Showing posts with label users. Show all posts
Showing posts with label users. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 18, 2020

Volvo says copyright claim to photo of SC-made S60 doesn’t extend to Instagram; Post and Courier, August 16, 2020

David Wren, Post and Courier; Volvo says copyright claim to photo of SC-made S60 doesn’t extend to Instagram

"The Facebook-owned photo- and video-tagging app has created a legal gray area by requiring its users to grant the social media site a copyright license for any images they upload. Instagram can then sublicense those rights to others. In a recent similar case, however, Instagram said anyone who reposts images also might need a license from the original photographer."

Tuesday, July 21, 2020

Reforming Digital Lending Libraries and the End of the Internet Archive; Jurist, July 20, 2020

, Jurist; Reforming Digital Lending Libraries and the End of the Internet Archive

"The lack of certainty relating to the legality of CDL as fair use is hampering its growth by creating a chilling effect. Libraries are under the fear of costly litigations. IA itself is under the risk of bankruptcy, as the publishers are not inclined to take back their suit, even after IA stopped ELP. This is the very problem section 108 intended to resolve. Hence, it is pertinent that the section is amended to meet the needs of the digital age and provide certainty in this regard. Some countries have already moved in this direction. While Canada has permitted a limited right to provide digitized copies to patrons of other libraries, the EU has been considering proposals to allow digitization of cultural heritage institutions, including libraries."

Thursday, February 13, 2020

Copyright could be the next way for Congress to take on Big Tech; The Verge, February 13, 2020

, The Verge; Copyright could be the next way for Congress to take on Big Tech

"By the end of the year, Tillis — who chairs the Senate’s intellectual property subcommittee — plans to draft changes to the DMCA. He and co-chair Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) kicked off the process this week with an introductory hearing, speaking to eight legal experts and former congressional staffers. The hearing helped set the stage to re-fight some long-running battles over the balance between protecting copyrighted content and keeping the internet open — but at a time where internet companies are already facing a large-scale backlash.

The 1998 DMCA attempted to outline how copyright should work on the then-nascent internet, where you could almost freely and infinitely copy a piece of media. But it’s been widely criticized by people with very different stances on intellectual property."

Friday, January 31, 2020

Users Lament PAIR Changes During USPTO Forum; IP Watchdog, January 30, 2020

Eileen McDermott, IP Watchdog; Users Lament PAIR Changes During USPTO Forum

"Jamie Holcombe, Chief Information Officer at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), seemed surprised to learn on Wednesday that both the Public and Private versions of the USPTO’s Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) System have serious issues that are making workflows untenable for users.

Holcombe was participating in a public Forum on the PAIR system, where USPTO staff listened to stakeholders’ experiences since the Office implemented major security changes to the system on November 15, 2019. “The USPTO disabled the ability to look up public cases outside of a customer number using Private PAIR,” explained Shawn Lillemo, Software Product Manager at Harrity LLP, who attended the Forum. “Most patent professionals prior to the change could retrieve all the PAIR information they needed from Private PAIR. That is no longer true.”"

Thursday, April 25, 2019

Peloton owners are pissed about bad music after copyright lawsuit; The Verge, April 24, 2019

Natt Auran, The Verge; Peloton owners are pissed about bad music after copyright lawsuit

"The changes in music selections resulted from a lawsuit Peloton faced last month, when the company was sued by members of the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) for failing to obtain a sync license to use some labels’ musical work in their exercise videos. Peloton customers now say they have noticed a significant downgrade in music quality, with remixed versions of a popular song instead of an original, or limited song variety from an artist. Users also note that classes they’ve favorited have disappeared from the catalog, since they contain songs that were named by the lawsuit as having violated copyrights...

It may seem silly to lament over music selections in an exercise class, but it’s an issue that fitness companies may increasingly face as they transform from traditional health companies into media publishers. Let’s face it: working out can be boring, and people are willing to pay top dollar to have someone yell at us while sweating to the latest Migos track. Combine that with the flexibility to exercise in your own home on your own time and it’s a revenue strategy that has helped brands like Equinox, Pure Barre, SoulCycle, and Physique 57 tap into a demographic that previously found the studios inaccessible. Even companies like ClassPass and Fitbit have also expanded beyond their initial product of a subscription service and fitness trackers, offering their own guided fitness sessions for $8 to $15 a month.
But as fitness companies dabble in media creation, they’re also navigating into the pains of becoming an entertainment company."

Tuesday, April 23, 2019

What the EU’s copyright overhaul means — and what might change for big tech; NiemanLab, Nieman Foundation at Harvard, April 22, 2019

Marcello Rossi, NiemanLab, Nieman Foundation at Harvard; What the EU’s copyright overhaul means — and what might change for big tech

"The activity indeed now moves to the member states. Each of the 28 countries in the EU now has two years to transpose it into its own national laws. Until we see how those laws shake out, especially in countries with struggles over press and internet freedom, both sides of the debate will likely have plenty of room to continue arguing their sides — that it marks a groundbreaking step toward a more balanced, fair internet, or that it will result in a set of legal ambiguities that threaten the freedom of the web."

