Remove Derivative Work Remove Licensing Remove Plagiarism Remove Publishing
article thumbnail

The Basics of Open Access

Plagiarism Today

If you’re a researcher looking to publish your first article, one of the biggest choices that you will likely be confronted with is the choice of publishing in your work Open Access or going with a traditional, closed access publisher. How Traditional Publishing Works. How Open Access is Different.

article thumbnail

3 Count: Sealed with a Kiss

Plagiarism Today

First off today, Andrew Albanese at Publishers Weekly Reports that a collection of publishers and authors have secured a default judgement against a piracy service named KISS Library, this one awarding them $7.8 Copyright Law, works lapse into the public domain on January First of the year their copyright expires.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

3 Count: Royalty Redirection

Plagiarism Today

However, publishing companies had been continuing to collect royalties on behalf of songwriters even after the rights were reclaimed due to the law saying that publishers can continue licensing any existing derivative works. The post 3 Count: Royalty Redirection appeared first on Plagiarism Today.

article thumbnail

The clash of artistic rights: Warhol, Goldsmith, and the boundaries of copyright in Brazil and in the U.S.

Kluwer Copyright Blog

In 1984, Condé Nast, the publisher, obtained a license from Goldsmith to allow Andy Warhol to use her Prince portrait as the foundation for a single serigraphy to be featured in Vanity Fair magazine. In 2016, Condé Nast acquired a license from the Warhol Foundation to use the Prince Series as illustrations for a new magazine.

article thumbnail

The FTC’s Misguided Comments on Copyright Office Generative AI Questions

Patently-O

Copyright Office published a Notice of inquiry (“NOI”) and request for comments, Artificial Intelligence and Copyright, Docket No. dismissed as implausible the class action plaintiffs’ claim for copyright infringement based on the theory that “every output of the LLaMA language models is an infringing derivative work.”