The baffling existence of a Joker origin-story movie gets one thing right: For Warner Bros., getting the hell out of the DC Extended Universe is the right move. It’s busted, and the shocking failure of Justice League is proof enough. It’s no coincidence that the studio’s biggest success, Wonder Woman, spent 99 percent of its time ignoring the rest of DC’s bigger world.
DC’s heroes are so iconic, so mythic, that they allow themselves to be altered and bent in any form.
Warner Bros. should be making movies outside its current cinematic universe, even if its current cinematic universe wasn’t stinking up the place. Because this is a power that belongs specifically to DC, not Marvel, and is one of its comics’ biggest strengths.
DC has never shied away from telling stories outside of its comics’ continuity.
2018/09/19: EU has increasingly been concerned with making its copyright system more modern and more competitive as a whole, to attract investments.
If these provisions are implemented, they could have an impact on the amount of content that is actually available online. But Europe has been heading in this direction over the past several years.
Take linking and Article 11. This would not actually be a huge change: The highest EU court has already ruled on a number of occasions that unauthorized linking to protected content might expose one to liability. Under EU copyright, the core idea is that exclusive rights should be granted a “high level of protection.”
In the U.S., the law provides for a fair-use doctrine, but in Europe, even the making of a meme or a GIF is already a bit risky because of different legal approaches. All EU countries have closed lists of available copyright exceptions. In Europe, if you want to make a GIF from, say, Crazy Rich Asians, you first need to identify whether the law would allow that by means of a relevant exception, and then, if you find this exception, you need to check that all legal conditions are also satisfied.
So what now? If Europeans wish to push back against Article 11 and Article 13, they need to prepare to radically change copyright law, including an overall rethinking of its foundations and approach.
Free knowledge based on Creative Commons licenses: Consequences, risks and side-effects of the license module "non-commercial use only – NC".
2018/09/12: consigli per evitare una violazione: SBAGLIATI, perchè non citano affatto pubblico dominio, Creative Commons, e fanno pure confusione sul punto royalty-free = previo acquisto licenza:
Quando decidiamo di pubblicare un video in rete o su un social network, occorre prestare molta attenzione. Se si utilizza una musica di sottofondo, infatti, si potrebbe violare il diritto d'autore. Come fare allora? Abbiamo raccolto quattro consigli per stare tranquilli:
Se vuoi pubblicare un video su YouTube o su un altro social network, evita di inserire una musica di sottofondo;
Chiedi l'autorizzazione all'autore, pagando i relativi diritti, se decidi di pubblicare un video utilizzando un brano edito;
Opta per brani royalty-free, ovvero quelli che, previo acquisto di una licenza d'uso, consentono di sincronizzare la musica con un altro contenuto audiovisivo senza spese ulteriori;
Cita sempre le fonti delle notizie o dei tweet riportati.
2009-02-18: Da un punto di vista operativo, la situazione è al momento inconfutabile: chi è iscritto alla Siae come autore non può rilasciare opere sotto licenza CC, perchè, così facendo, creerebbe una situazione di incompatibilità nella possibilità di gestione delle stesse, il cui mandato è attribuito esclusivamente alla Siae stessa.
2017-05-19: a discussion with the students of the Roman School of Comics
2011/04/16: La sentenza Eminem, che colpisce indirettamente i negozi online, è la punta di un iceberg o un caso isolato. Di sicuro mescola le carte in un mercato in grande crescita che sta scrivendo regole nuove per tutti i contenuti "liquidi": brani musicali, ebook, film e anche notizie
2011/03/29: Mike Masnick is absolutely right that the report debunks the entire foundation of US foreign IP policy. That policy has essentially been written by the owners of US intellectual property, who jealously protect it and think that the best thing they can possibly do is be as aggressive as possible towards any sign of international IP piracy. As the report shows, this makes a tiny amount of profit-maximizing sense for the companies concerned. But it actually encourages, rather than reduces, piracy in the aggregate.
2011/01/10/: there are two major classes of threat to freedom: one that has been present for many years now, and the other that is relatively new.
A pianist performed a Bach composition for his Youtube channel, but Youtube's Content ID system pulled it down and accused him of copyright infringement because Sony Music Global had claimed that they owned 47 seconds' worth of his personal performance of a song whose composer has been dead for 300 years.
Just last week, German music professor Ulrich Kaiser posted his research on automated censorship of classical music, in which he found that it was nearly impossible to post anything by composers like Bartok, Schubert, Puccini and Wagner, because companies large and small have fraudulently laid claim to their whole catalogs.
This is a glimpse of the near future. In one week, the European Parliament will vote on a proposal to force all online services to implement Content ID-style censorship, but not just for videos -- for audio, text, stills, code, everything.
In the same way that California is a global net exporter of lifesaving emissions controls for vehicles, the EU has been a global net exporter of privacy rules, anti-monopoly penalties, and other desperately needed corrections for an Internet that grows more monopolistic, surveillant, and abusive by the day.
Many of the cheerleaders for Articles 11 and 13 talk like these are a black eye for Google and Facebook and other US giants, and it's true that these would result in hundreds of millions in compliance expenditures by Big Tech, but it's money that Big Tech (and only Big Tech) can afford to part with. Europe's much smaller Internet companies need not apply.
It's not just Europeans who lose when the EU sells America's tech giants the right to permanently rule the Internet: it's everyone, because Europe's tech companies, co-operatives, charities, and individual technologists have the potential to make everyone's Internet experience better. The US may have a monopoly on today's Internet, but it doesn't have a monopoly on good ideas about how to improve tomorrow's net.
L’indagine Copyright & US Tech Giants ha raccolto l’opinione dei cittadini dell’Unione europea in vista del voto del 12 settembre alla plenaria di Strasburgo, quando il Parlamento europeo torna a votare la cosiddetta riforma del copyright per far pagare ai colossi del Web un compenso ad artisti e autori di contenuti distribuiti sui social network e piattaforme digitali. Condotta da Harris Interactive su 6600 persone in Europa rappresentative della sua popolazione, ha dato un risultato molto netto: a favore della riforma l’89% degli italiani, dato maggiore rispetto alla media europea che arrivata comunque all’87%
Copyright and the Vatican
We'd noted that there's a big copyright review going on down in Australia, with the current suggestion being to recognize fair use in Australia. This would be a huge step forward because, as has been widely recognized in the US, fair use is...
2009/05/14: Peter Wayner, a technology writer, struggles with how to respond to the widespread piracy of his books online.
One of the key talking points from those in favor of Article 13 in the EU Copyright Directive is that people who claim it will lead to widespread censorship are simply making it up. We've explained many times why this is untrue, and how any time...
La giornata di ieri ha fatto registrare le temperature più alte da quando il dibattito sulla proposta di direttiva europea sul diritto d'autore nel mercato unico digitale è, finalmente, esploso dopo due anni di torpore e di documenti silenziosamente scambiati nei corridoi delle istituzioni europee.