YouTube to Pay Fees for Some Video Makers to Fight Takedowns; New York Times, 11/19/15

Cecilia Kang, New York Times; YouTube to Pay Fees for Some Video Makers to Fight Takedowns:

"Constantine Guiliotis, who goes by Dean and whose channel dedicated to debunking sightings of unidentified flying objects has just over 1,000 subscribers, is one of the video makers YouTube will defend. Mr. Guiliotis has received three takedown notices from copyright holders of videos that he has found online and posted to his YouTube channel, U.F.O. Theater.

In his videos, Mr. Guiliotis includes the videos he found but also provides analysis and commentary, which YouTube argues is within the guidelines of fair use rules. The site reposted the videos after its review and told Mr. Guiliotis it would defend him against any future legal action. Like the other creators YouTube has selected, Mr. Guiliotis has not been sued for his videos.

“It was very gratifying to know a company cares about fair use and to single out someone like me,” Mr. Guiliotis said.

YouTube is starting small, initially supporting four video creators, but it said it may expand its program.

The company said it wanted to protect free speech and educate users on fair use."

Why Facebook Is Monitoring Your Private Videos; Huffington Post, 11/18/15

Huffington Post; Why Facebook Is Monitoring Your Private Videos:

"Parker Higgins, an activist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, explains how Facebook's hunt for copyrighted material is playing out in users' private posts."

Matter of rights: Was Otto Frank really Anne Frank’s co-author?; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 11/18/15

Editorial Board, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Matter of rights: Was Otto Frank really Anne Frank’s co-author?Matter of rights: Was Otto Frank really Anne Frank’s co-author? :

"Otto Frank, her father, was the only family member who survived the Holocaust. It was his efforts that led to the publication of her diary. Until his death in 1980, he was acknowledged as the book’s “editor,” but gave full credit for the text to his daughter.

This is an important point given the new controversy surrounding the book’s copyright. Seventy years after her death, the European copyright is set to expire, but the Swiss foundation that holds the rights wants to prevent it from moving into public domain. The foundation is filing an extension of the copyright based on new information — the claim that Otto Frank is the book’s co-author.

This is contrary to descriptions made about the book since its publication. If the diary had been co-written by her father, then it cannot be properly called a girl’s reflections.

Extending the foundation’s control, until 2050, over “The Diary of Anne Frank” by now claiming Otto Frank is the co-writer is a cynical attempt to control a major revenue stream.

“The Diary of Anne Frank” belongs to the world. Treating it like a mere commodity detracts from its moral authority. Worse than that, making Anne Frank a mere collaborator in her own story is an insult to her memory and what she endured."

Frankenstein TV: what happens when literary classics drop out of copyright; Guardian, 11/16/15

Mark Lawson, Guardian; Frankenstein TV: what happens when literary classics drop out of copyright:

"One reason that the field of Brit Lit spin-offs is becoming so crowded is that Mary Shelley, Charles Dickens and Robert Louis Stevenson invented archetypes and situations that are familiar even to people who have never read the books. This rapid name-recognition is presumably why Fox originally gave its planned drama about a dead cop who is brought back to life to solve mysteries the title Frankenstein, even though it has no more than a vague metaphorical connection with the Shelley story. After objections of literary grave-robbing, the series is now, more sensibly, called Second Chance.

In tight financial times, it is also financially canny to plunder the vaults of out-of-copyright books. Adapt a classic novel that is still controlled by an estate and the budget is swollen by a rights fee, with the additional risk that the keepers of the author’s flame may also interfere artistically. Some copyright holders have been so acquisitive or restrictive that, for a decade or so, cultural democrats in various countries have celebrated Public Domain Day on 1 January each year, the date on which literary copyrights cease, 70 years after the writer’s death in many territories, but 95 in America. TV producers, you suspect, are among those whooping most exuberantly as another crop of plots and protagonists become free."

I’m Bullish about Copyright Policy for Libraries and I’m Not Crazy; American Libraries, 11/16/15

Alan S. Inouye, American Libraries; I’m Bullish about Copyright Policy for Libraries and I’m Not Crazy:

"The stimulus for this piece, however, is the copyright policy conference on November 17 hosted by the Re:Create Coalition. You may recall that the American Library Association (ALA) is a founding member of this new coalition that was born in spring 2015, which includes a range of important, influential, and ideologically diverse players such as the Consumer Technology Association (just renamed from the Consumer Electronics Association), Electronic Frontier Foundation, and R Street Institute. This first-ever public event of the coalition is a major milestone for heightened national advocacy for a balanced copyright regime in the digital era."

Anne Frank’s Diary Gains ‘Co-Author’ in Copyright Move; New York Times, 11/13/15

Doreen Carvajal, New York Time; Anne Frank’s Diary Gains ‘Co-Author’ in Copyright Move:

"Copyright protections vary from country to country. The classic novella “The Little Prince” fell into the public domain this year in much of the world but remains under copyright in France because of an exception that grants a 30-year extension to authors who died during military service in World War I and II.

Some critics of the foundation have already tested its resolve by posting bootleg copies of the diary online.

Olivier Ertzscheid, a lecturer in communications and researcher at the University of Nantes, received a warning letter this month from a French publisher of the diary after he started circulating a copy online in protest. He removed it, but he and a French politician, Isabelle Attard, said they were waiting to see what happens in January before pressing forward with a plan to encourage publication of the original manuscript more widely online.

“The best protection of the work is to bring it in the public domain, because its audience will grow even more,” said Ms. Attard, who noted that her own Jewish relatives were hidden or deported during the German occupation in France. “What is happening now is a bluff and pure intimidation.”

The foundation insists that by issuing an early warning of its intent to extend the copyright, it is acting ethically to prevent publishers from pursuing a course that might be unproductive and costly.

But if the foundation succeeds, publishers may wind up waiting even longer than the 70 years allowed after Otto Frank’s death."

The monkey 'selfie' copyright battle is still going on, and it's getting weirder; Washington Post via Chicago Tribune, 11/11/15

Abby Ohlheiser, Washington Post via Chicago Tribune; The monkey 'selfie' copyright battle is still going on, and it's getting weirder:

"The U.S. Copyright office clarified last year that it only registers copyright claims for human authorship, meaning that neither the macaque, nor the nature photographer David Slater, have a valid claim to it, according to the office.

That clarification came after a years-long disagreement between Slater and Wikimedia Commons, which hosted the image in the public domain.

