Search posterous

Search all posts and users. Type a name, type a favorite song title, whatever! See what comes up.
  

More posterous blogs











More recommended blogs »

Here are posterous posts filed under copyright...

23narchy says...

A woman who tried out her new pocket camera by video-recording a few minutes of her sister's surprise birthday party at a showing of "New Moon" has been charged with a felony -- "camcordering" a movie.

Penalties for camcordering have been ratcheting higher and higher (and have been introduced in international treaty negotiations, as well as in bilateral trade agreements with the US, which demands that its trading partners imprison people operating video recorders in cinemas). But the actual incidence of camcordered pirate DVDs is declining relative to "screeners" and other leaks from the industry itself.

The movie industry has turned into an alcoholic dad who beats up his family at the slightest transgression while ignoring his own gross failures -- blaming everything on external forces and refusing to confront its own problems.

Meanwhile, 22-year-old Samantha Tumpach spent two nights in jail for recording her friends singing "Happy Birthday" at a movie theater, for capturing less than four minutes of a feature film. She is charged with a felony and if convicted, could lose the right to vote, to work with children, to hold office, and to partake in full civil life.

And the movie industry's pitch to us remains, "Please stop pirating our discs, because if you don't stop, we may be driven out of business and then society would suffer from our absence."

Charged With Felony After Taping 4 Minutes Of "New Moon" (Thanks, Blaire!)

(Image: Camcordering, a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike photo from kowitz's photostream )

 

Filed under: copyright

dawnriser says...

Record labels must face the music

Instead of trying to criminalise its customers, the music industry should be looking at innovative ways to make filesharing work

Much of this sounds like a promo for Spotify and Last FM. I've always "defended" the right of artists and publishers to enforce copyright and personally I've felt that copying music, be it on cassette or digitally, was some kind of theft. But now it has to be time to rewrite the rule book -  the music industry has to bite the bullet if they want to survive.

Filed under: copyright

stylianosm says...

Σημαντική ταινία για τη δημιουργικότητα και τα πνευματικά δικαιώματα στον 21ο αιώνα.

Filed under: copyright

elsua says...

Ante la inclusión en el Anteproyecto de Ley de Economía sostenible de modificaciones legislativas que afectan al libre ejercicio de las libertades de expresión, información y el derecho de acceso a la cultura a través de Internet, los periodistas, bloggers, usuarios, profesionales y creadores de Internet manifestamos nuestra firme oposición al proyecto, y declaramos que:

  1. Los derechos de autor no pueden situarse por encima de los derechos fundamentales de los ciudadanos, como el derecho a la privacidad, a la seguridad, a la presunción de inocencia, a la tutela judicial efectiva y a la libertad de expresión.
  2. La suspensión de derechos fundamentales es y debe seguir siendo competencia exclusiva del poder judicial. Ni un cierre sin sentencia. Este anteproyecto, en contra de lo establecido en el artículo 20.5 de la Constitución, pone en manos de un órgano no judicial -un organismo dependiente del ministerio de Cultura-, la potestad de impedir a los ciudadanos españoles el acceso a cualquier página web.
  3. La nueva legislación creará inseguridad jurídica en todo el sector tecnológico español, perjudicando uno de los pocos campos de desarrollo y futuro de nuestra economía, entorpeciendo la creación de empresas, introduciendo trabas a la libre competencia y ralentizando su proyección internacional.
  4. La nueva legislación propuesta amenaza a los nuevos creadores y entorpece la creación cultural. Con Internet y los sucesivos avances tecnológicos se ha democratizado extraordinariamente la creación y emisión de contenidos de todo tipo, que ya no provienen prevalentemente de las industrias culturales tradicionales, sino de multitud de fuentes diferentes.
  5. Los autores, como todos los trabajadores, tienen derecho a vivir de su trabajo con nuevas ideas creativas, modelos de negocio y actividades asociadas a sus creaciones. Intentar sostener con cambios legislativos a una industria obsoleta que no sabe adaptarse a este nuevo entorno no es ni justo ni realista. Si su modelo de negocio se basaba en el control de las copias de las obras y en Internet no es posible sin vulnerar derechos fundamentales, deberían buscar otro modelo.
  6. Consideramos que las industrias culturales necesitan para sobrevivir alternativas modernas, eficaces, creíbles y asequibles y que se adecuen a los nuevos usos sociales, en lugar de limitaciones tan desproporcionadas como ineficaces para el fin que dicen perseguir.
  7. Internet debe funcionar de forma libre y sin interferencias políticas auspiciadas por sectores que pretenden perpetuar obsoletos modelos de negocio e imposibilitar que el saber humano siga siendo libre.
  8. Exigimos que el Gobierno garantice por ley la neutralidad de la Red en España, ante cualquier presión que pueda producirse, como marco para el desarrollo de una economía sostenible y realista de cara al futuro.
  9. Proponemos una verdadera reforma del derecho de propiedad intelectual orientada a su fin: devolver a la sociedad el conocimiento, promover el dominio público y limitar los abusos de las entidades gestoras.
  10. En democracia las leyes y sus modificaciones deben aprobarse tras el oportuno debate público y habiendo consultado previamente a todas las partes implicadas. No es de recibo que se realicen cambios legislativos que afectan a derechos fundamentales en una ley no orgánica y que versa sobre otra materia.

If you would want to read the English version, head over to Boing Boing and read it over here. And for a much more extensive coverage of the Manifesto click on this link.

(NOTA: Este manifiesto fue redactado conjuntamente por periodistas, bloggers e internautas, en una maratoniana sesión durante la tarde-noche de ayer. Si estás de acuerdo, difúndelo por todas las vías que puedas)

Filed under: Copyright

slavko says...

в том числе на чужие иллюстрации и фотографии:
 
Суд с МК на предмет увода частной фотографии и использования в статье с сомнительным контекстом
(читать снизу вверх)

Filed under: copyright

Prior to crowdSPRING, I was a lawyer for 13 years - focusing on complex commercial and intellectual property litigation. This is the first in what will be a regular feature in our blog discussing important legal issues that impact every small business.

What is Copyright?

Copyright is a form of legal protection provided to those who create original works. Under the 1976 Copyright Act (United States), the copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduce, adapt, distribute, publicly perform and publicly display the work. Any or all of these rights can be licensed, sold or donated to another party. One does not need to register a work with the U.S. Copyright Office for it to be automatically protected by copyright law (registration does have benefits - but we won’t be covering those in this article).

Copyright laws around the world can differ in significant ways. Most countries are signatories to various International treaties and agreements governing copyright protection (such as the Berne Copyright Convention). Under the Berne Copyright Convention, if your work is protected by copyright in your own country, then your work is protected by copyright in every other country that signed the Berne Copyright Convention.

What does Copyright protect?

Copyright protects works such as poetry, movies, writing, music, video games, videos, plays, paintings, sheet music, recorded music performances, novels, software code, sculptures, photographs, choreography, and architectural designs.

To be protected by copyright, a work must be “fixed in a tangible medium of expression.” This means that the work must exist in physical form for at least some period of time. A tangible medium includes paper (even a napkin will do!) and digital forms of storage. Additionally, the work must be original. It doesn’t matter if the work is similar to existing works, and copyright law is blind to whether the work is good or bad - so long as the work is original, it is protected by copyright. Finally, a work must be the result of at least some creative effort by the author.

Copyright doesn’t protect an idea, system or process (you would need to obtain patent protection for those). So, for example, if your small business is creating software programs, you would generally be unable to protect under copyright law the algorithms, methods, systems, ideas or functions of software (your code, however, is protected – nobody can sell or distribute your code without your permission).

 

How Long Does a Copyright Last?

For works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work or a work made for hire (we’ll talk about that in a later post), the copyright lasts for 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on a number of factors.

What Should Small Businesses Do To Avoid Violating Copyright Law?

Here are five practical things you should do to make sure you don’t violate copyright law:

1. Don’t copy material just because you don’t see a copyright symbol. Since 1978, U.S. copyright law has not required that the copyright owner post a copyright notice with their work. That means that any work reduced to a tangible form (paper or digital, for example), is automatically protected by copyright.

2. Respect Creative Commons licenses. Creative Commons is a powerful framework that works alongside copyright law, but don’t confuse Creative Commons with “free for the taking.” There are a number of different types of Creative Commons licenses and you should review the specific license before you use something protected by Creative Commons. For example, when searching for images on Flickr to include in my blog posts, I always search for images licensed under Creative Commons and available for commercial use.

3. Don’t use works created by someone else merely because you can’t find any copyright restrictions or the author’s identity. Merely because you don’t know who created a work doesn’t give you the right to use that work. This is commonly abused when people do a search - on Google, for example - for images and use an image they’ve found in an article, blog post, or design.

4. Define Copyright Ownership. When you hire independent contractors to create work for you, consider including “work-for-hire” provisions in your legal agreement with your independent contractor (more about this in a later post) or provisions that transfer the ownership of the work created by those contractors - or at the very least, a license to use - to you and/or your company.

5. Understand the Permitted and Prohibited Uses Under a Copyright License. When you buy or use stock photos or other materials protected by copyright in your marketing materials, advertising, or as part of your website, pay attention to what you are and are not permitted to do with that work. For example, stock photos from sites like iStockphoto and Shutterstock are protected by specific licenses which restrict the uses for those photos and prohibit, among other things, use of stock for logo design. Don’t assume that a license gives you unlimited rights - it most likely does not.

In a later post, we’ll talk about more advanced copyright issues, including what to do if someone violates your copyright. And If there are other small business legal issues you’re interested in reading about, please leave a comment and let me know.

Please remember that legal information is not the same as legal advice. This post may not address all relevant business or legal issues that are unique to your situation and you should always seek legal advice from a licensed attorney.

image credit: MikeBlogs

Filed under: copyright

AndyLVV says...

 

What is Yours, Ours, and Mine:
Authorial Ownership and the Creative Commons – Emily Apter

OCTOBER 126, Fall 2008, pp. 91–114. © 2008 October Magazine, Ltd. and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In this article Apter refers to ‘Creative Commons’ as

“a generic term to refer to aesthetic and intellectual property that rightfully belongs to the public sphere or should be protected as an open source outside the range of corporate copyright law”

rather than the copyright movement of the same name.

The article explores the world of copyright law, plagiarism and the freedom to use others ideas without fear of legal reprisal.

Apter begins by referring to cases where authors have taken inspiration from folk tales and others biographical accounts, then gone on to publish a work which caused them to suffer from being sued by the ‘original’ owner of such a tale.

Apter goes on to talk about the work of Jonathan Letham and the idea of ‘imperial plagiarism’ where creative workers take inspiration from primitive, third world or privileged (better) artists.

This ‘imperial plagiarism’ idea is applied to the Walt Disney company and it’s plundering of folklore for story ideas. Letham describes the irony that Disney takes others works to produce their animations, yet aggressively pursue legal action with anyone using any of their works.

Apter quotes Letham as saying “Don’t pirate my editions; do plunder my visions. The name of the game is Give All.”

She uses this to show that inspiration shouldn’t be discouraged, just the act of outright plagiarism.

The article then goes onto explore the boundaries of public/private space and where the lines blur. She references a piece of film work called ‘Stealing Beauty’ by Guy Ben-Ner, this is a short film involving people acting out real acts of living within room displays in Ikea stores.

Apter ends the article by referring to an interesting case involving an author called Romain Gary who after winning the Goncourt literature prize went onto publish more books under a pseudonym Emily Ajar. One of these works went onto winning another Goncourt prize (which can only be awarded once to an author).

Gary then convinced a nephew to impersonate Ajar so he could accept the prize for him. This backfired later when the nephew blackmailed Gary to continue writing for him as Ajar so he could continue to live the highlife. By doing this he had effectively taken over Gary’s copyright.

Ironically Gary’s work then went onto being accused of plagiarising Ajar’s work.

Apter concludes by bringing up several interesting ideas on ownership and creative practice.

“Is free property definable only as freedom from the legalistic strictures that privatize and corporatize signature”

“How does one deal legally with the ephemeral ownability of language and creative property?”

“What are the ethical and political consequences attendant on the border-policing of the creative commons by copyright and patent holders?”

These are several interesting questions that Apter proposes and it all fits in with my research on the creative industries.

The article was of interest to me mainly due to the links with the Creative Commons movement (the copyright alternative) and its ties with commercial creativity.

I’m investigating the way in which government policy is trying to shape our creative digital industries through policy, and Apter’s thoughts on who exactly owns creativity and if we should have works as a format of free creative common are key to the core of my research.

I plan on using this article to bolster the counter argument to strengthening copyright laws and supporting old business models, which the implication from the digital Britain report points towards. 

Filed under: Copyright

Mondoville says...

Filed under: copyright

spruiked says...

The following is a reprint of this week's The Jakarta Globe column. You can find the original here.

Last week, the UK government announced a new law that, if passed, would force Internet service providers to provide information about suspected copyright infringers and cut off their Internet connections without trial.

The UK is one of a number of countries adopting a hard-line approach to online piracy. Over 30 countries are currently negotiating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which contains provisions similar to those found in the UK's bill. It is only a matter of time before developing countries such as Indonesia are pressured into adopting similar laws.

Will these new tough laws make any difference? Probably not. Evidence shows that taking a hard-line approach to piracy does not work.

The Recording Industry Association of America's six-year campaign to stop online sharing of music earned the organization a reputation for being heavy-handed. It drew public scorn for targeting university students and single mothers. The association ended its campaign in December 2008. Despite having sued more than 30,000 people, the campaign did little to stop piracy.

The explosion of new technology and the proliferation of content-sharing platforms such as YouTube and peer-to-peer networks are creating new problems for copyright owners. Facebook and YouTube are making copyright pirates out of millions of Internet users.

Shepard Fairey's famous "Hope" poster became symbolic of the 2008 Obama campaign, and then the subject of a heated copyright debate. Fairey created the poster by taking a digital copy of an Associated Press photo and changing the lighting and coloring. AP claimed that Fairey infringed its copyright by using the photo without its permission. Fairey argued that he only used the photograph as a visual reference.

These are complex legal issues. Copyright is difficult to understand at the best of times. Creating tough new laws will do little if no one understands what they can and cannot do to start with.

The solution to this problem may originate with YouTube itself.

The video-sharing site has long been criticized for failing to take adequate measures to prevent copyright-protected videos from being posted. Despite posting copyright warnings, the site allows many unauthorized clips from TV and cinema to be posted. YouTube does not view videos before they are posted. It is left to copyright holders to issue a take-down notice if they find their videos on YouTube.

In 2008, YouTube turned the copyright world on its head by launching its partner program, which provides copyright owners with a means of earning revenue from content illegally posted on YouTube. Instead of removing the content, copyright owners can choose to earn revenue from ads shown when the video is played.

The program has been an enormous success. Last year, YouTube revealed that 90 percent of take-down notices resulted in the copyright owner choosing the revenue option.

This year, YouTube expanded the program so that normal moms and dads can reap the financial rewards when that three-minute video of their break-dancing toddler goes viral. YouTube is quietly solving its copyright piracy problems by providing a solution, namely a revenue model.

As the program grows and proves successful, it could serve as a useful model for turning a problem like piracy on its head.

Filed under: copyright

Nebulon says...

Stewart Brand, during the first Hackers' Conference in 1984, uttered the infamous maxim, "Information wants to be free". The implication was that any attempt to control and limit the free dissemination of knowledge and information would be met with resistance. That was yesterday's news. Today's is that the British government is seeking to tackle the problem of online piracy by passing a law disciplining those wishing to freely share intellectual property that is under copyright protection.

In 2007, Dan Ariely and Kristina Shampan'er, behavioural economists at MIT, published a paper that established the advantage of "free" over "cheap". They offered a group of subjects a choice between two chocolates, Hershey's Kisses for one cent and Lindt truffles for 15c. Three quarters of the subjects chose the truffles. When they repeated the experiment, reducing the price of each chocolate by 1c, the order of preference was reversed: the majority chose the now free Hershey's Kisses. Although the price difference had remained effectively the same (14c), the effect that "free" had on the subjects' behaviour was remarkable. "Free" produces a completely different consumer dynamic to any other price.

