I don't think "copyright" is the same as urheberrecht. I would rather compare it to authorship. the copyright goes always to the "owner". for example, when you work for a big Pd company and your boss says, write a pd patch for that exhibition, than you would be the author, but since that would be considered a "work for hire", your boss would have the copyright. in europe this is slightly different, because as the author/urheber you have some default rights on your work, which you maybe do not have in the US. some general rules about the us copyright: copyright protects creative output, (compositions, lyrics, expressions, also gestures, lighting.....) but not ideas or facts. the important thing is always sufficiant creativity. it protects the copyright holder against unauthorized reproduction, display, performance, or derivative works. (of course this is only the short version.) one speciality for example is the "joined work", when several people work as a group on an artwork and you cannot split up the whole thing, then everybody would have the right to grant rights, but not "exclusive rights", which can only be granted, when all participants of the group agree on that... anyway, the biggest discussions in the US at the moment are about "fair use". lat's talk about that another time. marius.
mik wrote:
copyright is the english (language) equivalent of urheberrecht. there's no difference. this is an area everybody typically has a strong opinion about. sadly this opinion is mostly based on severe misconceptions.
m