Andrew Jacobs, New York Times; Google Apologizes to Chinese Authors:
" Google has agreed to hand over a list of books by Chinese authors that it has scanned in recent years, company executives said on Monday, in an apparent effort to placate writers who say their works were digitized without their permission.
In a letter sent to an association of 8,000 Chinese writers, Google also apologized for any misunderstanding that might have angered authors and said it would work to forge an agreement on digitizing books by early summer.
“We definitely agree that we haven’t done a sufficient job in communicating with Chinese writers,” Erik Hartmann, who runs the Asia-Pacific division of Google Books, wrote in a letter to the China Writers’ Association, which posted the letter Sunday on its Web site."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/technology/companies/12google.html?hpw
Monday, January 11, 2010
Kirby family attorneys respond to Marvel lawsuit; ComicBookResources.com, 1/9/10
Kevin Melrose, ComicBookResources.com; Kirby family attorneys respond to Marvel lawsuit:
"Attorneys for the heirs of Jack Kirby call Marvel's assertion that the late artist's contributions were work made for hire "a standard claim predictably made by comic book companies to deprive artists, writers and other talent of all rights in their work."
The statement comes in response to a lawsuit filed Friday by Marvel asking for a judge to invalidate 45 copyright-termination notices issued in September related to such creations as the Fantastic Four, the Incredible Hulk, Thor, The Avengers, the X-Men and Spider-Man.
Marvel maintains that Kirby's work for the company was "for hire," invalidating the claims of his four children.
However, a press release issued late Friday by Kirby attorneys Toberoff & Associates points out that Marvel was unsuccessful when it made a similar argument in its legal battle with Joe Simon concerning Captain America.
"The truth is that Jack Kirby was his own man," the release states. "Like so many artists in the fledgling comic book industry of the late 1950's/early 1960's, Kirby worked with Marvel out of his own house as a free-lancer with no employment contract, no financial or other security, nor any other indicia of employment. ... Kirby's wonderful creations, which leapt from the page, were not Marvel's 'assignments,' but were instead authored by Kirby under his own steam and then published by Marvel. It was not until 1972 that Kirby by contract granted Marvel the copyrights to his works. It is to this grant that the Kirby family's statutory notices of termination apply."
According to Toberoff & Associates, the Kirby terminations would become effective beginning in 2014. However, it's unclear to which property that date refers. (What notable Kirby co-creations debuted at Marvel in 1958?)
When Congress increased the duration of copyright, lawmakers included a provision that, after a lengthy waiting period, permits authors or their heirs or estates to terminate the grant of rights. However, if the property is determined to be "work made for hire," the copyright would belong to the company that commissioned it."
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/01/kirby-family-attorneys-respond-to-marvel-lawsuit/
"Attorneys for the heirs of Jack Kirby call Marvel's assertion that the late artist's contributions were work made for hire "a standard claim predictably made by comic book companies to deprive artists, writers and other talent of all rights in their work."
The statement comes in response to a lawsuit filed Friday by Marvel asking for a judge to invalidate 45 copyright-termination notices issued in September related to such creations as the Fantastic Four, the Incredible Hulk, Thor, The Avengers, the X-Men and Spider-Man.
Marvel maintains that Kirby's work for the company was "for hire," invalidating the claims of his four children.
However, a press release issued late Friday by Kirby attorneys Toberoff & Associates points out that Marvel was unsuccessful when it made a similar argument in its legal battle with Joe Simon concerning Captain America.
"The truth is that Jack Kirby was his own man," the release states. "Like so many artists in the fledgling comic book industry of the late 1950's/early 1960's, Kirby worked with Marvel out of his own house as a free-lancer with no employment contract, no financial or other security, nor any other indicia of employment. ... Kirby's wonderful creations, which leapt from the page, were not Marvel's 'assignments,' but were instead authored by Kirby under his own steam and then published by Marvel. It was not until 1972 that Kirby by contract granted Marvel the copyrights to his works. It is to this grant that the Kirby family's statutory notices of termination apply."
According to Toberoff & Associates, the Kirby terminations would become effective beginning in 2014. However, it's unclear to which property that date refers. (What notable Kirby co-creations debuted at Marvel in 1958?)
When Congress increased the duration of copyright, lawmakers included a provision that, after a lengthy waiting period, permits authors or their heirs or estates to terminate the grant of rights. However, if the property is determined to be "work made for hire," the copyright would belong to the company that commissioned it."
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/01/kirby-family-attorneys-respond-to-marvel-lawsuit/
World's Fair Use Day; 1/12/10
World's Fair Use Day:
"World’s Fair Use Day (WFUD) is a free, all-day celebration of the doctrine of fair use: the legal right that allows innovators and creators to make particular uses of copyrighted materials. WFUD will take place at the Newseum in Washington D.C. on Tuesday January 12, 2010, and will be organized by Public Knowledge (PK), a Washington D.C.-based non-profit, consumer-advocacy group. PK works to ensure that communications and intellectual property policies encourage creativity, further free expression and discourse and provide universal access to knowledge. As part of its campaign to return balance to copyright law, PK hopes to use WFUD to educate the public about the importance of fair use in an information society.