Slater said he should own the rights to the photograph, telling The Washington Post last year that the selfie's distribution by Wikimedia and Techdirt as public domain was "ruining my business."

"If it was a normal photograph and I had claimed I had taken it," he added, "I would potentially be a lot richer than I am.""

4 Key Takeaways From Copyright Reform Committee's Silicon Valley Listening Tour; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 11/10/15

Parker Higgins, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); 4 Key Takeaways From Copyright Reform Committee's Silicon Valley Listening Tour:

"The House Judiciary Committee, tasked with copyright reform in the Next Great Copyright Act process, has taken its long-running hearing show on the road. This week, members of the committee attended sessions in northern and southern California. The line-up of experts in Santa Clara yesterday was diverse and impressive, and included people like Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle, noted musician Zoe Keating, iFixit CEO and DMCA activist Kyle Wiens, and of course EFF's own staff attorney Kit Walsh.

Given the wide range of experts, the conversation covered a lot of ground. More than other hearings in this series, though, it got deep into some of the specifics necessary to address shortcomings in current law. Here are four crucial points that got discussed."

[Job Position] Open Data and Knowledge Manager; Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh

[Job Position] Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh; Open Data and Knowledge Manager:

"POSITION TITLE: Open Data and Knowledge Manager

LOCATION: CLP- Main

POSTING DATE: October 30, 2015

REQUISITION NUMBER: 151123

Job Summary: Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh has a strong interest in using data to achieve our strategic goals and mission. The candidate is responsible for helping CLP staff treat information as an organizational asset, bootstrapping a unified data repository and working to ensure consistent, reliable, and easily accessible sources of library data. The candidate will help make strategic decisions in how the library creates, structures, manages, shares, and uses information, assisting CLP staff to incorporate data literacy into public service. The candidate will develop and update a series of organizational metrics to track progress. The candidate will also collaborate with external stakeholders to use information to improve the communities we serve, and develop open data sets to aid in regional civic data projects."

2 Illegal Movie-Sharing Websites Are Closed; New York Times, 11/3/15

Michael Cieply, New York Times; 2 Illegal Movie-Sharing Websites Are Closed:

"Two websites that film companies said had jointly become a clearinghouse for illegal movie viewing were closed last month by orders from courts in Canada and New Zealand, the Motion Picture Association of America said on Tuesday.

The Popcorntime.io site, commonly referred to as Popcorn Time, was closed under an Oct. 16 order from the Federal Court in Ottawa. YTS.to, a BitTorrent site whose films were often reached through Popcorn Time, was closed under an interim injunction in a separate suit filed on Oct. 12 in the High Court of New Zealand, the M.P.A.A. said."

MPAA Adds New Rating To Warn Audiences Of Films Not Based On Existing Works; The Onion, 10/20/15

The Onion; MPAA Adds New Rating To Warn Audiences Of Films Not Based On Existing Works:

"“We recognize how distressing it can be when viewers go into a film and suddenly find themselves confronted with jarring scenes containing a protagonist they’ve never encountered before, which is precisely why we created this rating,” said Joan Graves, head of the MPAA’s ratings board, who said the new category was added in part due to the thousands of complaints the organization has received from moviegoers who were upset they weren’t given advance notice that they’d have to make sense of the scenarios unfolding onscreen. “It’s important that today’s movie fans are aware upon entering the theater that none of what they will see has been adapted from a well-known comic book, television series, novel, video game, historical event, previous movie, or theme park ride.”

“Ultimately, it will be up to the consumer’s discretion as to whether a film is suitable for themselves and their family, but the O rating will explicitly caution people that they will have to pay attention during the movie and follow the storyline on their own,” Graves added.

Though sources said films requiring the new rating are comparatively rare, a spate of high-profile movies over the past several years that do not stem from any previously existing source material—including The Kids Are All Right, Her, WALL-E, Birdman, and Nebraska, among others—have left many viewers angered and perplexed. Citing test audiences they have observed, MPAA officials said that many moviegoers spent the entirety of such films in a state of distress, waiting for the moment when the Incredible Hulk, Katniss Everdeen, Wolverine, or another recognizable character from an established franchise would appear onscreen and clarify the meaning and direction of the film."

‘Star Wars’ Doesn’t Belong to George Lucas. It Belongs to the Fans.; New York Times, 10/29/15

Manohla Dargis, New York Times; ‘Star Wars’ Doesn’t Belong to George Lucas. It Belongs to the Fans. :

"Mr. Lucas’s true genius may be in marketing, including of his vision. Like other filmmakers who came of age in the 1960s, when American directors became auteurs, he has strong views on authorship. In a 1997 interview with Wired, he addressed the studios’ and artists’ rights, arguing that a copyright should belong to “the artist” of a film and not the large corporation that owns it. “I solved the problem by owning my own copyright,” Mr. Lucas said, “so nobody can screw around with my stuff. Nobody can take ‘Star Wars’ and make Yoda walk, because I own it.” When asked about the changes that he had made to his earlier work, including to “Star Wars,” he said: “It’s my artistic vision. If I want to go back and change it, it’s my business, not somebody else’s.”...

Years before the popularization of the idea of participatory culture, a term for those who are at once pop-culture consumers and contributors, “Star Wars” fans had staked their claim on this world. That engagement sometimes took Mr. Lucas aback. “It’s always amazing to me when people take them so seriously,” he is quoted as saying in Dale Pollock’s essential book “Skywalking” (1983).

In the years since, Mr. Lucas has clearly embraced his destiny as a force. And while it may seem strange, given his hatred of the studios, that he sold Lucasfilm to Disney in 2012, he found it a perfect home. Mr. Lucas helped shape modern conglomerate cinema, to borrow a term from Mr. Schatz, but it was Disney that really pioneered cradle-to-grave entertainment. In 1929, Walt Disney sold the rights to use Mickey Mouse (soon called the “million dollar mouse”) on children’s writing tablets, signing his first licensing contract a year later. “The sale of a doll to any member of a household,” Roy Disney, Walt’s brother, said, “is a daily advertisement in that household for our cartoons and keeps them all ‘Mickey Mouse Minded.’ ”"

Appeals Court Rules 'Point Break' Parody Is Entitled to Copyright Protection; Hollywood Reporter, 10/30/15

Eriq Gardner, Hollywood Reporter; Appeals Court Rules 'Point Break' Parody Is Entitled to Copyright Protection:

"On Friday, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals took up a dispute that is a bit of a mind-bender and delivered an opinion that determines that a parody is entitled to copyright protection.

