Tags: copyright*

436 bookmark(s) - Sort by: Date ↓ / Title / Voting /

  1. The Authors Guild -- notorious for advancing extremely broad, censorious theories of copyright -- told Lee that the Guild "does not support extending the copyright term, especially since many of our members benefit from having access to a thriving and substantial public domain of older works,If anything, we would likely support a rollback to a term of life-plus-50 if it were politically feasible." It will be very difficult to sell term extension as a measure to benefit artists if prominent artists' groups are speaking out against it.

    The other factor is that Congress is a total shambles, its calendar dominated by shutdowns and chaotic attempts to ram through the extreme agenda of the GOP electoral majority that represents a numeric minority of Americans, and the chances of any laws getting passed are slim.

    But there's always the possibility that copyright term extension would be slipped into must-pass legislation, a budget or a key appropriation. That's a risky game, given the possibility that this would spark a public uprising to kill it (there's plenty of Conservative animus for the entertainment industry, after all, and the 1998 term extension was counted as a major achievement by Bill Clinton and his acolytes, so this could be painted as greedy, corporate-money-fattened Republicans helping to preserve the hated legacy of the Clintons).
    https://boingboing.net/2018/01/08/sonny-bono-is-dead.html
    Voting 0
  2. The deal puts Fox's movie studio, 20th Century Fox, under the Disney umbrella, bringing with it the studio's intellectual property. Having 20th Century Fox's "X-Men" and "Avatar" under the same roof as Disney's "The Avengers" and "Star Wars" could have huge ramifications in both the streaming world and the film industry.

    Disney announced in August that it will pull its content from Netflix, effectively ending its relationship with the streaming service to start its own in 2019. This means Netflix users will no longer be able to watch content from Lucasfilm, Marvel, Pixar and Disney Animation.

    The deal between the two media giants means that Disney's streaming service will include its own deep vault of intellectual property, as well as Fox's decades of popular franchises, which would most likely get pulled from streaming competitors. As much as this deal is about the content that Disney would be getting from Fox, it's also about content competitors like Netflix would not.

    The deal also means Fox's stakes in Hulu now belong to Disney, which already has an equal stake along with Comcast. With a majority stake in Hulu, Disney could change the award-winning streaming service's offerings.

    "A 'Disneyflix' with Lucasfilm + Marvel + Pixar + Disney Animation + Disney Channel + ABC + 20c Fox + FX would be ... attractive," tweeted Derek Thompson, a writer at The Atlantic, last month.
    http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/14/media...ox-streaming-avatar-marvel/index.html
    Voting 0
  3. Imagine that, photographers who understand that their work has value. Who then copyright it to give them some legal recourse when people steal their work. And then pursue those who steal said work.

    I still love that he thinks we shoot images to upload to the Internet just so we can sue people for stealing them. That we have teams of people just waiting to pounce. That he actually calls it a “business model”.

    He also seems to not understand that images don’t actually need to be registered in order to have copyright protection. Sure, registration allows you to claim damages and whatnot, but you still own the copyright the instant you create the image. In other countries, there isn’t even a registration mechanism, and you get all the rights (including damages) regardless.

    So, it’s not much of a surprise then that he also doesn’t know that images are copyrighted even if there’s no actual copyright statement accompanying the image.
    https://www.diyphotography.net/intern...ed-copyright-owner-sued-stealing-work
    Tags: , , by M. Fioretti (2017-10-23)
    Voting 0
  4. Si tratta di uno studio, costato 360.000 euro e completato nel 2015, sugli effetti della pirateria sui contenuti vincolati dal diritto d’autore. Si intitola Estimating displacement rates of copyrighted content in the EU, è lungo oltre 300 pagine e oggi è scaricabile qui, ma non era mai stato reso pubblico.

    Sappiamo di questo studio non grazie alle indagini dei complottisti, ma alla tenacia di una parlamentare europea, la tedesca Julia Reda, che ha scoperto che esisteva questo rapporto grazie alla Regola dell’Informazione Laterale che cito spesso nelle tecniche d’indagine giornalistica digitale: per sapere se un dato è vero o falso conviene sempre cercare le informazioni di contorno a quel dato. Se un documento è stato omesso o segretato, può darsi che altrove ci siano informazioni amministrative che ne tengono traccia.

