[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
[ << Previous 20 ]
[ << Previous 20 ]
|Wednesday, November 21st, 2012|
are lj posts
I apologize if this has been covered already or if it's obvious to you.
Do any of you know if livejournal posts are protected by copyright?
Any information or suggested links would be appreciated, usually I rock the google, but not on this one.
thanks so much for your time, lizzylavenza
|Tuesday, June 15th, 2010|
can i ask questions
you'll see me here time to time with "oh no they didn't/can they do that" or being a fake asshat with "can I do this? so and so said I can/they are getting away with it"
and i need more knowlange of how far I can go before I'm breaking copyright laws or infringing on someone's IP
1) in some malls by me people are selling counterfit-ish, knockoff type toys. there is a plug and play emulator video game system called "power station" I don't thik Atari and Nintendo authroize it. is this legal and to what degree? some will say "as long as they don't say they made it and it is a Nintendo". the sellers don't like people touching their stuff, and I'm not in the mood to pay $30 for an emulator when I can be a little hypocrite and just download one for my PC.
2) and with that, what is owned? if a cultural icon is that well known the look, name and nature is owned right? or can I sell Whinnie-the-Pooh toys with a new name, like "silly bear" or "happy bear"?
3) copyrights and trademarks go more than skin deep? If I weren't an American and I wanted to sell a product by duping someone into thinking it's a Disney one, I can get away with using the Disney font? Is that trademarked like a logo? logos are trademarked with or without a name? or can I make a sale easier by using such? if I made jewelery and wanted an easier sale i can put "pretty necklace" in said Disney font, or would my product be removed from the web, or my table/kiosk get shut down when their lawyers find out?http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=gQi-zQR03z8
he says it's infrigment
4) how close to a look can one get when making a character? i'm told it's a name, I can legally make a rip off of Pikachu right? just make lighting bolt ears, ditch the tail and keep 80% of the colors and call it a Zapbunny? or no?
5) should I report those people selling knock off and counterfeits like these http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/album.php?aid=198837&id=761219107&ref=pb
? or is it mean and going to ruin the lively hood of an immigrant seeking an American dream and delivering toys and joy to children. or are those legal because of "made in China"? I doubt "every styles fully wonderfull" is a viable phrase on a real WWE toy
6) if it is legal, should something be done? or should I just then be a jerk at the one mall and go into the Coach store and tell them "hey guess what? I learned I can sell Moach or Croach, or nameless bags that are rip off of your product as long as I let people know it's fake, isn't that cool?"
7) is it really ok/"legal"? I mean I want to ask the one mall so bad but I don't get there on weekdays, to ask them if it is. I can see wanna-be products, like "backwards soft robe-blanket". But is it up to the management's rules to let stuff happen? or could one really sell fake stuff? or should I ignore whiny signs and fondle merchandise and look for copyright marks. could/should i rat these people out and deprive them of a job, and kids with low income families of toys?
|Tuesday, June 1st, 2010|
Competitions for those who know the Law
The International Contest of Young Lawyers “Precedent”
is an on-line activity for students and young professionals. It's a bilingual contest where you can send the work in English or Russian.
It’s main goal is to give young lawyers and students a place to share opinions and try their skills. At the same time practicing lawyers and the one who is just interested in jurisprudence may participate.
There are two spheres where the participant may choose a case to resolve - intellectual property and private international law. Here’s the list of cases
You can vote for the works and comment! Here are
the approved solutions.
The Contest is held till 21 of June 2010. You can send a work up to June 15
Prizes for the winners are granted!
|Saturday, May 9th, 2009|
Update on MA thesis on HP fan fiction
With this message, I would like to thank all of you
who answered my questionnaire at http://fanfiction.frontexperts.com
(see the original message below) and have given me helpful feedback. Many of you who sent me emails with comments let me know that my questionnaire did not fully embrace your experience with fan fiction. Because a survey is a highly standardized research instrument, there was no way of avoiding this problem but I decided to broaden my research design according to the concerns conveyed to me. Thus, I would like to conduct a group discussion
with fan fiction authors
where they will have the opportunity to freely talk about their experience without being bound by narrow questions like in the survey.
