Group items tagged

Date issued: June 26, 2006. This article is basically about a three-day conference that was held in Rio De Janeiro. A rare global alliance of artists, scientists, and lawyers met to discuss working towards creating a "creative commons," which would give artists the privilege of deciding which rights they wished to maintain and which to share. "In its broadest form, the Creative Commons system allows creators and consumers of culture not only to view or listen to a digital work but also to copy, remix or sample it, as long as the originator is properly credit" Gilberto Gil, who is a singer-songwriter as well as Brazil's culture minister and an advocate of overhauling the global copyright, also attended the conference. Gil spoke about his six year battle in court with publishing companies to recover ownership of his work. Which now exceeds more than 400 songs which Gil has all registered with Creative Commons-he has retained the rights of some but had made others available for listeners to interpret, copy and manipulate as they please. The author of this article, Larry Rohter, appears to be mostly reporting. He doesn't blatantly state his opinion on the subject, however the article is one sided, in favor of Creative Commons and all the artists struggling to gain the copy rights of their work. He is for Creative Commons.

YouTube member "Galicious" accuses Lorie, France's hit pop artist, of copying Britney Spears. Do you agree? [Note: The video is in French.]

This article, taken from the "Montreal Gazette," talks about the copyright of new media material. Traditionally, there are three main categories of media protection: Copy Right, Trademark, and Patent. "In terms of new media, the category of protection that most often applies is copyright." The article goes on to say that copyright is automatic as long as your product is original and fixed. Meaning the work was 1) not copied and 2) the idea has to have a "Tangible form." Just a couple of things to think about when protecting your ideas. -Ck

This poster from Advertising Age is updated annually, this is the latest one available. A printed copy is hanging in the M&C classroom. It lists the "Top properties of the nation's largest media companies by net revenue in 2006."

This article was issued October 27, 2010. This article was written by a frequent writer, David Kravets. It was edited by Kevin Poulsen and contributions to the article were made by Kim Zetter and Ryan Singel. This article is discussing the "loophole" that was found in order to avoid copyright infringement lawsuits. All that was needed was the small payment of $105. After paying this, if any information found on the cite that was not from the author, such as comment or a blog, the writer of the article cannot be sued. This way, the owners of the article would not be responsible for any information that they themselves do not post. This may seem quite silly, but keeping in mind the danger of being sued for copyright infringement for $150,000, this is a very necessary $150. According to the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act), a website will receive complete immunity from the threat of being sued by something that was posted by a viewer. The author does not clearly show any bias towards the issue. However interpreting the language that he uses, we can infer that he agrees and supports this act. Therefore websites cannot be held responsible for what their viewers post.

What Andy Clarke is trying to say is that although twitter is a very social site, it can not be used to its full potential because not as many ideas are exchanged. This is because people are afraid of their ideas being stolen, but with this new creative commons copyright partnership, people will never have to worry anymore. It allows people top share ideas and both get the amount of credit they deserve. Although this can be unnecessary for basic, "I just got milk at the store," tweets, it will be amazing for people who want to share ideas whether, they're intellectual or not.

Clarke is a world renown British web designer and author.

This article was written by Chris Snyder an email author for Wired on February 20, 2009

Issued: March 2009. Big companies are starting to crack down on copyright infringements. With over 15 lawsuits in 2007, the number of lawsuits targeted against blogs has started to rapidly rise. The author, Brian Stelter, is a writer for New York Times who's main focus is on television and the digital media. This article seems to be aimed at the big companies who the author believes are unfairly digging into to copyright laws. The article mentions a lot of disputes such as the ones between New York Times and Gate House Media, Silicon Alley Insider and The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press and All Headlines News and others. Most of the websites getting sued were blogs or newspaper websites that quoted other people's works, assuming it would be okay under the "fair use" statute of copyright laws.

i went to the New York Times online to search the term, "copyright" to get an article relating to copyright issues or infringement. this article by Brian Stelter was published on March 1st, 2009. Stelter is a journalist for the New York Times. Stelter sides with the people who claim to be getting copyrighted. He bases the majority of his article against the bloggers and other online publishes "who seem to be on the rise." He also questions when excerpting from an article becomes illegal copying. Although he mostly sides with the people claiming to be copyrighted he also sheds light on those bloggers and online publishers whom give credit to those sites they excerpted information from. Statler keeps bringing up the issue of "excerpting to find value" in which online publishers combine articles to validate their thesis. In the end, Statler shows both sides of the story and doesn't leave out any information regarding the thoughts of both parties.

