Copyright

Storm Trooper Property Wars

George Lucas is the man behind the Star Wars films and as such he owns the rights to them. A lesser known fact is that Andrew Ainsworth was the costume designer behind the white stormtrooper helmets. So far so good each gets his due.

But who owns the designs for the stormtrooper costumes?

The British prop designer who created their famous white helmets and body armour is being sued by director George Lucas for £10m in a case starting at the high court tomorrow. Andrew Ainsworth was sued by the director’s company, Lucasfilm, after reproducing the outfits from the original moulds and selling them for up to £1,800 each. (The Force)

This would be fun in itself but the story gets even better:

Ainsworth is countersuing Lucasfilm for a share of the £6bn merchandising revenue generated since the first film in the series premiered in 1977.

So does the filmmaker own all aspects of the film? What rights do the set, costume, prop designers have? Naturally this could (and should?) all be resolved by contract but if there is no contract?

The fact that Ainsworth makes the helmets from the original moulds should not mean anything since the right to make copies does not follow the ownership of the moulds. However in the absence of a contract to resolve this question the fact that the designer was allowed (if he was?) to keep his moulds should weigh in his favor. What a lovely case – I can’t wait to hear what the courts decide.

More on this available at TimesOnline.

Posted on by mklang

What is the lecture?

No one can tell you what the lecture is… sorry for the silly Matrix reference. The question here is on the issue of property and the lecture. The questions I hope to address are Who owns the lecture? Who controls the lecture? Who owns the lecture notes? What can the audience do? Who owns the audiences’ notes?

Some early background: In November 2006 I wrote the post Do you hand out your handouts which was concerned with students demanding (not asking) to have handouts in advance. This is also part of a larger issue of the impact of becoming dependent on technology in teaching (see post Teaching with powerpoint).

What triggered these reflections was the news that University of Florida professor Michael Moulton was claiming the right to prevent his students from selling their lecture notes. His claim was based upon the concept that the students notes were actually derivative works from his own notes and therefore the lecturer could use copyright to prevent the students from selling their notes. This is the basic story read more details at Wired.

Standing and talking i.e. giving a lecture is not copyrightable per se, this is actually a good thing as most lectures tend to be the explanation of the works of many others (not all mentioned). A lecture on basic copyright law will include ideas and direct quotes from the law, courts and often other jurists. The nature of the lecture is to educate the audience on a certain issue and therefore cannot be only the ideas and opinions of the lecturer. This use of the ideas and texts of others is neither copyright infringement or plagiarism.

The lecture becomes copyrightable when it is a derivative work of the lecture notes. In other words a lecture given without notes is not copyrightable, nor is a lecture given from notes taken from the public domain. If the non-copyrightable lecture is filmed or recorded then the copyright goes to the person recording (the director).

The “right” of the lecturer to refuse the audience to record is actually not a question of copyright but more a question of labor law. For example, if I were to refuse to let my students record me the question would be one of my refusal to carry out my job as a lecturer. The ensuing discussion between my employer and me would be a re-negotiation of my contract to take into account the audiences’ desire to record my work. Many lecturers I have spoken to are not aware of this position and some react very strongly to being recorded while they work. The audience taking notes is a developed fair use but again the lecturer could theoretically refuse to talk if someone were holding a pen (as with a recording device) but it is doubtful that the academic employer would support this position.

What can the audience do with their notes or recordings? If we presume that the lecture is based upon the copyrightable notes of the lecturer (as opposed to an ad hoc talk or a folk dance following a traditional pattern i.e. uncopyrightable) then any kind of reproduction of the notes/recording would be a violation of the copyright of the lecturer. The audience can however sell their copies or make copies for their friends within the limits of fair use but this would not allow them to make several copies or post the notes/recording on the Internet.

Therefore the lecture is a collection of rights and it intersects with different legal areas. Beyond that it is also a specific situation based upon the traditions and expectations of the audience and lecturer. The lecturer seems to have more power since he/she has chosen the subject, scheduled the event and does all the talking  but this is not necessarily the case. The lecture is a socially constructed affair which requires audience participation in specific forms (coming on time, sitting properly, silence, attention etc)

On top of all this comes the control via labor law and contracts. Wow, who said that giving a lecture was easy?

Posted on by mklang

Demanding 1,6 million

According to the local free newspaper the record companies suing the  people behind The Pirate Bay are demanding 1 621 045 euro in damages – thats a lot of money.

Posted on by mklang

What is art? Confusion in copyright

In many forum discussions the acronym ianal (I am not a lawyer) is used to denote that the writer is not a lawyer. In all fairness then I should begin this article by adding ianaa – I am not an artist. My interest in the definition of what is, can and should be art come mainly from my work in the field of copyright – even though I have an amateur interest in art.

When I first attempted to approach the question of art in 2003 I was naïve enough to think that there was a simple answer to be found and that it was just a question of locating it. Boy was I wrong. The only thing that I have found to be common to a definition of art at large and art in copyright is that it must have an expressive element.

Most often the artist must intend a work to be art for it to be considered art. But this is not always necessary. In some cases the viewers of the work may raise an aesthetic expression to the status of art despite their being no intention from the creator.

The utilitarian object: A dustpan in my house is not art. A dustpan hanging in the cleaning closet at the museum of modern art is not art. A dustpan hanging on the wall displayed among exhibits of the museum of modern art is art. The creator of the dustpan did not have the intention of creating art however the artist may use this everyday object as a piece of art and display it as art in order to create an aesthetic expression.

In 2004 a survey among 500 art experts chose Marcel Duchamp’s urinal to be the most influential modern art work of all time. The creator of the urinal does not have copyright in it – although he or she may have protection for its design but this protection can only be awarded for the elements of the design that are not their for solely functional use.

urinal2.jpg urinal.jpg

Left image of Duchamp’s urinal 1917 photo: Readymade by GriXx (CC by-nc-nd), Right image photo Urinal by Eatmorechips (CC by-nc-nd)

Copyright law is in trouble here since the object cannot be protected as it is and yet it is possible to protect the work via copyright. The photo’s here are the copyright of the photographers. The Duchamp urinal is made specific via his signature and making copies of it are limited since the rights to the work belong to the copyright holder.

Unintentional art: In an recent post about snowmen and copyright I discussed how a snowmen scene (two snowmen pushing and pulling a large wheel over a third snow figure lying in front of the wheel) could be seen as art even if it may not have been the intention of the creators to create anything beyond their own amusement. The creator may, for many reasons, not be intending to create art but the world at large may appreciate the results and classify the work as art. In this case the expression is awarded the full protection of copyright law despite the lack of author intention.

Koko is a lowland gorilla with a sign language vocabulary of 1000 words. Koko has also painted many pictures which have been sold in art auctions.


Bird Red Slice (abstract) by Koko (acrylic on canvas) 1984

The problem with copyright in unintentional art is interesting but it is made even more so by Koko. First, does copyright have a requirement of intent in the expression of art? Here the answer should be no. Second, and more specific to unintentional animal art (Koko is not alone) can animals be authors as understood by copyright law? There does not seem to be a formal requirement to be human in the law but I have been unable to find a non-human copyright holder.

 

The problem is that this is not the way in which art is defined by Encyclopedia Britannica (login required): “…the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others…” since this definition seems to require the intent of the creator.

Art and copyright are complicated subjects and I think that the only way to end this quote is with a Monty Python classic sketch with the pope discussing art with Michelangelo which ends with a comment by the pope (played by John Cleese): Look! I’m the bloody pope, I am! May not know much about art, but I know what I like!

Posted on by mklang

Swedish moves against P2P

In an effort to come to terms with online copyright violation the Swedish government has decided to allow courts the power to force Internet providers to reveal the physical identity of those IP addresses involved in illegal file sharing. Previously this was thought to be a move that would go to far and diminish the integrity of Internet users.

This move is an attempt to decrease the need for police involvement since the only previous recourse for the copyright holder was to report the matter to the police. Now the move will towards civil action.

On the other hand the government has decided against the suggestion of the Renfors investigation (Renforsutredningen) which means that they will not allow Internet providers to terminate the accounts of users involved in illegal file sharing. I have written about the stupidity of these types of suggestions earlier (here) so I am glad that this proposal was not followed.

Posted on by mklang

Encyclopedia of Life

The Encyclopedia of Life, an ambitious project to document all of Earth’s known species, has released its first 30,000 pages of content. Over the next 10 years, the project aims to aggregate, in one place, information on an estimated 1.8 million species. From the Encyclopedia of Life (EOL) press release:

Intended as a tool for scientists and policymakers and a fascinating resource for anyone interested in the living world, the EOL is being developed by a unique collaboration between scientists and the general public. By making it easy to compare and contrast information about life on Earth, the resulting compendium has the  potential to provide new insights into many of life’s secrets.

In most cases, Encyclopedia of Life contributing members have made content available using Creative Commons licenses either Att-SA or Att-NC or Att-NC-SA.

Posted on by mklang

Nine Inch Nails

Nine Inch Nails released Ghosts I-IV, a collection of 36 new instrumental tracks that are available to the world under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license.

The end result is a wildly varied body of music that we’re able to present to the world in ways the confines of a major record label would never have allowed – from a 100% DRM-free, high-quality download, to the most luxurious physical package we’ve ever created.

Posted on by mklang

Top misleading open access myths

Biomedcentral has a list of top misleading Open Access myths

In the evidence presented to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Inquiry into Scientific Publications, many dubious arguments have been used by traditional publishers to attack the new Open Access publishing model.

Myth 1: The cost of providing Open Access will reduce the availability of funding for research

Myth 2: Access is not a problem – virtually all UK researchers have the access they need

Myth 3 :The public can get any article they want from the public library via interlibrary loan

Myth 4: Patients would be confused if they were to have free access to the peer-reviewed medical literature on the web

Myth 5: It is not fair that industry will benefit from Open Access

Myth 6: Open Access threatens scientific integrity due to a conflict of interest resulting from charging authors

Myth 7: Poor countries already have free access to the biomedical literature

Myth 8: Traditionally published content is more accessible than Open Access content as it is available in printed form

Myth 9: A high quality journal such as Nature would need to charge authors £10,000-£30,000 in order to move to an Open Access model

Myth 10: Publishers need to make huge profits in order to fund innovation

Myth 11: Publishers need to take copyright to protect the integrity of scientific articles

Posted on by mklang