Therefore, I am looking for Harry Potter fan fiction authors who will attend the LeakyCon 2009 from May 21st-24th
and who would be willing to get together for an hour or two as a group to discuss their experience
with me and the other fan fiction authors. As far as I can tell from the LeakyCon schedule, Saturday morning would probably work best to meet for the discussion. Also, it would give us a chance to get to know each other on Thursday or Friday. I will provide a space at the hotel where we will be undisturbed and make sure we have drinks and snacks. A group of 8-12 people would work best but if there are too few people for a group discussion, I would be happy to meet with any of you informally at LeakyCon to talk about your experience as a fan fiction author
By participating in a group discussion, you would make an immense contribution to the quality and accuracy of my research. I am looking forward to meeting you in person and hearing about your life in Harry Potter fan fiction
. If you want to participate please let me know until May 19th
by replying to this message or at fanfictions@ gmx.net
. Thank you so much for your repeated help!
|Friday, April 17th, 2009|
|Thursday, April 16th, 2009|
Harry Potter Fan Fiction - Help with MA thesis!
I hope it's OK that I'm posting this message here. I do not have any financial interest whatsoever, this message regards academic research only!
My name is Petra Baumann and I’m doing research for my master’s thesis
in sociology on Harry Potter fan fiction at the University of Graz, Austria. As a sociologist, I am especially interested in the social background of fan fiction authors
: where they come from, how old they are, etc. Through my research I found that, many studies on fan fiction are done in the fields of literary studies, women studies, or cultural studies but there are very little sociological data available, especially on the Harry Potter fan fiction community.
In order to gather sociological data on Harry Potter fan fiction authors, I developed a short online questionnaire
. If you are an author of Harry Potter fan fiction you would immensely help me with my research if you could answer this questionnaire athttp://fanfiction.frontexperts.com
The questions will take about 10 minutes
to answer and there will be no spam or advertising
when you click the link. The evaluation is done anonymously
and the data will be used solely for academic research. If you have any questions regarding the questionnaire or my research please feel free to contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org or visit my LifeJournal
|Tuesday, March 24th, 2009|
This community is too quiet...
I read this today
:"When fictional characters become such an intricate part of the popular psyche, as is the case with the Twilight Saga, legal boundaries become blurred, and copyright laws become increasingly difficult to define. This is especially the case when actual cities like Forks and Volterra are used as the novel's settings. Such settings are not copyrightable, as they are considered public domain. Similarly, the Quileute Nation is also not copyrightable, and neither are vampire or werewolf legends. Copyright laws protect writers from unauthorized reproductions of their work, but such reproductions only include verbatim copying. Characters are only copyrightable if their creator draws them or hires an artist to draw them. Stephenie Meyer herself borrowed a great deal from previous works dealing with these mythologies."
So, that's one of the more hilarious misstatements of copyright law I've seen lately, which got me to wondering: What are the biggest misconceptions about copyright? Based on what I've read on the Internet I would say:
1) It's ok to copy something if I link/attribute it.
2) Fanfiction is not a copyright violation
3) It's been settled that ripping something to your ipod/iTunes is fair use/not a copyright violation.
Did I miss any?
|Friday, March 13th, 2009|
Sorry about the spam.
Hey folks of the Copyright community.
Given the recent spamming of this community, I would like to just let everyone know that, even though this community is not the most active, I still do try to keep this place free of trash posts. I would like to thank those who had taken the time to alert me of the spam posts in Copyright. Obviously, I deleted the posts, and I have blocked posting access to the offenders. Hopefully, that will put an end to the issue. I'm sorry for any annoyance or inconvenience that the spam may have caused.
|Monday, June 23rd, 2008|
Ten minutes of your time for my thesis?
Dear fanfic authors,
first of all I’m sorry if OT posting isn’t allowed in this community, but there’s no other way for me to do this; just delete this if it isn’t appropriate.
