{"id":41,"date":"2015-06-01T17:59:52","date_gmt":"2015-06-01T17:59:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/?page_id=41"},"modified":"2022-04-14T12:48:54","modified_gmt":"2022-04-14T12:48:54","slug":"copyright","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/copyright\/copyright\/","title":{"rendered":"Copyright laws &#038; cases"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/_6u7JkQAFMw\" width=\"480\" height=\"315\" frameborder=\"0\" align=\"right\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p><strong>INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT\u00a0 AND DURATION\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>**The\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works\">Berne Convention<\/a>\u00a0 <\/strong>is an international copyright treaty first established in 1886 that the US joined in 1976. It became effective in the US in 1978, was ratified by\u00a0 Congress in 1989 and\u00a0 also in 1998.\u00a0 (These dates are significant because material copyrighted before then may fall out of copyright in the somewhat byzantine US system).<\/p>\n<p>International copyright\u00a0is administered by the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.wipo.org\/\">World Intellectual Property Organization<\/a>, which is part of the World Trade Organization of the United Nations.<\/p>\n<p>Although the U.S. refused to join the Berne\u00a0 Convention until 1976,\u00a0 \u00a0the U.S. has since been pushing for even tougher sanctions and longer duration of copyright protections.\u00a0 This has to do (mostly) with the perception that the US had a wealth of intellectual property exports &#8212; from patented inventions to Hollywood movies &#8212;\u00a0 by the end of World War II.<\/p>\n<p><strong>China joined the Berne Convention<\/strong><span style=\"color: #444444;\"> in 1992, and signed a copyright protection agreement in 2001. And even though it&#8217;s easy to get pirated copies of almost anything in China, copyright laws are starting to be seriously enforced, according to <\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/www.chinalawblog.com\/2017\/02\/china-copyrights-and-fair-use.html\">a 2017 article in the China Law Blog.\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n<p><strong>Under European law,<\/strong>\u00a0 a work enters the public domain<strong> 70<\/strong> years after the author&#8217;s death (life+70).\u00a0 \u00a0 <strong>Under African and Asian law<\/strong>, a work enters the public domain<strong> 50<\/strong> years after the author&#8217;s death.\u00a0 See <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/2018_in_public_domain#Entering_the_public_domain_in_the_United_States\">this Wikipedia list of works entering public domain.<\/a><\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignright wp-image-2522\" src=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/lawwp-content\/uploads\/2015\/06\/copyright_chart-300x186.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"379\" height=\"236\" srcset=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/06\/copyright_chart-300x186.jpg 300w, https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/06\/copyright_chart.jpg 500w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 379px) 100vw, 379px\" \/><\/p>\n<p><strong>** US Copyright Act of 1976<\/strong> \u2014\u00a0 was a rewrite of the original 1790 Act and its 1909 revision. It dealt with what is copyrightable and how it is done. It brought the US into initial compliance with the Berne convention on international copyright, especially duration (author&#8217;s life + 50) but also created a &#8220;work for hire&#8221; category that could extend copyright 75 years from publication or 100 years from creation, whichever expired first.\u00a0 \u00a0<span style=\"color: #444444;\">The 1976 Act also attempted to deal with what\u00a0 were then new problems like photocopying, audio and video recording and cable television.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong>** Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act,<\/strong> 1998 \u2014\u00a0 Extended the duration\u00a0 of copyright protection. In general, copyright terms were extended for an additional 20 years, from 75 to 95 years from publication.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Copyright duration\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>One of the biggest arguments about copyright involves the extraordinarily long period of time that US copyright remains in force.\u00a0 Under the Berne convention, which applies to most countries in the world, copyright lasts the life of an author plus an additional 50 years.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.copyright.gov\/circs\/circ15a.pdf\">Under US copyright law,\u00a0 <\/a>works created after January 1, 1978 are protected for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. Corporate works (anonymous, pseudonymous, or a work made for hire) have copyright terms lasting 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first.