Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 21 22 23 24 25 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
A model of arguing with evidence, if you will.
-
Although, were I to be snarky, I should note that he hasn't strictly proved that Fairey is a thief -- i.e, the state of California is unlikely to bring charges under their equivalent of the Crimes Act.
However, I shan't.
It is also an interesting example of how remix culture isn't always happy boingboing stuff; sometimes it is well-off westerners using ideas without bothering to put anything back. (There's a link to Elizabeth Bear and the recent shoutyness with [T|P]NH as well there.)
(Best copyright line I've seen lately, by the way, from here---``This document is protected by no legal copyright other than your ethics.'')
-
3410,
But also, it's blatantly a derivative work, and so the original photographer deserves something of the dosh.
Ironically, the original photographer would deserve none of the dosh in any case since, by being an employee of Associated Press, all rights in the work are relinquished.
Maybe that's not so ironic; perhaps it's even emblematic of current copyright issues, having two parties arguing over ownership of a work, of which neither is the original creator.
-
Agree, 3410. It's going to take concerted smart action to make sure law and technological changes benefit creators and not just owners.
-
At least National won't have to bother making good on their promises to build a better fibre infrastructure, there will be no point.
Note to National. Please stop listening to me.
-
15 Minute presentation (sorry, Rob, this one is bound to rile you) from Midem "How Trent Reznor and NIN represent the Future of the Music Business"
Since completing his earlier major record label contract, musician Trent Reznor has been experimenting with a variety of new and unique business models for his band, Nine Inch Nails, to reach and connect with fans. This case study explores Reznor's experiments, examining what has worked and what has not - and why.
Speaker: Michael Masnick (Editor/President & CEO, Techdirt Blog/Floor64)It's an interesting formula: CwF + RtB = $$$$
-
sorry, Rob, this one is bound to rile you
not a problem mate, thanks for thinking of my feelings :)
-
Note to National. Please stop listening to me.
Bah. The problem here is that the actual policy they spent all last year campaigning on is a mirage. With Maurice out of the way they now have to come up with something real. But dumping a scheme that did seem to work seems a bloody stupid way to go about it.
-
I'm not entirely convinced by the Fairey j'accuse.
There appear to be several cases of extremely poor form: the MC5 logo and the use of a living Cuban artist's work, for example.
But in places, the author simply gets carried away, claiming, for instance, that Fairey's skull-and-crossbones graphic is "an exact duplication" of the logo used by the Gestapo.
It simply isn't, as anyone could see by looking at it. And anyway, if it is, why not appropriate from the Gestapo and recontextualise the politics of the image?
Another group of the images are out of copyright. Perhaps it would have been better form to explicitly acknowledge their origins, but lots of artists don't.
Even in the case of the famous Obama image, Fairey's rendition was demonstrably iconic. The original photograph was just one of many thousands of photographs of a photogenic man. Its relative value was minimal. If AP does get the money it's after, it will be reaping value added by Fairey.
Also, arguing on the basis that "I’ve never seen any evidence indicating Fairey can draw at all" is irrelevant, speculative and pissy. Who cares?
-
And anyway, if it is, why notappropriate from the Gestapo and recontextualise the politics of the image?
Because he isn't doing that.
(And the point about out of copyright work is a moral one.)
Which artists are you talking about in terms of not acknowledging sources? Because there's a whole bunch of different conventions involved, and especially the rules are different when you have a clothing line and move away from fine art.*
* Snobbery? Why, yes.
-
3410,
Even in the case of the famous Obama image, Fairey's rendition was demonstrably iconic. The original photograph was just one of many thousands of photographs of a photogenic man. Its relative value was minimal. If AP does get the money it's after, it will be reaping value added by Fairey.
But it's not just about the money; it's about control of the image. Sure, no one cares about that because it's AP, what if it you'd taken the photo? Would you be still be saying "don't worry about paying anything for that photo you used without permission, after all it's just one of thousands"?
-
If AP does get the money it's after, it will be reaping value added by Fairey.
There's some question over whether AP actually hold copyright in the image. Jonathan Melber writes on the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-melber/the-ap-hase-no-case-again_b_165068.htmlIt's also worth noting that there's a real question as to whether the AP owns the copyright to Garcia's photograph in the first place. Under copyright law, you own the copyright to whatever you create unless you grant it to someone else in writing. Garcia told me that none of the documents he signed granted the AP the copyright to any of his photographs. He said he was "caught completely off guard" when, according to Garcia, the AP told him in January that they owned the copyright. And he was shocked when he found out the AP was going after Fairey. "I told the AP I don't want to be a part of it," said Garcia. "I don't want to sue anybody."
He goes on to state that Fairey's use of the image falls under the Fair Use provision of US law (we don't have the equivalent in NZ) using Russell's point above :
And the other "fair use" factors? Well, Fairey didn't harm the commercial value of Garcia's photograph--he vastly increased it.
