"When Less Isn't More: Illustrating the Appeal of a Moral Rights Model of Copyright Through a Study of Minimalist Art"
by Rikki Sapolich
2007, The Intellectual Property Law Review
This article presents the case of a European model for copyright in which, after the sale of a piece of art, as the creator, you can still maintain control of the art in certain ways. Perhaps, you seek to keep a three paneled painting as a single piece of art and you want to restrict future owners from selling off the panels individually? This article explains the pros and cons of a intellectual property system that allows creators to protects certain rights of their artwork for the duration of their lives (the lives of the artworks that is!)
"American copyright law developed to meet the constitutional mandate '[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts' by providing an economic incentive for artistic creation. Under the assumption that a major influence on the creation of art is the incentive of anticipated market demand, American copyright law grants artists the exclusive right to copy their work as an incentive for the artist to create, in turn benefiting society through increased availiability of works of art. This assumption fails, however, when applied to fine artists, who are generally outwardly influenced by culture and internally influenced by the desire to create, because economic incentives available under American copyright law are immaterial. Moral rights, as provided under European copyright law, are better adapted to address the interests of fine artists because they protect not only the finished work, but also the artist's control over the creative process and ultimately her persona and reputation. Protecting the artist's persona and reputation serves as an incentive to create. The artist will be more willing to expose her inner self, as expressed through her art, if she is assured that the public will treat her art with respect." (pg. 453
Thursday, December 27, 2007
using existing works is a pain ... what to do?
Building a Reliable Semicommons of Creative Works: Enforcement of Creative Commons Licenses and Limited Abandonment of Copyright"
by Lydia Pallas Loren
14 Gel. Mason L. Rev. 271 (2007)
"Today's controversial climate of overly broad ownership rights for creative works makes the lawful use of existing works in any manner an edgy trip into the legal maze of copyright." (pg. 271)
This article points out a fact that most people do not know or perhaps, like to ignore, until it becomes a problem. "Registration of the copyright by the creator of the original work is not required to obtain or maintain copyright protection, and even a notice of copyright, which previously was required to include the name of the copyright owner, is no longer necessary." (pg. 272) Yes, this is absolutely correct...! Every email, SMS, etc. that you write is actually protected by copyright and you are the owner. Think about how scary that is, a world where you can own so much.
by Lydia Pallas Loren
14 Gel. Mason L. Rev. 271 (2007)
"Today's controversial climate of overly broad ownership rights for creative works makes the lawful use of existing works in any manner an edgy trip into the legal maze of copyright." (pg. 271)
This article points out a fact that most people do not know or perhaps, like to ignore, until it becomes a problem. "Registration of the copyright by the creator of the original work is not required to obtain or maintain copyright protection, and even a notice of copyright, which previously was required to include the name of the copyright owner, is no longer necessary." (pg. 272) Yes, this is absolutely correct...! Every email, SMS, etc. that you write is actually protected by copyright and you are the owner. Think about how scary that is, a world where you can own so much.
Where are those "fair use" legal opinions?
"An Empirical Study of U.S. Copyright Fair Use Opinions, 1978-2005"
by Barton Beebe
(working paper as of July 5, 2007)
Most people, and especially academics raise the fair use doctrine as an integral argument to defend copyright law, but research about the outcomes of attempts to upholding fair use protection has been lacking. This papers attempts to serve as the first empirical study of fair use. The overarching finding of this study is that "conventional wisdom about that [fair use] case law is wrong." (pg. 1)
Essentially, the state of the fair use doctrine is in jeopardy and as a result there is a difference between what most individuals, even lawyers (except for those specializing in copyright law), believe is considered to be a protected fair use and what is actually considered fair use by the courts.
by Barton Beebe
(working paper as of July 5, 2007)
Most people, and especially academics raise the fair use doctrine as an integral argument to defend copyright law, but research about the outcomes of attempts to upholding fair use protection has been lacking. This papers attempts to serve as the first empirical study of fair use. The overarching finding of this study is that "conventional wisdom about that [fair use] case law is wrong." (pg. 1)
Essentially, the state of the fair use doctrine is in jeopardy and as a result there is a difference between what most individuals, even lawyers (except for those specializing in copyright law), believe is considered to be a protected fair use and what is actually considered fair use by the courts.
