Richard Prince to Pay Photographers Who Sued Over Copyright; The New York Times, January 26, 2024

 Matt Stevens, The New York Times; Richard Prince to Pay Photographers Who Sued Over Copyright

"The artist Richard Prince agreed to pay at least $650,000 to two photographers whose images he had incorporated in his own work, ending a long-running copyright dispute that had been closely monitored by the art world...

Brian Sexton, a lawyer for Prince, said the artist wanted to protect free expression and have copyright law catch up to changing technology...

Marriott said the judgments showed that copyright law still provided meaningful protection to creators and that the internet was not a copying free-for-all.

“There is not a fair use exception to copyright law that applies to the famous and another that applies to everyone else,” he said."

Books under attack, then and now; MIT News, October 26, 2023

 Brigham Fay | MIT Libraries, MIT News; Books under attack, then and now

"Richard Ovenden was dressed appropriately for the start of Banned Books Week. He proudly displayed the American Library Association’s “Free people read freely” T-shirt as he approached the podium at Hayden Library on Oct. 2. Ovenden, Bodley’s Librarian at the University of Oxford, spoke about the willful destruction of recorded knowledge for an event titled “Book Wars,” the inaugural event in a new series called Conversations on Academic Freedom and Expression (CAFE), a collaboration between the MIT Libraries and History at MIT. 

“The idea for CAFE is to introduce the MIT community to the broader landscape of what’s going on in the world of academic freedom and free expression, beyond some of our local exchanges,” says Malick Ghachem, history professor and department head and a member of MIT’s Ad Hoc Working Group on Free Expression. 

“The libraries were a natural partner for the CAFE series,” says Chris Bourg, director of MIT Libraries. “The value of free and open access to information underpins everything we do.” 

Ovenden, who writes extensively on libraries, archives, and information management, is the author of “Burning the Books: A History of the Deliberate Destruction of Knowledge,” which was shortlisted for the Wolfson History Prize in 2021. In his MIT talk he provided a historical overview of attacks on libraries — from the library of Ashurbanipal in the Assyrian capital of Nineveh (now northern Iraq), destroyed by fire in 612 BC, to book burning under the Nazi regime to current efforts across the United States to remove or restrict access to books.

In spite of this history of loss, Ovenden finds hope in “the human impulse to preserve, to pass on, to bear witness, to allow for diverse ideas to thrive.” He detailed the extraordinary actions people have taken to save knowledge, citing the “Paper Brigade,” a forced labor unit of poets and intellectuals in Nazi-occupied Vilnius who smuggled and hid rare books and manuscripts, and the tragic death of Aida Buturovic, a 32-year-old librarian who was killed as she tried to rescue books during the 1992 assault on the National and University Library in Sarajevo.

Ovenden concluded by making the case that libraries and archives are the infrastructure for democracy — institutions dedicated not only to education, but to safeguarding the rights of citizens, providing reference points for facts and truth, preserving identity, and enabling a diversity of views. Despite millennia of attacks, libraries continue to fight back, most recently with public libraries expanding digital access to combat book bans nationwide. 

Following Ovenden’s talk, Ghachem led a discussion and audience Q&A that touched on the connections between book bans and so-called “cancel culture,” how censorship itself is used as a means of expressing political views, and growing distrust of expertise.  

The CAFE series is one of several opportunities to engage the Institute community that emerged from the Report of the MIT Ad Hoc Working Group on Free Expression. Ghachem also started a new first-year advising seminar, “Free Expression, Pluralism, and the University,” and the Institute Community and Equity Office launched Dialogues Across Difference: Building Community at MIT. A second CAFE event is being planned for the spring term. 

“At this moment in our history, we should try to encourage discussion, and not debate,” said Ovenden. “We must try to move away from this idea that it’s a contest, that it’s a battle, and encourage and foster the idea of listening and discussion. And that's all part of the deliberation that I think is necessary for a healthy society.”"

Generative AI vs. Copyright; Publishers Weekly, September 22, 2023

Lloyd J. Jassin, Publishers Weekly; Generative AI vs. Copyright

"To sum up, on a case-by-case basis, courts must determine if substantial similarity exists and then engage in line drawing—balancing free expression and the rights of creators."

Zoom Panel: Haven’t We Been Here Before: A Panel Discussion on Banning LGBTQIA+ Books. Wednesday, April 5. 12:30 PM - 1:30 PM EDT. University of Pittsburgh

Haven’t We Been Here Before: A Panel Discussion on Banning LGBTQIA+ Books. Wednesday, April 5. 12:30 PM - 1:30 PM EDT. University of Pittsburgh

https://calendar.pitt.edu/event/been_here_before#.ZCgmRi-B2_U

[This session will be live via Zoom and also recorded for asynchronous viewing, following processing by Pitt. See registration link.]

There has been a recent uptick in attempts to remove or ban certain books from schools, public libraries and other educational spaces. In 2022 alone, 4 in 10 banned books contained LGBTQIA+ themes and representation, according to PEN America, a nonprofit organization that works to defend and celebrate free expression through the advancement of literature and human rights. 

