Showing posts with label copyright owners. Show all posts
Showing posts with label copyright owners. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 11, 2020

Explainer: who owns the copyright to your tattoo?; The Conversation, August 10, 2020

, The Conversation; Explainer: who owns the copyright to your tattoo?

"So, why don’t tattooists sue over copying?

In some art industries, there can be a big gap between holding rights and exercising them. 
To tattooists, appropriation is mostly seen as a matter of ethics or manners rather than law...
These norms aside, copyright law does apply to tattoos. Whether or not more tattoo enthusiasts will seek an appropriate licence, as occurred in the case of Jarrangini (buffalo), or a copyright owner will sue for a rights violation, is another matter."

Monday, January 14, 2019

Autocomplete suggestions: Did you mean 'copyright infringement'?; Lexology, January 10, 2019


"We won't be likely to see a Court consider this particular topic until the value of the copyright is sufficient for a copyright owner to challenge a search engine over the autocomplete suggestions. In the fast paced world of technology, this may not be far away."

Thursday, December 20, 2018

The Second Circuit Shuts Down Resale of Digital Music Files in Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi, Inc., Lexology, December 18, 2018

Tuesday, October 23, 2018

YouTube CEO asks creators to ‘take action’ against EU copyright law; CNet, October 22, 2018

Richard Nieva, CNet; YouTube CEO asks creators to ‘take action’ against EU copyright law

""This legislation poses a threat to both your livelihood and your ability to share your voice with the world," Wojcicki wrote in a blog post. "And, if implemented as proposed, Article 13 threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs, European creators, businesses, artists and everyone they employ."

She added, "Please take a moment to learn more about how it could affect your channel and take action immediately." She also asked creators to protest using the hashtag #SaveYourInternet."

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

WHAT IF ‘STAR TREK’ WERE FREE? HOW THE STORIED SCI-FI FRANCHISE COULD INSPIRE COPYRIGHT REFORM; Newsweek, March 5, 2018

Andrew Whalen, Newsweek; 

WHAT IF ‘STAR TREK’ WERE FREE? HOW THE STORIED SCI-FI FRANCHISE COULD INSPIRE COPYRIGHT REFORM


"CBS and Paramount are unlikely to see things the same way. While Star Trek: Discovery press releases trumpet the “ideology and hope for the future that inspired a generation of dreamers and doers,” plans for streaming market domination depend upon exclusivity. The metaphor equating artistic expression and property has become so ingrained that companies regularly reduce their consumers to provisional licensees, subject to whatever controls the copyright holder decides upon, even long after the point of purchase.

Star Trek stands on the shoulders of giants. It exists because they plundered some of the most interesting stories and memes of science fiction, just as all science fiction writers do, to tell their own story. And to argue that when they did it that was the legitimate progress of art and whenever anyone else does it, it's theft, is pretty self-serving and kind of obviously bullshit,” Doctorow said. “It's a ridiculous thing for a law to ban something that ancient and fundamental to how we experience art.”

Countering the monopoly exercised by copyright holders will require a broader social realignment, under which people come to understand art as a shared cultural endowment, rather than product—a mindset beyond capital."

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Supreme Court turns down EFF’s “Dancing Baby” fair use case; Ars Technica, June 19, 2017

Joe Mullin, Ars Technica, Supreme Court turns down EFF’s “Dancing Baby” fair use case

"The Supreme Court has decided not to take up the case of Lenz v. Universal, a ten-year-old copyright lawsuit initiated by the Electronic Frontier Foundation that helped determine the boundaries of "fair use."
Today's order leaves standing an earlier ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. EFF called that ruling a "strong precedent," while at the same time acknowledging it did not go far enough...
Now that the 9th Circuit precedent stands, EFF will have to decide whether or not it wants to push forward with a jury trial. The damages boundaries have already been set by earlier judicial decisions, so Lenz wouldn't be able to get more than "nominal" damages. That wouldn't be much, since her video was removed for only a couple weeks and has remained up since, garnering more than 1.9 million views.
EFF Legal Director Corynne McSherry said she's disappointed the Supreme Court didn't take the case, since DMCA abuse is "well-documented and all too common."...
At the end of the day, the Lenz case is a clear demonstration that Section 512(f) of the DMCA, which allows for lawsuits and damages against copyright owners, is unlikely to ever be a powerful tool. From a user's perspective, it's hard to imagine what could be a more clear case of fair use than the Lenz video, which features less than 40 seconds of staticky-sounding background music. If copyright owners can say they satisfied the legal requirement by saying, "We considered fair use, but didn't see it," then not much can stop them from basically blowing off 512(f). Few future plaintiffs will be able to summon the legal resources that Lenz did."