To promote musical expression >>> disaggregate interests of creators and distributors
"Promoting Diverse Cultural Expression: Lessons from the U.S. Copyright Wars"
by Raymond Shih Ray Ku
September 2007
Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law and Policy
This article offers discusses the Convention of the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expression (CCD) that was adopted by the UN in 2007. According to the author, "[d]epending upon the funding mechanism chosen for creation , legal protection for distributors may undermine the goals of the CCD leading to fewer works being created, disseminated, and made accesible to the public." (pg. 1) The argument put forward in this article is that, using the US as a case study, musical creativity and cultural expression are being held back by the current copyright system because under the current regime creators and distributors interests are protected in conjunction with one and other. The interests of both parties are not protected efficiently or effectively when protected in an aggregate fashion because digital technology and the internet have established overwhelming circumstances in which both parties may have opposing interests at stake.
Interesting excerpt to wet the palate...
"...[W]hom does copyright law protect? For most of copyright's history, the interests of creators and distributors were considered one and the same, and for the most part, were largely aligned with those of the public or audience. However, new technologies, especially digital techonology have always challenged a legal regime created in response to a specific techonology and means of distribution -- the printing press. Once unbundled, the assumption that the exclusive rights created by copyright serve the interest of creators, distributors, and the public becomes less clear. Many of the copyright controversies making headlines today, from the litigation and threats of litigation against Grokster, Google's Book Project, MySpace, and YouTube, among others, involve copyright owners attempting to use copyright to prevent the emergence of new distribution models and uses of their works. In other words, the middlemen of old are using copyright to preserve their status in a world in which many of these middlemen are not only unnecessary but also stifle an environment for creating, producing, and disseminating diverse cultural expression." (pg. 2)
by Raymond Shih Ray Ku
September 2007
Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law and Policy
This article offers discusses the Convention of the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expression (CCD) that was adopted by the UN in 2007. According to the author, "[d]epending upon the funding mechanism chosen for creation , legal protection for distributors may undermine the goals of the CCD leading to fewer works being created, disseminated, and made accesible to the public." (pg. 1) The argument put forward in this article is that, using the US as a case study, musical creativity and cultural expression are being held back by the current copyright system because under the current regime creators and distributors interests are protected in conjunction with one and other. The interests of both parties are not protected efficiently or effectively when protected in an aggregate fashion because digital technology and the internet have established overwhelming circumstances in which both parties may have opposing interests at stake.
Interesting excerpt to wet the palate...
"...[W]hom does copyright law protect? For most of copyright's history, the interests of creators and distributors were considered one and the same, and for the most part, were largely aligned with those of the public or audience. However, new technologies, especially digital techonology have always challenged a legal regime created in response to a specific techonology and means of distribution -- the printing press. Once unbundled, the assumption that the exclusive rights created by copyright serve the interest of creators, distributors, and the public becomes less clear. Many of the copyright controversies making headlines today, from the litigation and threats of litigation against Grokster, Google's Book Project, MySpace, and YouTube, among others, involve copyright owners attempting to use copyright to prevent the emergence of new distribution models and uses of their works. In other words, the middlemen of old are using copyright to preserve their status in a world in which many of these middlemen are not only unnecessary but also stifle an environment for creating, producing, and disseminating diverse cultural expression." (pg. 2)
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
"Manga Conquers America"
Wired Magazine's November issue featured an article explaining what manga is and how this iconic piece of japanese culture has made its was to the United States. Manga is the commonly mentioned case study of a type of art with a huge commercial market that thrives on copyright infringement. Not only do those who infringe make money, but those who are infringed upon also benefit from the the copyright infringement. According to this article, 22% of all published material in Japan is manga. Manga is a $4.2 billion industry in Japan alone.
According to Lessig the reason why Manga has succeeded in Japan is because of the distinction between a "read only culture" and a "read/write culture". IP laws were structured for a "read only culture" which is mostly obsolete in countries around the globe as a result of the Internet and digital technology. Essentially, the current copyright regime that is structured for a "read only culture" is inadequate in the United States. Interestingly, the Japanese have a comparable copyright system to that of the United States, but in the case of manga, publishers don't try to prevent the copyright infringement of manga because it recognizes the commercial and social benefits from the lack of regulation.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Cyberlawyer goes after a corrupt system
The Economist features an article on Lawrence Lessig, pioneering expert in alternatives to traditional copyright and the founder of Creative Commons. The article links Lessig's interest in reforming copyright to his current focus on corruption in politics and offers a concise biogrpahical overview of Lessig's career to date.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Radiohead's giveaway
"Pay What You Want: How Radiohead Took the Online Gamble That Could Change the Record Business"
by Jon Pareles @ NY Times, Arts&Leisure section
December 8, 2007
Radiohead's distribution of its latest album, "In Rainbows", is proving to be a success, but the band won't tell us just how many copies of the album have been downloaded, what % of those who downloaded it did so for free, or what the average price is for those who voluntarily paid to download the album. At first I did not like that the band would not tell the public these statistics. I was confident that it would make money and I felt it was necessary to make this information public in order to prove to the public that the the current copyright laws do not actually benefit the musicians, but rather the major record labels and the media industry at large. After reading today's article in the NY times, "Pay What You Want: How Radiohead Took the Online Gamble That Could Change the Record Business", I changed my mind. Not only does it seem like the band has caused quite a stir within the music business and among the general public, but it is evident that the old school industry is scared that others will follow in Radiohead's path even without knowing the financial outcome of the band's strategical move. In a way, this is the ultimate success for those who feel that the current copyright system does not promote the interests of creators, artists and the like.
Also it is worth noting, according to this article, that Public Enemy and the Smashing Pumpkins gave away albums over the internet several years ago. Perhaps the fact that Radiohead is more of a cult-like, less mainstream band, has gained them greater recognition, or because they are not only giving away "In Rainbows", but rather, offering people the opportunty to pay for it if want to do so. Who knows?
The only data regarding downloads and sales that was made available in this article comes from ComScore which claims, according to their market research, that the average price per download was $2.26, including the zero cost of free downloands. ComScore did not specify the total number of downloads, but it said that 'a significant %' of the 1.2 million people who have visited the inrainbows.com website in October of 2007 did download the album.
The album is incredible and I highly recommend giving it a listen...to download it go to: www.inrainbows.com
I paid 5 Euros for the album.
by Jon Pareles @ NY Times, Arts&Leisure section
December 8, 2007
Radiohead's distribution of its latest album, "In Rainbows", is proving to be a success, but the band won't tell us just how many copies of the album have been downloaded, what % of those who downloaded it did so for free, or what the average price is for those who voluntarily paid to download the album. At first I did not like that the band would not tell the public these statistics. I was confident that it would make money and I felt it was necessary to make this information public in order to prove to the public that the the current copyright laws do not actually benefit the musicians, but rather the major record labels and the media industry at large. After reading today's article in the NY times, "Pay What You Want: How Radiohead Took the Online Gamble That Could Change the Record Business", I changed my mind. Not only does it seem like the band has caused quite a stir within the music business and among the general public, but it is evident that the old school industry is scared that others will follow in Radiohead's path even without knowing the financial outcome of the band's strategical move. In a way, this is the ultimate success for those who feel that the current copyright system does not promote the interests of creators, artists and the like.
Also it is worth noting, according to this article, that Public Enemy and the Smashing Pumpkins gave away albums over the internet several years ago. Perhaps the fact that Radiohead is more of a cult-like, less mainstream band, has gained them greater recognition, or because they are not only giving away "In Rainbows", but rather, offering people the opportunty to pay for it if want to do so. Who knows?
The only data regarding downloads and sales that was made available in this article comes from ComScore which claims, according to their market research, that the average price per download was $2.26, including the zero cost of free downloands. ComScore did not specify the total number of downloads, but it said that 'a significant %' of the 1.2 million people who have visited the inrainbows.com website in October of 2007 did download the album.
The album is incredible and I highly recommend giving it a listen...to download it go to: www.inrainbows.com
I paid 5 Euros for the album.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
browsing the web for CC liscensed content....
Carroll, Michael W., "Creative Commons and the New Intermediaries" . Michigan State Law Review, Symposium, 2005 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=782405
You can seach the web for content with creative commons licenses by using the CC search engine:
http://search.creativecommons.org/#
or, you can do this directly by selecting the CC logo in the drop down mini menu bar of your Firefox browser:
If you dont have Firefox, you should; it is one of the best web browsers available. You can download the search engine at Mozilla's website: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/
You can seach the web for content with creative commons licenses by using the CC search engine:
http://search.creativecommons.org/#
or, you can do this directly by selecting the CC logo in the drop down mini menu bar of your Firefox browser:
If you dont have Firefox, you should; it is one of the best web browsers available. You can download the search engine at Mozilla's website: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/
Some interesting stats about internet usage...
