Group items tagged

This is a short article from last year but it shows how copyright holders view "fair use" differently than those who want to use copyrighted material

The web radio service's filings show that over half of its revenue (approximately $45 million) was used to pay copyright owners, an amount so high that it expects to have a virtually non-existent profit margin through to 2012. Though the company has grown in the past year and copyright fee expenditures don't represent as large a chunk of the earnings as last year (when it was 60%), concern remains over its ability to make ends meet. Royalty payments are principally made to: SoundExchange (which receive 45 of Pandora's revenue alone), BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC. The company is also looking to "go global" but has encountered problems, as its business model is based on US copyright laws. 

Righthave "wrong" on fair use!!

"The internet titan was found guilty of infringing a patent related to the Linux kernel and fined " "The software is used by Google for its server platforms and could also extend to its Android mobile platform.The kernel is at the core of the open-source operating system meaning this verdict could be far-reaching" "The implication here is really that there is a huge number of Linux users who will be required to pay royalties if this patent holder knocks on their doors in the US. This is definitely a major impediment to the growth of Linux and makes companies, including Google, that rely on open source code particularly vulnerable to patent threats.

Does Guetta have the right to artistic expression, even if it means distorting an iconic image he does not have rights over?

"Guetta used the photo specifically for this reason, it was already iconic, very well known and he used it in his artwork because of that. He wasn't just referencing Run DMC, he was referencing the most famous photo of them." This is really interesting. Does this rationale mean that he isn't committing copyright infringement? A friend of mine at RISD is toying with using frames from the (iconic) opening scenes of Woody Allen's "Manhattan" for a school printmaking project, does she need to pay Woody or the city of New York royalties even if she credits her (famous) original source? Does a deal need to be struck when such a famous work is reproduced or reinterpreted. Can't anyone parody or pay homage without asking for permission first?

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.

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?

NY federal judge ruled against google last week in their copyright case, having  "[tossed] out a 165-page settlement reached in 2008 between Google and authors and publishers groups". This article discusses Google's 2009 plan for a global digitized library and the lawsuits that have surrounded it.

The article is recent from March 25th (LA Times, Business Section). It's discussing Google's history regarding the e-book controversy. Judge Chin's decision forces us to think about what an online digital library might look like without infringing parties, like Google. As noted in the article, Google was attempting to use "orphan works," whose right holders could not be found. As a result, Google would be using the works without being held accountable under copyright law. Here's the original document, filed by the U.S. Supreme Court, on 3/22/2011: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/74854-chin-ruling

Really cool resource out of Stanford Law's "Copyright & Fair Use" Center - they're debuting a new case summary feature, all of which will be written by "experienced writers, all of whom are licensed attorneys." It looks like it's going to be super organized - with blurbs, summaries, full texts, and even "tags" to help navigate!

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 is the article I have chosen to improve for our assignment. I may narrow my topic to US Copyright Law in Theatre if the Performing Arts topic seems too broad.

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

It appears that even professors often overlook the legality of distributing copyrighted materials. Although it's no question that fair use applies to a small excerpt or one chapter of a book, the legality of distributing multiple chapters or an entire work is, what this article calls, "cheating a legitimate economic interest." Students might disagree based on the cost of textbooks and course readers, though from the standpoint of the publisher and author, if an academic intends to use an entire work, it should not be copied, but purchased as the entire original work.