<\/p>\n<p>This\u00a0 law is built on the<strong><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Copyright_Act_of_1976\"> 1976 Copyright Act<\/a>,\u00a0<\/strong>which extended copyright protection to new technologies, codified Fair Use, and began to recognize\u00a0 international copyright protections under the Berne Convention.<\/p>\n<p>Twenty years later, as works from the 1920s were beginning to fall into the public domain, the<strong>\u00a0Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act<\/strong>\u00a0of<strong>\u00a0<\/strong>1998 was passed, adding another\u00a020 years, so that anything produced after 1923 would still be under copyright. \u00a0(See <a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/blogs\/the-switch\/wp\/2013\/10\/25\/15-years-ago-congress-kept-mickey-mouse-out-of-the-public-domain-will-they-do-it-again\/\">Why Congress kept Mickey Mouse out of the public domain<\/a>, Washington Post, Oct. 25, 2013).<\/p>\n<p>A Supreme court case challenging this copyright term extension was<strong>\u00a0Eldred v. Ashcroft,<\/strong> the duration was challenged\u00a0 under the idea that the Constitution only provided for a \u201climited\u201d\u00a0amount of time for exclusive copyright to \u201cpromote the progress of science\u00a0and the useful arts.\u201d \u00a0Clearly 95 to 110 years is hardly limited, but the courts said it was up to Congress to decide\u00a0how terms were to be limited.<\/p>\n<p>The legal scholar who brought the Eldred suit, Lawrence Lessig, describes some of the broader issues around public domain and copyright <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ted.com\/talks\/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity\">\u00a0in this highly recommended TED video<\/a>. ,,,,<\/p>\n<p>It&#8217;s interesting that in the\u00a0<strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.copyright.gov\/docs\/eldrdedo.pdf\">Eldred v. Ashcroft<\/a> (2003) case,<\/strong> the duration was challenged\u00a0 under the idea that the Constitution only provided for a \u201climited\u201d\u00a0 amount of time for exclusive copyright to \u201cpromote the progress of science and the useful arts.\u201d The courts said it was up to Congress to decide what that meant.<br \/>\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/BBgghnQF6E4\" width=\"480\" height=\"315\" frameborder=\"0\" align=\"right\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>Even so, could Mickey Mouse go into the public domain in 2024?\u00a0 Possibly yes, under current law. The first MM cartoon was published in 1929. But Mickey is also heavily trademarked. So even with the cartoons in public domain (and therefore easy to copy), no one but Disney would be able to use MM for modern day entertainment.<\/p>\n<p><strong>** <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_Millenium_Copyright_Act\">Digital Millenium Copyright Act<\/a>,<\/strong>1998\u00a0 \u2014 Brought US into compliance with WIPO and required embedded\u00a0 anti-copying circuitry in video players. It also created penalties for circumventing\u00a0 copyright protection devices and set up a controversial procedure for taking copyrighted works off the Web. The procedure works like this: If a server\u00a0 administrator is notified of a potential copyright violation, the server administrator\u00a0 must either shut down the users account immediately or file an affidavit (a statement\u00a0 to the court) which says, under penalty of perjury, that the administrator\u00a0 does not believe the user has infringed on a copyright. This procedure clearly\u00a0 tilts the legal presumption of innocence away from the accused.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scribd.com\/doc\/316257914\/DMCA-Ad#fullscreen\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">The DMCA is not working,<\/a> according to a June 2016 letter to Congress written by over 180 musicians and organizations. Included on the list are Paul McCartney, Cher, Taylor Swift and many others. The problem is that the law was designed to protect organizations like Google and YouTube, which have grown rich, but not musicians, whose income has fallen drastically since the digital revolution.