I’m a fanfic reader and occasional fanfic writer myself, so what did I pick for my thesis in communication sciences? Fan Fiction, of course. I designed a survey to find out more about our writing habits and media use; it takes about 10 minutes to complete.
If you could go here
and fill it out, I’d be forever grateful. Of course I’ll publish some of the results at my journal in about a month or two, so you’ll know what happened with your answers.
The survey is completely anonymous; I have no way of finding out who gave which answers.
Please, please help a fellow fan out. It’s only ten minutes for you; it’s a very important part of my work for me.
This has been cross-posted like crazy, and I'm sorry for spamming you guys, I'm just a little desperate, too.
|Thursday, May 8th, 2008|
Usage of Image of an object...
Whats the U.S. legal stand point on this.
I used a stock photo within a composit photo manipulation.
The owner of the stock is aware of this and has given permission for me to make the composit into a print for sale. (I have not done so yet)The images contain a unique object, a fun ride.
Does the owner or anyone assosiated with the ride have any rights to the image in the composit?
|Friday, April 25th, 2008|
UK name trademark registering?
Hello, I hope this is okay here. I just can't find the right information on google.
I am hoping to use a certain personal name/nickname for my work - photography, media work, etc.
I'd like to trademark the name, so it can't be used for other things in future by other people.
Is this at all possible in the UK? I don't understand a lot of the laws regarding registering trademarks and I hope you can answer this!
|Monday, April 7th, 2008|
Hi There! I've graduated in biomedical engineering about 10 years ago, but eventually get involved in all the software busyness and (so far just out of curiosity) get interested in software/media/content copyright issues.
Given that I have no background in LAW of any sort - are there any postgrad/continuous education classes I can take to educate myself on it? Or I'll have to go through all the law 101 prior to that?
I'm ready to spend half a year, couple of days a week, in the evenings on that or bit more for online-only course.
Any recommendations? I'm in Toronto, Ontario Area if that matters.
|Saturday, April 5th, 2008|
Music Rights And Copyright
I'm going to make a long story short. I've been collecting film score for the last 15 years and there is one particular album thats never seen the light of day. I've tried to get a couple of music industry people / producers I know interested in the property, did some internet footwork, even tracked down where the compositional sketches, unused liner notes and personal notes from the composer are kept - but all the album producers say the "trick hat" is the company who legally *owns* the master. (The company is in the UK, the physical copy of the music is in a university archive in California)..."I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not, but I'm serious, if somebody does the absolutely miserable work of seducing a new company into licensing a film score at "archival" rates, I'll happily put the album out... All you have to do is find out someone in business affairs who can acknowledge that they are the right company, and then will agree to license the soundtrack album master for only a few thousand pounds. The hard part is getting a sympathetic person at that company to want to do this.
I'm really just looking for advice or a crash course in what to do with this situation. I just need to know the lingo and ettiqute to sound professional. Can anyone here help me out?
|Friday, April 4th, 2008|
Coypright Notices & Names
So, I'm finally finishing this book. I'm going to self-publish it through Lulu, at least at first -- if demand is high, I'll pay for an ISBN and inclusion in Amazon, etc.
My question is about the copyright notice. I wrote this book under a pseudonym -- it's about polyphasic sleep, which I'm proud to be one of the pioneers of, but it's not something I want a future employer to find attached to my name if they Google it; my career(s) are reputation-sensitive and polyphasic sleep is a pretty "weird" undertaking, at least at this point in time. So I write all my polyphasic stuff under the name "Puredoxyk", including this book. Puredoxyk, of course, is not legally my name.
My husband has also published some books, and he does so under the auspices of "Flammable Press", which is not incorporated in the legal sense. If I linked my book to FP, someone *could* figure out who I am (my husband publishes under his real name), but I'm not so much "worried that someone might find me" as just trying to protect my professional name online.
I assume I shouldn't put a copyright notice on this book attached to a pseudonym. I was thinking about putting "copyright 2008 Flammable Press", if that's legally better, but since FP isn't a legal entity, I dunno.
