3 ms·

De minimus is about assignment of copyright to new works that are only slightly different than the original. It does not say that minimal copying is ok, rather

De minimus is about assignment of copyright to new works that are only slightly different than the original. It does not say that minimal copying is ok, rather that minimal copying does not justify a new copyright. Disney does go after people drawing mickey mouse on walls. Schools, daycares, even private houses. They go after on not only trademark but copyright grounds too. There is nothing in copyright law that says private copying is ok.

davorak 3y ago
> It does not say that minimal copying is ok, rather that minimal copying does not justify a new copyright. The wikipedia link[1] gives an example of infringement cases being dismissed based how insignificant it was. > Similarly, courts have dismissed copyright infringement cases on the grounds that the alleged infringer's use of the copyrighted work (such as sampling) was so insignificant as to be de minimis. For example, the NBA 2K video games that included copyrighted tattoos in the recreation of the players' likenesses were found to be in de minimis and not copyright-violating. Additionally SeanLuke's comment[2] does a brief analysis that looks correct that indicates private copying and usage would fall under fair use: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis#Copyright:~:text=Similarly%2C%20courts%20have,not%20copyright%2Dviolating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis#Copyright:~:text=Si.... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35994306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35994306
shagie 3y ago
> rather that minimal copying does not justify a new copyright The quoted opinion from the case specially has minimal copying as some examples such as making a copy of a cartoon to post on the refrigerator: > The de minimis doctrine is rarely discussed in copyright opinions because suits are rarely brought over trivial instances of copying. Nonetheless, it is an important aspect of the law of copyright. Trivial copying is a significant part of modern life. Most honest citizens in the modern world frequently engage, without hesitation, in trivial copying that, but for the de minimis doctrine, would technically constitute a violation of law. We do not hesitate to make a photocopy of a letter from a friend to show to another friend, or of a favorite cartoon to post on the refrigerator. ... When we do such things, it is not that we are breaking the law but unlikely to be sued given the high cost of litigation. Because of the de minimis doctrine, in trivial instances of copying, we are in fact not breaking the law. If a copyright owner were to sue the makers of trivial copies, judgment would be for the defendants. The case would be dismissed because trivial copying is not an infringement. On Davis v. Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152, 173 (2d Cir. 2001) ( https://casetext.com/case/on-davis-v-the-gap-inc https://casetext.com/case/on-davis-v-the-gap-inc ) Schools and daycare with copies of the work likely rise above the trivial copying of putting it on your refrigerator.

davorak 3y ago

> It does not say that minimal copying is ok, rather that minimal copying does not justify a new copyright. The wikipedia link[1] gives an example of infringement cases being dismissed based how insignificant it was. > Similarly, courts have dismissed copyright infringement cases on the grounds that the alleged infringer's use of the copyrighted work (such as sampling) was so insignificant as to be de minimis. For example, the NBA 2K video games that included copyrighted tattoos in the recreation of the players' likenesses were found to be in de minimis and not copyright-violating. Additionally SeanLuke's comment[2] does a brief analysis that looks correct that indicates private copying and usage would fall under fair use: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis#Copyright:~:text=Similarly%2C%20courts%20have,not%20copyright%2Dviolating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis#Copyright:~:text=Si.... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35994306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35994306

shagie 3y ago

> rather that minimal copying does not justify a new copyright The quoted opinion from the case specially has minimal copying as some examples such as making a copy of a cartoon to post on the refrigerator: > The de minimis doctrine is rarely discussed in copyright opinions because suits are rarely brought over trivial instances of copying. Nonetheless, it is an important aspect of the law of copyright. Trivial copying is a significant part of modern life. Most honest citizens in the modern world frequently engage, without hesitation, in trivial copying that, but for the de minimis doctrine, would technically constitute a violation of law. We do not hesitate to make a photocopy of a letter from a friend to show to another friend, or of a favorite cartoon to post on the refrigerator. ... When we do such things, it is not that we are breaking the law but unlikely to be sued given the high cost of litigation. Because of the de minimis doctrine, in trivial instances of copying, we are in fact not breaking the law. If a copyright owner were to sue the makers of trivial copies, judgment would be for the defendants. The case would be dismissed because trivial copying is not an infringement. On Davis v. Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152, 173 (2d Cir. 2001) ( https://casetext.com/case/on-davis-v-the-gap-inc https://casetext.com/case/on-davis-v-the-gap-inc ) Schools and daycare with copies of the work likely rise above the trivial copying of putting it on your refrigerator.