Hank Green Quotes

People have to respect intellectual property.

Creativity in copyright law only means that you didn’t copy it from someone else …. Most works that are protected under copyright are not creative in the colloquial sense of the word.

The problem with copyright is it only protects that literal work. It doesn't protect the design and the ideas. That's unfortunate.

I don't believe in the ownership of work.

For the general good of the world [written work] should be understood as … belonging to the publick.

Too afraid of plagiarising someone, so I stopped reading fiction in 1981.

If you don't have the rights, you can't do the show.

Copyright rewards originality, not effort.

Since [some] American publishers pay nothing to the English authors whose stories they appropriate and publish, other American publishers can not to afford to pay American authors for writing stories.

The most important thing about intellectual property vs. creative expression is that copyright law was created not to stifle creativity but to encourage creativity.

Whether it's a song you write or a television show or a movie or professional wrestling, there are three components to IP law. There is publishing, there are writers, and there are performers. The publisher is always the owner.

Copyright law is too confusing.

When it comes to music, movies, literature, paintings, and even Bikram yoga, it's pretty easy to have an opinion about whether something has been copied. Software, on the other hand, was an awkward late addition to the original Copyright Act of 1976, shoehorned into section 102(a) as a 'literary work.'

If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research.

In the early days of the software industry, people cared about copyright and didn't give a damn about patents - they copied each other willy-nilly.

You cannot steal somebody's intellectual property. Law and justice protect.

The story and the characters of 'Girl Online' are mine.

I personally think intellectual property is an oxymoron. Physical objects have a completely different natural economy than intellectual goods. It's a tricky thing to try to own something that remains in your possession even after you give it to many others.

People recognize intellectual property the same way they recognize real estate. People understand what property is. But it's a new kind of property, and so the understanding uses new control surfaces. It uses a new way of defining the property.

If we're talking about someone creating something new, those rights are fairly well defined (in the United States, at least) under existing copyright law. But then there's often discussion about the rights of people who produce works under work-for-hire arrangements, which can be far more subtle and nuanced.

I have always found it interesting... that there are people who regard copyright infringement as a form of flattery.

We have a massive system to regulate creativity. A massive system of lawyers regulating creativity as copyright law has expanded in unrecognizable forms, going from a regulation of publishing to a regulation of copying.

If you wrote something, you deserve to get paid and recognized for your work. No one should take a bow with another man's hat.

I mean, once work's out there it's meant to be used.

If we enter into the kind of world that Google likes, the world that Google wants, it's a world where information is copied so much on the Internet that nobody knows where it came from anymore, so there can't be any rights of authorship.