Do I *have* to use my real name? Current Mood: confused
|Thursday, March 20th, 2008|
Photographs of Copyrighted Artworks as Derivative Works
There is now a split in the Federal courts as to whether a photograph of a copyrighted artwork is a derivative artwork of that original artwork. In January, a judge in Chicago, following precedent in that district, ruled that it is. Last week, a judge in Florida ruled that it is not. The question is important because a derivative work cannot be copyrighted without the consent of the author of the original work, which means that the photographer has almost no legal protection from what would otherwise be infringing use. (You cannot sue for copyright infringement without a copyright registration.)
The Supreme Court may very well have to resolve this issue if the split continues to develop. However, what I want to point out is this:
Even if the view that photographs are not derivative works prevails, that does not mean that photographers do not have to worry about depicting copyrighted artworks in their photographs.
The holder of a copyright has several exclusive rights, one of which is the right of reproduction. The right of reproduction is good against reproductions in different media, including photographs. This is entirely independent of the copyrightability of those photographs.
To set forth an example of who is affected differently by the two positions, consider the following fact pattern (which is taken from the Florida case.)
A, a motorcycle manufacturer, hires B, an artist to customize a motorcycle (assume that A does not ask for a copyright assignment or a work-for-hire contract, but does obtain at least a license from B to use the customized motorcycles in advertising.)
B creates a custom paint and deco scheme including copyrightable elements.
C photographs the motorcycle after B decorates it.
A gets the photographs and uses them for commercial advertising without an appropriate license from C.
C claims copyright infringement by A.
In the first line of cases, C's photographs are derivative works of B's custom deco scheme. C cannot copyright a derivative work without the consent of B, the creator of the underlying work. Assuming B has not so consented, C's images cannot be registered. Without a copyright registration, C cannot sue A. A wins.
In the second line of cases, C's photographs are not derivative works of B's custom deco scheme. C may copyright them without B's consent. Once C's copyright registration issues, C can sue A. A loses.
In *either* line of cases, B can sue C for unauthorized reproduction of his artwork, but B cannot grant A the right to use C's photographs under either theory (although in the first, it wouldn't matter as to A versus C.) If C can copyright his photographs, his copyright is good against the entire world, including B. C's use of the photographs may be subordinate to B's reproduction right, but that gives no rights in the photographs to B other than to prevent their being used in a manner which would infringe B's copyright.
While I don't know that I agree that the Copyright Statute is meant to ensure that photographs can't be derivative works, I tentatively tend to agree with the FL reasoning. Such a result still makes photographers answerable to original authors under the reproductive right, so it doesn't lose anybody anything. And it gives photographers the right to claim copyright and prevent third parties from using their photographs without permission under the shield of the copyright laws. That would seem like a pretty contrary result to the general purpose of said laws.
In some ways, the distinction is academic, but it's going to make a very real difference to photographers as to whether or not they can use copyright against unlicensed users of their work in such cases. Since courts often like to claim pre-emption in contract cases involving copyrighted or copyrightable works of art, arguments to things like quantum meruit, or unjust enrichment, are going to be uphill slogs in cases like the ones at hand.
I was on the winning side of just such a case last year - a fellow sued my client under various theories for the alleged unjust use of some computer software under many novel theories, including contract, unjust enrichment, and whatever else he could think of. The Seventh Circuit agreed with the District Court's summary judgment ruling that whatever he was saying in his complaint, his only viable claim, due to pre-emption, was copyright infringement. He had no registration and could not get one. Game Over. They didn't even seriously examine the merits of his contract and tort claims.
Current Mood: contemplative
|Saturday, March 1st, 2008|
The RIAA: It's Worse Than You Think.
The Recording Industry Association of America has been in the news from time to time lately when their lawsuits against ordinary people they accuse of infringing their members' copyrights through file-sharing services get sued for lots and lots of money. While these articles usually do contain a hint of "Hey, this is getting a little nuts, suing parents for ten grand because their kid installed Kazaa," because of journalists' urge to represent "both sides of the story," the RIAA usually gets quoted as how they're protecting musical artists and trying to stem the tide of music piracy before poor Madonna is reduced to living in a large refrigerator carton.
I attended a seminar on RIAA litigation yesterday and frankly, most people don't know the half of it. They don't even have any PROOF that said kids are sharing files, or that it was even said kids who did it. They are making a mockery, an absolute mockery, of due process and the rule of law. Ray Beckerman, the lawyer who gave the seminar, has a blog here:
If half of what he says about the RIAA's investigation and litigation techniques is true - and in the interest of "fair play," I should point out that he does represent several defendants in pending cases of this type, although all the evidence he cites is available in public court documents - then when the dust all settles, I should hope to see several lawyers disbarred and several investigators in jail. This is abuse of the legal system of the very highest order. If you want to know the particulars, read this:
How RIAA Litigation Works.
If you get served with process of some kind regarding one of these RIAA lawsuits, or know someone who does, I recommend that you visit the blog above immediately to learn more about what they are up to and how a person can defend themselves. If you are an attorney, I urge you to consider representing one or more of these defendents pro bono or at a greatly reduced rate, or at the very least to write letters and actively resist this blatant attempt to twist and usurp the copyright law to enrich a few at the expense of the many.
Disclaimer: I am an IP attorney who for almost fourteen years has represented copyright holders, creative arists, and providers of content. I believe in copyrights, and I think that copyright infringers should face the full sanctioning power of the law. I think that music piracy is morally equivalent to theft, and that artists deserve to be compensated for their creations. Happily, the RIAA has removed any potential hesitation I might have had in siding with alleged infringers by their public acts demonstrating that they are not, in any way, attempting to combat actual piracy or copyright infringement in this matter.
Current Mood: angry
|Monday, February 18th, 2008|
Fair use in pop music
Making a statement on fair use, creative commons and copyright. Quote at the end by Lawrence Lessig, guru on digital copyright. Girl Talk is a prime example of what is to come from the thriving cut & paste culture.
|Thursday, January 24th, 2008|
Tangents. You Gotta Love 'Em.
So an innocent remark by your humble correspondent on another community turned into a big fight about copyrights on the Bible and, in particular, on the Scriptures themselves. The Scriptures, as opposed to footnotes and concordances and genealogy forms and the ninety-leven other things that can also be included in a printed Bible, are translations of documents in the public domain, and the key question regarding their copyright status is the copyright protection accorded to translations. This has two sub-questions:
1) Is the time and effort required to translate an original work relevant to the copyright protection accorded to the translation as a derivative work? I'd say that under Feist etc (see below) that the answer is a resounding "Absolutely not." This got brought up a lot and I kept pointing out that I wasn't saying translation wasn't hard, but that it was irrelevant that it was hard. Several people expressed disbelief that this was so and one person outright called me a liar. So that was fun.
2) Is the contribution of the translator to the resulting derivative work - selecting words and phrases, shifting metaphors in cultural context, etc - relevant to the copyright protection accorded to the translation as a derivative work? This is a much better question. I'd say, "Absolutely positively maybe." See my remarks below.
So we were going back and forth and a good time was being had by all. Or at least by me, and that's what matters. At one point, I was asked by another poster if I was an attorney. I am: I've been a practicing attorney specializing in intellectual property for going on fourteen years, and I said as much. My position on the copyrightability of the Scriptures (that they aren't) was then rather sneeringly questioned by another attorney. My response is in the cut below. (It is Amusing to note that my response was exactly as long as LiveJournal allows a comment to be. I had to edit it down 74 characters to post it.) Comments welcome.
( Warning: Contains some discussion points which may offend Biblical Literalists.Collapse )
Well, at that point my esteemed adversary apparently got bored, because they didn't reply. It ocurred to me this evening that this might be interesting to bring up on this community and see if anybody wanted to play.
As I said in the post, if anybody has any authority, especially US authority, on this, I'd love to see it. I don't care if it contradicts me - we all make mistakes and it's not like I'm doing this for a client (which would have caused me to do proper research before expressing my opinion.) I just don't know that there is any one way or another.
Current Mood: tired
|Sunday, January 20th, 2008|
Today's Serious Quote
From formerly anonymous A Photo Editor (now known to be Rob Haggart, the former Director of Photography for Men's Journal and Outside Magazine:)
"Here’s what I think, all these people, who wish for copyright reform, so they can practice their “art” will be begging for forgiveness when all the corporations get tired of trying to protect the works they paid to create and instead decide to step into the online world and stomp the living shit out of everyone by employing thousands of salaried creative people to repurpose every uncopyrighted piece of material into some entirely forgettable eyeball splitting video.
It’s beyond my comprehension why people wouldn’t want original material they created protected under copyright law. Maybe readers can show me a reuse of someone’s work that adds value to this planet?"
Current Mood: busy
|Thursday, December 20th, 2007|
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
Recently there has been more added to the ongoing debate on photographs used online without permission.
Photographers in general seem to be overwhelmingly in support of Lane Hartwell
for sending a bill for a usage of her photo for a couple seconds in a youtube video.
I'm going to start this off by saying that as an artist I survive primarily from my photo work. I've shot everything from commercial tabletop to weddings, set photography for films to having gallery shows. And I've had images taken for commercial use (which I care about) and posted in places as strange as 13 year old's myspace pages and porn messageboards (which I don't care as much about, except as a matter of surreal social interest).
I agree that it may feel weird when you see your image in a place without knowing it would be there beforehand, but I think it is MUCH MUCH more important to defend the ability of art to be as CREATIVE as possible with as FEW roadblocks in its path. Commercial use is another thing entirely, of course. Lane is quoted as defending her image from unapproved commercial use, but to me, this obviously is not the case.
picture has nothing to do with this post. (c) 2007 who gives a fuck (me. please don't sell tampons with this picture)
Video art and sound art, especially modern experimental work (as well as documentary work, where independent filmmakers trying to show something important to the world often get stonewalled by a copyright issue, trying to find some archival footage copyright owner), thrives on mashup culture. To me, this is a clear cut case of a professional going after a non-profit group of people having a little fun in their time off work, trying to make something creative. I think it's very petty. The idea that she got a lawyer to harass a group of a capella singers who made a funny youtube video is ridiculous.
What about appropriation? Hasn't it been heavily defended in art?
Haven't many famous photographs been produced of other photographs, including some of the best selling of all time? ( eg. Prince's marlboro photograph
Isn't photography itself one of the most heavily contested mediums, for "stealing" other artist's or organization's images and using them? Aren't photographers often protesting someone trying to get them to stop taking pictures of their buildings, sculptures, faces, etc?
With the internet comes the next level of this debate, and I see it as one that traditional art and copyright is set to lose. Artists will do whatever it takes to make whatever points they want to make, as trivial or earthshattering as they may be.
To conclude: of course I like money for the use of my image. And of course I like credit, especially if money is not an option for the user.
But in this case they did make a huge effort to give credit (after a reminder). I see them as clearly on the right in this particular case.
I say use it to your benefit and don't end up lost with the flow.
I want to add that I think in different circumstances the response of the photographer should be appropriate.Some examples of unapproved use and what response I think is appropriate:Corporate ad
- Send bill or use legal actionEditorial usage(in a publication for sale)
- send bill or use legal actionWebsite usage for corporation
- Send bill or use legal actionNewsletter/email/etc for corporation
- Send bill or use legal actionWebsite for nonprofit
- send email asking if they knew they forgot to ask, possibly compensation if they are able, ask for creditNon-profit publication
- ask for credit, possible compensationArts non-profit publication (zine)
- ask for creditArts usage (appropriation, gallery, mashup, etc)
- ask for creditInternet video
- ask for credit, postdated royalties if video ever becomes popular and makes large amounts of money (never)Myspace, livejournal, imageboard
(such as 4chan.org), etc - laugh, post credit yourself as anon, stop being such a stickler and realize the internet is always going to be a den of scum and villainy. Go have an ice cream.
Feel free to totally disagree with me, of course. I'd like to hear what you think.