Join the University Library System and the Pitt Queer Professionals for a lively virtual panel discussion with education, literary and legal experts on intellectual freedom and the societal impact of banning books. Guest panelists will be Dr. James “Kip” Currier, Assistant Professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Computing and Information (SCI) in the Information Culture and Data Stewardship (ICDS) Department, Dr. Katrina Bartow Jacobs, Associate Professor of Practice of Language, Literacy, and Culture within the Department of Teaching, Learning, and Leading and Jeff Trexler, Interim Director of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, an American non-profit organization formed to protect the First Amendment rights of comics creators, publishers, and retailers. The panel will be moderated by Acacia O’Connor (they/them/theirs) currently the University’s Executive Director of Social Media, and former manager of the Kids’ Right to Read Project of the National Coalition Against Censorship.  

Dial-In Information

Register at https://pitt.libcal.com/event/10570583Links to an external site.

Wednesday, April 5 at 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.

 Virtual Event

Search entries or author Filter replies by unreadUnread

A Tool That Removes Copyrighted Works Is Not a Substitute for Fair Use; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), January 20, 2020

Katharine Trendacosta, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF);

A Tool That Removes Copyrighted Works Is Not a Substitute for Fair Use

"By making eliminating material flagged by Content ID so easy—just click here!—and making challenging matches so perilous, YouTube has put its thumb on the scale against fair use and in favor of copyright abuse. That thumb gets especially heavy given how few real alternatives to YouTube exist.

Hosting creative content should mean a robust commitment to fair use. Fair use enriches our culture and our understanding of it. It is what ensures that copyright doesn’t strangle free expression and creativity. Subtle reinforcement of anti-fair use ideas enacted by private companies, done by the largest players in the ecosystem, does real damage."

The EU copyright law that artists love—and internet pioneers say would destroy the web; Quartz, September 11, 2018

Ephrat Livni, Quartz; The EU copyright law that artists love—and internet pioneers say would destroy the web

"European internet users are up in arms over proposed changes to copyright law that will either make the web more fair and lucrative for content creators or destroy the web as we know it—depending on whom you ask.

The movement to modernize and unify EU intellectual property law, initiated in 2016, is up for a vote in the European Parliament in Brussels Sept. 12

Two controversial sections—Article 13 and Article 11—would force technology platforms to police digital content by automatically evaluating intellectual property before anything is uploaded and make news aggregators pay to license links to posts. This would ensure that musicians, artists, filmmakers, photographers and media outlets are paid for work that currently drives advertising revenue to technology companies like Google and Facebook for content that they don’t pay for, or say so supporters. Opponents argue that it will transform the web from a free and open platform to a tool to police information and limit ideas."

Not in our name: Why European creators must oppose the EU's proposal to limit linking and censor the internet; BoingBoing, September 10, 2018

Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing;

Not in our name: Why European creators must oppose the EU's proposal to limit linking and censor the internet

"The European Copyright Directive vote is in three days and it will be a doozy: what was once a largely uncontroversial grab bag of fixes to copyright is now a political firestorm, thanks to the actions of Axel Voss, the German MEP who changed the Directive at the last minute, sneaking in two widely rejected proposals on the same day the GDPR came into effect, forming a perfect distraction (you can contact your MEP about these at Save Your Internet).

These two proposals are:

1. "Censorship Machines": Article 13, which forces online providers to create databases of text, images, videos, code, games, mods, etc that anyone can add anything to -- if a user tries to post something that may match a "copyrighted work," in the database, the system has to censor them

2. "Link Tax": Article 11, which will only allow internet users to post links to news sites if the service they're using has bought a "linking license" from the news-source they're linking to; under a current proposal, links that contain more than two consecutive words from an article's headline will be illegal without a license."

EU Internet Advocates Launch Campaign to Stop Dangerous Copyright Filtering Proposal; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), March 7, 2017

Kerry Sheehan, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); 

EU Internet Advocates Launch Campaign to Stop Dangerous Copyright Filtering Proposal

"In the wake of the European Commission’s dangerous proposal to require user-generated content platforms to filter user uploads for copyright infringement, European digital rights advocates are calling on Internet users throughout Europe to stand up for freedom of expression online by urging their MEP (Member of European Parliament) to stop the #CensorshipMachine and “save the meme.”

Last year, the European Commission released a proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, Article 13 of which would require all online service providers that “store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users” to reach agreements with rights holders to keep allegedly infringing content off their sites – including by implementing content filtering technologies.

We’ve talked at length about the dangers of this proposal, and the problems with filtering the Internet for copyright infringement. For one thing, it’s extremely dangerous for fair use and free expression online."

U.S. Justice Department Defends Copyright Anti-Hacking Law as "Unquestionably Constitutional"; Hollywood Reporter, 9/30/16

Eriq Gardner, Hollywood Reporter; U.S. Justice Department Defends Copyright Anti-Hacking Law as "Unquestionably Constitutional" :

"The U.S. Department of Justice is demanding an end to a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of a law that prevents people from getting around the access restrictions on copyrighted works such as films, television shows and songs.

