To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

Charles Washington (defensive back, born 1993)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charles Washington
No. 28 – Arizona Cardinals
Personal information
Born: (1993-03-10) March 10, 1993 (age 26)
Height:5 ft 10 in (1.78 m)
Weight:192 lb (87 kg)
Career information
High school:Crespi Carmelite
(Encino, California)
College:Fresno State
Career history
Roster status:Active
Career NFL statistics as of 2018
Total tackles:20
Forced fumbles:0
Fumble recoveries:0
Pass deflections:0
Player stats at
Player stats at PFR

Charles Washington (born March 10, 1993) is an American football safety for the Arizona Cardinals of the National Football League (NFL). He played college football at Fresno State and signed with the Detroit Lions as an undrafted free agent after the 2016 NFL Draft.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    12 326
    1 186
    1 982
    4 773
  • ✪ The History and Philosophy of Copyright
  • ✪ Thurgood Marshall: Bio, Quotes, College, Facts, Law, Writings, U.S. Supreme Court Justice (1998)
  • ✪ Funding a Nation: Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton
  • ✪ 10 Dark Mysteries Involving Strange Cults
  • ✪ Thunder at the Gates: The Black Civil War Regiments that Redeemed America


This Filmmaker IQ course is proudly sponsored by LensProToGo: the best online rental service with a huge selection for all your project needs. Next time you need a piece of gear, check out my favorite rental site: LensProToGo. Hi John Hess from and today we’ll tackle the important topic of Copyright, dig deep into the history, and understand why this piece of legal thinking is absolutely crucial for our modern media age. For most of human history there has not been a need for copyright. If you were a musician or an artist in ancient Rome you were paid for your work and that was that. The whole notion of copying and distributing art for profit was completely foreign - you have to remember that for most of history the vast majority of people were completely illiterate. Those who were able to read and write were part of the nobility or part of the church - and in an Irish church around the 6th century AD we get our first inkling of copyright. St. Columba was an Irish Gaelic missionary from a well to do family. He was dedicated to constant prayer and studying and was responsible for transcribing over 300 books by hand. One night he borrowed a copy of the Insular Psalter, a volume containing the Book of Psalms - a very rare thing in the ancient Ireland. The Psalter, borrowed perhaps without his permission, belonged to St. Finnian. In a single night by a miraculous light Columba copied the entire thing by hand. St. Finnian was angry when he found out about this trespass and demanded the copy of the book back. St. Columba defended himself saying it was the word of God and needed to be spread across the land. They took it to the King for arbitration - the King sided on Finnian saying “To every cow belongs her calf, therefore to every book belongs its copy.” Columba didn’t like this ruling one bit and used his influences to start a rebellion. The dispute resulted in the Battle of Cul Dreimhne in 561 ending with 3,000 warriors dead. Columba won the battle, so he got to keep the copy of the book but was forced into exile. He took 12 companions to settle in Iona in Scotland. There the copied Psalter became the Cathach of St. Columba and a rallying and battle protectorate for the Clan Ó Domhnaill. And that’s that for copyright until technology and politics enter the fray a thousand years later. Once Western Civilization had perfected the machinery necessary for creating movable type and the printing press in the 15th and 16th century, we begin to see the beginnings copyright. It was the powerful literate institutions - the government and the church that took to the printing press - using it to spread their message throughout the land quickly and cheaply through the written word. But they also realized it could be used to spread undesirable words - so they began to put in place regulations to try to control the output of the press. Pope Alexander VI issued a Papal bull in 1501 against the unlicensed printing of books and in 1559 the Index Expurgatorius, or List of Prohibited Books, was issued for the first time. Governments began to force printers to obtain official licences to trade and produce books - play nice with the King and the printer would be granted exclusive rights to print certain works in other words a monopoly for a certain period of time. This is exactly what happened in merry old England, the printers, bookmakers and booksellers came together to create a guild - The Worshipful Company Of Stationers & Newspaper Makers or the Stationers Company. Under the Royal Charter of 1557 the Stationers Company was given the express power to seize "offending books" that violated the standards set down by the Church and State - and in exchange they could control the market how they saw fit. The Stationers were more interested in the money than the politics so they went along with it, supporting the Catholics or the Protestants whoever held the crown in England at the time. As years pass by, the Stationers grew more powerful but the need for tight censorship of books began to wane after the English Civil war displaced the King with a parliamentary government. Without a King, the Stationer's monopoly was not that political