Subject: Re: International definition of "fair use"

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 09:59:50 +0100

Endre Jarraux Walls skrev:
> Question - would that mean that works performed within the IETF, regardless
> of where they're done would fall under US copyright laws?
>   
I can't imagine a plausible scenario where this would be true.

(if I put a song into an I-D, published from Norway, the I-D is under my 
Norwegian copyright, which is licensed, not transferred, to the IETF 
trust. If you then sing it at a French IETF meeting in a WG session, the 
performance is probably (c) you and licensed to the Trust since it 
occured at an IETF meeting, but will be under French copyright law since 
it occured in France.)

But I'm not a lawyer, so my imagination might be limited.

              Harald

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: TSG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 07:21:35 -0800

>> of where they're done would fall under US copyright laws?
That's exactly what it means because the publisher entity is physically 
located in the US. Also realize that most IETF NoteWell Submissions are 
in fact derivatives of other IP's which the IETF may not own the rights 
to in any form. The IETF's claim it owns underlying IP rights to 
something I (or anyone discusses) is more than ludicrous its a lie. It 
may own my words but that's all. It DOES NOT own any rights to the IP I 
was discussing
> I can't imagine a plausible scenario where this would be true.
Oh its pretty simple Harald, the IETF is a US Corporation and so 
anything it publishes through its US based publication gateways is in 
fact controlled by US Copyright. Is that really that far beyond your 
imagination?
>
> (if I put a song into an I-D, published from Norway, the I-D is under 
> my Norwegian copyright, 
No its not. The I-D is under the copyright laws of its publisher's 
jurisdiction.  The real question you should be asking Harald is whether 
a IP work published in one country or jurisdiction can have the laws of 
other jurisdictions control it???

 From my Lay Understanding in civil contracts where a choice of law is 
selected this sometimes works, but in the instance of a work published, 
that work would be controlled by the copyright laws of the Jurisdiction 
of the publisher and not the sponsoring entity.

The reason is that copyright fraud is a criminal matter and fraud by 
wire in copyright violation would open that party to further claims 
including possibly a RICO one as well. That means that no jurisdictional 
selection can be made.
> which is licensed, not transferred, to the IETF trust. 

I disagree.  The "permanenet license" in fact "functionally transfers 
control" of that instance of the IP to the Trust so they in fact do 
control that IP within the scope of the grant to the trust.
> If you then sing it at a French IETF meeting in a WG session, the 
> occured at an IETF meeting, but will be under French copyright law 
> since it occured in France.)
I dont think so, the public performance rights to something cannot be 
transferred to the IETF just because it was performed at a IETF Meeting 
- that's really stupid. Also what if I stand up and sing a Beatles tune 
like Yellow Submarine at a meeting. Does that mean that the IETF owns 
the lyric to Yellow Submarine itself or my performance of it? Be real 
careful here ...

> But I'm not a lawyer, so my imagination might be limited.
It is