WFUD will be widely attended and will provide attendees with a unique opportunity to network with policymakers, artists, academics, business innovators, media professionals, press, and consumer advocates."
http://worldsfairuseday.org/Worlds_Fair_Use_Day/Worlds_Fair_Use_Day.html
"World’s Fair Use Day (WFUD) is a free, all-day celebration of the doctrine of fair use: the legal right that allows innovators and creators to make particular uses of copyrighted materials. WFUD will take place at the Newseum in Washington D.C. on Tuesday January 12, 2010, and will be organized by Public Knowledge (PK), a Washington D.C.-based non-profit, consumer-advocacy group. PK works to ensure that communications and intellectual property policies encourage creativity, further free expression and discourse and provide universal access to knowledge. As part of its campaign to return balance to copyright law, PK hopes to use WFUD to educate the public about the importance of fair use in an information society.
WFUD will be widely attended and will provide attendees with a unique opportunity to network with policymakers, artists, academics, business innovators, media professionals, press, and consumer advocates."
http://worldsfairuseday.org/Worlds_Fair_Use_Day/Worlds_Fair_Use_Day.html
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Lawsuit accuses Fox News of copyright infringement; Yahoo News, 1/8/09
Anthony McCartney, Yahoo News; Lawsuit accuses Fox News of copyright infringement:
"A former adviser to Michael Jackson sued Fox News on Thursday for copyright infringement, claiming the cable channel aired portions of an interview with the singer's ex-wife without proper payment or permission.
The lawsuit in federal court by producer F. Marc Schaffel seeks damages from Fox News for airing portions of the 2003 interview with Debbie Rowe after Jackson's death in June. The filing states the interview made up a significant amount of Geraldo Rivera's July 5 show.
Schaffel, who once sued Jackson and won a judgment against him, owns the copyright to the Rowe interview. Portions of the interview were aired on the Fox network in 2003 as part of a special intended to balance out a damaging interview aired earlier that year.
A spokesman for Fox News, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., said the channel does not comment on pending litigation. The lawsuit states Fox News has claimed a "fair use" right to air the footage as part of news programming.
The filing chides Murdoch, who has threatened to sue the British Broadcasting Corp. and others for copyright infringement because he claims they are stealing content from his company's newspapers.
"Fox sanctimoniously operates unencumbered by the very copyright restrictions it seeks to impose on its competitors," the lawsuit states."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100108/ap_en_ot/us_jackson_interview_lawsuit
"A former adviser to Michael Jackson sued Fox News on Thursday for copyright infringement, claiming the cable channel aired portions of an interview with the singer's ex-wife without proper payment or permission.
The lawsuit in federal court by producer F. Marc Schaffel seeks damages from Fox News for airing portions of the 2003 interview with Debbie Rowe after Jackson's death in June. The filing states the interview made up a significant amount of Geraldo Rivera's July 5 show.
Schaffel, who once sued Jackson and won a judgment against him, owns the copyright to the Rowe interview. Portions of the interview were aired on the Fox network in 2003 as part of a special intended to balance out a damaging interview aired earlier that year.
A spokesman for Fox News, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., said the channel does not comment on pending litigation. The lawsuit states Fox News has claimed a "fair use" right to air the footage as part of news programming.
The filing chides Murdoch, who has threatened to sue the British Broadcasting Corp. and others for copyright infringement because he claims they are stealing content from his company's newspapers.
"Fox sanctimoniously operates unencumbered by the very copyright restrictions it seeks to impose on its competitors," the lawsuit states."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100108/ap_en_ot/us_jackson_interview_lawsuit
A case of Holmesophobia?; (London) Guardian, 1/6/10
Ben Walters, (London) Guardian; A case of Holmesophobia?:
"Sir Arthur Conan Doyle famously had a soft spot for fairies. The same cannot, it seems, be said of the keepers of his literary flame – not, at least, of Andrea Plunket, who lays claim to the remaining US copyrights relating to Conan Doyle's most iconic creation.
According to IMDB, Plunket has reacted with fury to Robert Downey Jr's suggestion on The Late Show with David Letterman that Sherlock Holmes, whom he plays in Guy Ritchie's film, could be perceived as "a very butch homosexual". Introducing a clip in which Holmes lets off some steam bare-knuckle boxing after offending Watson, Downey also floated the possibility that Rachel McAdams's character, with whom the detective is apparently besotted, "could be a beard. Who knows?"
"I hope this is just an example of Mr Downey's black sense of humour," Plunket reportedly fumed in an interview with Total Film. "It would be drastic, but I would withdraw permission for more films to be made if they feel that is a theme they wish to bring out in the future. I am not hostile to homosexuals, but I am to anyone who is not true to the spirit of the books."
