"People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is trying to turn copyright law on its head: in this instance, with the mug of a macaque monkey named Naruto, whose selfies went viral and have been seen around the world. PETA filed suit Tuesday, asking the courts to declare Naruto the rightsholder and hence an owner of property: a copyright. David Slater, the British nature photographer whose camera was swiped by the ape in the Indonesian jungle, said he has been granted copyright protection in the UK for the photos. He said he was "very saddened" over PETA's lawsuit (PDF) in the United States. This is the second time this year animal rights groups have asked the US courts to bestow onto monkeys the legal status that humans enjoy. Last month, a New York state court ruled against two chimpanzees represented by the Nonhuman Rights Project that claimed they were being deprived of their civil liberties while being housed at a university research facility. The copyright case comes a year after regulators from the US Copyright Office agreed with Wikipedia's conclusion that a monkey's selfies cannot be copyrighted. The office said works "produced by nature, animals, or plants" cannot be granted that protection."
Issues and developments related to IP, AI, and OM. My Bloomsbury book "Ethics, Information, and Technology" will be published in January 2026 and includes chapters on IP, AI, OM, and other emerging technologies (IoT, drones, robots, autonomous vehicles, VR/AR). Preorders are available via this webpage: https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/ethics-information-and-technology-9781440856662/
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
PETA wants court to grant copyright to ape that snapped famous selfie; ArsTechnica.com, 9/22/15
David Kravets, ArsTechnica.com; PETA wants court to grant copyright to ape that snapped famous selfie:
Friday, September 18, 2015
Big new copyright fair use decision involving part owner of Miami Heat; Washington Post, 9/17/15
Eugene Volokh, Washington Post; Big new copyright fair use decision involving part owner of Miami Heat:
"I blogged about this case back when the magistrate judge issued his report, but today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed (Katz v. Chevaldina), and concluded that defendant Irina Chevaldina’s use of the photo shown above is a fair use. The twist: The subject of the photo, Raanan Katz, bought the photo after it was published and used by Chevaldina, and then sued her in his capacity as now-owner of the photograph. No dice, said the court, concluding — in my view correctly — that Chevaldina’s use was a “fair use” and thus not an infringement..."
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Rapper Rick Ross Loses 'Everyday I'm Hustlin'' Copyright Claim; Reuters via New York Times, 9/16/15
Reuters via New York Times; Rapper Rick Ross Loses 'Everyday I'm Hustlin'' Copyright Claim:
"Rapper Rick Ross cannot copyright the words "Everyday I'm hustlin'," a U.S. judge has ruled, putting an end to his claim against music group LMFAO for selling T-shirts with the similar catch-phrase "Everyday I'm shufflin'." In a ruling released on Tuesday in Miami federal court, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams said Ross's slogan, a prominent part of his 2006 debut hit "Hustlin'," is a short expression that courts have repeatedly said cannot be copyrighted... In her order on Tuesday, Williams said that "Hustlin'," as a song, is protected by copyright. But Ross' three-word slogan, is made up of ordinary words and cannot be copyrighted, she said. The judge compared it to other music catch-phrases from the past, such as "you got the right one, uh-huh," "holla back," and "we get it poppin'," saying it is a "short expression of the sort that courts have uniformly held uncopyrightable.""
Why I gave up my copyright: Kirill Medvedev; Guardian, 9/17/15
Kirill Medvedev, Guardian; Why I gave up my copyright: Kirill Medvedev:
"The Russian poet has been releasing his work free of ownership since 2004, insisting that publishers can only make editions without contracts and without his consent. He explains how opening his poems up to piracy is both a political protest and a liberating step towards intellectual sovereignty"
Monday, September 14, 2015
Appeals court strikes a blow for fair use in long-awaited copyright ruling; ArsTechnica.net, 9/14/15
Joe Mullin, ArsTechnica.net; Appeals court strikes a blow for fair use in long-awaited copyright ruling:
"The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit today issued a ruling that could change the contours of fair use and copyright takedown notices. In an opinion (PDF) published this morning, the three-judge panel found that Universal Music Group's view of fair use is flawed. The record label must face a trial over whether it wrongfully sent a copyright takedown notice over a 2007 YouTube video of a toddler dancing to a Prince song. That toddler's mother, Stephanie Lenz, acquired pro bono counsel from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The EFF in turn sued Universal in 2007, saying that its takedown practices violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The judges ruled today that copyright holders "must consider the existence of fair use before sending a takedown notification.""
Copyright Office seeks your comments on its crazy, broken plan to deal with orphan works; BoingBoing.net, 9/14/15
Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing.net; Copyright Office seeks your comments on its crazy, broken plan to deal with orphan works:
"In June, the U.S. Copyright Office announced a widely criticized proposal to create a licensing system to clear these rights, with the goal of facilitating full-text access to copyrighted works for nonprofit and educational uses. The Copyright Office is currently soliciting comments on its proposal. It’s a good thing that they’re soliciting comments: the proposal the Copyright Office came up with is an unworkable mess, filled with restrictions and gaps in coverage. It doesn’t solve the orphan works problem -- instead, it makes the problem worse, and adds a tax on cash-strapped, desperate libraries to the mix. The Copyright Office needs to hear why its proposal is a bad idea. Comments are due to the Office by October 9, 2015. I submitted mine (below). You can submit yours online."
Saturday, September 12, 2015
The International Fight Over Marcel Duchamp's Chess Set; Atlantic, 9/8/15
Quinn Norton, Atlantic; The International Fight Over Marcel Duchamp's Chess Set:
"Often called Moral Rights, French creators and their heirs are entitled not only to remuneration, but a high degree of creative control on how their works are used or represented in the world. It was this idea, of controlling how the artist's creation is used by others, that brought the estate to issue their Cease and Desist against Kildall and Cera. Farcot is particularly interested in how 3D printing is influenced by the mishmash of Berne laws governing the world. I spoke with him while he was waiting on an Ultimaker print of toys he was giving children in an upcoming weekend workshop he was teaching. “It’s not black or white,” Farcot said. “It’s not easy for the creators, Kildall and Cera, to... say they should go ahead, go to court and they will win easily.” Facing a ruinously expensive legal fight thousands of miles and an ocean away, Kildall and Cera backed down. They quietly removed the files from Thingiverse, and negotiated a resolution with Duchamp’s heirs. If the case was too hard to fight in French court, it would have been almost too easy to fight in U.S. court, the jurisdiction that could affect the lives of Kildall and Cera. “So under U.S. law, the chess pieces are absolutely in the public domain... and a U.S. court won’t honor French moral rights. I don’t see any practical way for the Duchamp estate to sue over the 3D-printed chess pieces in a U.S. court,” said Mitch Stoltz, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who specializes in intellectual property."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)