usefulness. Authors like John Locke started to realize that the Stationers monopoly meant they could squeeze the authors economically. So in 1693 when it came time to extend the Stationers charter, Parliament, with the encouragement of Locke and independent printing presses, denied the extension. That resulted in a bit of economic chaos… if the crown no longer deemed a group in control of the right to copy works - who did? Well the timing was just right - under the Stationer’s reign there was only one official London Newspaper- the London Gazette. With the Stationers’ monopoly broken, newspapers popped up all over - and many were heavily bent toward the newly formed parliamentary political parties - the Whigs and Tories. The parties recognized the importance of using news media for propaganda almost immediately, so all attempts by the Stationers to reinstate their licensing act fell on deaf ears. But having nothing on the books in regards to copyright wasn’t going to work either. Author Jonathan Swift wrote "One Man Studies Seven Year, to bring a finish'd Piece into the World, and a Pyrate Printer, Reprints his Copy immediately, and Sells it for a quarter of the Price ... these things call for an Act of Parliament" Now the Stationers began to realize that it might be in their best interest to support the authors. They couldn’t get perpetual licenses for themselves - but if they got the authors their license or copyright, the authors would have to come to the stationers to get their stuff printed. It was a win win what was good for the authors would be good for the publishers. Using these new tactics the Stationers petitioned Parliament again in both 1707 and 1709 to introduce a bill providing for copyright. Both bills failed but the pressure was on to act. In 1710, three members of Parliament drafted: A Bill for the Encouragement of Learning and for Securing the Property of Copies of Books to the rightful Owners thereof. The bill fined anyone who imported or traded in unlicensed or foreign books, required every book be registered in the Stationers' Register to receive copyright. Term limits for copyright were set to 14 years with the option for renewal if the author was still alive for an additional 14 years. Implicit in this bill which came to be known as the Statute of Anne in 1710 is a social quid-pro-quo to authors of literature - if you the author will create a piece of work we will grant you a certain period of time which you, and only you, will be able to make money off of that work- and then after that time society will own your creation and any one can use it for free. The United States has a very interesting relationship to England - born of her majesty’s royal colonial womb, the US also borrows a lot of British ideas while at the same time mixing in her own thinking. From Federalist papers - number 43, James Madison argued that the federal government needed to have the power to instate copyright - that it would be no good for interstate commerce to have a patchwork of different copyrights among the different states. And when Madison was part of the drafting of the U.S. Constitution in 1789, we get Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, granting Congress the power "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Then in 1790 we get the first Copyright Act which borrowed heavily from the Statute of Anne. To get a copyright you had to pay to register and deposit a record at the Library of Congress. The term limit, like the English version, was set to 14 years after registration with an option to renew for an additional 14 years provided the author was still alive. But this copyright law only extended to Citizens of the United States… cheap reprints of foreign authors - especially British authors who happened to write in the same language were all the vogue in the former colonies… Publishers filled that demand without paying a cent in royalties. There was so much piracy that there’s almost a complete lack of literary figures in early American history. At this point - the early 1800s, the United States was for the most part - a cultural pirate nation - freely taking the product of Europe - a land separated by a vast ocean that took weeks to transverse. When a nation is a cultural importer, weak copyright enforcement and short copyright term limits are favorable because they make art cheaper. But 100 years later, the world is a much more connected place and America would develop her own culture and by the end of the 20th century the United States would become the dominant cultural exporter to the world. Looking at this graph shows the ever increasing term limits of copyright… first in 1831 which extended the first term to 28 years with 14 years additional and adding music composition to the list of protected works. Then the 1909 Act changed the renewal to 28 years and added musical recordings and eventually motion picture film (and a 1912 amendment). Then in 1976, we get this bump up to life of author plus 50 years and then the so called Mickey Mouse Sonny Bono Act of 1996 which shoots it up to Life plus 70 years. This growing trend of copyright term looks like a correlation with the rise of U.S. cultural power and the growth of large U.S. media interests or the age of Mickey Mouse. Obviously it’s a copyright conspiracy - Disney strangling society’s original quid pro quo deal in order to make another buck. Well… not so fast. It’s a lot more complicated than that. If we take this same graph of American copyright term lengths and overlay France’s copyright terms: the US copyright length isn’t growing at all - it’s catching up to the terms already established in European countries - terms set forth by an international treaty called the Berne Convention. The second half of the 1700s saw a huge rise in the growth of literature that accompanied literacy rates. By the 19th century you had authors with international followings like Charles Dickens and Victor Hugo. But the copyright laws of the day only protected an author in one nation - a publisher could take an author’s work, especially an internationally famous author, go to a neighboring nation - publish the work there and not have to pay royalties to the author - which is similar to the issue Madison pointed out as rational to give the federal government control over the states in regards to copyright. Victor Hugo was very troubled by this and helped found the Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale with the objective of coming up with an international convention of writers' and artists' rights. Eight years after founding the organization they drafted a commercial treaty first signed in Berne Switzerland on September 9, 1886. Now this concept of copyright was a huge departure from the English and American copyright systems. Where the English focused mainly on commerce, the Berne Convention draws from the French focusing on author’s rights including moral rights but we’ll get to that in a second. Although the first Berne Convention document didn’t settle on a term limit the 1908 Berlin act amended the term limits to a minimum of life of the author plus 50 years (individual signing nations could chose longer period). Just like real property, intellectual property can be inherited in the family so they 2 generations with each generation being 25 years. After all most people only know their family back to 2 generations. After those 50 years, the work enters the public domain free for everyone else to use. The original signatories of the Berne Convention included Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Tunisia and the United Kingdom. Not long after, most of Europe had signed the treaty… The United States sent delegation to observe the meetings but did not sign. Why? It was a mix lax copyright enabling cheap cultural import and a 19th century attitude of American non-interventionism in Europe which goes all the way back to Washington warning of getting involved with entangling treaties of the Old World. But as the power of American Film and Music industries grew in the 20th century and the US reverse it’s non interventionist attitude toward the world after World War II, American lawmakers tried to harmonize the laws with international standards with the intent of eventually joining. The 1976 Copyright Act brought the United States into the Berne Convention minimum of life plus 50 years. Then in 1988 President Ronald Reagan signed the United States into the Berne Convention. The so called Mickey Mouse act of 1998 wasn’t about saving Mickey from Public Domain (he’s a trademark anyway). It was trying to keep up to speed with the European Union which set it to life plus 70 years in 1993 because life expectancies were getting longer they figured two generations meant 70 years and the media industry was so large that a work had financial value for much longer than it previously did. But there is an exception in the United States form of copyright that distinctly different from the European model. The US has “work for hire” - that is the copyright on something that you hired someone to create. The copyright term length is set for 75 years from publication in 1976 and extended to 95 years from publication in 1998. For unpublished works, the length is 125 years after creation in case unpublished work sites around for 50 years or so without out seeing the light of day. Most major U.S. films are considered work for hire. In Europe, the director is considered the film’s author and the copyright stands for the life of the director plus 70 years. The Berne Convention ushered in a completely new approach to copyright from the Statute of Anne and the Original US Constitution because frankly the world in the late 1800s and 1900s was in a different relationship to media and authorship than it was in the 1700s. Still some of the underlying principles comes from two different viewpoints on property. Under feudal England, all lands belonged to the King although ownership of plots were allowed to those who would work the lands. This came down because England was really a conquered land by the Normans in 1066. The United States didn’t start with Feudalism - but the land that the states are carved out of started off as federal territory. The notion of ownership through working the land is alive and well up to the Homestead acts of the 1800s which encouraged western migration, offering free land after you could prove a certain number years of residence. We still have debates about eminent domain where government can take private land for public use. So in this mindset a utilitarian viewpoint is dominant - Who ever could put the property to use for the most common good was more important that who really owned it. This utilitarian view of property is even implicit in the copyright statutes themselves. Exclusive right was only a bargaining chip to encourage artist to create work for the common