Thursday, September 13, 2018
Music Law 101: Who Owns the Copyright in a Song?; Lexology, August 29, 2018
"After your band has written and recorded a song, who actually owns the song? This simple question does not necessarily have a simple answer. How many people were involved in the writing process? Were there other people involved in the recording process? Did you hire a producer? Did you use other background vocalists or musicians in the studio? Did you use “work made for hire” agreements with individuals involved in the process? Do you have a band agreement? The answers to these and other important questions help determine who actually owns the copyrights in any given song."
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
EU approves controversial Copyright Directive, including internet ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’; The Verge, September 12, 2018
James Vincent, The Verge; EU approves controversial Copyright Directive, including internet ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’
The directive was originally rejected by MEPs in July following criticism of two key provisions: Articles 11 and 13, dubbed the “link tax” and “upload filter” by critics. However, in parliament this morning, an updated version of the directive was approved, along with amended versions of Articles 11 and 13. The final vote was 438 in favor and 226 against.
The fallout from this decision will be far-reaching, and take a long time to settle. The directive itself still faces a final vote in January 2019 (although experts say it’s unlikely it will be rejected). After that it will need to be implemented by individual EU member states, who could very well vary significantly in how they choose to interpret the directive’s text."
"The European Parliament has voted in favor of the Copyright Directive, a controversial piece of legislation intended to update online copyright laws for the internet age.
The directive was originally rejected by MEPs in July following criticism of two key provisions: Articles 11 and 13, dubbed the “link tax” and “upload filter” by critics. However, in parliament this morning, an updated version of the directive was approved, along with amended versions of Articles 11 and 13. The final vote was 438 in favor and 226 against.
The fallout from this decision will be far-reaching, and take a long time to settle. The directive itself still faces a final vote in January 2019 (although experts say it’s unlikely it will be rejected). After that it will need to be implemented by individual EU member states, who could very well vary significantly in how they choose to interpret the directive’s text."
The EU copyright law that artists love—and internet pioneers say would destroy the web; Quartz, September 11, 2018
Ephrat Livni, Quartz; The EU copyright law that artists love—and internet pioneers say would destroy the web
"European internet users are up in
arms over proposed changes to copyright law that will either make the
web more fair and lucrative for content creators or destroy the web as
we know it—depending on whom you ask.
The movement to modernize and unify EU intellectual property law, initiated in 2016, is up for a vote in the European Parliament in Brussels Sept. 12
Two
controversial sections—Article 13 and Article 11—would force technology
platforms to police digital content by automatically evaluating
intellectual property before anything is uploaded and make news
aggregators pay to license links to posts. This would ensure that
musicians, artists, filmmakers, photographers and media outlets are paid
for work that currently drives advertising revenue to technology
companies like Google and Facebook for content that they don’t pay for,
or say so supporters. Opponents argue that it will transform the web
from a free and open platform to a tool to police information and limit
ideas."
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
Intellectual Property The Hard Way: Part II; Forbes, September 11, 2018
Mary Juetten, Forbes; Intellectual Property The Hard Way: Part II
"Last month I started an interview series on intellectual property (IP) and also wrote a piece about general IP tips for startups here.
The goal is to use actual stories and experts in the field to help
others avoid IP mistakes or failures or infringement, and more
importantly to ensure that companies of all sizes identify, protect, and
monetize their valuable intangible assets. As has been discussed many
times, these assets often make up 90% of a startup’s valuation."
Open Access at the Movies; Inside Higher Ed, September 10, 2018
Lindsay McKenzie, Inside Higher Ed; Open Access at the Movies
"[Jason] Schmitt's film raises some important questions -- how is it possible that big for-profit publishers, such as Elsevier, have fatter profit margins than some of the biggest corporations in the world? Why can't everyone read all publicly funded research for free?
Discussion of these questions in the film is undoubtedly one-sided. Of around 70 people featured in the film, just a handful work for for-profit publishers like Springer-Nature or the American Association for the Advancement of Science -- and they don't get much screen time. There is also no representative from Elsevier, despite the publisher being the focus of much criticism in the film. This was not for lack of trying, said Schmitt. “I offered Elsevier a five-minute section of the film that they could have full creative control over,” he said. “They turned me down.”
Schmitt said he made Paywall not for academics and scholars but for the general public. He wants people to understand how scholarly publishing works, and why they should care that they can’t access research paid for with their tax dollars."
"[Jason] Schmitt's film raises some important questions -- how is it possible that big for-profit publishers, such as Elsevier, have fatter profit margins than some of the biggest corporations in the world? Why can't everyone read all publicly funded research for free?
Discussion of these questions in the film is undoubtedly one-sided. Of around 70 people featured in the film, just a handful work for for-profit publishers like Springer-Nature or the American Association for the Advancement of Science -- and they don't get much screen time. There is also no representative from Elsevier, despite the publisher being the focus of much criticism in the film. This was not for lack of trying, said Schmitt. “I offered Elsevier a five-minute section of the film that they could have full creative control over,” he said. “They turned me down.”
Schmitt said he made Paywall not for academics and scholars but for the general public. He wants people to understand how scholarly publishing works, and why they should care that they can’t access research paid for with their tax dollars."
[Documentary] Paywall: The Business of Scholarship, 2018
[Documentary] Paywall: The Business of Scholarship
"Paywall: The Business of Scholarship is a documentary which focuses on the need for open access to research and science, questions the rationale behind the $25.2 billion a year that flows into for-profit academic publishers, examines the 35-40% profit margin associated with the top academic publisher Elsevier and looks at how that profit margin is often greater than some of the most profitable tech companies like Apple, Facebook and Google.
Staying true to the open access model: it is free to stream and download, for private or public use, and maintains the most open CC BY 4.0 Creative Commons designation to ensure anyone regardless of their social, financial or political background will have access.
If you are interested in screening this film at your university, please fill out our contact form."
"Paywall: The Business of Scholarship is a documentary which focuses on the need for open access to research and science, questions the rationale behind the $25.2 billion a year that flows into for-profit academic publishers, examines the 35-40% profit margin associated with the top academic publisher Elsevier and looks at how that profit margin is often greater than some of the most profitable tech companies like Apple, Facebook and Google.
Staying true to the open access model: it is free to stream and download, for private or public use, and maintains the most open CC BY 4.0 Creative Commons designation to ensure anyone regardless of their social, financial or political background will have access.
If you are interested in screening this film at your university, please fill out our contact form."
Tor, OverDrive Comment on Library Ebook Embargo; Library Journal, September 6, 2018
Matt Enis, Library Journal; Tor, OverDrive Comment on Library Ebook Embargo
"In a move that has raised concern throughout the library field, Macmillan in July announced that it would be testing a four month embargo on selling new ebooks published by its Tor imprint to libraries. The publisher said the test would help it determine whether library lending is having a negative impact on retail ebook sales. For libraries, the embargo recalled a time less than a decade ago when many major publishers refused to license ebooks to libraries altogether."
"In a move that has raised concern throughout the library field, Macmillan in July announced that it would be testing a four month embargo on selling new ebooks published by its Tor imprint to libraries. The publisher said the test would help it determine whether library lending is having a negative impact on retail ebook sales. For libraries, the embargo recalled a time less than a decade ago when many major publishers refused to license ebooks to libraries altogether."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)