Fair Use Is Not An Exception to Copyright, It’s Essential to Copyright; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 1/21/15

Corynne McSherry, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Fair Use Is Not An Exception to Copyright, It’s Essential to Copyright:

"Over the past two years, as talk of copyright reform has escalated, we’ve also heard complaints about the supposed expansion of fair use, or "fair use creep.” That kind of talk woefully misunderstands how fair use works.

Fair use provides breathing space in copyright law, making sure that control of the right to copy and distribute doesn’t become control of the right to create and innovate. New technologies and services depend on the creation of multiple copies as a matter of course. At the same time, copyright terms cover works many decades old and copyrighted software appears in more and more devices. Taken together, these developments mean the potential reach of copyright may extend ever further. Fair use makes sure that the rights of the public expand at the same time, so add-on creativity and innovation can continue to thrive. In other words, “fair use creep” is an essential corollary to “copyright creep.”"

Mein Kampf: The world’s most dangerous book?; BBC News, 1/13/15

Fiona Macdonald, BBC News; Mein Kampf: The world’s most dangerous book? :

"Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf falls out of copyright in Germany at the end of 2015. What will happen when authorities can no longer control its publication and distribution? A new BBC programme examines the issues."

Ford Tries to Shut Down Independent Repair Tool with Copyright; Electronic Frontier Foundation, 1/6/15

Kit Walsh, Electronic Frontier Foundation; Ford Tries to Shut Down Independent Repair Tool with Copyright:

"At EFF, we think people ought to be able to understand how their devices work and repair them without asking permission of the manufacturer. We also think independent repair companies should to be able to compete with manufacturers in the aftermarket. Simply put, you should be able to fix your stuff or choose someone you trust to do it for you.

The Ford Motor Company, however, takes a different view. It recently sued Autel, a manufacturer of third-party diagnostics for automobiles, for creating a diagnostic tool that includes a list of Ford car parts and their specifications. Ford claims that it owns a copyright on this list of parts, the "FFData file," and thus can keep competitors from including it in their diagnostic tools. It also claims that Autel violated the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by writing a program to defeat the "encryption technology and obfuscation" that Ford used to make the file difficult to read."

The Facebook ‘copyright notice’ hoax; Washington Post, 1/6/15

Alexandra Petri, Washington Post; The Facebook ‘copyright notice’ hoax:

"If you see friends on Facebook posting this — “In response to the new Facebook guidelines, I hereby declare that my copyright is attached to all of my personal details, illustrations, comics, paintings, professional photos and videos, etc. (as a result of the Berner Convention). For commercial use of the above my written consent is needed at all times!” — well, these words are as dust blown on the wind. They do not signify anything, legally speaking. For all the good that it will do you in terms of dealing with/weaseling out of/shaking off the uncomfortable coil of your contract with Facebook, you might as well type something like “DEAR FACEBOOK, I HEREBY CLAIM THIS LAND FOR SPAIN.”

As Andrew Noyes (a Facebook spokesman) said in a statement, according to ABC News, that “Under our terms (https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms), you grant Facebook permission to use, distribute, and share the things you post, subject to the terms and applicable privacy settings.”

You cannot simply announce that you do not want to abide by the permission you already granted. This is one case where you cannot revoke consent. As Snopes notes, “Facebook users cannot retroactively negate any of the privacy or copyright terms they agreed to when they signed up for their accounts, nor can they unilaterally alter or contradict any new privacy or copyright terms instituted by Facebook, simply by posting a contrary legal notice on their Facebook walls.”"

‘Game of Thrones’ Most Pirated Show For Third Straight Year; ComicBookResources.com, 12/29/14

TJ Dietsch, ComicBookResources.com; ‘Game of Thrones’ Most Pirated Show For Third Straight Year:

"Game of Thrones is the reigning champion, emerging as the most pirated television series for the third consecutive year. Not only does the HBO fantasy drama top TorrentFreak‘s 2014 list, but the estimated 8.1 million downloads rank higher than the 7.6 million legal viewers."

A Parody of a Mockumentary. Now That’s Meta; New York Times, 12/17/14

Suzy Evans, New York Times; A Parody of a Mockumentary. Now That’s Meta:

"And while Corky may have wished for mainstream recognition, Mr. Griggs realizes that the national spotlight might come at a cost.

“We don’t have any rights,” he said. “We’re doing it as a parody, and that’s worrisome.” He added that he is terrified about receiving a call from the movie studio. “I also know full well that it being in The New York Times, this’ll get us closed.”"

Rare Dylan Recordings Set for Release in Copyright-Extension Bid; New York Times, 12/5/14

Allan Kozinn, New York Times; Rare Dylan Recordings Set for Release in Copyright-Extension Bid:

"Thanksgiving has come and gone, and there’s a nip in the air — no question about it, European Copyright Extension season is upon us.

Since 2012, when the European Union passed a revised copyright law, extending the copyright on recordings from 50 years to 70 – but only if the recording was published during its first 50 years – record companies have been exploring their vaults for potentially marketable material in danger of losing its copyright protection if it is not released."

Grappling With the ‘Culture of Free’ in Napster’s Aftermath; New York Times, 12/7/14

Clyde Haberman, New York Times; Grappling With the ‘Culture of Free’ in Napster’s Aftermath:

"Napster did not last long, two years. But for a while at the dawn of this century it claimed to have 70 million registered users. It spawned a host of Internet music-swapping providers, more than a few of them falling on the dubious side of the law. Most important, it irrevocably altered not only the way in which Americans absorbed music but also their belief system in what they should pay. The conviction theologically held by many boiled down to a single word: nothing. “You have a generation of people now who expect their music for free,” Greg Hammer, managing director of Red Bull Records, a branch of the energy-drink company, told Retro Report. “It’s very difficult to change.”

