Question: copyrights on interviews
Here’s an easy one for the copyright lawyers; so easy in fact, that I probably could find out by looking it up myself. But: three out of the four questions I asked before remain unanswered, so I figured an easy one might be in order to get the keyboards rattling.
5. Who owns the copyrights to an interview?
Simple, eh? The answer is of course: the interviewer. Why? Dunno. Because.
A while ago I started the Wikipedia article on Copyright on religious works, another sneaky way to get my questions answered.
In it, I wrote about a court case in which a church claimed copyrights on writings that had been dictated to them by their gods. Dictated is perhaps too strong a word; they dreamed that they asked their gods questions: “Maaherra lost the case at this level, on the argument that the members of the receiving group had been given an original direction to the writings by selecting and formulating their questions, thus fulfilling the obligation of creative effort required to gain a copyright under U.S. law. By giving this strange twist to the judgment, the judge avoided having to rule on the existence of the space aliens, but may also have damaged the respect for the secular law as felt by Americans.”
The last sentence was later rightly removed from the article by somebody else, because it is opinion, not fact.
Oddly enough, there was an appeal, in which the “infringer” won: the judgement “was later overturned on the grounds that the Urantia Foundation was not the author, and that the sleeping subject, sometimes highly controversially called a channeler, was legally considered the author, and that the Urantia Foundation thus could not file a valid copyright renewal.”
There are two things that strike me as odd here:
1) That two courts in a row think dreamed texts can be burdened by copyrights.
2) That it is the interviewer who holds the copyright, not the interviewee.
The reason given is apparently that the interviewer makes a selection, which to me sounds dangerously close to a database right, which the US (where these cases took place) supposedly does not have.
1. Why does a work published after the death of an author receive a copyright? (answer)
2. How can SNTE (the firm that maintains and exploits the Eiffel tower) claim a copyright on the image of the illuminated Eiffel tower when the Paris Hotel in Las Vegas has had a very similar lighted Eiffel tower since two years before?
3. What rights does Microsoft base it’s licenses for protocols on?
(2+3 as yet unanswered)
4. Is it possible to create a public domain image based on copyrighted sources? (as yet unanswered)