<\/p>\n<p>Farm and consumer groups have also challenged some of the DMCA regulations at the Library of Congress Copyright Office, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.npr.org\/sections\/alltechconsidered\/2015\/08\/17\/432601480\/diy-tractor-repair-runs-afoul-of-copyright-law\">according to National Public Radio<\/a> (Aug., 17. \u00a02015)<\/p>\n<p><strong>SOPA\u00a0\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act\">Stop Online Piracy Act<\/a>. &#8212;<\/strong>Also PIPA\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Protect_IP_Act\">Protect IP Act <\/a>\u2014 (Neither were\u00a0 enacted) Designed to protect US sites from offshore IPs, the over breadth of enforcement powers alarmed the digital free speech community. \u00a0Proponents said it would bolster enforcement of <a title=\"Copyright laws\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Copyright_laws\">copyright laws<\/a>, especially against foreign-owned and operated websites. According to a Wikipedia article on SOPA, opponents said it would have threatened free speech and innovation, allowing law enforcement to block\u00a0 entire <a title=\"Internet domain\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Internet_domain\">internet domains<\/a> if they found infringing content posted on a single <a title=\"Blog\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Blog\">blog<\/a> or webpage. This would have bypassed the \u201csafe harbor\u201d provisions of the <a title=\"Digital Millennium Copyright Act\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act\">Digital Millennium Copyright Act<\/a>. \u00a0 Massive internet protests took place in January of 2012. The act was not passed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>** <a href=\"https:\/\/www.copyright.gov\/music-modernization\/\">Music Modernization Act<\/a>,<\/strong> 2018 (\u00a0<a title=\"Act of Congress\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Act_of_Congress\">Pub.L.<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/legislink.org\/us\/pl-115-264\" rel=\"nofollow\">115\u2013264<\/a>) is a new law that will\u00a0 a modernize the performance and reimbursement structure of music and audio recordings to accommodate streaming and other new music distribution technologies.\u00a0 Its main effects are:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Streaming services will pay musicians and copyright holders through a royalty arrangement;<\/li>\n<li>Audio producers and engineers will also be paid ;<\/li>\n<li>Music recorded before 1972,\u00a0 not previously protected by copyright law, will now be protected.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>COPYRIGHT CASE LAW<\/h3>\n<p><strong>**PARODY \/ FAIR USE:<\/strong> Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music \u2014 1994 \u2014\u00a0The musical group <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=65GQ70Rf_8Y\">2LiveCrew created a parody of Pretty Woman.<\/a>\u00a0The\u00a0song was\u00a0Roy Orbison\u2019s 1960s classic <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=_PLq0_7k1jk\">Pretty Woman,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0the company run by Orbison\u2019s heirs (Acuff-Rose) sued Luther Campbell of 2LiveCrew. The US Supreme Court, said that parodies are protected under the Fair Use doctrine provided that the parody has <strong>substantial transformative value.<\/strong> (also see section 5.5, Music and copyright.<\/p>\n<p><strong>** COPYRIGHT DURATION:<\/strong> <a href=\"http:\/\/eldred.cc\/\">Eldred v. Ashcroft<\/a> Jan. 2003 \u2014 In <a href=\"http:\/\/cubicmetercrystal.com\/log\/eldred2.html\">oral arguments<\/a>,\u00a0 petitioners argued that the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which extended the term of subsisting and future copyrights by 20 years exceeds Congress\u2019s power under the Copyright Clause and violates the First Amendment.<a href=\"http:\/\/writ.news.findlaw.com\/commentary\/20020305_sprigman.html\"> Some <\/a>have argued that Disney has pushed the extension. In the <a href=\"http:\/\/supct.law.cornell.edu\/supct\/html\/01-618.ZS.html\">majority opinion<\/a>, Justice Ginsberg said Congressional power to extend copyright terms was not limited. For a good commentary on this issue, see <a href=\"http:\/\/www.fepproject.org\/policyreports\/copyright2dexsum.html\">\u201cWhy Copyright Today Threatens Intellectual Freedom<\/a>,\u201d by Marjorie Heins.<\/p>\n<p><strong>** WHO OWNS A COPYRIGHT?<\/strong>: <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Community_for_Creative_Non-Violence_v._Reid\">Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid<\/a>, 1989 \u2014 A sculptor commissioned to do a work\u00a0 concerning a homeless man by the community for creative non-violence was not\u00a0 an employee of the group and, absent a specific contract, was the owner of\u00a0 the copyright to his work even if CCNV paid for his time and the copy of the\u00a0 sculpture. This is the case that defined the \u201cwork for hire\u201d doctrine.<\/p>\n<p><strong>** WHAT CAN BE COPYRIGHTED:<\/strong> <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co.\">Fiest Publications v. Rural Telephone Servic<\/a>e, 1991 \u2014 Only original arrangements of facts can be copyrighted,<br \/>\nnot facts themselves. Fiest was competing with own telephone book.<\/p>\n<h3>COPYRIGHT AND TECHNOLOGY<\/h3>\n<p>Generally, courts have changed from an open view of technological circumvention of copyright to a far more restrictive view, in part because of the way new digital technologies have allowed multiple generations of copies to be produced at the same quality level as the original.