The dispute concerns playwright Jamie Keeling's theatrical adaptation of the 1991 film Point Break, which starred Keanu Reeves as a federal agent who goes undercover as a surfer. In the film, Reeves is unintentionally hysterical, so Keeling got the bright idea to have an audience member chosen at random to recite his lines.

The production company behind the live version stopped paying Keeling, did its own version, and took the position that that Keeling had no right to her script since it was based on the film. This set up the fascinating question of whether someone who creates a parody of copyrighted material could sue someone else who also is doing a parody.

In December 2012, after a judge said absolutely, a jury returned a $250,000 verdict in favor of Keeling. What followed was the appeal where 2nd Circuit judge Jose Cabranes decides that even an unauthorized work that makes fair use of source material is protected."

Victory for Users: Librarian of Congress Renews and Expands Protections for Fair Uses; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 10/27/15

Parker Higgins, Mitch Stoltz, Kit Walsh, Corynne McSherry, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Victory for Users: Librarian of Congress Renews and Expands Protections for Fair Uses:

"The new rules for exemptions to copyright's DRM-circumvention laws were issued today, and the Librarian of Congress has granted much of what EFF asked for over the course of months of extensive briefs and hearings. The exemptions we requested—ripping DVDs and Blurays for making fair use remixes and analysis; preserving video games and running multiplayer servers after publishers have abandoned them; jailbreaking cell phones, tablets, and other portable computing devices to run third party software; and security research and modification and repairs on cars—have each been accepted, subject to some important caveats.

The exemptions are needed thanks to a fundamentally flawed law that forbids users from breaking DRM, even if the purpose is a clearly lawful fair use. As software has become ubiquitous, so has DRM. Users often have to circumvent that DRM to make full use of their devices, from DVDs to games to smartphones and cars.

The law allows users to request exemptions for such lawful uses—but it doesn’t make it easy. Exemptions are granted through an elaborate rulemaking process that takes place every three years and places a heavy burden on EFF and the many other requesters who take part."

It's OK to hack your own car, US copyright authorities rule; Reuters via Guardian, 10/27/15

Reuters via Guardian; It's OK to hack your own car, US copyright authorities rule:

"Car owners and security experts can tinker with automobile software without incurring US copyright liability, according to newly issued guidelines that were opposed by the auto industry.

The Library of Congress, which oversees the US Copyright Office, agreed with fair use advocates who argued that vehicle owners are entitled to modify their cars, which often involves altering software."

Thanks to a landmark ruling, information just got a little more free; Atlantic, 10/20/15

Robinson Meyer, Atlantic; After 10 Years, Google Books Is Legal: Thanks to a landmark ruling, information just got a little more free:

"In other words, Google Books is legal.

And not only that, but the case is likely resolved for good. In 2012, a district court ruled that Hathitrust, a university consortium that used Google Books’s scans to make books accessible to blind students, was not only a legal form of fair use but also required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Experts say that the Supreme Court is unlikely to hear an appeal, because so many district court judges, and two different federal circuits, have found themselves so broadly in agreement about the nature of transformative use online.

“The Authors Guild is deluding itself to think that this is an area that is open and controversial in the view of the lower courts,” Grimmelmann said.

This isn’t only good news for fans of Google Books. It helps makes the legal boundaries of fair use clear to other organizations who may try to take advantage of it, including libraries and non-profits.

“It gives us a better senses of where fair use lies,” says Dan Cohen, the executive director of the Digital Public Library of America. They “give a firmer foundation and certainty for non-profits.”"

Strategic Plan 2016-2020 Public Draft: Positioning the United States Copyright Office for the Future; U.S. Copyright Office, 10/23/15

U.S. Copyright Office; Strategic Plan 2016-2020 Public Draft: Positioning the United States Copyright Office for the Future:

"Register of Copyrights Maria A. Pallante today released a public draft of the Copyright Office’s Strategic Plan, setting forth the Office’s performance objectives for the next five years.

Reflecting the results of four years of internal evaluations and public input, the Strategic Plan lays out a vision of a modern Copyright Office that is equal to the task of administering the Nation’s copyright laws effectively and efficiently both today and tomorrow. It will remain in draft form for 30 days to permit public feedback, and will take effect on December 1, 2015."

Senators Probe Copyright’s Impact on Software-Enabled Devices; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 10/23/15

Kit Walsh, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Senators Probe Copyright’s Impact on Software-Enabled Devices:

"Senators Grassley and Leahy, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary, have published a letter to the Copyright Office asking it to analyze the impact of copyright law on “software-enabled devices” (such as cars, phones, drones, appliances, and many more products with embedded computer systems). This issue is crucial because technology and the law have evolved in a way that no one could have intended when Congress wrote the present copyright laws, and that evolution has restricted customers’ freedoms to repair, understand, and improve on the devices they buy.

Many problems with the current state of the law have been catalogued: Security researchers, patients with networked medical devices, smart phone owners who want to switch carriers or to improve their phones, and auto repair communities have all come forward asking for relief from one of the most problematic laws, Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. And those communities represent just a handful of the twenty-seven categories being considered for exemption from Section 1201 in this one proceeding...

At this time, the senators are not proposing any particular reforms, merely asking the Copyright Office to conduct a study and take input from the public."

Copyright concessions may be downside of TPP deal; Globe and Mail, 10/22/15

Globe Editorial, Globe and Mail; Copyright concessions may be downside of TPP deal:

"The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a good deal for Canada. It will give Canadian businesses new access to markets in Asia and provide consumers with less expensive goods.

But no deal is perfect. Based on the few details available at this point, Canada may have yielded to changes to its copyright regime by agreeing to extend protections on original works from the current 50 years beyond the death of the author, to 70.

In effect, this country and the other TPP partners will adopt U.S. rules that were largely crafted by lobbyists for Disney, which sought to forestall Mickey Mouse entering the public domain.

There is no mention of this on the federal government website summarizing the pact. Instead, it emerged via leaks and information released by other countries, and was brought to the fore by intellectual property experts like University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist, who reckons Ottawa “caved.”"

Netflix sued for streaming Bicycle Thieves 'without copyright'; Guardian, 10/23/15

Ben Child, Guardian; Netflix sued for streaming Bicycle Thieves 'without copyright' :

"Netflix has been accused of illegally streaming the classic Italian neo-realist drama Bicycle Thieves.