Monday, February 20, 2017

Kim Dotcom extradition to US can go ahead, New Zealand high court rules; Guardian, February 19, 2017

Eleanor Ainge Roy, Guardian; 

Kim Dotcom extradition to US can go ahead, New Zealand high court rules

"The high court in New Zealand has ruled Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom can be extradited to the United States to face a multitude of charges including money laundering and copyright breaches.

US authorities had appealed for Dotcom’s extradition to face 13 charges including allegations of conspiracy to commit racketeering, copyright infringement, money laundering and wire fraud."

Friday, November 25, 2016

New US Copyright Rule Sets Trap For Online Firms; Intellectual Property Watch, 11/25/16

Steven Seidenberg, Intellectual Property Watch; New US Copyright Rule Sets Trap For Online Firms:
"The US Copyright Office is supposed to balance the interests of copyright owners with the interests of everyone else. However, the Office’s latest regulation, which takes effect 1 December, may be anything but fair and balanced. It could, according to critics, strip Facebook, YouTube, and other online companies of a vital statutory safe harbor, thus making these companies liable when their users post infringing material online. Online companies could face billions in infringement damages, driving them out of business."

Sunday, October 30, 2016

Change at the Copyright Office; Publishers Weekly, 10/28/16

Andrew Albanese, Publishers Weekly; Change at the Copyright Office:
"Could Pallante’s departure spur Congress to finally appropriate sufficient resources to modernize the Copyright Office, which virtually everyone agrees is badly needed and long overdue? Hayden herself said she intends to build on the work Pallante did in terms of modernizing the Copyright Office for the digital age.
Or, might Pallante’s removal push Congress to consider removing the office from the Library of Congress altogether? Pallante was certainly held in high esteem by lawmakers. But sources expressed doubt that in the current political climate Congress would seek to create a new federal bureaucracy for copyright—which is the domain of Congress—that would be headed by a presidential appointee.
At the very least, ALA’s Sheketoff observed that Pallante’s removal suggests that the future of the U.S. Copyright Office is a high priority for at least one government official—Carla Hayden."

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Maria Pallante's Departure From the Copyright Office: What It Means, And Why It Matters; Billboard, 10/25/16

Robert Levine, Billboard; Maria Pallante's Departure From the Copyright Office: What It Means, And Why It Matters:
"Although Hayden spoke about the importance of copyright during her confirmation hearings, she is perceived to favor looser copyright laws, since she previously served as president of the American Library Association, an organization that lobbies for greater public access to creative works, sometimes as the expense of creators. The Obama Administration also has close ties to technology companies, which would like to see a Copyright Office that values fair use and other exceptions to copyright over the rights of creators and copyright owners.
Hillary Clinton is thought to be view copyright more favorably, but she hasn’t said much about the topic, and she initially addressed it in her “Initiative on Technology & Innovation” -- not an encouraging sign for creators. Donald Trump doesn’t appear to have said much about the topic."

Monday, December 7, 2015

Hong Kong Copyright Law To Be Fiercely Debated; Variety, 12/7/15

Patrick Frater, Variety; Hong Kong Copyright Law To Be Fiercely Debated:
"Hong Kong’s legislature is Wednesday to debate a bill that seeks to make the territory’s copyright laws appropriate for the Internet age.
The government seems certain to win the vote in the Legislative Council (LegCo), but the bill is likely to be fiercely contested and extra security may be drafted outside the LegCo building.
Opponents say that the bill reinforces the position of business and copyright owners, but stifles freedom of speech.
In particular, they say that the proposed law does not take enough account of user-generated-content and that it will narrow the scope for sampling of copyright works for parody."

Saturday, August 4, 2012

With Key Filings in, Trials Loom In Google Book Cases; Publishers Weekly, 8/3/12

Andrew Albanese, Publishers Weekly; With Key Filings in, Trials Loom In Google Book Cases:

"With the battle lines now drawn, how is the fight shaping up? At this stage, observers say, the Authors Guild may be facing an uphill charge. “Google and HathiTrust have made a compelling case that digitization to support full-text search and long-term preservation is a fair use,” New York Law School professor James Grimmelmann told PW. On the other hand, he notes, in the HathiTrust case at least, the Authors Guild has simply not made “a convincing case” that there is harm to the copyright owners."

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

If Three Constitutes Company, Add Lawyers to Make It a Crowd; New York Times, 7/17/12

Patrick Healy, New York Times; If Three Constitutes Company, Add Lawyers to Make It a Crowd:

"Most playwrights have jitters on opening night, but David Adjmi was in a panic amid the festivities last month for “3C,” his darkly comic deconstruction of the 1970s sitcom “Three’s Company.” That same day he learned that the copyright owner of “Three’s Company” had sent a cease-and-desist letter to the play’s producers charging that Mr. Adjmi had infringed on the copyright by borrowing so many elements from the TV series, including its premise about a man who pretends to be gay to live with two female roommates.

The show went on — but the copyright fight remains far from resolved.

At issue is whether “3C” is enough of a parody of “Three’s Company” to be protected under First Amendment exceptions to copyright law — specifically, under the legal doctrine of fair use, which allows artists to use copyrighted work to lampoon or critique the material, as the international hit “Forbidden Broadway” has done for years with its sendups of famous musicals."

Thursday, October 27, 2011

The case for piracy; ABC, 10/20/11

Nick Ross, ABC; The case for piracy:

"We've been deluged with the arguments against piracy for years. But what's the other side of the story? Could it possibly be that copyright infringers and pirates aren't always the bad guys? Are copyright owners their own worst enemy? Judge for yourself and tell us what you think."

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Copyright Owners Fight Plan to Release E-Books for the Blind; Wired, 12/11/09

David Kravets, Wired; Copyright Owners Fight Plan to Release E-Books for the Blind:

"A broad swath of American enterprise ranging from major software makers to motion picture and music companies are joining forces to oppose a new international treaty that would make books more accessible to the blind.

On Monday, dozens of nations will meet in Geneva to consider adopting the WIPO Treaty for Sharing Accessible Formats of Copyrighted Works for Persons Who are Blind or Have other Reading Disabilities. The proposal (.pdf) before a subcommittee of the roughly 180 World Intellectual Property Organization members would sanction the cross-border sharing of DRM-protected digitized books that tens of thousands of blind and visually disabled people read with devices and tools like the Pac Mate, Book Port and Victor Reader.

“This treaty would be the first one that is not done for the copyright owner, but for the user of the works — for the blind to make a copyrighted work accessible,” says Manon Ress, a policy analyst at Knowledge Ecology International, a Washington, D.C.-based human rights lobby that helped spearhead the proposal.

But that prospect doesn’t sit well with American business. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest lobby representing 3 million businesses, argues that the plan being proposed by Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay, “raises a number of serious concerns,” (.pdf) chief among them the specter that the treaty would spawn a rash of internet book piracy.

The treaty also creates a bad precedent by loosening copyright restrictions, instead of tightening them as every previous copyright treaty has done, said Brad Huther, a chamber director. Huther concluded in a Dec. 2 letter to the U.S. Copyright office that the international community “should not engage in pursuing a copyright-exemption based paradigm.”

Echoing that concern, the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry of America told the Copyright Office last month that such a treaty would “begin to dismantle the existing global treaty structure of copyright law, through the adoption of an international instrument at odds with existing, longstanding and well-settled norms.”

The proposal before the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights could free up thousands of book titles to millions of blind people in WIPO-member nations — without payment to the publisher.

Many WIPO nations, most in the industrialized world including England, the United States and Canada, have copyright exemptions that usually allow non-profit companies to market copyrighted works without permission. They scan and digitize books into the so-called universal Daisy format, which includes features like narration and digitized Braille.