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Soon, nobody will read academic journals illegally, because the studies worth reading will be free; Quartz, August 9, 2017

Akshat Rathi, Quartz; Soon, nobody will read academic journals illegally, because the studies worth reading will be free

"Now a new study has found that nearly half of all academic articles that users want to read are already freely available. These studies may or may not have been published in an open-access journal, but there is a legally free version available for a reader to download...

The finding is backed by two trends. First, academics are increasingly publishing in open-access journals. Looking at a random sample of studies published in 2015, about 45% were published in such journals. Second, studies published in open-access journals receive more citations than average. It’s not clear whether that’s to do with the quality of research or easy access, but it’s a positive sign for a more open-accessed internet."

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

EFF Says No to So-Called “Moral Rights” Copyright Expansion; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), March 30, 2017

Kerry Sheehan and Kit Walsh, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF): 

EFF Says No to So-Called “Moral Rights” Copyright Expansion


"The fight over moral rights, particularly the right of Integrity, is ultimately one about who gets to control the meaning of a particular work. If an author can prevent a use they perceive as a “prejudicial distortion” of their work, that author has the power to veto others’ attempts to contest, reinterpret, criticize, or draw new meanings from those works...

A statutory right of attribution could also interfere with privacy protective measures employed by online platforms. Many platforms strip identifying metadata from works on their platforms to protect their users' privacy, If doing so were to trigger liability for violating an author’s right of attribution, platforms would likely be chilled from protecting their users’ privacy in this way.

For centuries, American courts have grappled with how to address harm to reputation without impinging on the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. And as copyright’s scope has expanded in recent decades, the courts have provided the safeguards that partially mitigate the harm of overly broad speech regulation."

Monday, February 20, 2017

Google and Bing to deprecate piracy websites; Press Association via Guardian, February 20, 2017

Press Association via Guardian; 

Google and Bing to deprecate piracy websites


"Internet users will find it harder to search for pirated films and music and illegally streamed live football matches under a new plan to crackdown on piracy websites.

Search engine companies Google and Bing have signed up to a voluntary code of practice aimed at preventing users from visiting disreputable content providers.

The code, the first of its kind in the UK, will accelerate the demotion of illegal sites following notices from rights holders.

It means those who search for content such as music videos, digital books and football coverage will more likely to be taken to bona fide providers rather than pirate sites, where a user’s security may be at risk."

Saturday, February 4, 2017

The Copyright Barons Are Coming. Now’s the Time to Stop Them; Wired, 1/31/17

Josh Tabish, Wired; The Copyright Barons Are Coming. Now’s the Time to Stop Them

"FRESH ON THE heels of President Donald Trump’s inauguration, one of the largest pro-copyright lobbies in the United States is asking the newly elected president to increase the powers held by copyright holders.

In a recent letter addressed directly to Trump, the Copyright Alliance— speaking on behalf of high profile members such as the MPAA and RIAA—suggests the President create new digital borders on the internet. The concept is not dissimilar in spirit to the controversial and highly symbolic wall Trump has promised to build between the United States and Mexico or the restrictions he’s imposed on refugees and Muslims entering the country."

Saturday, June 11, 2016

New York Times Says Fair Use Of 300 Words Will Run You About $1800; New York Times, 6/10/16

Tim Cushing, TechDirt; New York Times Says Fair Use Of 300 Words Will Run You About $1800:
"Fair use is apparently the last refuge of a scofflaw. Following on the heels of a Sony rep's assertion that people could avail themselves of fair use for the right price, here comes the New York Times implying fair use not only does not exist, but that it runs more than $6/word.
Obtaining formal permission to use three quotations from New York Times articles in a book ultimately cost two professors $1,884. They’re outraged, and have taken to Kickstarter — in part to recoup the charges, but primarily, they say, to “protest the Times’ and publishers’ lack of respect for Fair Use.
These professors used quotes from other sources in their book about press coverage of health issues, but only the Gray Lady stood there with her hand out, expecting nearly $2,000 in exchange for three quotes totalling less than 300 words.
The professors paid, but the New York Times "policy" just ensures it will be avoided by others looking to source quotes for their publications. The high rate it charges (which it claims is a "20% discount") for fair use of its work will be viewed by others as proxy censorship. And when censorship of this sort rears its head, most people just route around it. Other sources will be sought and the New York Times won't be padding its bottom line with ridiculous fees for de minimis use of its articles.
The authors' Kickstarter isn't so much to pay off the Times, but more to raise awareness of the publication's unwillingness to respect fair use."

Saturday, September 6, 2008

Free Music Downloads Without the Legal Peril - New York Times, 9/3/08

Free Music Downloads Without the Legal Peril : "It’s simple to get free music from online services like LimeWire, but it could also bring an unfriendly letter from a lawyer.

Dave Dederer feels your pain. As a songwriter and former guitarist for the Presidents of the United States of America, the owner of a record label and an Internet music entrepreneur, he is especially suited to assess the rights of artists, fans and distributors. After a close study of the laws that regulate his business, one thing is clear, he says: “It’s a swirling cesspool.”" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/technology/personaltech/04basics.html?ex=1378267200&en=5941bed8165f9d07&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink