Group items tagged

Creative Commons is facilitating the use and reuse of educational materials. According to this post written by a policy coordinator at the nonprofit organization, it can potentially allow students to save money they would be spending on textbooks. A professor at the University of MIchigan published a $10 book in 11 days because he adapted a book "offered under an open content license"

The use of Creative Commons licenses to broaden access to educational materials represents a general shift in academia. Although universities have often controlled this access to knowledge, these open source resources allow most people to educate themselves without the high barriers to entry, such as tuition. Like the MIT Open CourseWare, "iTunes U" compiles lectures from various universities. NYU actually just sent out its IT newsletter e-mail today, which contained a notice about its Open Education Pilot program. http://www.nyu.edu/its/connect/w11/openedpilot.html Even though it seems like universities are open to sharing lecture materials and other educational resources under the Creative Commons license, how lenient do you think these schools will be? Would they truly offer alternative textbooks in which the college has to forfeit their profit from their bookstore, for example?

Rebuttal of Turow's op ed, referenced in Andrea's blog post last week.

This is a few months old, but it shows how copyright issues can come up years after a work is created. The author of a biography of Fela Kuti sued the producers and creative team of Fela! the musical, even though the production had been shown Off-Broadway and on Broadway for a few years.

It's not copyright per se, but it's an interesting use of creative commons.

The A.P. and artist, Mr. Shepard Fairey settled on sharing the copyright to the famous photograph of Obama that became the iconic HOPE portrait of the then-presidential candidate. The amount of financial compensation agreed upon has not been disclosed, though in the future, their deal will apply to proceeds coming from any posters or other merchandise sold with the image. Originally, the A.P. sued in February 2009 for copyright infringement, but Mr. Fairey counter-sued, arguing that the HOPE image fell under the fair-use exception to copyright law. As our class has read thus far, regarding the exceptions of parodies to copyright law because of their transformative nature and in turn become a creative work wholly different from the original, the A.P.'s photograph was used in a similar capacity. The artist claimed "that he had effectively transformed the work into an idealized image 'that created powerful new meaning and conveys a radically different message.'"

According to the Washington Post, although the case has been settled with Fairey, the Associated Press intends to go to trial in March with Obey Clothing, a clothing line selling apparel with the Obama image. Another apparel manufacturer, One 3 Two, on the other hand, settled because they did not want to give the appearance that their primary goal was to make a profit. In fact, One 3 Two initially began selling the t-shirt to retailers, such as Urban Outfitters, to ultimately raise funds for Obama's campaign. Do you think that the A.P. had the right to sue over this photograph? Why or why not?

This case study looks at "jailbreakers," who are hacking their iPhones so that they may use unauthorized software and applications from other cell phone carriers. Apple has warned that such hacking will not only damage their iPhone, but is indeed copyright infringement. However, the Copyright Office has actually proposed that "jailbreaking" is actually considered "fair use." In the past, other laws, like the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (1998), have been used to protect creative property for much longer than actually necessary, thus diminishing valuable work available in the public domain.

Lady Gaga's new single has already reached the top of the charts, but avid listeners and fans are debating whether or not her work is completely original. Although some claim that it's possible to hear the similarities, others claim that "Born This Way" and Madonna's "Express Yourself" are completely different creative works. Either way, there's a possibility for an infringement suit. The article mentions that an Arizona band sued Daughtry for copying an original tune called "Tonight," while Coldplay was sued for "Viva La Vida," which was allegedly ripped off of the title of another album.

On Leno, Gaga notes that Madonna approves of the song. This brings forth an even more interesting question. If an artist doesn't press charges for copying, then can it still be considered copyright infringement?

Films by Hitchcock, books by Virginia Woolf and Picasso's Guernica--just to name a few--are some of the works that are no longer readily accessible to the public. In a new case, Golan v. Holder, orchestra conductors, teachers and film archivists, are fighting for the right to perform, adapt and distribute creative works that they relied on for years without having to consider copyrights and their respective fees. Should these famous works be returned to the public domain?

All artists think they are way more creative than they really are.