The physical rights over a property such as a book, manuscript, painting or CD is not similar to owning the copyright to the work personified in the item. Under the first sale policy, ownership of a physical copy of a material that has been protected by copyright permits reselling, lending, disposing of the item. Nevertheless, the copyright does not permit reproduction of the material, publicly performing or displaying it, or taking part in any activity that is reserved for the holder of the copyright. The transfer of the physical duplicate does not reassign the copyright holder’s rights to the item, including an ascription on a copied work does not completely do away with the need to acquire the copyright owner’s consent, for instance, inserting the author’s name on it. To consume copyrighted items legally, one should secure permission from the applicable copyright licensing agent or a copyright holder.
Duration of copyright fortification is determined by the date of creation. An item created after or on Jan 1, 1978, is generally safeguarded by the copyright from the point of its inception awaiting 70 years after the demise of the author. For items created for hire, pseudonymous and anonymous works, the duration of copyright is 95 years from the time of its publication or 120 years from inception, whichever comes first.
The manner in which copyright fortification is guaranteed is usually misunderstood. Copyright is secured by design when the creation is finalized and fixed in a tangible state, like the first instance it was recorded or written. No other action is needed to guarantee copyright protection, neither registration, publication, or other action in the copyright office, even though registration is recommended.
The drafters of the U.S. constitution acknowledged the advantageous incentives presented by a copyright system and collectively agreed to include a clause in the constitution. The clause indicated that Congress shall possess the powers to promote the development of useful arts and science, by securing for scarce time for inventors and authors. They were guaranteed the exclusive right to their writings and inventions. The American Copyright Act was modeled in 1709 on the statute of Queen Anne and extended a 14 year monopoly to United States authors, alongside a 1 4 year renewal. Foreign author’s items were not safeguarded by the American law. In contrast, various advanced countries like Prussia,
England, France, Denmark and Belgium have laws that acknowledge the input of foreign authors.
The 1976 copyright law defines “publication” as the allocation of copies of a work to the public through sale, lease, lending and other transfer of ownership models. The offer to distribute copies of a particular mass with the intention of further distribution, public display or performance comprises publication. The authority of the author is required for a certain work to be considered published.
Not all copying comprises copyright infringement. Fairly independent of rational use, copyright regulation requires that the practice of copying is quantitatively and qualitatively significant enough for it to be worthy of action. Emerging in the 19th century, and entirely the establishment of courts, copyright condition of “ substantially similar” has thereby far received less attention as a separate significant normative measurement of the copyright entitlement.
Canada is a signatory to the “Berne convention for the protection of Literary and Artistic Works.” The copyright Act, in Canada, governs copyright issues in Canada and provides equal rights to both locals and foreign authors from other Berne Convention countries. Many paramount similarities exist between the Canadian and U.S. copyright law.
Like in the United States, registration of copyright is not mandatory for the fortification to be acknowledged in Canada. Nevertheless, registration extends certain presumptive advantages in Canada, whereas the lack of registration in the United States limits various available remedies. For instance, both countries acknowledge the presumptive soundness of a registration as proof in a court hearing. Whereas registration in Canada is not needed for a plaintiff to demand statutory damages. A Canadian registration is of crucial assistance in providing evidence for rights in both criminal and civil proceedings. Critically, registration in a single country does not broaden to the other country.
Fair use is exclusion to copyright that permits an individual to quote scripts from a journal article or a book and to reproduce a minimum of short portions of songs and movies. Whether one adopts the whole work at times, depends on the situation at hand.
Academic integrity basically means intellectual honesty. Honesty is the employment of information, in establishing arguments, and in other actions, related to the search of understanding and knowledge. It is a basic standard that underpins how we learn and live in a society of inquiry. Members of an academic society are entitled to a broad degree of freedom in search of scholarly interests. With that freedom, nevertheless, the responsibility to uphold the moral standards of academic demeanor. The American integrity code establishes standards of academic behavior, defines educational violations, and highlights the procedure for an adjudication for academical offenses.