good. Artists and novelists take ideas and words which are public domain and uncopyrightable and rearrange them to create works. Like the land owned by the king, your plot of land - your artistic work - must be returned to the public sphere from whence it came Now, on the continental Europe the thinking took a different path. There wasn’t the same kind of feudal history that the Normans had when they conquered England, Instead the continent borrowed from their ancient conquerors and modernized old Roman laws of ownership. Here property was an extension of who a person is and how that person projects themselves on the material world. In other words, part of who you are is what you own and what you create - to deprive a person of their property would be deprive the person of being that person. The Napoleonic code of 1804 following the French Revolution codifies property as a natural right - something you born with - this idea was so inherent to existence that even Napoleon said that he himself with all his armies could not violate so sacred a trust as property ownership. So if we have strong property rights then we must have strong intellectual property rights. Just because the property is a work of the mind, an intellectual work, doesn’t make it less work - if anything it makes it more personal. To read the writings of author is to go inside their head - To take away an author’s claim to his or her own work while they’re still alive is to deprive that person of what makes that person. This includes something new - moral rights - an author has a right to have say in what happens to their stories and what happens to the characters he or she creates. As outlined by the Berne Convention: “the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation.” Also unique in the Berne Convention and perhap one of the less understood and less appreciated shifts in copyright thinking was the concept of copyright exists at the moment of creation. When an idea is affixed in a tangible form - that’s the key it must be written down or committed to a medium, it is instantly copyrighted. You own it without having to register it. Now there is a bureau where you can register to make a record that you created that form of expression in order to get statutory damages when you’re arguing infringement, but this focus on author’s rights means the author creates the right - it comes naturally, not from the government. The government is just there to be an arbitrator if you need it but you don’t have to go to government to get your rights. So our modern take on copyright may be borne out of struggles of Stationers and the Censorship laid down by the Church and Crown, but the underlying motives are educated by the French and the concept of natural rights to property. The absolutely frustrating thing when researching this subject matter online is the blatant almost universal omission of the Berne Convention in vast majority both layman and scholarly articles on copyright history. So much of what’s written online and popular videos discussing the topic completely skip the 19th century as though it never happened. But I guess you have to consider the source - most of these papers online were written by researchers writing for library special interest groups in the 90s when congress was debating copyright term extensions - making the argument a constitutional argument instead of an international economic question was a political tactic to sway congress members. The internet which thrives on free content, picked up those sentiments and carried the ideas without context. The omission of natural property right that Berne Convention gives us plays into the utilitarian argument of the greater social good - or at least the perception of that. But the danger is it’s a one sided argument that ignores the developing philosophies that shape modern copyright. Without considering those philosophies which has been evolving alongside a creative media economy worth billions and billions of dollars in the last century, the arguments are meaningless and the solutions coming out of them are dangerous at best. Is the current term too long - maybe it is - no one really knows what’s the ideal term length is but if anything the current term limit isn’t the engine of a cultural apocalypse. We’ve had longer copyright terms for a while but culture is thriving right now especially because of technology. Sure there are problems, copyright like every human legal institution needs to be tailored for changing times and unfortunately it has to be in a perpetual state of catch up because you can’t predict society. But when we make changes we have to do it responsibly. I wrote this copyright history video to make it accessible to as many as possible. I believe law can always be boiled down to questions of fairness even a nine year old could think about and answer, unfortunately the lawyers and legaleze get in the way. To go deep into the history of what we covered would be enough for a jam back semester at law school. And we haven’t even discussed fair use which absolutely has to be strong defense if we are to protect freedom of speech in a strong copyright world. Copyright is a key issue not just for filmmakers and content creators - but for the viewing audience as well. Now go out there and toil and make something you can call your own. And know that it belongs to you because it’s your copyright. Make something great. I’m John Hess and I’ll see you at