Corinth Films, which claims copyright for Vittorio De Sica’s famous 1948 tale of poverty-stricken postwar Rome, has filed a suit in a New York federal court. According to the Hollywood Reporter, the company accepts that Bicycle Thieves is in the public domain in the US but suggests the subtitled version of the film, which Netflix has previously included on its service, remains under copyright.

“At no time have defendants contacted the plaintiff in order to seek its license for the internet exhibition of the picture, either in whole or in excerpted portions,” the complaint reads. “Despite lacking any rights to exhibit the English subtitled version of the picture, defendants act as though they have exhibition rights.”

Bicycle Thieves, which is also known as The Bicycle Thief in the US, is considered by critics to be one of the greatest films of all time. In a 2008 review for the film’s re-release, The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw described De Sica’s harrowing drama as a “brilliant, tactlessly real work of art”."

Open Access Without Tears; Inside Higher Ed, 10/8/15

Barbara Fister, Inside Higher Ed; Open Access Without Tears:

"There are journals that anyone can read for free that don’t require a fee from the author to publish. Some of them are highly respected though few of them have the long histories to carry the prestige that the big-name journals have. An exception is Cultural Anthropology, a flagship society journal that has gone open access and is trying to develop and maintain a new funding model to keep it open. My profession’s major journal, College and Research Libraries, has also taken the leap and even the back issues are digitized and freely available, which is awesomely great when you want to share something with others by linking to it. Ask around; keep an eye out. There may be a brash new open access kid on the block that someday will have the name recognition that journals established in the print era have. You can explore the Directory of Open Access Journals’ subject lists, but people in your discipline who care about this stuff may be better guides to newly emerging reputations...

There are studies that says making your scholarship open access will increase its visibility and the chances it will be cited. That’s nice – but that’s not why I personally am committed to open access. I just think scholarship is worth sharing, and it’s a shame to limit its potential audience to those who are in a position to pay or have affiliation with an institution that can pay on their behalf."

Titanic victory for fair use: appeals court says Google's book-scanning is legal; BoingBoing.net, 10/16/15

Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing.net; Titanic victory for fair use: appeals court says Google's book-scanning is legal:

"The Second Circuit ruling is remarkable for many reasons. First, the venue: the Second, which incorporates publishing's home base in New York City, is a court that is generally favorable to rightsholders. This isn't the first time the Second has surprised copyright extremists, though: last year, the court ruled that the Hathi Trust's noncommercial/academic book-scanning project was also fair use, making this the second high-profile loss for the Authors Guild in two years.

The Hathi Trust ruling completely freaked out the Authors Guild and copyright maximalists everywhere. The Copyright Office, which is friendly to those interests, was motivated by Hathi to create a bizarre, incoherent proposal to put the Authors Guild in charge of who can use literature in America, giving them the power to collect license payments on behalf of writers who never joined the organization, including anonymous and long-dead writers -- this, of course, would give the Authors Guild more money with which to launch foolish, doomed, high-profile lawsuits.

The Librarian of Congress is retiring after a generation in office and may well be replaced by someone who believes in fair use and user rights and a balanced approach to copyright, and since the Librarian of Congress controls the Copyright Office, the people outraged by Hathi are totally flipping out and calling for the separation of the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office, so that they can continue to have outsized influence over the future of creativity, culture and scholarship in America.

The Google Books ruling will only make this fight more intense. Appointing a new Librarian will be one of Obama's last acts in office, and the Democratic party is deeply riven by internal disputes between the netroots and the big entertainment companies who are its financial backers. The war-rooms of both camps are definitely buzzing this morning."

Senate Passes 10 Year Term for Librarian of Congress; Library Journal, 10/13/15

Bob Warburton, Library Journal; Senate Passes 10 Year Term for Librarian of Congress:

"As President Obama ponders his choice for the next Librarian of Congress, the first time in nearly three decades that such a nomination will be necessary, the U.S. Senate has passed a bill to put a 10-year term on the position. If passed by the House and signed by the president, the bill will strip the job of the lifetime tenure it has carried since 1802...

Politics aside, another reason supporters feel the limit is now necessary is the accelerating rate of change—in library service, in technology, and in the demands on and challenges to copyright law that tech brings in its wake."

In Choreographed Campaigns, Candidates Stumble Over Choice of Music; New York Times, 10/12/15

Ben Sisario, New York Times; In Choreographed Campaigns, Candidates Stumble Over Choice of Music:

"The disputes also point to what experts say is a legal gray area over licensing rules for music in political campaigns.

After Neil Young complained in June that Mr. Trump had used his song “Rockin’ in the Free World” without permission, Mr. Trump’s campaign responded that it had obtained a so-called public performance license from Ascap, the music rights agency. In addition, the venues where most major campaign events are held — convention halls, hotels, sports arenas — often carry their own licenses from Ascap and BMI, another rights agency, that allow them to play the millions of songs in those agencies’ catalogs.

The issue gets more complicated when the uses of these songs are captured on video and shared on social media — as they almost inevitably are."

Wikileaks release of TPP deal text stokes 'freedom of expression' fears; Guardian, 10/9/15

Sam Thielman, Guardian; Wikileaks release of TPP deal text stokes 'freedom of expression' fears:

"Among the provisions in the chapter (which may or may not be the most recent version) are rules that say that each country in the agreement has the authority to compel anyone accused of violating intellectual property law to provide “relevant information [...] that the infringer or alleged infringer possesses or controls” as provided for in that country’s own laws.

The rules also state that every country has the authority to immediately give the name and address of anyone importing detained goods to whoever owns the intellectual property.

That information can be very broad, too: “Such information may include information regarding any person involved in any aspect of the infringement or alleged infringement,” the document continues, “and regarding the means of production or the channels of distribution of the infringing or allegedly infringing goods or services, including the identification of third persons alleged to be involved in the production and distribution of such goods or services and of their channels of distribution.”"

A ‘Star Trek’ Dream, Spread From Upstate New York; New York Times, 10/11/15

Paul Post, New York Times; A ‘Star Trek’ Dream, Spread From Upstate New York:

Mr. Cawley founded a nonprofit 12 years ago to create the series. It was produced in two smaller spaces before moving last year into a studio inside the old Family Dollar store, where an inaugural episode was shot in early summer. “It’s basically a big Star Trek fan club,” he said. “It gives people a chance to work on the show and be on the show. Episodes are basically crowdfunded, crowdsourced for the fans, by the fans.”