The Daisy Corp. Consortium, a Swiss-based international agency, controls formatting worldwide and has some 100 companies under its direction across the globe. The largest catalog rests in the United States, in which three non-profits, including the Library of Congress, host some half million digital titles produced by federal grants and donations.

As it now stands, none of the nations may allow persons outside their borders to access these works, which are usually doled out for little or no charge. The treaty seeks to free up the cross-border sharing of the books for the blind.

“People who oppose copyright exemptions oppose exemptions on principle that there should be no exemptions of copyright law,” says George Kerscher, Daisy’s general secretary. “They should have sole right and discretion to do what they want with their intellectual property. To a great extent, the opposition to the treaty is based on that principle.”

To receive any reading materials, the blind and disabled must prove their condition, he said. In the United States, Knowledge Ecology International estimates about 5 percent of published books have been transformed to the Daisy format.

Google is the only major U.S. corporation to side with the blind in the international tussle. In filings with the Copyright Office, the company called for American copyright holders to see past their doctrinal opposition to weakening copyright protections.

“We are concerned that some of the comments are simply stating opposition to a larger agenda of limitations and exceptions,” (.pdf) Google’s chief copyright officer, William Paltry, wrote this month. “We believe this is an unproductive approach to solving what is a discrete, long-standing problem that affects a group that needs and deserves the protections of the international community.”

Not surprisingly, U.S. book publishers are the harshest critics of the proposal. The Association of American Publishers, which represents about 300 publishers large and small, argue the treaty is not necessary. The publishers suggest the blind and disabled should pay for their materials –- the only way the market for such products could flourish.

“Under the proposed draft treaty, where it appears that privileged copies could be made even where accessible versions were commercially available, copyright owners would have understandable doubts about the wisdom of investing in the production of accessible versions for the market,” the association’s vice president, Allan Adler, wrote the Copyright Office on Dec. 4.

“Under these circumstances, publishers not unreasonably hesitate and wonder whether they can expect such a market to flourish when potential customers would still have the option of relying upon a statutory exception to get an accessible version of a work without having to pay for it,” (.pdf) Adler added.

Dan Burke, a 52-year-old blind man from Montana and a self-described “book worm,” does not agree with the publishers.

Burke, a victim of a retinal disease that blinded him decades ago, often acquires books and poems at Bookshare, an online nonprofit offering about 60,000 titles in exchange for $50 in annual dues and other volunteer work. Burke says none of the rank-and-file commercially available e-readers, including the Kindle, are adequately equipped for the blind.

“You have to be able to see to use these, to turn the machine on and navigate menus,” says Burke.

Amazon, however, said this week that it would soon produce a blind-accessible Kindle, one with an audible menu and large font for the visually impaired.

But Amazon, the Kindle’s maker, gives book authors the option of disabling the read-aloud function, notes Burke, a board member for the National Federation of the Blind, which supports the treaty. The Authors Guild, an advocacy group for writers, argued earlier this year that reading a book aloud counts as an unauthorized public performance.

“Information is what we want. Information is the power to become economically viable members of society,” Burke said. “This is a world in which if you don’t have money you usually don’t have access.”"

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/blind_block/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Buyer of Pirate Bay, a File-Sharing Site, Plans to Go Legal; New York Times, 7/1/09

Eric Pfanner via New York Times; Buyer of Pirate Bay, a File-Sharing Site, Plans to Go Legal:

"Global Gaming Factory, a publicly traded company based in Stockholm, said it would pay 60 million Swedish kronor, or $7.75 million, for the [Pirate Bay] site and hoped to turn it into a legal source of free music, movies and other content, using a novel, untested business model.

It would be a radical change. The Pirate Bay, with its Jolly Roger logo, has been the music and movie industries’ most prominent target in the battle against illegal file-sharing. To keep content free but appease content owners, Global Gaming Factory wants to generate revenue from a new, ultra-fast file-sharing system that uses networks of computers to help move large digital files.

Mr. Pandeya said the network could be used to ease the strain on Internet service providers, which have complained that file-sharing traffic is clogging up their networks. He envisions charging Internet service providers. The Pirate Bay could also generate revenue from advertising, he said.

Some of the proceeds would be returned to copyright owners, he said, while participants who agreed to allow the use of their computers to help share files would also be paid...

Recording companies, however, have grown more flexible about the kinds of businesses they are willing to license. The Universal Music Group, for instance, recently announced an agreement with a British Internet service provider, Virgin Media, to make available unlimited downloads of music for a monthly fee, with no copyright protection...

But [Mr. Pandeya] said the company had no intention of violating copyrights. “It has to be legal from Day 1,” he said. “We are on the stock market; we can’t start playing games.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/technology/companies/01pirate.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=pirate%20bay&st=cse

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Software Firm Buys Swedish File-Sharing Site; New York Times, 6/30/09

AP via New York Times; Software Firm Buys Swedish File-Sharing Site:

"The Pirate Bay is one of the world’s largest file-sharing venues with more than 20 million users worldwide. In April, four men connected with the site were sentenced to one-year prison sentences for violations of copyright law.

A Swedish court found that the four had helped millions of people download copyright-protected material like films, music and computer games.

While the Pirate Bay doesn’t host copyright-protected material, it directs users to content such as films, music and computer games through so-called torrent files.

Global Gaming Factory X said it intended to start a new business model that will make it possible to compensate both content operators and copyright owners."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/technology/companies/01pirate.html?_r=1&hpw

Monday, May 25, 2009

Payoff Over a Web Sensation Is Elusive; New York Times, 5/24/09

Brian Stelter via The New York Times; Payoff Over a Web Sensation Is Elusive:

"[Susan Boyle] has already won a popularity contest on YouTube, where videos of her performances in April have been viewed an astounding 220 million times.

But until now, her runaway Web success has made little money for the program’s producers or distributors.

FremantleMedia Enterprises, a production company that owns the international digital rights to the talent show, hastily uploaded video clips to YouTube in the wake of Ms. Boyle’s debut, but the clips do not appear to be generating any advertising revenue for the company. The most popular videos of Ms. Boyle were not the official versions but rather copies of the TV show posted by individual users.

The case reflects the inability of big media companies to maximize profit from supersize Internet audiences that seem to come from nowhere. In essence, the complexities of TV production are curbing the Web possibilities. “Britain’s Got Talent” is produced jointly by three companies and distributed in Britain by a fourth, ITV, making it difficult to ascertain which of the companies can claim a video as its own...

YouTube, a unit of Google, has been keen to make money from its hulking library of online video by signing contracts with copyright owners and sharing the revenue from ads it sells before, during, after and alongside the videos. Major media companies have shown varying degrees of interest in these deals, in part because they are reticent to split much money with Google...

The broadcaster and producers allowed the copies to stay online because they created buzz for the program. The clips have received more than a half-million user comments.

The view counts continued to grow as people awaited Ms. Boyle’s next performance. Visible Measures, a company that tracks online video placements, said Ms. Boyle was responsible for the fastest-growing viral video in the roughly five-year history of Web video."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/business/media/25youtube.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&hpw=&adxnnlx=1243267357-yx358QnSV0PSvbz5bZMDwA

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

AT&T Learns From Mom in Fighting File Sharing, The New York Times, 3/26/09

Via The New York Times: AT&T Learns From Mom in Fighting File Sharing:

"For customers who continue to share files, the e-mail messages became tougher. Eventually, repeat offenders received certified letters. This repeated nagging did get most of the people who continued to share files after the first notice to stop.

“Then you are down to a handful of people who don’t care, who are 24/7 engaged in copyright theft,” he said. “At that point it is up to the copyright owner to determine the next steps.”

AT&T, however, did not and does not plan to take any action on its own against those customers, like canceling their service, even though they ignored repeated warnings.

We are not under any circumstances going to suspend or terminate any customer’s service as a result of a third-party allegation unless they have a court order,” Mr. Cicconi said. “The copyright owner has legal rights, and we are not going to be the agent to enforce their rights.”"

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/att-learns-from-mom-in-fighting-file-sharing/