By BRIAN STELTER Published: March 1, 2009 Brian Stelter focuses on a quotation from the Silicon Alley Insider which quoted a quarter of Peggy Noonan's Wall Street Journal. "We thank Dow Jones in advance for allowing us to bring it to you." The editor added "in advance" because Dow Jones, the publisher of The Journal, had not given the blog permission to use the column. With this particular instance of copyright infringement and others, Stetler brings light to the fact that permission isn't being given between different industries when taking direct quotations or titles from that industries publication. "Some media executives are growing concerned that the increasingly popular curators of the Web that are taking large pieces of the original work - a practice sometimes called scraping - are shaving away potential readers and profiting from the content." He also brings up the numerous lawsuits that arise because of copyright infringement.

This article is about creative commons, and how music artists are starting to prefer it over traditional copyright. Artists such as "Chuck D and the Fine Arts Militia" released their new single under creative commons, and encouraged people to copy it, mix it, criticize it and other things. Now the song has been incorporated into new types of music and videos, and every time those are viewed, it links back to the original artist, giving them immediate popularity. Once other artists saw how this was giving the band more fans, they started releasing their songs under creative commons as well. Copyright laws provide limited flexibility, and make it harder for artists to get as many fans as they would if they released their songs under Creative Commons. Artists and authors have been saying that creative commons allows others to "build upon their creativity -- without calling a lawyer first." Now, artists are making half of their money off downloads and the other half off licensing fees. However, while many artists and authors are starting to release their work under creative commons, others like major movie studios or record labels will not, because they already make plenty of money off the current traditional copyright system.

Creative Commons licenses are changing the media sharing environment of the internet. When people share media with a creative commons label, anybody is allowed to download, upload, and share it for free. This is good for artists who want to grow their fan bases, but bad for companies who are looking to profit from their work.

Published May 23, 2006. Creative Commons License was a controversial topic. The major objection to Creative Commons licensing was whether it was really sprouting creativity; many who did not agree with creative commons believed that it was allowing people to download free songs and that no creativity was needed to make a mashup by combining various artists' works into one song. Simon Lake, the CEO of a not-for-profit company called Screenrights argued that '"there's a certain arrogance in believing you can do whatever you want to someone else's output. To say copyright stifles creativity is ridiculous. If you put those two things together, copyright is the end process, it's what protects creativity. And to suggest that copying is creating is ridiculous."' However, others disagreed and said that it in fact was the contrary. People, like Jim Moynihan, found that copyrights actually "force you to be more creative." In the end however, creative commons allows artists more freedom and the ability to selectively restrict certain works as copyrighted and to allow other works to be public and accessible. But it is illegal to use unauthorized media in mashups, sampling, and remixes; posing the justified potential threat, to many DJs and creators of reworked media, of lawsuits and getting sued.

The popular band black eyed peas is facing dual lawsuits for two of their popular songs that were released in their new album the E.N.D. This article explains the details of who an why those singer/songwriters are suing and point out a pattern that both the peas and there recording groups, universal records and universal music group, have engaged in "a pattern and practice of intentional copyright infringement with respect to the unlawful copying of songs of unknown or lesser-known artists." This article portrays the ongoing pattern of copyright lawsuits that have arisen due to advancements in the digital music business, and is just one example of many high profile lawsuits with millions of dollars involved. (The two songs that they are accused of stealing combined for a total of 10.7 digital units sold).

In July of 2010, Paul Ceglia sued the owner and founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, saying that he was the rightful owner of 85% of Facebook. His said that he loaned Zuckerberg $1000 so that he could start the company Facebook. The reason that this is going to court is that there is debate over what website the money that Zuckerberg recieved was used to build. During that time, Zuckerberg also built a website about job advertising. Ceglia claims that his money went to both sites, while Zuckerberg says that it only went to the advertising website. This lawsuit shows that copyright laws extend far beyond direct copying of other peoples ideas and property. This is a case that emphasizes how difficult it can be determining the winner in cases like these.

Issued on April 6, 2010 in San Francisco. This article was written by Miguel Helft in the New York Times. He is a well known author for the New York Times that covers Internet companies such as Google or Yahoo. This article discusses how photographers and other artists filed a lawsuit against google for the mass copying their work. The artists claimed that they were not adequately compensated by google for the use of their work. Google was given permission from the visual artists to scan their work onto the website, however the artists feel that this partnering program with Google turned out to be unfair. Google is now being sued for copyright infringement. This article is informative to all people because it shows that even largely popular websites like Google may not be as trustworthy as perceived.

There is a law, that allows "any blog or other website to register a DMCA takedown agent with the U.S. Copyright Office, an obscure bureaucratic prerequisite to enjoying a legal "safe harbor" from copyright lawsuits over third-party posts, such as reader comments." This is a reason why websites like youtube can exist. However, there is a loophole to law. A company based on Las vegas bought copy right for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, just for the purpose of suing any websites who have failed to pay 105 dollars and register with United States Copyright Office.

Check this out - the last version worked sometimes, but not always.