Mr. Cawley’s sets are careful replicas of those used for the original series, including the transporter room (“Scotty, beam us up”), captain’s bridge — where Kirk guided the Enterprise to bold new worlds — and the sick bay, where Dr. Leonard McCoy treated ill crew members...

“Star Trek” was first broadcast on NBC, but the rights to the show are now owned by CBS. The Ticonderoga studio steers away from copyright issues by not charging people to view the episodes, Mr. Cawley said."

Flooding Threatens The Times’s Picture Archive; New York Times, 10/12/15

David W. Dunlap, New York Times; Flooding Threatens The Times’s Picture Archive:

"A broken pipe on Saturday morning sent water cascading into the morgue — the storage area where The Times keeps its immense collection of historical photos, along with newspaper clippings, microfilm records, books and other archival material — causing minor damage and raising significant alarm.

And it raised the question of how in the digital age — and in the prohibitive Midtown Manhattan real estate market — can some of the company’s most precious physical assets and intellectual property be safely and reasonably stored?

Jeff Roth, the morgue manager, said it appeared that about 90 percent of the affected photos would be salvageable, but it is too early to say with any certainty how many were lost.

Though he stood undaunted among rubber drums and wastebaskets catching the residual water dripping from the ceiling, Mr. Roth made it clear that this was the stuff of nightmares."

Complex Car Software Becomes the Weak Spot Under the Hood; New York Times, 9/26/15

David Gelles, Hiroko Tabuchi, and Matthew Dolan, New York Times; Complex Car Software Becomes the Weak Spot Under the Hood:

“We should be allowed to know how the things we buy work,” Mr. Moglen of Columbia University said. “Let’s say everybody who bought a Volkswagen were guaranteed the right to read the source code of everything in the car,” he said.

“Ninety-nine percent of the buyers would never read anything. But out of the 11 million people whose car was cheating, one of them would have found it,” he said. “And Volkswagen would have been caught in 2009, not 2015.”

Automakers aren’t buying the idea...

Volkswagen, through its trade association, has been one of the most vocal and forceful opponents of an exemption to a copyright rule that would allow independent researchers to look at a car’s source code, said Kit Walsh, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy group for user privacy and free expression.

“If copyright law were not an impediment,” he said, “then we could have independent researchers go in and look at the code and find this kind of intentional wrongdoing, just as we have independent watchdogs that check vehicle safety with crash-test dummies.”"

No, You Don’t Need to Post a Facebook Copyright Status; New York Times, 9/28/15

Daniel Victor, New York Times; No, You Don’t Need to Post a Facebook Copyright Status:

"In short: Your legal rights are determined not by any status you post, but by the social network’s Terms of Service, which all users agreed to upon creating an account. Information about how Facebook uses your information is available there and in the network’s data policy.

If you are concerned about privacy, you can adjust your settings by tapping on “More” and “Privacy Shortcuts” in the mobile apps, or, on a desktop, clicking on the lock near the far right of the blue bar at the top of the screen."

Batmobile Wins Copyright Protection; Wall Street Journal, 9/23/15

Joe Palazzolo, Wall Street Journal; Batmobile Wins Copyright Protection:

"The Batmobile is a car that has almost everything: weapons, ahead-of-its-time computers, wing-shaped tail fins and an assortment of gadgets perfectly suited to Batman’s diverse crime-fighting needs. (The Bat-ray of the 1960s version, for instance, opened enemy car doors, while the version driven by Michael Keaton fired a grappling hook that allowed him round corners at improbable speeds.)

On Wednesday, the Batmobile received another upgrade: copyright protection.

To determine whether characters in comic books, television shows or movies are entitled to such protection, courts conduct a three-part test. First, the character must have “physical as well as conceptual qualities.” It also has to be “sufficiently delineated” so people recognize it as the same character across time. And third, the character has to be “especially distinctive.”

The Batmobile passed the test in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, with Judge Sandra S. Ikuta declaring in the introduction to Wednesday’s ruling, “Holy copyright law, Batman!”

DC Comics, the publisher and copyright owner of Batman comics, first introduced the Batmobile in 1941, just a few years after the Caped Crusader’s first comic book appearance."

The Plot Twist: E-Book Sales Slip and Print Is Far From Dead; New York Times, 9/22/15

Alexandra Alter, New York Times; The Plot Twist: E-Book Sales Slip and Print Is Far From Dead:

"Five years ago, the book world was seized by collective panic over the uncertain future of print.

As readers migrated to new digital devices, e-book sales soared, up 1,260 percent between 2008 and 2010, alarming booksellers that watched consumers use their stores to find titles they would later buy online. Print sales dwindled, bookstores struggled to stay open, and publishers and authors feared that cheaper e-books would cannibalize their business...

“E-books were this rocket ship going straight up,” said Len Vlahos, a former executive director of the Book Industry Study Group, a nonprofit research group that tracks the publishing industry. “Just about everybody you talked to thought we were going the way of digital music.”

But the digital apocalypse never arrived, or at least not on schedule. While analysts once predicted that e-books would overtake print by 2015, digital sales have instead slowed sharply.

Now, there are signs that some e-book adopters are returning to print, or becoming hybrid readers, who juggle devices and paper. E-book sales fell by 10 percent in the first five months of this year, according to the Association of American Publishers, which collects data from nearly 1,200 publishers. Digital books accounted last year for around 20 percent of the market, roughly the same as they did a few years ago.

E-books’ declining popularity may signal that publishing, while not immune to technological upheaval, will weather the tidal wave of digital technology better than other forms of media, like music and television."

Music copyright reform takes center stage in Nashville; The Tennessean via USA Today, 9/21/15

Nate Rau, The Tennessean via USA Today; Music copyright reform takes center stage in Nashville:

"A group of congressional leaders, including the Republican chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee, will be in Nashville on Tuesday for a listening session on music copyright issues.

The stop in Nashville, which will take place Tuesday morning, is part of a broader listening session tour for the committee chaired by U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia. In 2013, Goodlatte put music copyright reform on the table and kicked off a series of hearings featuring music industry leaders, broadcasters, technology companies, artists, songwriters and other stakeholders. There's consensus that the country's copyright laws are outdated and in need of reform.

Two pieces of legislation championed in Nashville — the Songwriter Equity Act and the Fair Play Fair Pay Act — have been offered up in the past year as well...

The gist of the problem is that new delivery services such as Spotify, Pandora, SiriusXM and Apple Music have made existing copyright laws obsolete. Songwriters, artists, publishers and record labels argue that their royalty payments have been diminished by the outdated laws. The technology companies say their services represent the future of music consumption and undue increases in government-set royalties would dampen their growth."

'Happy Birthday' song copyright is not valid, judge rules; Los Angeles Times, 9/22/15

Christine Mai-Duc, Los Angeles Times; 'Happy Birthday' song copyright is not valid, judge rules:

" a stunning reversal of decades of copyright claims, a federal judge in Los Angeles has ruled that Warner/Chappell Music does not hold a valid copyright claim to the "Happy Birthday To You," song.

Warner had been enforcing its copyright claim since it paid $15 million to buy Birch Tree Group, the successor to Clayton F. Summy Co., which owned the original copyright. Royalties on the song bring in about $2 million a year for Warner, according to some estimates.

Judge George H. King ruled Tuesday afternoon that a copyright filed by the Summy Co. in 1935 granted only the rights to specific arrangements of the music, not the actual song itself.

"Because Summy Co. never acquired the rights to the Happy Birthday lyrics," wrote King. "Defendants, as Summy Co.'s purported successors-in-interest, do not own a valid copyright in the Happy Birthday lyrics."

"'Happy Birthday' is finally free after 80 years," said Randall Newman, an attorney for the plaintiffs, which included a group of filmmakers who are producing a documentary about the song. "Finally, the charade is over. It's unbelievable.""

PETA wants court to grant copyright to ape that snapped famous selfie; ArsTechnica.com, 9/22/15

David Kravets, ArsTechnica.com; PETA wants court to grant copyright to ape that snapped famous selfie:

"People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is trying to turn copyright law on its head: in this instance, with the mug of a macaque monkey named Naruto, whose selfies went viral and have been seen around the world.

PETA filed suit Tuesday, asking the courts to declare Naruto the rightsholder and hence an owner of property: a copyright.

David Slater, the British nature photographer whose camera was swiped by the ape in the Indonesian jungle, said he has been granted copyright protection in the UK for the photos. He said he was "very saddened" over PETA's lawsuit (PDF) in the United States.

This is the second time this year animal rights groups have asked the US courts to bestow onto monkeys the legal status that humans enjoy. Last month, a New York state court ruled against two chimpanzees represented by the Nonhuman Rights Project that claimed they were being deprived of their civil liberties while being housed at a university research facility.

The copyright case comes a year after regulators from the US Copyright Office agreed with Wikipedia's conclusion that a monkey's selfies cannot be copyrighted. The office said works "produced by nature, animals, or plants" cannot be granted that protection."

Big new copyright fair use decision involving part owner of Miami Heat; Washington Post, 9/17/15

Eugene Volokh, Washington Post; Big new copyright fair use decision involving part owner of Miami Heat:

"I blogged about this case back when the magistrate judge issued his report, but today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed (Katz v. Chevaldina), and concluded that defendant Irina Chevaldina’s use of the photo shown above is a fair use. The twist: The subject of the photo, Raanan Katz, bought the photo after it was published and used by Chevaldina, and then sued her in his capacity as now-owner of the photograph. No dice, said the court, concluding — in my view correctly — that Chevaldina’s use was a “fair use” and thus not an infringement..."

Rapper Rick Ross Loses 'Everyday I'm Hustlin'' Copyright Claim; Reuters via New York Times, 9/16/15

Reuters via New York Times; Rapper Rick Ross Loses 'Everyday I'm Hustlin'' Copyright Claim:

"Rapper Rick Ross cannot copyright the words "Everyday I'm hustlin'," a U.S. judge has ruled, putting an end to his claim against music group LMFAO for selling T-shirts with the similar catch-phrase "Everyday I'm shufflin'."

In a ruling released on Tuesday in Miami federal court, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams said Ross's slogan, a prominent part of his 2006 debut hit "Hustlin'," is a short expression that courts have repeatedly said cannot be copyrighted...

In her order on Tuesday, Williams said that "Hustlin'," as a song, is protected by copyright. But Ross' three-word slogan, is made up of ordinary words and cannot be copyrighted, she said. The judge compared it to other music catch-phrases from the past, such as "you got the right one, uh-huh," "holla back," and "we get it poppin'," saying it is a "short expression of the sort that courts have uniformly held uncopyrightable.""

Why I gave up my copyright: Kirill Medvedev; Guardian, 9/17/15

Kirill Medvedev, Guardian; Why I gave up my copyright: Kirill Medvedev:

"The Russian poet has been releasing his work free of ownership since 2004, insisting that publishers can only make editions without contracts and without his consent. He explains how opening his poems up to piracy is both a political protest and a liberating step towards intellectual sovereignty"

Appeals court strikes a blow for fair use in long-awaited copyright ruling; ArsTechnica.net, 9/14/15

Joe Mullin, ArsTechnica.net; Appeals court strikes a blow for fair use in long-awaited copyright ruling:

"The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit today issued a ruling that could change the contours of fair use and copyright takedown notices.

In an opinion (PDF) published this morning, the three-judge panel found that Universal Music Group's view of fair use is flawed. The record label must face a trial over whether it wrongfully sent a copyright takedown notice over a 2007 YouTube video of a toddler dancing to a Prince song. That toddler's mother, Stephanie Lenz, acquired pro bono counsel from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The EFF in turn sued Universal in 2007, saying that its takedown practices violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The judges ruled today that copyright holders "must consider the existence of fair use before sending a takedown notification.""

Copyright Office seeks your comments on its crazy, broken plan to deal with orphan works; BoingBoing.net, 9/14/15

Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing.net; Copyright Office seeks your comments on its crazy, broken plan to deal with orphan works:

"In June, the U.S. Copyright Office announced a widely criticized proposal to create a licensing system to clear these rights, with the goal of facilitating full-text access to copyrighted works for nonprofit and educational uses. The Copyright Office is currently soliciting comments on its proposal.

It’s a good thing that they’re soliciting comments: the proposal the Copyright Office came up with is an unworkable mess, filled with restrictions and gaps in coverage. It doesn’t solve the orphan works problem -- instead, it makes the problem worse, and adds a tax on cash-strapped, desperate libraries to the mix.