    In questo caso, per esempio, la parlamentare si è accorta dell’esistenza di questo studio perché ha scoperto la relativa gara d’appalto, risalente al 2013, e a quel punto ha richiesto accesso al documento. La Commissione, racconta la Reda, non ha risposto in tempo alla richiesta ben due volte.

    Come mai tanta riluttanza nel pubblicare uno studio costato fior di quattrini? Può darsi che sia colpa dei suoi risultati, che “non mostrano prove statistiche dello spostamento delle vendite da parte delle violazioni del coypright online” con l’eccezione dei film più popolari e recenti. Risultati che stridono con i vari provvedimenti governativi che mirano a sorvegliare il traffico dei file caricati su Internet di tutti gli utenti, indistintamente, con la giustificazione della tutela del diritto d’autore.

    Sia come sia, è indubbio che servono prove robuste per legittimare un intervento del genere e che, come dice la parlamentare, “dati preziosi sia finanziariamente, sia in termini di applicabilità dovrebbero essere disponibili a tutti se sono finanziati dall’Unione Europea: non dovrebbero raccogliere polvere su uno scaffale fino a quando qualcuno li richiede attivamente”.
    https://attivissimo.blogspot.it/2017/.../complotti-reali-lo-studio-sulla.html
    Voting 0
  5. Last October, the Dr Seuss estate used legal threats to halt a wildly successful crowdfunded Seuss/Star Trek mashup called "Oh, The Places You'll Boldly Go," whose contributors included comics legend Ty Templeton and Tribbles creator David Gerrold.

    The Seuss estate argued that the book infringed its trademarks and copyrights. Now, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California court has ruled on the trademark question and found that there is no valid trademark claim thanks to "nominative fair use," and also indicated that it would be favorably disposed to fair use defenses on the copyright question.
    https://boingboing.net/2017/06/12/litigious-estates.html
    Voting 0
  6. Reason Hollywood is "helping" China monitor set top boxes & smart tv's for copyright infringement is nothing more than Hollywood fill another one of their wet dreams which is aimed straight at restricting what you can view on those smart tv's and your set top boxes.

    Think about how Hollywood has waged war on torrent files and streaming sites, URL blocking and it's latest was on Kodi and other boxes.

    Hollywood is using China as a proof of concept to block users from seeing content that Hollywood doesn't want you to have access to (without kicking them some money first) or by the way of a license to enable you or the box provider to view or allow it to be distributed via a program or add on to the box, this concept would also be applied to smart tv's no doubt.

    Hollywood would never get away with doing a trial like this to block or censor set top boxes or smart tv's in the U.S. or UK, but China one could see allowing Hollywood do it with a large contribution of cash from Hollywood to get the goverment to okay it.

    China also benefits because they to can use this to have another way to filter what their citizens see and where they are getting it from and then blocking access to views that it doesn't like from reaching the public.

    You can bet if this proves effective that Hollywood will push this revelation of battling copyright infringement to other countries by saying the stats prove this is most effective and will save thousands of jobs and the infusion of cash that Hollywood needs to survive from all that piracy that threatens to push Hollywood to the brink of collapse... or so they say.
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...o-tackle-copyright-infringement.shtml
    Tags: , , , by M. Fioretti (2017-05-22)
    Voting 0
  7. The X-Men and the Avengers can appear in the same magazine but not the same film. Spiderman can only meet Captain America with Sony’s permission. After five decades, the world of special powers is fraught with personal issues
    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ent...engers-sharing-a-screen-a7023096.html
    Voting 0
  8. The primary purpose of copyright is to benefit the public, a fact that has been reiterated by Congress and the Supreme Court, repeatedly:
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...le-purpose-is-to-benefit-public.shtml
    Voting 0
  9. Google doesn’t generally make money from Google News itself, because it doesn’t place advertisements in the service (though it does of course place ads in its main search service, where results are sometimes augmented with Google News results). In contrast, ancillary copyright destroys the entire business model of small aggregation startups. CEDRO, Spain’s equivalent to VG Media in this arena, recently decided that aggregators should pay €0.05 per user per day in ancillary copyright fees – for the popular local aggregation startup Menéame, this works out as 20 times the company’s turnover. Obviously, this is completely untenable for a small business.