Carroll, Michael W., "Creative Commons and the New Intermediaries" . Michigan State Law Review, Symposium, 2005 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=782405
Young people, especially teenagers have taken advantage of the internet to express themselves and be creative in a number of different ways. "According to a study conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project in 2006, about 21 million or 87 percent of those ages 12-17 in the United States use the Internet. Teens are eager to share their thoughts, experiences, and creations with the wider Internet population. Here are some of the study's key findings:
Much of today's discussion about copyright is not only obsolete, but impractical and unrealistic.
What percentage of the population (or percentage of those who use the internet) must declare that they intentionally or unintentionally infringe upon the rights of another in order for the society at large to realize that many of these infringements should constitute crimes? Moreover, when will it become clear that many of these activities should be encouraged and lauded as valuable learning tools, freedom of speech, creation of culture, and yes, acts that promote economic growth?
Young people, especially teenagers have taken advantage of the internet to express themselves and be creative in a number of different ways. "According to a study conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project in 2006, about 21 million or 87 percent of those ages 12-17 in the United States use the Internet. Teens are eager to share their thoughts, experiences, and creations with the wider Internet population. Here are some of the study's key findings:
- 33 % of online teens share their own creative content online, such as artwork, photos, stories, or videos.
- 32% say that they have created or worked on Web pages or blogs for others, including groups they belong to , friends, or school assignments.
- 22% report keeping their own personal Web page
- 19% of online teens keep a blog, and 38% of online teens read blogs.
- 19% of Internet-using teens say they remix content they find online into their own artistic creations
Much of today's discussion about copyright is not only obsolete, but impractical and unrealistic.
What percentage of the population (or percentage of those who use the internet) must declare that they intentionally or unintentionally infringe upon the rights of another in order for the society at large to realize that many of these infringements should constitute crimes? Moreover, when will it become clear that many of these activities should be encouraged and lauded as valuable learning tools, freedom of speech, creation of culture, and yes, acts that promote economic growth?
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Copyright Reform proposals
Samuelson, Pamela, "Preliminary Thoughts on Copyright Reform" . Utah Law Review, 2007 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1002676
Pamela Samuelson, co-director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, has authored an interesting paper on possible directions for copyright reform. With reform she proposes to fix current problems, such as that of orphan works which is very important for film makers and other creators. She also discusses the possibility of drafting a model copyright act which would have to face the issues of either being “US-centric” or more internationally neutral. She also has a podcast on "Open Source Development and Distribution of Digital Information."
Pamela Samuelson, co-director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, has authored an interesting paper on possible directions for copyright reform. With reform she proposes to fix current problems, such as that of orphan works which is very important for film makers and other creators. She also discusses the possibility of drafting a model copyright act which would have to face the issues of either being “US-centric” or more internationally neutral. She also has a podcast on "Open Source Development and Distribution of Digital Information."
Monday, December 3, 2007
Professor Michael Carroll knows how to explain Creative Commons
Carroll, Michael W., "Creative Commons and the New Intermediaries" . Michigan State Law Review, Symposium, 2005 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=782405
Carroll does an incredible job explaining what Creative Commons is for someone who does not have a legal background or who is not very tech savy. He provides a brief overview of the history of U.S. copyright law that leads to the conclusion that the system in this country is based on a "one size fits all" approach (A.K.A. copyright = "all rights reserved") to control of creative works. Today's society depends upon and thrives off of the internet and digital technologies. In today's world, "one size fits all" is an obsolete phenomenon with regard the control of creative work. A.K.A. the "all rights reserved" mantra of copyright is inefficient and ineffective. Creative Commons is the answer..."some rights reserved."
Carroll does an incredible job explaining what Creative Commons is for someone who does not have a legal background or who is not very tech savy. He provides a brief overview of the history of U.S. copyright law that leads to the conclusion that the system in this country is based on a "one size fits all" approach (A.K.A. copyright = "all rights reserved") to control of creative works. Today's society depends upon and thrives off of the internet and digital technologies. In today's world, "one size fits all" is an obsolete phenomenon with regard the control of creative work. A.K.A. the "all rights reserved" mantra of copyright is inefficient and ineffective. Creative Commons is the answer..."some rights reserved."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