Early years

Washington played high school football at Crespi Carmelite High School in Encino, California. He recorded 57 solo tackles, 29 tackle assists, 5 interceptions, 7 rushing attempts, 123 rushing yards and 4 touchdowns his senior year in 2010, earning league defensive MVP honors.[1]

College career

Washington played for the Fresno State Bulldogs of Fresno State University from 2012 to 2015. He was redshirted in 2011.[1] He played in 12 games in 2012, recording 8 solo tackles, 5 tackle assists, 2 pass breakups and 1 fumble recovery.[1][2] Washington also returned a blocked extra point attempt for two points.[1] He earned Mountain West (MW) All-Academic honors in 2012.[1] He started all 13 games in 2013, totaling 50 solo tackles, 21 tackle assists, 2 sacks, 1 interception, 2 pass breakups and 1 forced fumble.[1][2] Washington started the first 11 games of the season at strong safety and the final 2 at cornerback. He garnered MW All-Academic recognition.[1] He started all 14 games in 2014, recording 61 solo tackles, 17 tackle assists, half a sack, 2 interceptions, 7 pass breakups and 1 fumble recovery.[1][2] Washington started seven games at cornerback, six at safety and one at nickelback. He earned MW All-Academic honors in 2014.[1] He played in 11 games, all starts, in 2015, totaling 31 solo tackles, 9 tackle assists, 1 sack and 6 pass breakups.[3][1] Washington's first four starts of 2015 were at cornerback while his last seven were at strong safety. He missed one game due to injury.[1] He garnered MW All-Academic recognition in 2015.[4] Washington played in 50 games, starting 38, during his college career, recording 202 total tackles and 3 interceptions.[5] He participated in the NFLPA Collegiate Bowl in January 2016.[6] He majored in criminology corrections at Fresno State.[1]

Professional career

Washington was rated the 64th best cornerback in the 2016 NFL Draft by[7]

Pre-draft measurables
Ht Wt 40-yard dash 10-yd split 20-yd split 20-ss 3-cone Vert jump Broad BP
5 ft 10 in
(1.78 m)
190 lb
(86 kg)
4.48 s 1.58 s 2.56 s 4.48 s 7.23 s 41 in
(1.04 m)
10 ft 5 in
(3.18 m)
18 reps
All values from Fresno State Pro Day[7]

Detroit Lions

After going undrafted, Washington signed with the Detroit Lions on May 6, 2016.[8] He was waived by the Lions on September 3 and signed to the team's practice squad on September 4.[9][10] He was released on October 12 and signed to the Lions' practice squad on October 17, 2016.[11][12] He signed a reserve/future contract with the Lions on January 9, 2017.[13]

In 2018, Washington played in 13 games before being placed on injured reserve on December 22, 2018.[14]

On August 31, 2019, Washington was waived by the Lions.[15]

Arizona Cardinals

On September 1, 2019, Washington was claimed off waivers by the Arizona Cardinals.[16]


  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l "Charles Washington". Retrieved October 14, 2017.
  2. ^ a b c "2015 FRESNO STATE FOOTBALL MEDIA GUIDE" (PDF). Retrieved October 14, 2017.
  3. ^ "2015 Football Cumulative Statistics". Retrieved October 14, 2017.
  4. ^ "FALL 2015 ACADEMIC ALL-MOUNTAIN WEST TEAM ANNOUNCED" (PDF). February 11, 2016. p. 6. Retrieved October 14, 2017.
  5. ^ Burkholder, Matt (May 2, 2016). "Bulldogs find NFL homes following draft". Retrieved October 14, 2017.
  6. ^ "NFLPA Collegiate Bowl Rosters". The Associated Press. January 20, 2016. Retrieved October 14, 2017.
  7. ^ a b "Charles Washington". Retrieved October 14, 2017.
  8. ^ May 6, 2016. "Lions sign 12 undrafted rookie free agents". Retrieved October 14, 2017.
  9. ^ "Lions establish 53-man roster". September 3, 2016. Retrieved October 14, 2017.
  10. ^ "Lions sign 8 players to team's practice squad". September 3, 2016. Retrieved October 14, 2017.
  11. ^ "Lions sign WR Jay Lee to practice squad". October 12, 2016. Retrieved October 14, 2017.
  12. ^ "Detroit Lions Transactions". Retrieved October 14, 2017.
  13. ^ "Lions sign nine players to Reserve/Future List". January 9, 2017. Retrieved October 14, 2017.
  14. ^ "Lions place WR Bruce Ellington & S Charles Washington on reserve/injured". December 22, 2018.
  15. ^ "Detroit Lions establish 53-man roster". August 31, 2019.
  16. ^ Odegard, Kyle (September 1, 2019). "Cardinals Claim Defensive Lineman Jonathan Bullard, Four Others".

External links

This page was last edited on 5 September 2019, at 00:25
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.