Showing posts with label Copyright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Copyright. Show all posts

Out of It « Brad Sucks

Saturday, September 26, 2009 0 comments

Found Brad Sucks's website along with free downloads of all his music. Wow.
I think I'm in love. All of his music is licensed under a Creative Commons Share-A-Like license. Meaning it's free to download and share. I had to give this great artist another shout out after I'd realized he'd completely embraced the Creative Commons lifestyle.
Love his music, love the free access to great music. What more can I say? Check him out!

Free Music Archive: Brad Sucks - Bad Sign

0 comments

Was searching for a way to find free commercially viable music to follow up my Google Image Search article when I stumbled across this very awesome artist on FreeMusicArchives.com (FMA).
Some of the music is not really what I'd call "music" (like breathing into a microphone for 3 minutes, it's really music in my opinion.) But some of the music is pretty cool like this artist. Love this song.

Fair(y) Use You Tube Video

Thursday, September 24, 2009 0 comments
Confused by Copyright? Watch this video. It should help you.

It's ironic that this video was created with Disney video clips because Disney is one of the greatest proponents of increasing the durations of copyright protection.

The Bigger Picture: Amazon Kindle 1984 Deletion

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 0 comments
Licensing and Ownership of Digital Books

My Copyright and Trademark professor made a really good point today in class that I wanted to expand on in relation to ownership and licensing books in tangible and digital form.

When a person buys a book, he or she is not actually buying the expression of the ideas, the words on the paper or the concepts within the book. Instead he or she purchases the tangible, physical book. In other words, the sheets of paper, glue, paper or leather binding and ink which make up the book. The owner of the book can resell the book, rip all the pages out, or can build a gigantic bonfire and set the book on fire. There are no laws against taking your aggression out on old school books, law students. Light 'er up.

But digital copies of books complicate everything. When buying a digital copy of George Orwell's 1984, a purchaser doesn't purchase a physical, tangible book. Instead he or she buys a license to read the book. Licenses can have set durations, they can be revoked, and they are contractually created. When a user purchases a book from any one of the major eBook stores he or she agrees to terms of service in order to have access to the book.

Purchasers of licenses are not permitted to resell the book, make copies of the book, share the book with friends, or post a digital form of the book online. Some eBook stores don't even permit a user to print the book. All rights to the digital book are encompassed in a license.

The Big Problem
Here's the big problem. If I go to Barnes and Nobles and I buy 1984, I own the book. Nobody will ever knock on my door and remove my copy of 1984 from my book shelf. Even if Barnes and Nobles accidentally sold me an illegal copy of the book, it's still mine and I own it.

What happened in the Amazon.com case is a little bit complicated, so let me explain. Amazon sells books and various other items. Amazon sells an eReader called the Amazon Kindle that allows users to download eBooks to their Kindle's for the cost of the digital license.

According to CNET, a publisher illegally made for purchase on Amazon's Kindle website 1984 and Animal Farm. Both books were still under copyright in the U.S., yet Kindle users were able to download the illegal digital copies of the books to their Kindles. The true copyright owner and publisher sued Amazon for copyright infringement. The copyright owners sough injunctive relief in the form of removal of all of the illegal copies of 1984 and Animal Farm from Amazon Kindle users' devices. Thus, the books magically disappeared. Why?

The minute a user purchases an eBook, his or her rights are defined under a license. The purchaser does not own a tangible product, but rather a license to use the product.

What does this mean for licensing rights? How many other items will magically disappear from our virtual bookshelves? What does this mean for privacy rights?

The Bigger Picture

It concerns me that a court of law can order a company to (a) keep records of all the books purchased by purchasers and (b) grant injunctive relief in the form of removal of digital books.

For example, my professor asserted, "If I had a similiar case to this, I'd definitely demand removal of my digital copyrighted works from user's computers, Kindles or devices! I'd point to this as precedent! Who wouldn't? I'd probably win." That's frightening thought.

Did the court just set a precedent for digital copyright and licensing? If somebody in copyrights at your favorite online music store screws up the copyright on your favorite album, will your music disappear as well? Maybe your movies or software too? Do you really own anything digital? Would we even be questioning ownership rights as it relates to removal/deletion of your books, movies and music 20 years ago? Nope.

On that note, I find it utterly ironic that the removed books were copies of 1984 and Animal Farm. It's all very reminicent of a modern day McCarthy era book burning, except this is the Digital Age and we do it remotely and label it "Delete".

Thoughts?

Copyright and Contributions

Monday, September 21, 2009 1 comments
Old Copyright Law says that when you hire someone to work for you as a contractor, if you have control - you own the copyright. For example, say I want to hire someone to write a play and everything in the play, I must approve. I have the final word and I make any and all decisions as the author and the person in the ultimate control. But if I work with collaborators, they become my co-authors.

What about when there are several contributors who are subject to a final decision by the main editor, like I'm a writer for Social Media Law Student and I am subject to a final decision by Rex Gradeless. Are the writers for SMLS, co-authors, joint authors, or independent contractors entitled to all rights in our own work? How does copyright law define who owns SMLS and what rights contributors have?

The Seventh Circuit recognized this problem in Gaiman v. McFarlande (360 F. 3d 644) when it held that Neil Gaiman, a comic book script writer, sued Todd McFarlane, an illustrator of comic book characters for Copyright Infringement. Gaiman was a contracted employee who McFarlane hired to create a script for an issue of The Spawn. Needless to say, the court found that Gaiman and McFarlane had to work together to creator the characters in the comic book and without one author's creative work, the whole entire work would not have existed. The court ultimatey held a joint authorship in the work and were both entitled to rights under Copyright law.

From this analysis, I can pressume that if I work with the author of a blog on a post, we are co-authors because without both of our input, the entire whole would not be realized. So, if Rex Gradeless and I sat down and came up with concepts for a blog post then we both input ideas, opinions and changes, this would be a joint work and therefore subject to joint authorship. However, Rex and I don't sit down each week when I write my blog contributions, but he does edit all of the blog contributions. Does Rex own rights in my contributions?

In Community for Creative Non-Violent v. Reid (490 U.S. 730), the Supreme Court held that an artist, Reid, hired by an organization, the CCNV, was entitled to joint authorship of a statute he designed and created for CCNV. The court reasoned that Reid was an independent contractor and not CCNV's employee, therefore he was not subject to "work for hire" status under Copyright Law. The court reasoned that CCNV did not provide Reid with any of the benefits or opportunities it had provided its other employees and therefore could not claim sole rights in the statute. The court also reasoned that CCNV did not have sole control over the creation of the statute but accepted input and contributions made by Reid. The court stated this was sufficine to allow Reid the opportunity to rights of co-authorship.

When looking at the concept of Copyright in this sense I wonder if a court would evaluate the entire whole or each individual article. For example, without my contributions to SMLS, SMLS would still exist. However, the whole of the website would not be realized as it is today without my contributions. But without Rex's editing, would my contributions as a whole be all that different from their current state?

It's important to note that I do not have any rights of authorship in SMLS. I own only what I post, even if edited by Rex. If I had control and access to change parts of the website then my statuts as a writer with rights solely in my work would change. Whereas, if Rex removed paragraphs from my articles and added his own input, his rights in my work would change as well. However, Rex changes very little in my posts and I do not have any control or access to changing SMLS as a website. But I think it's interesting to note how easily the lines of authorship, joint authorship and co-authorship can be blurred when you work in a collaborative, contributory setting. Any thoughts?