<\/p>\n<p><strong>** Sony v. Universal City Studios, 1984.<\/strong>\u00a0 Universal sued to block the spread of Sony VCRs. The Supreme Court said that even though 100 percent of the\u00a0 material was often copied, the purpose of its use was legitimate if it was non-commercial \u201ctime shifting\u201d for home viewing. This ruling was central to the arguments in A &amp; M v. Napster.<\/p>\n<p><strong>** A&amp;M Records v. Napster<\/strong>, 239 F.23d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) \u2013Time\u00a0 shifting as per Sony v. Universal City not valid when dissemination was deliberately widespread. MP3.com and Kazaa also embroiled in legal disputes over music\u00a0\u00a0 sharing. More on P2P networks and their legal problems at this <a href=\"http:\/\/www.wired.com\/wired\/archive\/8.10\/p2p_pages.html\">Wired archive site<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/supct\/html\/04-480.ZS.html\">** MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd.<\/a> <\/strong>125 US 2764, 2005 \u2014 If VCRs and other copying technologies are legitimate under Sony v Universal City Studios, what about P2P file sharing software?\u00a0 The court distinguished between technology with some legitimate uses and technology that was clearly focused on\u00a0 sharing copyrighted music.\u00a0 They did this by establishing an &#8220;inducement test.&#8221; A<span style=\"color: #444444;\">nyone who distributes a device\u00a0 (or software) with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties. The court went to great pains to stress that the inducement rule premises liability on purposeful, culpable expression and conduct, and thus does not compromise legitimate commerce or\u00a0 discourage innovation with a lawful promise.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc.\">** Oracle America v Google Inc. <\/a>\u00a0 2016<\/strong> &#8212; A trial in the 9th federal circuit over the operating system used by Google Android\u00a0ended with a Google \u00a0victory. Jurors agreed that Oracle&#8217;s copyright to Java software had not been infringed when Google created a parallel\u00a0programming language designed to work with Java and named some of the new language&#8217;s API functions in ways that were similar to Oracle&#8217;s Java. \u00a0\u00a0Although the lawsuit only involved a fraction of Google&#8217;s revenues, a victory for\u00a0Oracle\u00a0would have meant that courts would be backing a\u00a0legal theory\u00a0that would have hampered\u00a0\u00a0software compatibility.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h3><strong>FREE SPEECH AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><strong>Before the DMCA,<\/strong>\u00a0 the courts consistently ruled that copyright infringement claims could not interfere with freedom of speech.\u00a0\u00a0 Three cases illustrate the point:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Rosemont Enterprises v. Random House, 1966 \u2014 When an author began researching a book about the mysterious billionaire Howard Hughes (the model for Mr. Burns in the Simpsons),\u00a0 Hughes bought up magazines that had previously published articles about him.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 He then tried to stop the research by suing the author. \u00a0 But the courts ruled that copyright laws cant be used to keep public figures out of public eye.<\/li>\n<li>Time Inc. v. Bernard Geiss, 1968, involved the use of sketches based on Zapruder film of Kennedy assassination. The sketches were not a copyright infringement because no one can prevent public discussion of controversial issues.<\/li>\n<li><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Wind_Done_Gone\">The Wind Done Gone<\/a> <\/strong>April, 2001 \u2014\u00a0 Alice Randall&#8217;s book was a parody of the once-popular 1930s novel and movie about the Civil War called Gone With the Wind.\u00a0 In the novel, white Southerners experience discrimination.\u00a0 \u00a0Randall&#8217;s parody is written from the point of view of a slave in Scarlet O\u2019Hara\u2019s house. An\u00a0 injunction stayed publication in 2000 but was soon lifted and in June, 2001 the book was published. A year later, the lawsuit on behalf of the heirs of the author of Gone With the Wind author was settled. The court\u2019s final decision noted: \u201cCopyright does not immunize a work from comment and criticism.\u201d An ongoing issue is the extent to which prior restraint (in the form of a temporary injunction) should be used in copyright cases such as this one.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>After the DMCA,<\/strong>\u00a0 web sites with allegedly infringing materials could be taken down without much in the way of judicial procedure or due process.