The Copyright Office needs to hear why its proposal is a bad idea. Comments are due to the Office by October 9, 2015. I submitted mine (below). You can submit yours online."

The International Fight Over Marcel Duchamp's Chess Set; Atlantic, 9/8/15

Quinn Norton, Atlantic; The International Fight Over Marcel Duchamp's Chess Set:

"Often called Moral Rights, French creators and their heirs are entitled not only to remuneration, but a high degree of creative control on how their works are used or represented in the world. It was this idea, of controlling how the artist's creation is used by others, that brought the estate to issue their Cease and Desist against Kildall and Cera. Farcot is particularly interested in how 3D printing is influenced by the mishmash of Berne laws governing the world. I spoke with him while he was waiting on an Ultimaker print of toys he was giving children in an upcoming weekend workshop he was teaching.

“It’s not black or white,” Farcot said. “It’s not easy for the creators, Kildall and Cera, to... say they should go ahead, go to court and they will win easily.” Facing a ruinously expensive legal fight thousands of miles and an ocean away, Kildall and Cera backed down. They quietly removed the files from Thingiverse, and negotiated a resolution with Duchamp’s heirs.

If the case was too hard to fight in French court, it would have been almost too easy to fight in U.S. court, the jurisdiction that could affect the lives of Kildall and Cera. “So under U.S. law, the chess pieces are absolutely in the public domain... and a U.S. court won’t honor French moral rights. I don’t see any practical way for the Duchamp estate to sue over the 3D-printed chess pieces in a U.S. court,” said Mitch Stoltz, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who specializes in intellectual property."

More Closed-Door Meetings, a New Chief Transparency Officer, and Growing International Opposition to the Deal: What's Going on with the TPP; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 9/11/15

Maira Sutton, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); More Closed-Door Meetings, a New Chief Transparency Officer, and Growing International Opposition to the Deal: What's Going on with the TPP:

"Civil society groups and advocates have meanwhile continued the fight against the TPP. In New Zealand, thousands of people went to the streets to protest the TPP, as other leading advocates have filed a legal challenge over the government's refusal to release documents relating to the agreement. A group of Japanese health advocates, including eight lawmakers and 157 lawyers, are also suing their government, on the grounds that the deal is unconstitutional and a danger to public health. The TPP's Copyright Trap, which is an EFF campaign to fight back against the agreement's 20-year retroactive copyright term extension, succeeded in directing hundreds of messages to TPP negotiators to resist the United States' copyright maximalist demands. Our U.S. action to petition the Register the Copyrights to reaffirm its commitment to balanced policy has garnered thousands of signatures."

R.E.M. bashes Trump, Cruz for using 'It's the End of the World' at rally; CNN.com, 9/10/15

Holly Yan, CNN.com; R.E.M. bashes Trump, Cruz for using 'It's the End of the World' at rally:

"Donald Trump has been blaring R.E.M. on the campaign trail, and the band doesn't feel fine about it.

The GOP presidential candidate took to the podium Wednesday on the steps of Capitol Hill to slam President Barack Obama's proposed Iran nuclear deal. His walk-up music? R.E.M.'s 1987 hit "It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)."

Rival candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, whom Trump acknowledged having a political "romance" with, was the one who invited Trump to speak at the rally.

R.E.M. frontman Michael Stipe was livid after the use of his band's song at the event.

"Go f*ck yourselves, the lot of you -- you sad, attention-grabbing, power-hungry little men," Stipe said in an email to The Daily Beast. "Do not use our music or my voice for your moronic charade of a campaign.""

Can R.E.M. demand Donald Trump “cease and desist” playing their song?; Salon.com, 9/10/15

Scott Timberg, Salon.com; Can R.E.M. demand Donald Trump “cease and desist” playing their song? :

"We spoke to intellectual property lawyer Joel Schoenfeld, a former counsel for the Record Industry Association of American and now an attorney at the New York firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp. The interview has been edited slightly for clarity.

This week we have another couple of cases of political figures using rock songs at rallies and the bands objecting. Do the musicians – R.E.M. and Survivor in these cases — have any legal leg to stand on?

Yes. Basically, when an artist records a song, there are usually two copyrights involved. One is the musical composition being performed, which may or may not be written by the people who perform it, and the other is the master recording of that song, usually owned by the artist or the band. Usually, if they’re relatively successful, the artist or band has signed a deal with their record label, who has then the full rights to exercise their copyright in that master recording. Same with a songwriter or composer, who has probably done a deal with a music publisher who also has those rights.

There are [also] artists who alleged public confusion – making the public think that artist is endorsing that politician. I’m not aware of any case that’s come to a judgment, but they’re usually settled and the politician is usually the one that apologizes."

Defiant Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Could Face More Legal Trouble. This Time for Copyright.; Mother Jones, 9/9/15

Gabrielle Canon, Mother Jones; Defiant Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Could Face More Legal Trouble. This Time for Copyright.:

"Yesterday, Kim Davis—the now-infamous Rowan County clerk who was held in contempt for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Kentucky—was released from a five-night stint in jail. Escorted by Mike Huckabee, the GOP presidential hopeful who helped throw the rally for her release, an emotional Davis threw her arms in the air, closed her eyes, and basked in the sounds of "Eye of the Tiger," Survivor's 1982 hit about being awesome.

Unfortunately for Davis, the writers of that song don't think Davis is so awesome—and they never agreed to let her or Huckabee broadcast their song at the rally. Survivor's Jim Peterik tweeted his disapproval, saying Davis would be receiving a "cease and desist" letter from his publisher"

Copyright and other Library of Congress computer systems are working again; Washington Post, 9/8/15

Peggy McGlone, Washington Post; Copyright and other Library of Congress computer systems are working again:

"The online registration system at the U.S. Copyright Office is back online after more than a week of being down, Library of Congress officials confirmed. In addition, the Braille and Audio Reading Download system, or BARD, has also come back online.

The Copyright Office’s electronic registration system was reinstated on Sunday, nine days after it was taken down as part of scheduled maintenance at the Library of Congress. The BARD system, a free service of recorded books and magazines that was offline since Sept. 1, became operational Tuesday, a week after it failed."

‘Mr. Holmes’ Lawsuit Reaches Settlement, Says Arthur Conan Doyle Estate Attorney; Variety, 9/3/15

Ted Johnson, Variety; ‘Mr. Holmes’ Lawsuit Reaches Settlement, Says Arthur Conan Doyle Estate Attorney:

"The attorney for the estate of Sherlock Holmes creator Arthur Conan Doyle said they have reached an agreement in principle with the makers of the recent Sherlock Holmes movie “Mr. Holmes,” which the estate claimed infringed on stories that still remain under copyright.