In other news, Fairey's suing AP and the Stanford Law Centre is representing him.
-
Sorry, the ambiguity has escaped from its box. Thet should read " Melber goes on to state... " - it looks like I was saying that Garcia was commenting on the Fair Use qualification, which is not the case.
-
But it's not just about the money; it's about control of the image. Sure, no one cares about that because it's AP, what if it you'd taken the photo? Would you be still be saying "don't worry about paying anything for that photo you used without permission, after all it's just one of thousands"?
Yes. Because the point is that if the change is transformative enough - and it's really hard to claim that it isn't, looking at the statute - where the image comes from is completely irrelevant. I'm with Kos on this one.
-
The gulf between the warring parties actually does worry me sometimes.
so I finally got to see the show when it got put up for podcast download. I don't know why Russell wouldn't illuminate his comment more. I can only assume it was a sly attempt to drive viewers to the show by not answering my question on the above.
I didn't really see evidence of warring.
Ant didn't come across very well at all. he seemed tired and moody, and pissed off that people kept getting his and apra's position wrong, regularly reminding people apra was not representing the recording industry as such. Its also worth noting that they are supposed to be a non profit orginisation that exists to represent their members, ie a collection of individuals.Bronwyn after saying the code was pretty reasonable and pointing out the bits she thought were good and fair went on to get bogged down in doom speak, and Pat looked much more like a mouth piece for the interests of internet service providers, specifically his boss telecom. He definitely does not come across as impartial any more.
hearing more about the code of practice makes me think how impotent 92a is. How laws are implemented and monitored is the key thing.ie Thou shalt not speed is the law. People sill do it, red light cameras and strategically placed cops is how its implemented.
If you know these things then some people can still speed in places around the hot spot areas.
If you get snapped on a camera and can't prove it wasn't you at the wheel, you're guilty upon accusation. burden of proof is on you to disprove the circumstantial evidence. simply saying it wasn't me without illustrating and proving why it wasn't you isn't enough.same with parking fines. "Not me" won't get you off it if its your car. a long letter of bullshit might.
Same with some other key services too.
if you are accused of illegal activity on your home phone (prank or abusive calls, wrongful 111's etc) and can't prove it wasn't you you're liable for what happens on said phone.If you misuse Trade me and break their rules of use your account is removed, guilty upon accusation. disconnected without trial.
and now the same with internet services, a mode of operating that has precedence in other fields, but really the code doesn't seem that scary at all.
Only one notice a month and you get three so that's 3 months of hassle free downloads from first notice only if they catch you doing something wrong. I can get a lot of pirating done in that time and once I'm done with it on one isp can I just move to the next?
The catching thing hasn't been illuminated very well. How are they going to catch anyone, especially with music and its predominantly small file sizes.
Take own notices for websites like this?
Fans who show their love in mildly offensive ways which freely allows people to take stuff that they can get from predominantly indie musicians (most of the Bats catalogue, terminals and renderers who I know are not pleased with their stuff being just taken when they've gone to the bother of making recordings available legitimately)?
That's not going to be much help unless these sites are nz based and they're not.I was hoping for more of an explosion. that's more of a wet fire cracker, and not even one of the good big ones.
-
so I finally got to see the show when it got put up for podcast download. I don't know why Russell wouldn't illuminate his comment more. I can only assume it was a sly attempt to drive viewers to the show by not answering my question on the above.
I honestly wasn't "attempting" to do anything, and I didn't understand why you took offence. I just thought that anyone who'd been following the story would have been aware of the war of words between the respective parties.
ie Thou shalt not speed is the law. People sill do it, red light cameras and strategically placed cops is how its implemented.
If you know these things then some people can still speed in places around the hot spot areas.
If you get snapped on a camera and can't prove it wasn't you at the wheel, you're guilty upon accusation. burden of proof is on you to disprove the circumstantial evidence. simply saying it wasn't me without illustrating and proving why it wasn't you isn't enough.Yes, but people die as a result of dangerous driving. That's not the case with copyright infringement. And, of course, you get the chance to have your case heard in court if you wish.
same with parking fines. "Not me" won't get you off it if its your car. a long letter of bullshit might.
Again, if you really wish you can tae a parking fine to court. Not the case with Section 92A, and that's what people object to.
Only one notice a month and you get three so that's 3 months of hassle free downloads from first notice only if they catch you doing something wrong. I can get a lot of pirating done in that time and once I'm done with it on one isp can I just move to the next?
It's actually starting to look like you might be able to just sign up again with the same ISP. Which means quite a lot of palaver for little result.
I liked Bronwyn's idea of a disputes tribunal-style copyright court. It seemed worth investigating.
Take own notices for websites like this?
