Copyright | writing notes

The Corvette argument

Techdirt reports that a newspaper publisher is suing 22 websites for copyright violation. Nothing really new here except the action that these bad sites have carried out is quoting text (with links back to the original articles). Apparently they even used the “you wouldn’t steal a car, so why are you stealing my content” analogy:

Say I owned a beautiful 1967 Corvette and kept it parked in my front yard.

And you, being a Corvette enthusiast, saw my Vette from the street. You stopped and stood on the sidewalk admiring it. You liked it so much you called friends and gave them my address in case they also wanted to drive over for a gander.

There’d be nothing wrong with that. I like my ’67 Vette and I keep in the front yard because I like people to see it.

But then, you entered my front yard, climbed into the front seat and drove it away.

I’m absolutely, 100% not OK with that. In fact, I’m calling the police and reporting that you stole my car….

Yet, when it comes to copyrighted material — news that my company spends money to gather and constitutes the essence of what we are as a business — some people think they can not only look at it, but also steal it. And they do. They essentially step into the front yard and drive that content away.

Do they even believe what they are saying?

Posted on June 5, 2010 by mklang

The end of Hitler parodies…

Picking the strongest internet meme is impossible – but if there was such a list the Hitler bunker scene remix must be one of the most recurring. Check out this short list of examples from YouTube.

Unfortunately TechCrunch reports that Constantin Film, the German film company, who made the movie has begun removing the parodies. Attempting to see them on YouTube often results in the text:

“This video contains content from Constantin Film, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.“

The amount of files will rapidly disappear once YouTube’s smart content system begins to locate and remove the clips. The question is not whether Constantin has the legal right to act the way they do but the effect of the action. TechCrunch again:

Downfall is a great movie, but it’s also in German which sadly means that many people outside that country will never watch it. But I’d bet these clips have sparked an interest in the film beyond what any type of traditional marketing could have done.

One could also ask what damage the making of the clips has. The clips don’t make less people see the movie or affect sales in any way. Are the clips creating a negative image of the serious movie? This is a doubtful argument as anyone watching the movie will realize the enormous difference between the comedy and the tragedy.

Constantin Film has acted with questionable legality (parodies are within the law) and have definitely not helped in promoting creativity.

Naturally I fully expect someone to create a Hitler parody to express the outrage we all feel at the loss of this important social commentary!

Update: Read the commentary from EFF Everyone Who’s Made a Hitler Parody Video, Leave the Room

Posted on April 20, 2010 by mklang

ACTA is out

ACTA the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, has leaked. There is a torrent on The Pirate Bay where you download the text of the treaty.

Also check out Michael Geist’s blog – he has been reflecting and analyzing ACTA information for some time.

Posted on March 26, 2010 by mklang

Copyright & thumbnails in screenshot

Way back in 2008 I wrote about a copyright case that was decided at the Swedish Court of Appeal (Svea Hovrätt).

The case (2008-07-01, FT 685-08) concerned the question whether a screendump of one web page (containing pictures) being displayed on another web page constitued a violation of copyright of the pictures.

The court found that, first of all, the pictures displayed on the webpage which was pictured and displayed on another web page were not protected under 1§ of the Swedish Copyright Act (English version Pdf) but under Photolaw 49 a§ Swedish Copyright Act.

This difference is a remnant of the time when photographs were not covered by Copyright law at all. Today photographs are covered by Copyright law but the length of protection differs from other typical works protected under copyright law.

Since the images were small and hardly distinguishable to the naked eye they made up an unessential part of the the exception in 20a§ is applicable. According to this exception there is no need for permission to use works which appear in the background or are an non-essential part of the picture.

But last week the Swedish Supreme Court decided to go another way and decided that the use of a screenshot which contains small photographs is a copyright violation of the photographer and not covered by fair use. The decision T 3440-08 is available in Swedish from the Supreme Courts website.

Posted on March 7, 2010 by mklang

Enforcing Copyright to ensure heterosexuality

It’s always amusing (and a bit worrying) to read the reactions to claims that fictional characters may be gay. In the beginning of last year articles like Of course Tintin’s gay. Ask Snowy caused an uproar.

And now the pressure is on Sherlock Holmes. He has always been a bit suspicious. His relationship to Dr Watson a bit too much. Even if he does fall in love with a client in an episode of the tv series he never marries, never has a girlfriend. Watson is more of a ladies man, but never really leaves the relationship with Holmes. In the latest movie with Robert Downey Jr as the detective and Jude Law as Dr Watson the characters wrestle and share a bed.

In an interview on Downey Jr wondered whether Holmes was “a butch homosexual”. This has apparently annoyed Andrea Plunket the copyright holder who threatens to withdraw permission for a sequel if Holmes and Watson become gayer.

“I hope this is just an example of Mr. Downey’s black sense of humour. 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.” (Times Live)

Using Copyright to ensure heterosexuality is an interesting application. I doubt whether this was the reason for the law. For us copyright nerds Arthur Conan Doyle died 7 July 1930 – in other words almost 80 years ago. But then on sherlockholmesonline.org explains their licensing grounds and also has an interesting heredity of the Conan Doyle Estate.

In the EC, the entire work of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle enjoys copyright protection until 31 December 2000. After that date, a number of characters created by the author will enjoy trademark protection.