In May, the Conan Doyle estate sued Miramax, Roadside Attractions and director Bill Condon over the movie, which starred Ian McKellen in the title role and opened in July. The lawsuit also named writer Mitch Cullin and Penguin Random House, publisher of Cullin’s “A Slight Trick of the Mind” — a new Holmes tale on which the movie “Mr. Holmes” is based...

On Wednesday, Allison and Laura Schauer Ives, attorney for Penguin Random House and Cullin, filed a notice of dismissal for their portion of the case, without costs to any party. Allison said that the e-book version of “A Slight Trick of the Mind” now acknowledges “use of copyrighted material by kind permission of the Conan Doyle estate.”

The movie depicted an aged, retired Holmes looking back on his life and getting involved in an unsolved case.

The estate noted in its lawsuit that although many of Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes works are in the public domain, 10 works published between 1923 and 1927 remain under copyright. Those works develop details of Holmes’ retirement and later life."

We’re All Artists Now; New York Times, 9/4/15

Laura M. Holson, New York Times; We’re All Artists Now:

"Choosing to be more creatively focused, though, can be disturbing at first. Ms. Cameron argues in “The Artist’s Way” that it can upend the delicate balance of relationships. “Many of us find that we have squandered our own creative energies by investing disproportionately in the lives, hopes, dreams and plans of others,” she writes. Others perceive a creative life as a quit-your-job-or-nothing proposition. They “like to think they are looking at changing their whole lives in one fell swoop,” Ms. Cameron writes, adding that, in “fantasizing about pursuing our art full time, we fail to pursue it part time — or at all.”

Indeed, many people aren’t interested in a wholesale career switch. Instead they are simply seeking a respite from a harried work and home life...

Beyond grown-up coloring books, the possibility for creative self-exploration is everywhere — especially in our phones. It is easy now to record and edit images, audio and video on our cellphones, making the commoditization of creativity even more pronounced. “We’ve become fascinated with innovation as a culture,” said Aaron Rasmussen, a founder of MasterClass, a new online education company that features writers, actors and sports figures teaching classes about the creative process. “People used to look at a movie and say, ‘I could do better than that,’ but they had no vehicle.”"

The Creative Apocalypse That Wasn’t; New York Times, 8/19/15

Steven Johnson, New York Times; The Creative Apocalypse That Wasn’t:

"If you believe the data, then one question remains. Why have the more pessimistic predictions not come to pass? One incontrovertible reason is that — contrary to the justifiable fears of a decade ago — people will still pay for creative works. The Napsterization of culture turned out to be less of a threat to prices than it initially appeared. Consumers spend less for recorded music, but more for live. Most American households pay for television content, a revenue stream that for all practical purposes didn’t exist 40 years ago. Average movie-­ticket prices continue to rise. For interesting reasons, book piracy hasn’t taken off the way it did with music. And a whole new creative industry — video games — has arisen to become as lucrative as Hollywood. American households in 2013 spent 4.9 percent of their income on entertainment, the exact same percentage they spent in 2000.

At the same time, there are now more ways to buy creative work, thanks to the proliferation of content-­delivery platforms. Practically every device consumers own is tempting them at all hours with new films or songs or shows to purchase. Virtually no one bought anything on their computer just 20 years ago; the idea of using a phone to buy and read a 700-page book about a blind girl in occupied France would have sounded like a joke even 10 years ago. But today, our phones sell us every form of media imaginable; our TVs charge us for video-­on-­demand products; our car stereos urge us to sign up for SiriusXM.

And just as there are more avenues for consumers to pay for creative work, there are more ways to be compensated for making that work."

In a dark corner of the Trans-Pacific Partnership lurks some pretty nasty copyright law; Washington Post, 9/3/15

David Post, Washington Post; In a dark corner of the Trans-Pacific Partnership lurks some pretty nasty copyright law:

"The copyright issue relates to so-called “orphan works.” As a consequence of many factors — the absurdly long term of copyright protection [life of the author plus 70 years — see my comments here on the liberation of Sherlock Holmes, after a lo-o-ong time, from his copyright shackles], along with the elimination of copyright notice, or copyright registration, requirements as preconditions for copyright protection — there are literally millions upon millions of works — books, letters, songs, articles, poems . . . — created in the ’30s, ’40s, or ’50s that are (a) still protected by copyright, and for which (b) it is virtually impossible to ascertain who owns the copyright, or even whether the copyright is still in force...

The solution is pretty obvious — a true legislative no-brainer: Amend the Copyright Act to eliminate statutory damages for these orphan works. Surely even Congress can see how idiotic it is that this class of invisible rights holders can keep this treasure trove of information out of the public’s hands, and there has indeed been significant movement recently (including a Copyright Office proposal to this effect) toward just such a change.

So what does all this have to do with the TPP? I’m glad you asked. It appears that the latest version of the treaty contains, buried within its many hundreds of pages, language that could require the U.S. to scuttle its plans for a sensible revision of this kind.[I say that this “appears” to be the case, because, of course, the text of the TPP has not been revealed to the public, so all we have are leaked versions appearing from time to time on WikiLeaks.]...

These (and other — poke around at the KEI site for more evidence) copyright provisions in the TPP are pretty dreadful and continue the disturbing trend of making copyright bigger, longer and stronger just when public policy demands the opposite...

[And as an ironic footnote to all this, part of the reason we’re in all this mess, as I mentioned at the start, is that we no longer have a sensible regime for copyright notice and copyright registration. Why don’t we? Because of another international agreement, the Berne Convention on Literary Property, that we acceded to in 1989 (and which prohibits all “copyright formalities).”] We would have been much, much better off on our own on that one."

Inspiration Or Appropriation? Behind Music Copyright Lawsuits; NPR, 9/5/15

Allyson McCabe, NPR; Inspiration Or Appropriation? Behind Music Copyright Lawsuits:

"Where do you draw the line between inspiration and appropriation when it comes to musical compositions? That question is at the heart of several high-profile court cases, including the recent "Blurred Lines" trial and a current copyright-infringement lawsuit involving "Stairway to Heaven." But it isn't always easy to prove a song is yours – particularly when you're up against one of the biggest rock and roll bands of all time."