The music industry is not alone in coming to terms with altered realities. As every sentient soul surely knows by now, the “culture of free” — words borrowed from the title of this week’s video — has turned the print world upside down, pushing newspapers, magazines and book publishers into a frantic search for financial safe harbors. With the advent of broad Internet use in the 1990s came a notion that information should be free. Never mind that the gathering and transmission of information can be a costly proposition and that (dirty word alert) money is needed if the survival of, say, a newspaper is to be ensured. As with music in Mr. Hammer’s observation, a generation now believes that the written word, whether on processed wood or in pixels, should come without charge."

Copyright Law Is Being Rewritten Right Now, and You Can Help; Wired.com, 12/8/14

Kyle Wiens, Wired.com; Copyright Law Is Being Rewritten Right Now, and You Can Help:

"Strap in, folks—because we’re about to talk copyright law. I’m aware that as soon as I string the words “copyright” and “law” together, eyes start to glaze over. I get it. Copyright law isn’t Kim-Kardashian’s-oiled-butt level stuff; it doesn’t break the internet. But important things hardly ever do. Believe it or not, copyright law is shaping up to be the next big battleground in technology. And its fundamentally redefining ownership.

Copyright isn’t just about pirating music or downloading DVDs anymore. Like a creature alive, copyright is evolving and expanding. Traditional “dumb” products are being replaced by an internet of things — and copyright is hitching along for the ride. Its DNA is being woven through the programming that powers your car, the firmware in your phone, the code in your kid’s talking teddy bear, and the software that calibrates your hearing aid."

Sirius XM Has Setback in Lawsuit; New York Times, 11/16/14

Ben Sisario, New York Times; Sirius XM Has Setback in Lawsuit:

"A federal judge in New York has ruled against Sirius XM over an obscure copyright issue that has galvanized the music industry: royalties for recordings made before 1972.

Sirius XM and Pandora Media have both been hit in the last year by a series of lawsuits over old recordings. Neither company pays record labels or performing artists on songs recorded before 1972, when federal copyright protection was first applied to recordings. (Both services, however, pay separate royalties for songwriting.)"

Leahy Introduces Same-Sex Copyright Inheritance Bill; Roll Call, 11/12/14

Anne L. Kim, Roll Call; Leahy Introduces Same-Sex Copyright Inheritance Bill:

"A bill introduced Wednesday would let spouses in same sex marriages inherit their each other’s copyrights regardless of whether or not the state where the copyright owner dies recognizes same-sex marriage."

Open Minds, Open Access; Inside Higher Ed, 10/22/14

Barbara Fister, Inside Higher Ed; Open Minds, Open Access:

"What I will say is that it seems wonderfully appropriate that we are thinking through the legal implications of this practice during Open Access Week. This annual event is in its eighth year and we have seen progress made. If you're not quite sure what open access means, the best two-minute explanation was written by Peter Suber and he explains it well, if not in as much depth as in his book about it. A lot of scholars now buy into the idea that it makes sense for their research to be available to all who have an internet connection, not just to those who are lucky enough to work at a research institution or have the resources to purchase all the books and articles they might want to look at.

There's a persistent misperception among many scholars that all open access publishing operations charge authors (most don't), that they are not peer reviewed (most are), and that they're run by scammers (yes, some scammers have set up faux publishing sites, but they're pretty obviously bogus. Rejecting all open access publications as a result is kind of like saying you will only accept messages that come on paper in an envelope with a stamp because email is a scam run by Spanish Prisoner crooks.)

One argument against open access that has never made sense to me is that the system we have works perfectly well and anyone who needs access to research already has it. Publishers have said this to members of the US Congress with a straight face. To me, this is a startlingly anti-intellectual stance."

Research Is Just the Beginning: A Free People Must Have Open Access to the Law; Electronic Frontier Foundation, 10/23/14

Corynne McSherry, Electronic Frontier Foundation; Research Is Just the Beginning: A Free People Must Have Open Access to the Law:

"The bad news: the specter of copyright has raised its ugly head. A group of standards-development organizations (SDOs) have banded together to sue Public.Resource.Org, accusing the site of infringing copyright by reproducing and publishing a host of safety codes that those organizations drafted and then lobbied heavily to have incorporated into law. These include crucial national standards like the national electrical codes and fire safety codes. Public access to such codes—meaning not just the ability to read them, but to publish and re-use them—can be crucial when there is an industrial accident; when there is a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina; or when a home-buyer wants to know whether her house is code-compliant. Publishing the codes online, in a readily accessible format, makes it possible for reporters and other interested citizens to not only view them easily, but also to search, excerpt, and generate new insights.

The SDOs argue that they hold a copyright on those laws because the standards began their existence in the private sector and were only later "incorporated by reference" into the law. That claim conflicts with the public interest, common sense, and the rule of law.

With help from EFF and others, Public.Resource.Org is fighting back, and the outcome of this battle will have a major impact on the public interest. If any single entity owns a copyright in the law, it can sell or ration the law, as well as make all sort of rules about when, where, and how we share it."

Downloading Music Is Quickly Going Out Of Fashion; HuffingtonPost.com, 10/24/14

Kerry Flynn, HuffingtonPost.com; Downloading Music Is Quickly Going Out Of Fashion:

"First records died, then cassette tapes, then CDs and now, downloads. That's right, we're all but officially in the age of streaming services. Apple might operate the largest online music store in the world, but the Apple Store's iTunes digital music sales have fallen about 13 percent this year, a source familiar with the matter tells the Wall Street Journal. The writing is on the wall."