    So, given the German and Spanish experiences, what is the push for ancillary copyright actually trying to achieve? On the face of it, the aim is to get Google to pay publishers for sending readers to their articles. This is in itself a very strange idea, as publishers get to make money from showing ads to those readers, but let’s take it at face value for a moment. Even if Google were to continue to use those snippets, and if it started to pay those fees, the law would kill its small, European competitors in the news aggregation space – no-one would invest in them, because their businesses would haemorrhage money. Wealthy Google, if it stayed in the space, would end up dominating the EU news aggregation market even more than it does now.

    But this isn’t going to happen. Google is not going to start paying anyone to link to their online content, because that would be the beginning of the end for Google’s core business model – a win-win situation where the company benefits from being the gatekeeper for the public’s attention, and linked-to sites benefit from the traffic Google freely sends them.

    Günther Oettinger has claimed that the might of a pan-EU law would force Google to open its coffers, but he’s wrong. Nobody can force a company to engage in a line of business that will lose it money. If pushed, Google would undoubtedly do across the EU what it did in Spain: shut down Google News. This may benefit the traditional press publishers that hate online competition – and perhaps this is why they, with their vast offline marketing budgets, have lobbied so hard for an EU ancillary copyright law. But it would cause infinite harm to smaller European publishers and the innovative European startups that are trying to develop cleverer ways of connecting publishers with their readers.

    There are many flaws in Article 11 as proposed – its vague wording could penalise social media users; there’s no guarantee that journalists themselves would benefit from the fees; and it could lead to the last two decades of journalism becoming less accessible to the public. But even if the wording were tweaked, the basic concept remains fundamentally flawed. Nobody would benefit, apart from the handful of large press publishers that are trying to turn back the clock to protect their bottom lines.

    There’s no doubt that the news industry is in crisis, nor that digitalisation is largely to blame. It’s a deeply complex problem, and solutions are urgently needed. But ancillary copyright is not one of those solutions. If anything, it would hold back the innovation that’s so desperately needed to rescue the industry – innovation that might come not from Google, but from the bright minds in the EU.
    http://copybuzz.com/copyright/ancillary-copyright-poison-not-cure
    Voting 0
  10. "I spent at least a year dealing with the Japanese corporation Kodansha, which owns the rights," Davis told me by email. He had to "hire someone who spoke Japanese to conduct face-to-face negotiations in Japan." Worse, in the end, Davis wasn’t even allowed to use the images he had asked for. Kodansha insisted he choose from a small selection of publicity photos, rather than the scenes actually analyzed in the text.

    Davis’s acquisition process was more arduous than most, but the general predicament will be familiar to many academics who work with film, art, comics, or other visual materials. Many academic presses and journals require permission for the reprint of any images. For instance, Julia Round, a principal lecturer at Bournemouth University and editor of the journal Studies in Comics, told me that, at the request of its publisher (Intellect Books), "we always seek image permissions." Only if authors can’t track down permissions holders, Round said, does the journal consider printing small images under the legal doctrine of fair use.

    But while publishers want authors to get permission, the law often does not require it. According to Kyle K. Courtney, copyright adviser for Harvard University in its Office for Scholarly Communication, copyright holders have certain rights — for instance, if you hold rights for a comic book, you determine when and by whom it can be reprinted, which is why I can’t just go out and create my own edition of the first Wonder Woman comic. But notwithstanding those rights, fair use gives others the right to reprint materials in certain situations without consulting the author — or even, in some cases, if the author has refused permission.
    http://www.chronicle.com/article/Fair...s-Unused/240033?cid=wcontentgrid_hp_2
    Tags: , , by M. Fioretti (2017-05-12)
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 44 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: tagged with "copyright"

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle