Community Forums: Legal Live

Home » Forum Home » Past Features » Legal Live

Topic: Legal Live
Replies: 109 Pages: 8 Last Post: Aug 11, 2005 3:09 PM by: jaime longoria

Welcome, Guest
	Login
	Guest Settings
	Help

Reply to this Topic

Search Forum

Back to Topic List

Replies: 109 Pages: 8 [ Previous \| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 \| Next ]

sampson

Posts: 1
Registered: Mar 3, 2005

Re: Legal Live
Posted: Mar 3, 2005 6:43 PM

Test Test Test.

Mary Madden

Posts: 11
From: Washington, D.C.
Registered: Feb 24, 2005

Re: Legal Live
Posted: Mar 3, 2005 6:43 PM

Well, this is probably a good time for me to point out to others who are following this discussion that I'm the only one on the panel tonight who is not a lawyer, but I do have to follow these issues as part of my work at the Pew Internet Project. That said, I hope some of my comments and observations will still be helpful/interesting!

This Grokster case--while on the surface it appears to primarily concern the issue of file-sharing online--actually has much larger implications that maybe some of the lawyers on the panel can comment more extensively on.

From my humble perspective, I tend to think about how decisions like these will affect the average person, or devloping artists doing innovative work. A case like this makes me wonder about artists like Ze Frank (http://www.zefrank.com/) who do some really interesting work creating interactive digital tools for the public to use to create collaborative art. These projects range from silly to profound, and everything in between, but the beauty is in how easy it is for anyone with an internet connection to participate. Yet, some of the public contributions to his projects involve copyrighted images, sounds and text. This raises an interesting question because he created these digital tools that are freely available to anyone on his website, but should he be responsible for how people use them?

For an example of what I’m talking about, see his “Pretty” project here: http://www.zefrank.com/pretty

Jon Garon

Posts: 23
From: Hamline University School of Law
Registered: Feb 24, 2005

Re: Legal Live
Posted: Mar 3, 2005 6:45 PM

You can steps to reduce the amount of misappropriation will take place, but if it is visible on the Internet, then it can be copied, redistributed, and altered - with or without attribution.

Some programs reduce this risk, but there are no guarantees.

Glenn Otis Brown

Posts: 3
Registered: Feb 24, 2005

Grokster
Posted: Mar 3, 2005 6:46 PM

Regarding the Grokster case, Creative Commons has actually filed an Amicus (or "friend of the court") brief in the case. This means we don't have an interest in the case, and we don't really even take a stand on the legality of file-sharing networks, but that we sketch for the court how possible rulings might affect our organization. The main point of the brief is the rather narrow argument that issues like this -- which involve balancing tests and economic judgment -- are best decided by Congress, not the courts, as the Supreme Court has ruled before in the Sony (1984) and Eldred (2003) decisions. Here's the brief: <http://creativecommons.org/amicus>.

This is the first time Creative Commons has ever filed a brief in a case. I emphasize that because it's important to explain that Creative Commons is not about changing copyright law, whether through litigation or legislative advocacy. We work within current copyright laws to give authors and publishers and artists a simple way to allow some uses of their work while restricting others -- to provide a voluntary "some rights reserved" copyright between the poles of the "no rights reserved" public doma, on the one hand, and "all rights reserved" default copyright rules, on the other. More at <http://creativecommons.org>

LEHMANN STROBEL PLC

Posts: 22
Registered: Feb 24, 2005

Re: Legal Live
Posted: Mar 3, 2005 6:49 PM

Your work is protected under copyright law on creation. You can also register your work with the COpyright Office. The real issue isn't that your work isn't protected but that it can be difficult to enforce your rights.

Hathaway

Posts: 8
Registered: Mar 3, 2005

Re: Legal Live
Posted: Mar 3, 2005 6:51 PM

So if I understand it correctly, I can only do something about it if I find out about it.

This might take some philosophizing to get my head (and ego!) around.

Jon Garon

Posts: 23
From: Hamline University School of Law
Registered: Feb 24, 2005

Re: Legal Live
Posted: Mar 3, 2005 6:51 PM

The zefrank site, Wikipedia, and other such sites create very innovative and valuable projects. The zefrank site raises the issue that fair use be treated protectively and robustly online.

Having said that, I think that such sites have an obligation to other artists to be respectful of copyright and take down material that the copyright owner has object to, unless it really is criticism and comment. (The zefrank site is great commentary, so I would expect nothing to have to come down - but that is a judgment call.)

If the creator of such sites is trying to deter rampant infringement, then that site owner should be given wide latitude. I believe that has been the practice over the past ten years. Where the owner strips itself of the ability to police, then I have no fear that such a site does more harm than good.

Giesla Hoelscher

Posts: 5
Registered: Mar 3, 2005

photographs
Posted: Mar 3, 2005 6:52 PM

I am a digital artist and I collage together photographs that I have taken. I have a question about photography as it pertains to photographing licensed and/or copyrighted items.

If I photographed a banner or sign that had a sports team logo on it (for example: a Twins logo on a banner hanging from the Metrodome) and put it in a collage that I would sell, would I be violating their license of the logo even though I took the photograph?

LEHMANN STROBEL PLC

Posts: 22
Registered: Feb 24, 2005

Re: Legal Live
Posted: Mar 3, 2005 6:56 PM

Yes. You have to find someone infringing on your work. Corbis has an interesting business model (at least for us lawyers) in this context. They insert a "watermark" on their images which apparently "phones home" when it is being used. If the use is not authorized, a Cease and Desist letter is automatically generated and sent to the infringer. This is followed up by a polite phone call from Corbis sales reps asking if the infringer wouldn't like to buy a license. The whole operation is run by a legal department of only a handful of lawyers.

Glenn Otis Brown

Posts: 3
Registered: Feb 24, 2005

Re: Legal Live
Posted: Mar 3, 2005 6:57 PM

"Your work is protected under copyright law on creation. You can also register your work with the COpyright Office. The real issue isn't that your work isn't protected but that it can be difficult to enforce your rights."

Right -- every piece of creativity "fixed in a tangible medium of expression" is copyrighted automatically the moment it's made. It is also automatically copyrighted to the fullest extent -- the "all rights reserved" I mentioned before. The author enjoys the exclusive rights to copy, distribute, commercialize, alter, and perform the work, among other things (unless he or she signs the rights away to someone else).

What Creative Commons does is allow authors to exercise these rights to a more moderate degree if they want to. If a phtographer doesn't mind people copying her photos provided she gets credit and they don't commercialize them, we have a license for her to use to attach to her work. If a musician wants people to sample from the song but not to copy the whole thing, we have a license for that, too.

I like to think of us as the legal equivalent of the equalizer on your stereo: a way to set the preferences of your copyright to a level that suits you.

Colin Rusch

Posts: 1,435
Registered: Oct 16, 2002

Re: Grokster
Posted: Mar 3, 2005 7:00 PM

Sometimes this software publishes URLs strangely. The link to Creative Commons' Amicus is at http://creativecommons.org/amicus

Colin

Jon Garon

Posts: 23
From: Hamline University School of Law
Registered: Feb 24, 2005

Re: photographs
Posted: Mar 3, 2005 7:00 PM

The use of another company's trademark in your photograph raises a trademark question rather than a copyright question. As such, it will depend on how the trademark is used. If your collages are reproduced in limited runs, it is far less likely that the reproduction of the trademark would be considered an commercial or infringing use. If instead, your collages were reproduced on hadbags or other commercially sold products (or used to promote the sale of such items), then the use of the trademark in association with that commercial sale would likely result in a trademark violation.

Hathaway

Posts: 8
Registered: Mar 3, 2005

Re: Legal Live
Posted: Mar 3, 2005 7:01 PM

And I have this question, not relative to technology, perhaps-- but maybe has some of the same issues at it's heart. If I wish to duplicate an item that is beyond the original copyright (that is life of the creator + 70 years...) and the item is in a museum collection, who owns the rights to that thing? Just because a museum owns the "thing" do they now own the rights to it, too? Do you think I need to get a release if I want to use my copy for commercial purposes?

LEHMANN STROBEL PLC

Posts: 22
Registered: Feb 24, 2005

Re: photographs
Posted: Mar 3, 2005 7:02 PM

Actually you are dealing primarily with trademarks here. There is no prohibition against taking a photograph from a public place and incorporating it into your work. However, in your example, the Twins logo functions as a trademark. The issue in using another's trademark is whether you are trying to deceive customers about the origin of goods. Also, there are potential claims for disparagement of the business, etc. Your liability for trademark infringement depends mainly on how the logo is used in the work.

Jon Garon

Posts: 23
From: Hamline University School of Law
Registered: Feb 24, 2005

Re: Legal Live
Posted: Mar 3, 2005 7:05 PM

You ask a question that highlights one of my "hot button issues" regarding copyright misuse - the abuse of owners to use ownership to restrict access to public domain works.

Once a copyright expires, the work falls into the public domain and every person is free to duplicate the work, create derivative works, or otherwise exploit the public domain material. Of course, the owners of the physical copy have no obligation to provide access to the work and to the extent the work is fragile, there is legitimate concern about protecting it physically (so no flash photography).

For public museums in particular, however, I see significant extension of the attempt to protect the physical object into an attempt to exploit the public domain copyright by limiting access. Public institutions should not be permitted to do so and private, tax exempt organizations, should be discouraged from doing so.

Replies: 109 Pages: 8 [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ]

Back to Topic List