Even so, the seductive resonance of getting something for nothing is of secondary importance, as are a number of other points that have been made since the announcement of Peter Mandelson's intentions.

In her article on liberty central, for example, Charlotte Gore rightly argues that enforcement of the bill will be problematic. How, for instance, will it be possible to identify the person making use of file-sharing websites and networks in cases where more than one terminal is connected to a single internet subscription? An even more defiant argument has been that the online community will anyway invent ways to circumvent the proposed bill.

But both miss the point. The legislating authority of a government is exercised on the basis of what ought to be. As such, the symbolic dimension of instituting or strengthening a law can be detached from the possibility of its enforcement without losing its credibility. The government is showing how it should be; whether and how it can work is a different story.

Second, as many studies have shown, those who use sharing networks to download free music, books or movies are more likely to then purchase hard copies, attend conferences or concerts, pay to watch a movie in the theatre, and so on. Many record labels have slowly shifted their business interests towards profit generated from merchandise, live concerts and other events, focusing on selling what no online network can provide: the real-world experience. This point, too, however, is irrelevant. The discussion about whether media conglomerates will come up with ways to survive online piracy is not conducive to an understanding of the problem surrounding it.

The final example of commentary that detracts attention from the real issue is the micro-political concern that the government is pushing an agenda that could prove decisive in the relationship of an impeding Tory government with media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

Murdoch's concerns are, in a way, well-founded. The emancipatory potential of the free disseminationof intellectual property through infinite replication is overwhelming. Unlike private property that is subject to scarcity, supply and demand laws and other rigid determinations, immaterial property poses an explosive threat to our deeply rooted notions of proprietorship.

It is not only because there can be potentially infinite owners of property that the internet redefines our notion of it. It is also that people who participate in the exchange of immaterial works do not treat them as property. When they exchange music, books or movies, they are not merely transferring ownership from themselves to others; they simply do not recognise themselves as owners in the first place.

Under this light, the terms "piracy" and "theft" in their traditional sense do not capture a significant nuance of the activity that takes place online. Both words refer to an act of unlawful appropriation for one's own use and, potentially, profit. On the contrary, however, creating and maintaining a website that serves as a file-sharing platform not only brings no profit but it invariably requires time, effort and, in most cases, the commitment of personal resources. Additionally, downloading a song, a book or a movie does not deprive anyone else, including their "rightful owners", of them.

Also disturbing to some is that online file-sharing induces a sense of equality, collectivity and camaraderie in communities. On a practical level, users of peer-to-peer networks are allowed to download amounts of material that are proportional to their own contribution. But there is also a widespread ethic that considers free access to information and knowledge conducive to a better society. For those that hold these views, financial reward for the creators is only a means to an end.

Of course, we have to acknowledge the real and serious financial compromise that such activities pose for the rightful owners of copyright. A large portion of the fight against copyright violation derives its currency not from the fear of abuse of the works but from the claim that, should these practices be condoned, the financial consequences would render the continuation of intellectual production impossible or, at least, leave it impaired.

Here it is worth remembering the recent financial crisis. The readiness with which breathtakingly large amounts of money were committed to saving banks, when much more modest funds for causes such as the environment or alleviating poverty were denied or postponed, is telling. Could, for instance, the considerable resources that might be allocated to protecting, policing and, ultimately, sanctioning online file-sharing not be used for rendering it less financially damaging for the creative sector?

But the real issue is not, in the end, financial. The serious threat that online file sharing poses is not to the profits of publishers, record labels or film production companies. The fundamental problem that Murdoch and others predict is that capitalist societies cannot tolerate activities that are sustained by and reproduce the more egalitarian notions of proprietorship and collectivity described above. These notions are in such direct conflict with the prevailing ruthlessly individualistic and fiercely competitive models of behaviour that they must, evidently, be stopped.

Interesting post. I'm not sure state subsidy for creativity is the way to go, but it's an intriguing thought at least.

Also, I think he does a good job of capturing the prevailing ethos behind file sharing:

free information = better society

Can't disagree with that.

Filed under: Copyright