Fans who show their love in mildly offensive ways which freely allows people to take stuff that they can get from predominantly indie musicians (most of the Bats catalogue, terminals and renderers who I know are not pleased with their stuff being just taken when they've gone to the bother of making recordings available legitimately)?MP3 blogs that offer whole albums are not generally a good thing. On the other hand, when the recording is years (even decades) out of print and there is no immediate prospect of re-release, it doesn't seem quite so bad. The fans commenting seem sincere in their love for the music.
I'm more pissed off with Warners for sitting on the Flying Nun catalogue because they can't be bothered doing anything with it. That music should be out there -- it should be prominently featured on eMusic, and it's a scandal that it isn't.
But the solution with that guy is clearly to just ask him to take it down, as per his offer on the page.
-
Again, if you really wish you can take a parking fine to court. Not the case with Section 92A, and that's what people object to.
well it won't do any good unless you can prove you're innocent.
ie guilty upon accusation.doesn't part of the proposed code of practice make provision for dispute, but that would require some sort of proof. ie people were using my wireless connection without my knowledge but I've turned on the password protection now so it should have stopped. Simply saying I didn't do won't help though.
There should be some sort of onus of proof of method from the acusing end too though. ie how did they come to the conclusion that you were downloading a box set of jazz tv programs etc. -
they are supposed to be a non profit orginisation that exists to represent their members, ie a collection of individuals
Is that actually the case that they are a collection of individuals? APRA in NZ is a limited liability coy wholly owned by APRA in Oz, which is a "company limited by guarantee", a non-profit structure which can have other corporates as members (and in fact if you look at the founders in the APRA charter they were largely music publishing companies).
My understanding is also that voting power in APRA is proportional to the member's income, with one extra vote per $500 in income. Clearly a music publishing house with a lot of copyrights is going to have more swing than, say, me (income close to 0 in recent years).
So I am becoming a bit skeptical of the position that APRA merely represents a bunch of songwriters. I think there's more to it than that.
I think you're right that a lot of ire is being focussed on APRA that should perhaps be directed elsewhere. Unfortunately they seem to be the most vocal defenders of the new regime, so they cope the most flak.
-
doesn't part of the proposed code of practice make provision for dispute
It does. APRA have asked for a clause to be inserted that would make the complainant the sole judge of whether your defence was viable or not if someone accused of infringement disputes the claim. In other words, they want to be both the prosecution and the judge.
-
I honestly wasn't "attempting" to do anything, and I didn't understand why you took offence.
I didn't take offense, I just wanted to know who you were talking about. it wasn't obvious, but to be fair it may have been late when you wrote the comments as you did leave ant out of your line up panel listing.
To be honest I was hoping you were saying the discussion got heated, maybe a bit of fist fighting as that would make good tv, but it was pretty calm, and unexplainedly tired and grumpy on ants part. for someone who represents entertainers he wasn't very entertaining. -
But the solution with that guy is clearly to just ask him to take it down, as per his offer on the page.
yes he does say contact him and he'll do that but there's the full recently released toy love set up there, and recent chris knox, david kilgours recent albums,
they have a lame disclaimer about these are for listening purposes only and you should buy it but isn't that for the band to arrange.
but really that whole disclaimer is like saying if you object to us taking the produce out of your garden without asking and giving it to people just tell us. its your job to stop us doing it.What I'd like to see is these people contacting the artists and asking permission. Its not hard to do, a simple email etc if your internet hasn't been disconnected already for downloading pirate material.... (too soon?)
-
Is that actually the case that they are a collection of individuals?
its the spiel they give at their recruiting drives before they test your thetan levels, and tell you how much money you're going to make from airplays in finland. it might well be lies.
My understanding is also that voting power in APRA is proportional to the member's income, with one extra vote per $500 in income.
I've not heard that before. where in your linked source does it say that? in that case I'd like to purchase 1/10th of a vote please.
-
from the comments on the bats 4 songs ep
The Bats are happy to receive payment for downloads. It cost them money to record these songs let alone write rehearse and perform them.
Please put food on the bands tables and give them a roof to sleep under.seems the artists aren't that happy with people taking their stuff without contribution
-
It does. APRA have asked for a clause to be inserted that would make the complainant the sole judge of whether your defence was viable or not if someone accused of infringement disputes the claim. In other words, they want to be both the prosecution and the judge.
so you would like to see a court level on it for further disputed claims?
personally I'd like that option only available at the request of the defendant. i'd hate to see this stuff dealt with in a court of law as a matter of practice. that really would make the kids criminals with criminal records. I'd personally like to duck out gracefully if nabbed grabbing a pre release copy of dexter series 4.What's the situation if you get disconnected from a telecom landline for misuse. can you take that to court, privately sue?
-
where in your linked source does it say that?
Click on the link that says "APRA Constitution", download the PDF, and look at clause 41 on page 17.
Every Full Member shall have one vote plus one additional vote for each complete $500 of such member’s earnings during the preceding financial year.
so you would like to see a court level on it for further disputed claims?
I'd certainly like a 3rd party involved for people who want to dispute complaints, yes.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.