- Oct 2016
-
techwritingf16.robinwharton.net techwritingf16.robinwharton.netHTCQ2001.vp14
-
This complex interrelationship of elements that drive intellectual property law ap-plication has been recently interpreted by the Supreme Court’s decision inEldredv. Ashcroft(2003).
In Miranda's succinct summary of this section, it allows to build on current benefits because of this ruling. Materials can no longer be hoarded or manipulated by families of the deceased with the creation of a material statute of limitations. With the allowance of time, it does create a middle ground with accepting the legacy of the author and their work. This ruling also created the wealth of "open source" material. Meaning that classics that are ingrained into our society's lore can now be republished, translated, or re-used without legal risk. For Technical Communicators, this is an important resource to be aware of.
-
When technical communicators develop products of knowledge to which they canclaim authorship, they also have potential to claim fair use in others’ works andFirst Amendment protection for their own work as speech.
They have the potential of these legal options, given that they fit the criteria described in the above article. However, understanding the difference between personal ownership and business ownership is vital information when navigating the business realm with plagiarism in mind.
Essentially, Technical Writers have options to protect their manipulation of materials, given that they fit within the legal criteria.
-
Actual, ratherthan corporate, authorship is tied to speech when the work represents the individ-ual who created it, but individual authorship does not guarantee that the speech isprotectable
Continuing with the previous dialectic, writers should consider the type of product they are making. Whether it's creating or repackaging, communicators should keep legal terms of protection in mind.
-
Simply asked, do technical communicatorscreate commodities or representative works of authorship?
I suppose the question of what kind of material a Technical Communicator makes depends on the situation. However, it is important for the communicators to keep this question in their mind as they create prototypes of potential projects. Understanding this question helps the creators understand their limitations with outside sources.
-
In this case, the Court decidedthat the defendant did not infringe copyright when he copied Grateful Dead posterimages in their entirety and reproduced them in smaller format in his book,Grate-ful Dead: The Illustrated Trip
I wonder if the main difference between this and the Harper & Row V. Nation Enterprises is that the potential act of plagiarism in the book was not the entirety of the product sold, just an accessory to the created content.
-
The new copyright regime isno longer a law of the public and for the public, but rather, a law of business, for busi-nessmen and investors.
Reyman mentions while describing the identity of the author of any given material. It is common to have material that belongs to a business rather than its human creator.
-
Commonly supportedtransformative works include speech-based efforts, such as parodies, critical com-mentaries, and other forms of judgment of original works
Many works utilizes material that could be otherwise labeled as plagiarism for the sake of protecting the author, but these court rulings are more about the material than the author. It makes sense that satire, critical commentary, and judgments could be undesirable to the author. However, when considering the audience and the use of material, it is clear that is not plagiarism.
-
And, of course, it is this protection that al-lows educators in technical communication to conduct critical research, examin-ing the impact of communicative actions and their function in society, and it formsthe basis for arguments in favor of tenure and academic freedom across the fullrange of disciplinary inquiry, regardless of potential repugnance to others
Reyman calls for more dialogue following this model. If research can be done on material success and failure, then research between professionals and academia must be on the same page, as well. If this information was readily available and discussed with students, then they would be more prepared for the potential plagiarism choices they will make as professionals.
-
explanatory set of guidelines for interpreting authors’ rights limitations set out inthe Constitution’s intellectual property provision
The struggle, as mentioned in Reyman's article, to create clear, uniform terms for what grants plagiarism seems to be ever present. Unfortunately, it seems to be a frustrating case-by-case decision, rather than the systematic "copying is stealing" ideal in schools from Reyman's examples.
-
Even in exercising options for how they shape and form the creative workthey generate, product developers express something about their employers, them-selves, and sometimes even about the society of which they are a part. And a demo-cratic government is possible only if its people have a voice and are able to expressthemselves.
This section is a fascinating appeal to the Right of Free Speech. It seems to allude to the American ideal that your work identity is crucial to your societal identity. It would be completely natural, then, to assert that your business voice is your voice and representation.
-
“Copyright is not primarilyfor the benefit of the author, but is primarily for the benefit of the public”
Consideration of the public is what fuels information use in Technical Communications. This is precisely why there are instances of re-use and copying formats. There is a benefit to the audience to remain familiar, at times, and there could be a disadvantage to always push material to be unique and individual.
-
Note that U.S. copyrightdiffers greatly from that of moral rights, which is the adopted structure in Europeanlaw, based on the concept that creators have an absolute right to benefit from theirwork and that their right comes from a special moral requirement
This is the overall theme of Reyman's work. There is a difference between morality and ownership in the US, and those differences are what make scenarios seem grey.
-
The U.S. Constitution’s intellectual property clause states, “The Congress shallhave the power...toPromote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by secur-ing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respec-tive writings and Discoveries” (U.S. Const., art. 1, §8, cl. 8).
-
U.S. Constitution’s intellectual property clause, which applies to all formsof intellectual products even though it is often called thecopyright clause, is muchmore than a structure for treating intellectual product
In Reyman's article, "Rethinking Plagiarism For Technical Communications", it is stated that these definitions are important for technical communication educators to bring into the classroom.
-