Why We Need Bright Lines; Inside Higher Ed, 10/20/14

Joseph Storch, Inside Higher Ed; Why We Need Bright Lines:

"Frankly, the dueling decisions in these cases, and the numerous articles and statements by serious copyright scholars on both sides of this analysis, show that even those who steep themselves in the details of fair use can disagree on whether a certain use is fair or violative.

When intellectual property law experts cannot agree, we should not expect our history and math faculty to do justice to the fair use analysis each time.

Instead, faculty will divide into two camps. One group will “throw caution to the wind” and use whatever content they wish in whatever form they desire, hoping never to raise the ire of the publishing companies.

The other, out of an abundance of caution, will self-censor, and fail to make fair use of content for fear that they might step over a line they cannot possibly identify, and can never be certain of until a judge rules one way or the other. Either way, our students and the publishers lose out.""

Crooner in Rights Spat: Are copyright laws too strict?; New Yorker, 10/20/14

Louis Menand, New Yorker; Crooner in Rights Spat: Are copyright laws too strict? :

"This almost instinctive distinction between what is proper in the analog realm and what is proper in the digital realm is at the center of a global debate about the state of copyright law. Statutes protecting copyright have never been stricter; at the same time, every minute of every day, millions of people are making or using copies of material—texts, sounds, and images—that they didn’t create. According to an organization called Tru Optik, as many as ten billion files, including movies, television shows, and games, were downloaded in the second quarter of this year. Tru Optik estimates that approximately ninety-four per cent of those downloads were illegal. The law seems to be completely out of whack with the technology."

Cloud Computing Is Forcing a Reconsideration of Intellectual Property; New York Times, 10/11/14

Quentin Hardy, New York Times; Cloud Computing Is Forcing a Reconsideration of Intellectual Property:

"Almost overnight, our technology revolution is shaking up entire industries and remaking society. Don’t get caught up in the small stuff, though: Tech really is changing how we think about our ideas.

We’ve used ideas to sculpt the globe since the Industrial Revolution, thanks largely to the way we handle intellectual property. When machines, and machines to make identical machines, mass-produced reliably identical goods, it was because people understood the same set of instructions.

Mass-produced books, music and movies were possible, too. Like machine-making instructions, these items were made reliable and protected with laws of copyright, patent and trademark.

Now, according to people involved in the business of protecting ideas, all of that is set to change.

Software, lashing together thousands of computer servers into fast and flexible cloud-computing systems, is the reason. Clouds, wirelessly connected to more software in just about everything, make it possible to shift, remix and borrow from once separate industrial categories."

Rock ’n Roll Hall of Fame; New York Times, 10/14/14

Deb Amlen, New York Times; Rock ’n Roll Hall of Fame:

"The artist formerly known as Prince and who is apparently very sensitive about copyright has prevented any videos of “RASPBERRY BERET” from being played on YouTube."

Teenage Mutant Ninja Journal! Celebrating an Open Access Birthday; Scientific American, 10/20/14

Hilda Bastian, Scientific American; Teenage Mutant Ninja Journal! Celebrating an Open Access Birthday:

“The world of medical journals needs a fresh infusion of idealism.”

And with those words from PLOS founders, Mike Eisen, Pat Brown, and Harold Varmus, the first issue of PLOS Medicine launched 10 years ago today.

Its “mutant” superpower was being open access. Then – as now – it was bold, idealistic, and an active advocate for open science.

The year before, when PLOS had just arrived, Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet, wrote:

“An historic realignment of power is beginning to take place in scientific and medical journal publishing. Nobody is certain about the final outcome.”"

OPEN ACCESS WEEK @ Pitt, 2014

OPEN ACCESS WEEK @ Pitt, 2014

"Open Access Week, a global event now entering its seventh year, is an opportunity for the academic and research community to continue to learn about the potential benefits of Open Access, to share what they've learned with colleagues, and to help inspire wider participation to make Open Access a new norm in scholarship and research."

Celebrating Open Access Week: Research Should Be Free, Available, and Open; Electronic Frontier Foundation, 10/20/14

Electronic Frontier Foundation; Celebrating Open Access Week: Research Should Be Free, Available, and Open:

"Welcome to the eighth annual Open Access Week! We're joining an international community—researchers and students, doctors and patients, librarians and activists—to celebrate free and open access to knowledge. This is also a time to discuss the barriers and costs of keeping research and information locked up with restrictive licenses and publisher paywalls.

This week, we'll be blogging daily about various aspects of open access, as well as ways to get involved in the movement. Visit this page throughout the week to find a list of all our blog posts. If you have further questions, be sure to tune in on Thursday at 10 a.m. PT for a reddit AmA, where we’ll be joined by fellow advocates and researchers."

"Copy Me" episode 3: "Early Copyright History"; BoingBoing.net, 10/13/14

Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing.net; "Copy Me" episode 3: "Early Copyright History" :

"Alex writes, "It features censorship, hangings, dissent and criticism, a whole bunch of state and church control, angry queens, sad Stationers, and, of course, our terrible culprit: the printing press.""

Conservatives' copyright law changes could backfire; CBC, 10/14/14

Kady O'Malley, CBC News; Conservatives' copyright law changes could backfire:

"It's not hard to imagine the Conservative advertising department working overtime to come up with a new ad centred on a clip of Trudeau's now infamous comments.

If done right — and until Trudeau came along, that ad department had an excellent track record, at least as far as demolishing the credibility of Liberal leaders — a campaign focusing on Trudeau's most ungainly on-camera moments of late could at least start to make up for the time and money wasted in trying to depict him as Canada's new Prince of Pot.

But last spring, representatives from Canada's major broadcasters — CBC, Radio Canada, CTV, Rogers and Shaw, owner of Global — served notice to all political parties that they were seriously considering imposing a collective blackout on ads making use of their proprietary footage without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.

Under that policy, if the Conservative Party can't strike a deal with one of the networks that happened to be filming Trudeau at the time, they would likely find the ad blocked from the airwaves."

YouTube Has Paid $1 Billion to Copyright Holders Since 2007; NBCNews.com, 10/14/14

NBCNews.com; YouTube Has Paid $1 Billion to Copyright Holders Since 2007:

"YouTube has paid out a cool $1 billion to copyright holders since 2007, the company confirmed to NBC News. It's all part of YouTube's Content ID program, which, according to a Google spokesperson, scans 400 years' worth of content every single day for potential copyright issues...

The majority of Content ID's 500-plus partners decide to monetize instead of ban those videos, according to Google, which could explain why the entertainment industry shifted from complaining about YouTube to awarding it a Primetime Engineering Emmy Award in 2013."

Readers Debate Online Piracy and the Future of Digital Entertainment; New York Times, 9/29/14

Jenna Wortham, New York Times; Readers Debate Online Piracy and the Future of Digital Entertainment:

"On Sunday, The New York Times published the story of a popular — and illegal — website that let people stream and download movies and television shows at their leisure. The site was taken offline in 2010 by the federal government, and the administrators behind the site were charged with conspiracy and copyright infringement. Nearly all served time in prison. The article touched a nerve among Times readers, eliciting hundreds of reactions about copyright infringement and intellectual property, and how the digital world complicates both.

Here is a sampling of their comments..."

Supreme Court won’t intervene in Shuster-DC fight over Superman; ComicBookResources.com, 10/6/14

Kevin Melrose, ComicBookResources.com; Supreme Court won’t intervene in Shuster-DC fight over Superman:

"The U.S. Supreme Court this morning declined to intervene in the copyright dispute between the Joe Shuster Estate and DC Comics, effectively ending the long, and frequently bitter, battle over who owns Superman.

By denying the estate’s petition, the justices let stand a November 2013 ruling by the Ninth Circuit that Shuster’s nephew is prevented by a 1992 agreement with DC from reclaiming the artist’s stake in the first Superman story under a clause of the 1976 U.S. Copyright Act.

At issue was a now 22-year-old deal in which the Shuster estate relinquished all claims to the property in exchange for “more than $600,000 and other benefits,” which included paying Shuster’s debts following his death earlier that year and providing his sister Jean Peavy and brother Frank Shuster with a $25,000 annual pension."

Kirby vs. Marvel settlement: The King’s goal fulfilled; ComicBookResources.com, 10/1/14

Corey Blake, ComicBookResources.com; Kirby vs. Marvel settlement: The King’s goal fulfilled:

"Nearly one month after what would’ve been Jack Kirby’s 97th birthday, the announcement was made: Concluding a five-year copyright battle, and decades of contention about credit and compensation, Marvel and the Kirby family revealed Friday that they had reached a settlement, just ahead of a conference to decide whether the U.S. Supreme Court would take up the case.

“Marvel and the family of Jack Kirby have amicably resolved their legal disputes,” they said in a joint statement, “and are looking forward to advancing their shared goal of honoring Mr. Kirby’s significant role in Marvel’s history.”

This is, without question, excellent news, and cause for celebration.

As is typical with settlements, the terms of their agreement aren’t made public, and the one-sentence statement gives no indication of how Kirby’s significant role in Marvel’s history will be honored."

Grooveshark employees are guilty of copyright infringement, judge rules; Guardian, 9/30/14

Samuel Gibbs, Guardian; Grooveshark employees are guilty of copyright infringement, judge rules:

"Griesa pointed to an internal memo sent in 2007 where Greenberg asked employees to “please share as much music as possible from outside the office” to help the service get off the ground.

“By overtly instructing its employees to upload as many files as possible to Grooveshark as a condition of their employment, Escape engaged in purposeful conduct with a manifest intent to foster copyright infringement via the Grooveshark service,” Griesa wrote.

Griesa gave the parties 21 days to reach agreement to stop further infringement.

“Escape respectfully disagrees with the court’s decision, and is currently assessing its next steps, including the possibility of an appeal,” John Rosenberg, a partner at Rosenberg & Giger representing the defendants told Reuters.

The ruling opens the door to a multimillion-pound damages suit from the record labels, who are keen to see the service shut down, calling it a “linear descendant” of file sharing services Grokster, LimeWire and Napster all of whom have been shutdown over copyright infringement."

For Bill on Disabled Access to Online Teaching Materials, the Devil’s in the Details; Chronicle of Higher Education, 9/30/14

Rebecca Koenig, Chronicle of Higher Education; For Bill on Disabled Access to Online Teaching Materials, the Devil’s in the Details:

"As smart classrooms become the norm on more campuses and online courses proliferate, some observers worry that the digital revolution will leave students with disabilities behind. But a bill under consideration in the U.S. Congress, the Technology, Equality, and Accessibility in College and Higher Education Act (HR 3505), would deal with that concern by creating accessibility guidelines for electronic materials used or assigned by college professors and administrators.

