Copyright Commerce and Culture

A search engineer at Google claims that Microsoft's Bing is copying their search results. She reached this conclusion after having toyed with the Google search algorithm and seeing that Bing was still displaying identical results. If interested, also see articles on engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/01/google-responds-bing-recycles-search-results-and-wed-like-it/ http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/01/google-accuses-bing-of-cheating-piggybacking-off-its-search-r/

Interesting, but I think Google realizes there's nothing it can really do to protect itself; sort of like Feist vs. Rural in that Google just provides an organized directory, the way Rural provides an uncreative list of organized information.

I think the moms reason to get the picture down is interesting although I'm not sure how true it can be or how the actual argument would hold up. Also, this story is just kind of funny.

So the family owns copyright of the photo and the powerful Google is not obliged to submit? I wonder if there's anything poor Jack and his mommy can do short of tracking down this girl, finding concrete evidence that she did it and slapping her with an infringement suit... I'm with you Kristi, this IS kinda funny. Breaking up is so much scarier in the internet age.

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 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?

The Country music duo the "Bellamy Brothers" are upset over Britney song title's resemblance to their 1979 hit but it seem they will not be suing the popstar.

I know that the Bellamy Brothers specifically mention the title, but I think they would have a much stronger case on the basis of "fixing" the double entendre within the song: the BB's lyrics are "If I said you had a beautiful body / would you hold it against me" vs. Britney's "If I said I want your body now / would you hold it against me." That's pretty startlingly similar, and even if you can't copyright ideas, you can copyright the expression of those ideas... and there's enough overlap between the two to be persuasive.

Now that I know copying a song title doesn't count as copyright infringement, I wonder what percentage of a songs lyrics must be exactly the same as another song in order for that to count as copyright infringement. And even if the lyrics happen to be the same, can an artist still avoid a lawsuit if his or her melodic line/ chordal progression/ instrumentation is different enough to make the song "original"? I'm guessing that its a case-by-case thing...

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.

copyright should not act as an obstacle to small businesses on the internet!!!

this film really puts forth some interesting thoughts and ideas about copyright law and its validity in today's cultural marketplace.

The Internet Commerce Security Lab at Australia's Ballarat University has developed a new program that can track illegal downloads on torrent websites. The program monitors copyright infringement online, targeting 100 individuals who upload the most content, including television shows and music. With the aid of the program, Australian Federal Police may prevent the sharing of illegal content.

Althou this isn't about copyrit, I think this is an interesting article to look at as we begin our own Wikipedia project.

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?

After lengthy copyright diputes, Swedish author and publisher Fredrik Colting has essentially decided to wait for "The Catcher in the Rye" to enter the public domain before releasing "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye", the unauthorized sequel to the work.