It's hard to think of the last time so much befuddled, hateful knee-jerk reaction was funnelled into so few words. Oh, wait, no, it isn't – Jan Moir's Daily Mail article on Stephen Gately will be hard to top on that front for some time. Still, Plunket does awfully well, insisting that the idea of a beloved character being gay is not just a joke but a sick joke before offering a declaration of tolerance to stand alongside "I've nothing against black people" and "Don't get me wrong, I love women"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2010/jan/06/sherlock-holmes-homophobia
"Sir Arthur Conan Doyle famously had a soft spot for fairies. The same cannot, it seems, be said of the keepers of his literary flame – not, at least, of Andrea Plunket, who lays claim to the remaining US copyrights relating to Conan Doyle's most iconic creation.
According to IMDB, Plunket has reacted with fury to Robert Downey Jr's suggestion on The Late Show with David Letterman that Sherlock Holmes, whom he plays in Guy Ritchie's film, could be perceived as "a very butch homosexual". Introducing a clip in which Holmes lets off some steam bare-knuckle boxing after offending Watson, Downey also floated the possibility that Rachel McAdams's character, with whom the detective is apparently besotted, "could be a beard. Who knows?"
"I hope this is just an example of Mr Downey's black sense of humour," Plunket reportedly fumed in an interview with Total Film. "It would be drastic, but I would withdraw permission for more films to be made if they feel that is a theme they wish to bring out in the future. I am not hostile to homosexuals, but I am to anyone who is not true to the spirit of the books."
It's hard to think of the last time so much befuddled, hateful knee-jerk reaction was funnelled into so few words. Oh, wait, no, it isn't – Jan Moir's Daily Mail article on Stephen Gately will be hard to top on that front for some time. Still, Plunket does awfully well, insisting that the idea of a beloved character being gay is not just a joke but a sick joke before offering a declaration of tolerance to stand alongside "I've nothing against black people" and "Don't get me wrong, I love women"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2010/jan/06/sherlock-holmes-homophobia
Leading Author Groups Call on Congressional Authors to Oppose Google Book Search 2.0; Resource Shelf Blog, 1/7/10
Resource Shelf Blog; Leading Author Groups Call on Congressional Authors to Oppose Google Book Search 2.0:
"The National Writers Union, the American Society of Journalists and Authors and the Science Fiction Writers of America today reached out to fellow authors in the U.S. Congress to highlight the flaws of the most recent Google Books Settlement proposal. The letter to sent to more than 60 Congressional authors focused on the copyright, monopolistic and contractual ramifications of an approved GBS 2.0.
Today’s letter from prominent author groups further extends momentum against the proposed settlement between Google and the Author’s Guild and the Association of American Publishers. In the last month, award-winning author Ursula K. Le Guin’s resigned from the Authors Guild because “[The Author's Guild] has decided to deal with the devil, as it were, and have presented your arguments for doing so. I wish I could accept them, but I can’t. ”"
http://www.resourceshelf.com/2010/01/07/leading-author-groups-call-on-congressional-authors-to-oppose-google-book-search-2-0/
"The National Writers Union, the American Society of Journalists and Authors and the Science Fiction Writers of America today reached out to fellow authors in the U.S. Congress to highlight the flaws of the most recent Google Books Settlement proposal. The letter to sent to more than 60 Congressional authors focused on the copyright, monopolistic and contractual ramifications of an approved GBS 2.0.
Today’s letter from prominent author groups further extends momentum against the proposed settlement between Google and the Author’s Guild and the Association of American Publishers. In the last month, award-winning author Ursula K. Le Guin’s resigned from the Authors Guild because “[The Author's Guild] has decided to deal with the devil, as it were, and have presented your arguments for doing so. I wish I could accept them, but I can’t. ”"
http://www.resourceshelf.com/2010/01/07/leading-author-groups-call-on-congressional-authors-to-oppose-google-book-search-2-0/
Authors want out of Google Books deal; (Montreal) Gazette, 1/9/10
Roberto Rocha, (Montreal) Gazette; Authors want out of Google Books deal:
"A group of writers wants Canada out of the Google Books settlement, which would create a huge digital library of books for anyone to see, and asks the federal government to loudly oppose the deal.
An online petition by authors Sarah Sheard and David Bolt contends Google has no business setting copyright precedents in the United States for Canadian works, and too many affected writers don't know or understand the details of the settlement.
"We want the government to get really loud about this," said Bolt, who owns the estate of his late wife, author Carol Bolt. If opposition is strong enough, he argues, Google might remove Canadian books from its project, as it did with other nations, like France and New Zealand.
The petition has about 230 signatories."
http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Authors+want+Google+deal/2418260/story.html
"A group of writers wants Canada out of the Google Books settlement, which would create a huge digital library of books for anyone to see, and asks the federal government to loudly oppose the deal.
An online petition by authors Sarah Sheard and David Bolt contends Google has no business setting copyright precedents in the United States for Canadian works, and too many affected writers don't know or understand the details of the settlement.
"We want the government to get really loud about this," said Bolt, who owns the estate of his late wife, author Carol Bolt. If opposition is strong enough, he argues, Google might remove Canadian books from its project, as it did with other nations, like France and New Zealand.
The petition has about 230 signatories."
http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Authors+want+Google+deal/2418260/story.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)