In the US, the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1997 (105th Congress, 1st Session H.R. 604 ) has extended the renewal term of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s works among others for an additional 20 years. This means that all works published after December 31, 1922 are protected for 95 years following the date of publication.

So no outing of Sherlock is allowed without Andrea Plunket’s permission. As for her argument about “not true to the spirit of the books” – the new film shows Sherlock doing many things that are not in the books so even this seems to be an arbitrary choice.

UPDATE 6/1

StudioBriefing.net

Claims by Andrea Plunket, the ex-wife of the late Sheldon Reynolds, who produced a Sherlock Holmes TV series in the 1950s, that she controls the Holmes copyrights and can withhold her approval of a sequel if she regards the content to be unacceptable were denounced Tuesday by Chicago attorney Jon Lellenberg, the administrator of the Estate of Dame Jean Conan Doyle. In an email statement, Lellenberg said that the estate signed three contracts with Warner Bros.: one for character rights in the Sherlock Holmes movie, another for merchandising rights, and the third for a related Tom & Jerry cartoon. He noted that the estate has won numerous federal court cases filed by Plunket and is currently trying to collect on several judgments against her for attorneys fees and costs in those cases. Asked whether it is possible that Plunket also signed a contract with Warner Bros., Lellenberg replied that if the studio “paid her something re nuisance value … we will go after it to discharge the judgments against her.” Attempts to reach a spokesman for Warner Bros. to comment on the matter were unsuccessful.

Posted on January 5, 2010 by mklang

Collecting Societies & Creative Commons

Moa Bergsten has written her final thesis for the completion of Masters in Law on the topic of collecting societies and Creative Commons licensing. But the essay is more than a theoretical standpoint it is an analysis of the situation in Sweden where the main copyright collecting society has begun to allow member to use Creative Commons licenses. Thus the title of Moa’s work is Stim & Creative Commons Licensing.

Thus, the purpose of this paper is to analyze judicial problems that may arise when a copyright collecting society draws up conditions for the use of CC licenses within the scope of their right management mandate. (p6)

And from her conclusions we may read that the collecting societies are forced to accept both digital realities and to proide a continued service to their members.

The initiative of STIM to allow CC licensing is an outflow of flexibility and adaption to the digital reality. As a result a new member category is created and STIM is obligated to carry out the management with respect to the member group with due diligence and fulfill its responsibility as a trustee.

No doubt the new opportunity will cause complex interpretational determinations. However, this fact does not deprive STIM from its obligation to carry out the management in best manner possible. (p76)

Congratulations Moa on a well written, insightful and important work! Thanks for writing it in English. And thank you for allowing me to post it online. I only wish you had licensed it under a Creative Commons license.

Posted on December 22, 2009 by mklang

Being a papal pirate

(via BoingBoing) Just in time for Christmas the pope decided to give himself a gift (large enough to suit is ego?) He decided to make his brand exclusive and in a weird mix of trademark and copyright law declared (Catholic News Agency)

“it alone has the right to ensure the respect due to the Successors of Peter, and therefore, to protect the figure and personal identity of the Pope from the unauthorized use of his name and/or the papal coat of arms for ends and activities which have little or nothing to do with the Catholic Church.”

What does this mean? Well according to the pope commoners may not use his name, title, coat of arms or basically “anything referring directly to the person of office” without permission.

“Consequently, the use of anything referring directly to the person or office of the Supreme Pontiff… and/or the use of the title ‘Pontifical,’ must receive previous and express authorization from the Holy See,” concluded the message released to the press.

Its enough to confirm the atheist in me… and bring out the pirate so here it is… my first violation of papal law…

an unauthorized copy of the papal insignia

Posted on December 21, 2009 by mklang

Stormtrooper Copyright War

The Star Wars Stormtrooper case is over. I wrote about the origins of the case in April last year. The conflict was between George Lucas (the man behind the Star Wars films) and Andrew Ainsworth the costume designer behind the white stormtrooper uniforms.

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)

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.
Well the courts have decided in favor of Andrew Ainsworth. MSNBC reports that

…London’s High Court last year ruled that Ainsworth had violated Lucas’s U.S. copyright, but rejected a copyright claim against him under British law, saying the costumes were not works of art and were therefore not covered by British copyright law.

The judge also refused to enforce in Britain a $20 million judgment Lucasfilm won against Ainsworth in a California court in 2006, saying Ainsworth’s U.S. sales were not significant enough to make him susceptible to U.S. jurisdiction.

Last month, Lucasfilm took the matter to the Court of Appeal, but in a ruling Wednesday the judges turned the company down.

Update: At Last… The 1709 Copyright Blog has a clear oversight of the whole affair.

Posted on December 17, 2009 by mklang

The good, the bad & the ugly: Copyright & Open content licenses

Despite being close to the planning and organisation I had not paid attention to ensure that Creative Commons presented at this years FSCONS. Then today we had the unfortunate news that one of our presenters on Sunday was too ill to attend. So the opportunity presented itself and I will be presenting The good, the bad & the ugly: Copyright & Open content licenses

Taking its starting point in the principles, growth and development of open Creative Commons licenses this talk takes a closer look at what licenses can and cannot do in a world were copyright is attempting to lock-in culture into a eternal artificial monopoly.

Posted on November 12, 2009 by mklang