Cultural factors could have an influence on academic integrity. Centers for university education offers the various stakeholders opportunities to meet and mingle with people from diverse cultures and countries. Having this wide blend of people equip learners with the ability to deal with cross-cultural and global issues. This experience is enriching and worthwhile but also offers some particular challenges. The disparity that is present in cultural norms and characters could result to additional complexities with reference to academic integrity for students and their lecturers. These cultural factors are present in every aspect of university life, externally and internally. For instance, at the North American Unversity in the US, various cultural tenets related to the American system may trigger students to cheat. Various studies carried out in the U.S. And Canada suggests that students resort to cheat when they are pressured to succeed in jobs and graduate schools. In Canada, the local subcultures seem to be the leading cause of cheating. Students cheat on campuses where cheating is the norm, and where students know that the members of the faculty are not in support of the institutional policies.
Another difference that exists between the U.S. and Canadian copyright laws is in the issue of “work created for hire” The principle of “work created for hire” is not present in the Canadian law. As a common universal rule, the authorship of a material created pursuant to an agreement remains with the contractor or employee. This includes even when the ownership is detained by the employer. This is contrasted to the legislation in the United States of America. Where the owner and the author of a work meant to hire is the employer (usually a corporation). The difference could affect the length of the copyright in Canada, the duration of the copyright holds based on the author’s life and 50 years in spite of whether the material was created with the idea of a contract for service or employment.
In Canada, a restricted licensee is explicitly entitled to commence progress in its own identity to enforce its own rights. It also receives its own precautions under the Act; nevertheless, it would be required on numerous occasions to join the copyright owner as a member to the proceedings. This could go on unless permission of the judiciary to proceed without the ownership of the copyright. It is not possible for an elite licensee to claim for copyright violations against the licensor.
The main difference in the copyright laws of the U.S. and Canada lies in the principle of “work created for hire” that touches on ownership of copyrighted material. In addition, both countries have varied treatment toward foreigners, with the Canadian laws giving foreign materials more autonomy. The paper has also analyzed how cultural background determines academic integrity of college students, and made a comparison of students in the U.S. and Canada.The use of copyright laws continues to be applied in the protection of musicians and other artists against the exploitation. Materials created are exclusive, therefore only a single individual should enjoy its fruits. Copyright laws vary from one country to another, depending on the nature of the natural laws of the land, in addition to the socio-cultural aspects. Some features that exist in a country’s copyright could be a violation in another, for example, the American system gives less acknowledgement as compared to the copyright laws on foreigners in Canada. Moreover, many countries give equal autonomy to foreign artists. Consequently, the application of copyright laws should be tackled in regard to the country at hand. Nevertheless, more governments should commit their countries to the universal copyright conventions in order to promote the original works of various artists
References
Bosek, M. S. D. W., & Savage, T. A. (2007). The ethical component of nursing education :.
integrating ethics into clinical experience. Philadephia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Buranen, L., & Roy, A. M. (1999). Perspectives on plagiarism and intellectual property in a
postmodern world. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Cutler, E. (2008). A manual of musical copyright law : for the use of music-publishers and
artists, and of the legal profession. Littleton: Colo. : F.B. Rothman.
Julius J Marke; New York University. Law Library. (2000). A catalogue of the law collection at New York University : with selected annotations. Union, N.J: Lawbook Exchange.
Cutler, E. (2008). A manual of musical copyright law : for the use of music-publishers and artists, and of the legal profession. Littleton: Colo. : F.B. Rothman.
Julián, P. R. (2003). Copyright and multimedia. The Hague: Kluwer Law Internat.
Maggiolino, M. (2011). Intellectual property and antitrust : a comparative economic analysis of US and EU law. Cheltenham: Northampton, MA : Edward Elgar.
Marsh, B. (2007). Plagiarism : alchemy and remedy in higher education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Micklethwait, D. (2005). Noah Webster and the American dictionary. Jefferson: London : McFarland & Company, cop.
Ronan, D. (2004). On the origin of the right to copy : charting the movement of copyright law in eighteenth-century Britain (1695-1775). Oxford: Hart.
Torremans, P. (2007). Copyright law : a handbook of contemporary research. Cheltenham: Northampton, MA : E. Elgar.
Tzen, W., & Graham, D. (2010). Intellectual property and human development : current trends and future scenarios. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wolf, R. (2008). An outline of copyright law. Littleton: F.B. Rothman.