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 According to<a href=\"https:\/\/www.eff.org\/issues\/ip-and-free-speech\"> an article on the Electronic Frontier Foundation site<\/a>,\u00a0 copyright claimants are increasingly misusing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to demand immediate takedowns without providing any proof of infringement.\u00a0 \u201cService providers fearful of monetary damages and legal hassles often comply with these requests without double-checking them despite the cost to free speech and individual rights.\u201d\u00a0 However, the DMCA has \u201csafe harbors,\u201d as noted above and as tested in the Viacom case:<\/p>\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.eff.org\/cases\/viacom-v-youtube\">Viacom v. YouTube (Google)<\/a> <\/strong>\u2013\u00a0 2012 \u2013\u00a0 \u00a0 Viacom is the parent company of Paramount and MTV, among many other media companies, and started take-downs and lawsuits against YouTube in 2007.\u00a0 Some 160,000 YouTube videos were violating Viacom copyrights, the company said.\u00a0 YouTube responded that the DMCA\u2019s safe harbor provisions meant that it did not have to act as the policeman, which made it harder for Viacom to sue a lot of people at once.\u00a0 In April 2012, a federal district court said YouTube \u201cis protected from liability except where the company actually knew of (or was willfully blind to) specific instances of infringement of material at issue in the case, or facts of circumstances indicating such specific infringement.\u201d (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.eff.org\/deeplinks\/2012\/04\/viacom-v-google-decision\">See April 5, 2012 EFF article by Corynne McSherry<\/a>)<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.eff.org\/cases\/sapient-v-geller\">Sapient v. Geller <\/a>\u2014 Jan. 2008 \u2014 Brian Sapient, a member of the \u201cRational Response Squad,\u201d posted a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=M9w7jHYriFo\">YouTube video<\/a>,\u00a0 but Geller issued a \u201ctake down order\u201d under the DMCA. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.eff.org\/cases\/sapient-v-geller\">This led to a suit, <\/a>but the courts threw it out. Clearly, copyright infringement claims cannot stave off serious criticism.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/OPG_v._Diebold\">Online Policy Group v. Diebold<\/a> Inc \u2014 Oct., 2004 \u2014 In the ongoing debate over the security of electronic voting machines, a California court found Diebold Inc. guilty of deliberately misrepresenting its copyright claims under the DMCA as it attempted to silence criticism.\u00a0 In his decision, Judge Jeremy Fogel wrote, \u201cNo reasonable copyright holder could have believed that the portions of the email archive discussing possible technical problems with Diebold\u2019s voting machines were proteced by copyright .. . the Court concludes as a matter of law that Diebold knowingly materially misrepresented that Plaintiffs infringed Diebold\u2019s copyright interest.\u201d See links from the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.eff.org\/news\/archives\/2004_09.php#001961\">Electronic Frontier Foundation<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Dec, 2009 \u2014 US and international parody web sites are being subject to inappropriate takedown orders, according to the<a href=\"http:\/\/www.eff.org\/takedowns\"> Electronic Frontier Foundation<\/a>. In one case, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.eff.org\/deeplinks\/2010\/01\/and-another-one-takedown-hall-shame-peabody-energy\">Peabody Coal <\/a>objected to a climate change parody. In another, <a href=\"http:\/\/ontariogreen.greenpress.com\/climate-change\/takedown\/\">Environment Canada<\/a> objected to a Danish web site hosting an American parody, and the site was taken down without due process.<\/p>\n<p>Oct 2014 \u2014 <a href=\"http:\/\/thetyee.ca\/News\/2014\/10\/18\/Law_Expert_Offers_Help_Media_Fight_Harper_Copyright\/\">Canada rewriting <\/a>copyright laws to benefit political advertising.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h1><\/h1>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT\u00a0 AND DURATION\u00a0 **The\u00a0 Berne Convention\u00a0 is an international copyright treaty first established in 1886 that the US joined in 1976. It became effective in the US in 1978, was ratified by\u00a0 Congress in 1989 and\u00a0 also in 1998.\u00a0 &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/copyright\/copyright\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":86,"menu_order":3,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"full-width-page.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-41","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/41","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/41\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5011,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/41\/revisions\/5011"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/86"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}