In July, the Electronic Frontier Foundation led the lawsuit that argues that the anti-circumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Sec. 1201) inhibits free expression in violation of the First Amendment. The law allows for a triennial review where every three years the Librarian of Congress grants exemptions. For example, in the most recent review, the government made it legal to hack a smart TV to achieve interoperability and also allowed grade school teachers to circumvent access controls on DVDs for educational purposes."

The Blog That Disappeared; New York Times, 7/29/16

Roxane Gay, New York Times; The Blog That Disappeared:

"On June 27, Mr. Cooper’s Google account was deactivated, he has said. He lost 14 years of his blog archives, creative work, email and contacts. He has hired a lawyer and made complaints, and many of his readers and fans have tried to support his efforts. There is a petition circulating, urging Google to restore his work. Pen America, an organization that promotes free expression, has weighed in, saying that Mr. Cooper deserves a substantive response from Google.

Thus far, these efforts have been in vain. Google has not responded beyond saying there was a violation of the Terms of Service agreement. It has neither identified the specific violation nor indicated why it also deleted Mr. Cooper’s email account. It has not provided Mr. Cooper with the ability to download his personal information so he might rebuild his blog and email account elsewhere. In one interview, Mr. Cooper said he thought that the male escort ads might have led to his account’s being deactivated, but this has not been confirmed by the company.

When I contacted Google for further comment, I got a response that said, “We are aware of this matter, but the specific Terms of Service violations are ones we cannot discuss further due to legal considerations.” I asked about why Mr. Cooper’s Gmail account was also deleted and whether or not he would be able to retrieve the archive of his work, and I was directed to Google’s Terms of Service, Gmail Policy and Blogger Content Policy, which did not offer any useful specifics."

Reprint of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ Tests German Law; New York Times, 6/1/16

Melissa Eddy, New York Times; Reprint of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ Tests German Law:

"A German publisher of right-wing books has begun selling a reprint of Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” originally issued in 1943 by the Nazi party’s central publishing house, a move that risks violating Germany’s law against the distribution of Nazi propaganda.

A copyright on “Mein Kampf” that was held by the Bavarian government expired on Dec. 31, and an annotated scholarly edition was published this year with government permission.

Now, state prosecutors in the German city of Leipzig, where the publisher, Der Schelm, is based, are investigating whether they can press charges . Last week, prosecutors in Bamberg opened a separate investigation after a bookseller, who was not identified, advertised Der Schelm’s edition.

Although Hitler’s two-volume treatise, written from 1924 to 1927 and laying out his ideas on race and violence, is widely available on the internet, the annotated version is the only one that is legal in Germany. The 3,500 comments accompanying the text provide context for the work, and they are aimed, in part, at trying to prevent a new generation from taking up Nazi ideologies.

“Promoting an edition without annotations is considered a criminal offense,” Christopher Rosenbusch, a spokesman for prosecutors in Bamberg, said on Wednesday."

‘Right to Be Forgotten’ Online Could Spread; New York Times, 8/5/15

Farhad Manjoo, New York Times; ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ Online Could Spread:

"Proponents of the law also reacted skeptically to the claim that the right to be forgotten would be used by other countries to force content restrictions beyond those involving privacy.

“That’s nonsense,” said Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a privacy advocacy group. He argued there were ways to limit access to private information that would not conflict with free speech, and he noted that Google already had a process for global removal of some identifiable private information, like bank account numbers, social security numbers and sexually explicit images uploaded without the subject’s consent (known as “revenge porn.”).

“A global implementation of the fundamental right to privacy on the Internet would be a spectacular achievement,” said Mr. Rotenberg. “For users, it would be a fantastic development.”

Mr. Zittrain, of Harvard, pointed out that Google also removes content globally to abide by copyright law. When Google receives a takedown notice for linking to infringing content, it removes those links from all of its sites across the world. Couldn’t it do the same for private information?

The trouble with comparing copyright law to privacy, though, is that the United States and Europe broadly agree on what constitutes copyrighted content, but private information is far more nebulous."

Should Germans Read ‘Mein Kampf’?; New York Times, 7/7/14

Peter Ross Range, New York Times; Should Germans Read ‘Mein Kampf’? :

"GERMANY is once again passing through the wringer of its past. At issue this time are not the deeds but the words of Adolf Hitler and the planned republication of his infamous manifesto-as-autobiography, “Mein Kampf,” a book that has been officially suppressed in the country since the end of World War II...

Since then, although “Mein Kampf” has maintained a shadow presence — on the back shelves of used bookstores and libraries and, more recently, online — its copyright holder, the state of Bavaria, has refused to allow its republication, creating an aura of taboo around the book.

All that is about to change. Bavaria’s copyright expires at the end of 2015; after that, anyone can publish the book: a quality publisher, a mass-market pulp house, even a neo-Nazi group."