major copyright infringement lawsuit, but you still need to ensure you’re following copyright laws.

Copyright infringement lawsuits are important to determine what is, and isn’t, applicable to copyright laws. Because of these lawsuits, our laws have changed regarding Fair Use, Internet use, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and CreativeCommons.com. The lawsuits help us to understand what is, and what isn’t fair — and these organizations have helped the masses to understand what’s so important about copyright, and why we need to defend our freedom of speech.

They usually contain the letter “c” inside of a circle with wording such as “All Rights Reserved” following. Even though most everyone is familiar with these notices, there is a great deal of confusion about the purpose of a copyright notice and what the failure to include such a notice may mean to the author of a work. Much of this confusion arises from a relatively recent change in United States Copyright Law.

Under past United States Copyright Law, it was necessary to place the copyright notice on every item containing a protected work. Failure to include a copyright notice on a substantial number of published items could lead to loss of copyright protection. In effect, the work would lapse into the public domain because the failure to include a copyright notice was deemed to be a waiver of copyright protection. About 15 years ago, the United States amended the copyright laws to come into conformance with the Berne Convention on International Copyrights and the laws of many foreign countries. The end result is that failure to include a copyright notice on a published work does not any longer lead to loss of copyright protection.

Even with this change of law, there are still very good reasons to include a copyright notice when you publish a work of original authorship. including the notice asserts to the world that the work is yours and that you intend to enforce your rights. It also helps guard against a defense of innocent infringement or an arguement that the infringement was not intentional. Under the copyright laws, intentional infringement results in much higher statutory penalties.

The end result of this change in law is that it is no longer safe to assume that a work that does not include a copyright notice is not protected under the copyright laws. The copyright laws protect all original works of authorship regardless of whether they contain copyright notices or have been registered with the copyright office. There can be differences in the level of damages available if a notice is not included or a registration has not been affected. Still, misappropriation of a work of original work of authorship is still considered copyright infringements and damages would be recoverable against hte misappropriating party.

Given this fact, it is wise to assume that everything you run across on the Internet is copyright protected. You should refrain from publishing or using these items unless you obtain a license from the author. If you cannot find out who the author is so not assume that they are not out there and will not come after you if you use their material. The inconvenience and potential legal liability are too substantial and could have huge adverse impacts on your business.

The U.S. Copyright Office is responsible for holding onto the records of everything that has been copyrighted to help ensure that an individual’s artistic or intellectual property remains their own. However, it is not legally necessary to register a copyrighted material with the office.

It is sufficient to place the copyright icon in front of a copyright statement and is adequate protection for copyright laws. However, it is still more secure to register copyrighted material with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Copyright infringement is the theft of written, artistic, or intellectually produced material. Copyright infringement differs from patent infringement only in the actual material, which can make determining copyright infringement and patent infringement easier to detect.

In business, it is not so unheard of for advertisement media to be copied, thus becoming a copyright infringement. However, there is a difference between stealing the advertising media which creates the copyright infringement and stealing the icon or symbol used to create consumer recognition which is then a trademark violation.

Patented material, such as the product, is the only avenue which a patent infringement can occur. Why is this important? Because from conception to marketing, to advertising, all the way down to the jingle used in the television or radio campaign, stealing any part of the product, the advertising, the logo, the writing, the product enhancement, or any other related idea as it applies to any particular patented or copyrighted material can mean the end of a company.

These various rules can become confusing and even a little hard to wade through when there are numerous people working on any given project. Thus, enlisting the help of a Copyright attorney may be the only way to make sure all of the potential bases are covered.

A copyright attorney can be influential in preventing copyright infringement via advertisement or other written avenue, such as products that are written materials.

Bearing in mind that all printed materials are typically copyrighted, even if they have failed to register with the copyright office, a copyright attorney can still effectively guide a copy writer from accidentally becoming guilty of copyright infringement.

In most cases, any large company or media of copyrighted materials that are likely to be used beyond basic small press use will be registered with the copyright office, as registering with the U.S.

Copyright Office is a failsafe against copyright infringement. Thus, if a small time writer claims against a big company an explicit use of copyrighted material, but the large company registered with the Office, the small time writer can hold no claim even if they copyrighted their own material, simply because the large company registered with the Office.

While a copyright attorney is likely required to determine the exact definition of the laws as they apply to any given case, the likelihood of being held accountable for a copyright infringement that was not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, and they granted a copyright, there really is no case, regardless of how talented the copyright attorney may be.

The bottom line is still pretty basic, despite the variation in copyright infringement and patent infringement. Hiring a patent or otherwise known as copyright attorney from the beginning of any substantial project is the best protection against being accused of any type of copyright infringement.

Registering a copyright with the copyright office protects the copyrighted material against theft. All of these simple and basic steps should be taken by any company who intends to market a product, whether they anticipate being a small company of local distribution or a large company with global potential.

By registering copyrighted material with them and by hiring a copyright attorney to oversee the basic laws are covered, any company with a marketing plan will know they are protected under copyright infringement laws as well as patent infringement laws.

Without the assistance of a copyright attorney or patent attorney, a business is playing with the potential of an accidental copyright infringement or patent infringement. It is much safer to cover all the bases and protect the company and the brainchild behind the fabulous ideas that can launch a company into the land of happy returns.

During the Great Depression, Jerry Siegel and Jerome Shuster created Superman, the now-famous hero who fights to defend truth, justice, and the American Way. Siegel and Shuster then sold the Man of Steel to Detective Comics for $130. In hindsight, we can safely conclude this was not a great deal for the sellers. Indeed, only the daily workings of Congress rival such a gargantuan waste of valuable property. But Superman’s creators are not alone. Artists of all kinds have found themselves in a similar position, forced to sell the copyrights in their creative works to make ends meet. Those artists should know that, as with practically all superhero tales, the Superman story has a happy ending. And theirs can too.

In most walks of life, a sale, like a diamond, is forever. Absent unusual circumstances, if you sell your car, it is gone. You have no more right to it, and you never will. Most authors of copyrighted works ? be they musicians, artists, authors or architects ? probably assume that the same rules apply to their copyright: once assigned, the copyright is gone forever.

It is not. The Copyright Act, in provisions that are virtually unique in all of American law, allow the author of a copyrighted work can reclaim his or her copyright many decades later by jumping through the right legal hoops at just the right time. Because of these reversion provisions, Mr. Siegel’s heirs are in the process of reclaiming the Superman copyright, a process that will result in the multimillion dollar transfer of wealth from Warner Brothers to them. All other authors of valuable copyrighted material-and the heirs of such authors-should pay attention to their story.

The copyright reversion rules under the Copyright Act are complicated, and it is likely impossible in a short article to turn a lay person into an expert. In light of the complexity of the process and the consequences of failure, it makes very little sense for most copyright authors to try and reclaim copyrights on their own. Legal help is almost certainly required.

But when should a copyright author who assigned his or her work seek legal counsel to start the process? The answer depends on when the copyrighted work was first created. For all copyrighted works created before January 1, 1978, the Copyright Act of 1909 provides the ground rules. Originally, copyrights under the 1909 Act lasted 28 years. (Was that it in the beginning, or was there always a 28-year renewal term?) At the end of the 28 years, the copyright ended, and the material was freely available to the public. Congress has added to a copyright’s life expectancy on multiple occasions since then, and these days a copyright under the 1909 Act can last up to 95 years. The right to terminate an assignment and reclaim a copyright under the 1909 Act can occur after the first 28 years, at the end of 56 years, or at the end of 75 years.

The rules are different for copyrighted works created after January 1, 1978, because the Copyright Act of 1976 applies. Under the 1976 Act, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. And a copyright assignment can be terminated-and the copyright reclaimed-after 35 years. This means, of course, that the earliest copyright reversions under the 1976 Act will begin in 2013. Copyright authors like Paul McCartney and Elton John are-or at least should be-preparing to reclaim their rights. The current owners of their copyrights are no doubt planning their strategies to hang on.

Two other points are worth noting. First, the copyright reversion right is non-waivable. In other words, even if the copyright author agreed to give up his or her reversion rights, those rights still exist. The usual rules of contract law do not apply. Nor do the usual rules regarding probate. A copyright assigned through a will is not lost forever. The heirs of the dead copyright author-the very people the copyright author apparently did not want to have the copyright-are entitled to reclaim it anyway.

Second, and finally, copyright authors should not wait until the last minute to begin the process of reclaiming their property. The Copyright Act requires authors to give notice before the reversion occurs, and the notice period begins years before the copyright reversion can be seized. Moreover, legal counsel might require some time to investigate and prepare your case, so waiting until the last second could potentially prejudice your rights.

As anybody who has watched the Superman movies knows, Superman always comes back. He certainly has come back to the heirs of those who created him. And if you or a relative created a valuable copyrighted work, you may find that your creation can return as well.