While the bill, known as the Teach Act, has bipartisan support in Congress, several higher-education organizations have raised concerns about what they consider the legislation’s broad language, inflexibility, and misplaced oversight."

Kurt Busiek Breaks Down the Marvel/Jack Kirby Legal Battle; ComicBookResources.com, 10/1/14

Steve Sunu, ComicBookResources.com; Kurt Busiek Breaks Down the Marvel/Jack Kirby Legal Battle:

"Additionally, Busiek posits a theory as to why Marvel decided to settle -- and it has to do with various organizations, including the Writer's Guild, the Director's Guild, the Screen Actor's Guild and more, filing amicus briefs that argued Marvel's current definition of employee is "not workable."

"[I]f the Supreme Court upholds it, it'll create chaos for other industries, where things that used to be classed as rights sales suddenly got redefined as work for hire. So they wanted the Supreme Court to hear the case and decide that no, the rules of work for hire don't work that way.

"And that's where things sat until Friday, when Marvel and the Kirbys settled, on the last possible business day before the Supreme Court started discussing whether to take the case.

"Based on that, it sure doesn't look like Marvel's throwing the Kirbys a few bucks to go away. If that's what they wanted to do, they could have done that any time within the last few years. Whoever blinked, it was the side that had the most to lose if the case went to the Supreme Court and risked a ruling they didn't like."

New UK Copyright Exception Allows Mashups -- But Only If Judges Think They Are Funny; TechDirt.com, 10/1/14

Glyn Moody, TechDirt.com; New UK Copyright Exception Allows Mashups -- But Only If Judges Think They Are Funny:

"Leaving aside the fact that judges tend to be somewhat advanced in years, and are therefore likely to have a very different idea from young creative artists of what "funny" means, there is also the point that this narrow definition excludes a huge class of mashups that aren't even intended to be funny, just creative."

How Copyright Law Protects Art From Criticism; Pacific Standard, 9/29/14

Noah Berlatsky, Pacific Standard; How Copyright Law Protects Art From Criticism:

"Oliver Wendell Holmes is right—judges aren’t necessarily going to be experts on, or very thoughtful about, aesthetic issues. Courts have to consider aesthetics in copyright law, but the result is often going to be messy and painful and often even unjust. There isn’t any way out of that.

However, there is a change that could ameliorate the situation to some extent. Gone With the Wind was published in 1936. That means that it’s 78 years old. The first American copyright act of 1790 allowed for a copyright term of 14 years, which could be renewed for another 14-year term if the author was alive. If that original law was still in effect, Gone With the Wind would have gone out of copyright almost 50 years ago. For that matter, Star Wars, Star Trek, Spider-Man, Faulkner’s oeuvre, and Stephen King’s early books would all be out of copyright. If you wanted to do a parody or sequel to any of those, no court would have to rule on the aesthetic value of anything. It wouldn’t matter if a court believed Stephen King’s work was canonical, or if they thought Faulkner’s racial views deserved to be undermined and questioned. When a work is out of copyright, it’s aesthetic value, or lack thereof, is irrelevant. Whether it’s great or whether it’s awful, the work is fair game for parodists, remixers, piraters of cheap editions, and anyone else."

Ridiculous Ruling Says University Can't Release Course Syllabi Because That Would Violate Professors' Copyright; Forbes, 9/29/14

George Leef, Forbes; Ridiculous Ruling Says University Can't Release Course Syllabi Because That Would Violate Professors' Copyright:

"On August 26, a Missouri appeals court held that course syllabi are protected by federal copyright law. That trumps the state’s Sunshine Law, so the court ruled that the university is correct in refusing to allow NCTQ or anyone else to have copies. NCTQ will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Missouri...

On legal grounds, the University of Missouri’s refusal to release the syllabi looks very shaky. Do professors really hold copyright over their syllabi?

One expert in copyright law, Chapman University law professor Tom Bell, thinks not. In an email to me, he wrote, “While debate continues over whether scholarship prepared in the course of employment with a university falls within the work-for-hire doctrine, there can be little doubt that syllabi do, meaning that the copyrights in them vest in the university rather than the professor.”

Another reason for believing that the court’s ruling is incorrect is the “fair use” exception to copyright. Under “fair use,” people are permitted to make reasonable use of copyrighted material. Among the factors that are to be considered are whether the use is for a non-profit educational purpose and how the use would affect the market value of the work. Here, the analysis to be done on the syllabi is for a non-profit educational purpose (assessing the quality of the education school courses), and it has no impact at all on the market value of the syllabi, which is zero."

Parody copyright laws set to come into effect; BBC News, 9/29/14

BBC News; Parody copyright laws set to come into effect:

"Changes to UK legislation are to come into force later this week allowing the parody of copyright works.

Under current rules, there has been a risk of being sued for breach of copyright if clips of films, TV shows or songs were used without consent.

But the new European Copyright Directive will allow the use of the material so long as it is fair and does not compete with the original version.

The new law will come into effect on 1 October.

Owners of the copyrighted works will only be able to sue if the parody conveys a discriminatory message.

It would then be down to a judge to decide if the parody is funny.

"The only, and essential, characteristics of parody are, on the one hand, to evoke an existing work while being noticeably different from it and, on the other, to constitute an expression of humour or mockery," the EU rules state.

"If a parody conveys a discriminatory message (for example, by replacing the original characters with people wearing veils and people of colour), the holders of the rights to the work parodied have, in principle, a legitimate interest in ensuring that their work is not associated with such a message.""

The Unrepentant Bootlegger; New York Times, 9/27/14

Jenna Wortham, New York Times; The Unrepentant Bootlegger:

"To the government, Ms. Beshara was a thief, plain and simple. The Motion Picture Association of America alerted the federal government to NinjaVideo and nine other movie-streaming sites, and they all went dark at the same time. The raids were carried out by several federal agencies working to combat counterfeiting and piracy, and the scale of the operation was meant to send a warning that the government wasn’t ignoring the freewheeling world of illegal online streaming and downloading.

Ms. Beshara, however, still can’t accept that what she was doing deserved the heavy hammer of the law. She served 16 months in prison for conspiracy and criminal copyright infringement, but she still talks about NinjaVideo as something grand. It was a portal that spirited her away from the doldrums of her regular life as a receptionist living with her parents to an online community that regarded her as its queen. Sure, she showed movies that were still playing in theaters, but it seemed like harmless, small-stakes fun.

“In hindsight — I know it’s naïve — but I never imagined it going criminal,” she said. “It didn’t seem like it was something to be bothered with. Even if it is wrong.”

She is not the only one who feels that way. It has proved very difficult to reverse a pervasive cultural nonchalance about what constitutes intellectual property theft on the web. Despite the government crackdown in 2010 and subsequent efforts to unplug websites that host or link to illegal content, new sites have emerged that filled the void that NinjaVideo left behind.

Online piracy is thriving. File-sharing, most of it illegal, still amounts to nearly a quarter of all consumer Internet traffic, according to Cisco Systems’ Visual Networking Index. And a recent report from Tru Optik, a media analytics firm, said that nearly 10 billion movies, television shows and other files, including games and pornography, were downloaded globally in the second quarter of 2014. Tru Optik estimates that about 6 percent of those downloads were legal. In July, a high-quality version of “The Expendables 3,” the Sylvester Stallone action comedy film, surfaced online and was downloaded millions of times, well before its release in theaters."

A Stolen Video of My Daughter Went Viral. Here’s What I Learned; New York Times, 9/26/14

Carrie Goldman, New York Times; A Stolen Video of My Daughter Went Viral. Here’s What I Learned:

"In early September, someone downloaded my video of Cleo, stripped it of all identifying information, changed the title from “Cleo on Equality” to “Wisdom of a 4-Year-Old”, and re-uploaded it to YouTube, passing it off as his or her own video. A woman in Amsterdam posted an embedded version of the stolen video to her Facebook page, from which it went viral. Within a matter of days, the stripped-down version of the video had been shared over 80,000 times.

I only learned about it when the pirated video began appearing in the news feed of people who recognized Cleo and noticed that it was not linked to any of my accounts. I felt sick on multiple levels. I have always known, of course, that the mere act of uploading a video to any digital site means potentially losing control over that content. But now it had happened, and even though the shares appeared to be harmless — approving, even — it was still terrifying. What if someone decided to do something creepy with it?

There was also a part of me that saw all the comments lauding Cleo’s grasp of acceptance, and I wanted those people to be linked back to my anti-bullying work. I missed the opportunity to share what I do for a living with a wide audience. I was sad and confused. Was I upset because the video was out there being viewed by tons of strangers, or was I upset because it was out there and I wasn’t getting credit? Both, probably...

I knew I had rights under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Since I speak to students and teachers all the time about good digital citizenship, I knew what steps to take next:

• Do not retaliate against someone online

• Take a screen shot and record the evidence

• Use this online form to report the violation to Facebook.

• Use this online form to report a copyright infringement on YouTube."

Bugging out: How rampant online piracy squashed one insect photographer; Ars Technica, 9/24/14

Alex Wild, Ars Technica; Bugging out: How rampant online piracy squashed one insect photographer:

"Here is a true story about how copyright infringement costs my small photography business thousands of dollars every year.

Or, maybe it isn’t. It could also be a true story of how copyright infringement earns me thousands of dollars every year. I can’t be sure. Either way, this is definitely the story of how copyright infringement takes up more of my time than I wish to devote to it. Copyright infringement drains my productivity to the point where I create hundreds fewer images each year. And it's why, in part, I am leaving professional photography for an academic position less prone to the frustrations of a floundering copyright system."

Marvel & Jack Kirby Family Settle Long-Running Legal Dispute; ComicBookResources.com, 9/26/14

ComicBookResources.com; Marvel & Jack Kirby Family Settle Long-Running Legal Dispute:

"Deadline reports that Marvel and the family of Jack Kirby have settled their legal battle in advance of the Supreme Court taking the case into conference. A joint statement has been released and reads as follows:

"Marvel and the family of Jack Kirby have amicably resolved their legal disputes, and are looking forward to advancing their shared goal of honoring Mr. Kirby’s significant role in Marvel’s history.""

Behind the Groundbreaking Design of Aphex Twin’s Record Covers; New York Times, 9/22/14

Andy Beta, New York Times; Behind the Groundbreaking Design of Aphex Twin’s Record Covers:

"Tomorrow sees the release of “Syro,” a double album on the pioneering electronic label Warp Records that finds the reclusive genius — now a father of two living in rural Scotland — at his mischievous, beat-twisting best. (It can be streamed here in its entirety; a Spotify account is required.) The record also shares a lineage with the eye-catching, face-distorting cover art of releases like 1997’s “Come to Daddy” and 1999’s “Windowlicker,” again finding James collaborating with the groundbreaking firm The Designers Republic (TDR) on the visuals. Here, the collective’s founder and creative director, Ian Anderson, chats with T about the thought process behind some of Aphex Twin’s most iconic cover art...

“Come to Daddy Remixed” (1997) “For us the key elements in the ‘Come to Daddy’ art were the typographic deconstructions of the photographic imagery and of the TV ad for Orange Mobile, which had used one of the Aphex Twin remix tracks. For copyright reasons we weren’t allowed to show an image of the art, so we reduced the ad to a short descriptive text in reversed white out of orange.”

SiriusXM Copyright Battle: What Does the Latest Ruling Mean for Digital Music?; Billboard, 9/23/14

Ed Christman, Billboard; SiriusXM Copyright Battle: What Does the Latest Ruling Mean for Digital Music? :

"The U.S. Federal Court decision that SiriusXM violated the Turtles' pre-1972 master copyrights by playing their music without licensing it or paying performance royalties is a big win for the music industry, but does it have meaning beyond California where the legal battle took place?

Like all lawsuit decisions, the ruling may have legal implications for other ongoing court cases, but the ruling has just decided a battle, not the war.

That war centers on whether SiriusXM and other digital music services like Pandora, have the right to play pre-1972 recorded music without licensing nor paying royalties to record labels and the artists because -- those services argue -- the master recording copyright didn't exist until 1972 in federal law. Digital service, as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, must pay master recordings rights-holders and music publishers for broadcast, unlike terrestrial radio, which only has to pay royalties to publishers. But Sirius only pays for recordings created after 1972 when federal law recognized the master recording copyright."

‘Let’s Take a #Selfie,’ Said the Monkey: A Case of Questionable Copyrights; Wired, 9/18/14

Anderson J. Duff, Wired; ‘Let’s Take a #Selfie,’ Said the Monkey: A Case of Questionable Copyrights:

"The United States Copyright Office chimed in with its two cents in the recently published third edition of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices – the first revision in over two decades. While prior publications were largely internal, the third edition is a push to make the practices and standards of the Copyright Office more timely and transparent while providing guidance on some fundamental principles of copyright law. Its verdict? Monkey selfies can’t be copyrighted.

In the age of hyperconnected, always-on, muploads, likes and hashtags, how does intellectual property fit into the equation? How do we define “ownership” when pieces of content — especially images — are continuously created and uploaded into the public domain in a matter of seconds? As preteens, celebrities, President Obama, the Pope — and now, yes, even monkeys — jump on the selfie train, we may not think twice before uploading photos to Instagram or Facebook. But one filter we rarely consider is looking at the world through copyrights."

Apple and Amazon Take Baby Steps Toward Digital Sharing; New York Times, 9/18/14

Molly Wood, New York Times; Apple and Amazon Take Baby Steps Toward Digital Sharing:

"In the physical world, you can share a book or DVD or CD that you bought with as many friends and family as you like. You can even sell those items if you want, thanks to the first sale doctrine.

But digital media has been excluded from that doctrine, because, essentially, when you buy a digital song or movie or book, you’re being granted a license to use that media, but you don’t actually own it.

As a result, there are far more restrictions on what you can do with an MP3 than on what you can do with a CD...

So, while Family Sharing and Family Library seem like a victory at first, “to me, this is really a failure of our copyright law,” said Corynne McSherry, who heads intellectual property policy research at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

“It presupposes that the content owners should be able to have that kind of control over what they buy,” she said. “Copyright law isn’t changing with our times, because what doesn’t change is that people want to be able to give someone a copy of a book or song that they legally bought.”

“The fact is,” Ms. McSherry said, “that we need Amazon or Apple to have elaborate license agreements in order to make it possible for their customers to be able to do what they should be able to do anyway.”"

Online Renegade, Wanted in U.S., Shakes Up New Zealand Election; New York Times, 9/18/14

Jonathan Hutchison, New York Times; Online Renegade, Wanted in U.S., Shakes Up New Zealand Election:

"It was not an ordinary political rally, but it has been anything but an ordinary election.

The hundreds of people who packed Auckland Town Hall on a recent evening were regaled by speeches by Glenn Greenwald, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist; Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder; and Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, the last two appearing by Internet video link. Mr. Greenwald and Mr. Snowden said the New Zealand government had carried out, or at least participated in, mass domestic surveillance.

But at the center of the show was the event’s organizer, Kim Dotcom, an Internet entrepreneur accused of mass copyright theft whose fledgling Internet Party stands a chance at winning seats in Parliament in the national elections on Saturday.

“We are going to work really, really hard to stop this country from participating in mass surveillance,” Mr. Dotcom told the crowd. “And we’ll close one of the Five Eyes,” he added, referring to the intelligence alliance that consists of Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. The crowd erupted in cheers."

Murdoch renews hostilities with Google over 'contempt' for copyright; Telegraph, 9/18/14

Christopher Williams, Telegraph; Murdoch renews hostilities with Google over 'contempt' for copyright:

" Rupert Murdoch has intervened in a European row over the power of Google, with News Corp accusing the search engine of being "contemptuous of intellectual property" and having "cynical management" that provides "a platform for piracy and the spread of malicious networks".

In a letter to Joaquin Almunia, the European Commissioner at the head of a long-running investigation of allegations that Google abuses its dominance of the web search market to crush competition and exploit publishers, Robert Thomson, chief executive of News Corp launched a scathing attack."

How Open Data Is Transforming City Life; Forbes, 9/12/14

Joel Gurin, Forbes; How Open Data Is Transforming City Life:

"Start a business. Manage your power use. Find cheap rents, or avoid crime-ridden neighborhoods. Cities and their citizens worldwide are discovering the power of “open data”—public data and information available from government and other sources that can help solve civic problems and create new business opportunities. By opening up data about transportation, education, health care, and more, municipal governments are helping app developers, civil society organizations, and others to find innovative ways to tackle urban problems. For any city that wants to promote entrepreneurship and economic development, open data can be a valuable new resource.

The urban open data movement has been growing for several years, with American cities including New York, San Francisco, Chicago, and Washington in the forefront. Now an increasing number of government officials, entrepreneurs, and civic hackers are recognizing the potential of open data. The results have included applications that can be used across many cities as well as those tailored to an individual city’s needs."

Top 10 political copyright infringements.Stuff.co.nz, 9/17/14

Liam Hyslop, Stuff.co.nz; Top 10 political copyright infringements:

" Many candidates use tracks without permission in the hopes the artist will not notice and then, when they are inevitably caught out, issue an apology.

It seems to have become increasingly common in recent years, with 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain having no fewer than six artists asking him to not use their music.

In light of all of that, here is our top 10 list of political copyright infringements."

Pitt sets deadline for transfer of intellectual property rights; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/12/14

Bill Schackner, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Pitt sets deadline for transfer of intellectual property rights:

"Asked if researchers must transfer intellectual property rights to campuses in return for federal funding, the National Institutes of Health Office of Extramural Research provided a three-paragraph statement that said signed agreements verifying compliance with Bayh-Dole are required. The language did not appear to specifically address transferring intellectual property rights to universities.

The faculty assembly Tuesday passed a resolution drafted by the Tenure and Academic Freedom Committee asking Ms. Beeson and Pitt Chancellor Patrick Gallagher to slow down the process to allow faculty and administrators to jointly address the ramifications.

Barry Gold, pharmacy faculty member and co-chairman of the Tenure and Academic Freedom Committee, said he has heard from a couple of investigators who are refusing to sign and others with concerns. Pitt administrators and Michael Spring, president of the faculty assembly, have said the agreements would be subject to the existing campus policies and therefore no additional rights would seem to be ceded, but some have asked what happens if the policies change, Mr. Gold said. “Does that mean we would get to re-sign those agreements?”

Asked his reaction to Monday’s memo, Mr. Gold replied: “I don’t know what to say other than this is just another effort to steamroll faculty into signing.”"

Questions raised about intellectual property rights at Pitt; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/11/14

Bill Schackner, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Questions raised about intellectual property rights at Pitt:

"The University of Pittsburgh is telling all faculty and nonclerical staff they must sign agreements stating they “irrevocably assign and transfer to the university my rights, title and interest to all intellectual property” they develop while employed there.

The administration says the agreements simply reflect existing campus intellectual property policies and that the signatures have become necessary to obtain federal research funding because of a 2011 Supreme Court case that Pitt says requires schools not only to have policies but also confirmation that employees will abide by them.

But an official with the American Association of University Professors, which has seen a number of agreements drafted by schools since the Stanford vs. Roche decision, said Wednesday such signatures are not a requirement to secure grant funding. Forcing faculty to sign them is a violation of academic freedom, said Cary Nelson, AAUP’s immediate past president."

How copyright became the best defense against revenge porn; Washington Post, 9/8/14

Caitlin Dewey, Washington Post; How copyright became the best defense against revenge porn:

"Reddit had, in effect, just learned a lesson that revenge-porn activists, attorneys and victims have known for years: Despite the obvious privacy violations, the apparent harassment, and — in many cases, including this one — the overwhelming evidence of computer crimes, the quickest, easiest way to get compromising images off the Internet is frequently copyright law.

“It’s the path of least resistance,” explains Amanda Levendowski, a recent graduate of NYU Law who has written extensively on revenge porn and copyright. “I wouldn’t say it’s the best solution, and it’s not a perfect fit, but it does do what victims want.”

“Doing what victims want” — a.k.a., getting their misappropriated images off the Internet — turns out to be a messy, labyrinthine legal goal. For one thing, Levendowski says, every revenge porn case is different: some photos are selfies and some aren’t; some were hacked and some were uploaded by exes; some victims are under 18, and some are well over it. Different laws and legal concepts apply in each of those cases, which makes any kind of comprehensive approach impossible."

Reddit and 4chan Begin to Button Up; New York Times, 9/8/14

Mike Isaac, New York Times; Reddit and 4chan Begin to Button Up:

"Reddit said its moderators were unable to keep up with a torrent of requests under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to remove the images, made by those who own rights to the photos. After a moderator removed a post in response to a D.M.C.A. request, another post would pop up in its place. Taking down the entire forums, Reddit said, was the only way to avoid playing a never-ending game of “whack-a-mole.”

The moves came amid an continuing debate over the role websites play in hosting objectionable content online, and how much user-generated content platforms should or should not interfere with what their users post. Twitter, for instance, has faced increasing pressure to protect users from abuse and hate speech on its service, while YouTube has been used at times for distribution of horrifying videos.

Despite its content removal, Reddit continues to maintain its hard-line stance on issues of free speech, even as it decided to take down the forums in question. The company said it had always dealt with D.M.C.A. removal requests by redirecting rights holders to the companies that host the photos on their servers. It has also held a zero-tolerance policy toward some content, such as child pornography.

“We uphold the ideal of free speech on Reddit as much as possible not because we are legally bound to,” said Yishan Wong, Reddit’s chief executive, but because the company believes that the user “has the right to choose between right and wrong, good and evil,” and that it is the user’s responsibility to do so. His company blog post was titled “Every Man Is Responsible for His Own Soul.”"