Results tagged “copyright”
Yup, it's another sad tale of copyright abuse... Check out Eloise's post Cannot chase Paperchase
She suggested we write to Paperchase using their online contact form so I did:
Paperchase. You are commissioning, stocking and selling products which use a copy of an independent artist's work. She has contacted you expecting a rapid and amiable resolution but you have refused to desist.
As this artist cannot afford a lawyer, I am starting a crowdsourcing operation to attach photographic evidence of your sweatshop copy to every instance of the products as they appear on the social web.
This initiative has already started with the addition of a range of customer userpics to the Amazon.co.uk website.
This activity will continue until the offending products are removed and the artist has received compensation.
Incidentally, one of the reasons this makes a mockery of copyright law is that the ripoff team has judiciously changed 7 items in the picture (background, curl of hair, motif of dress etc) so that in court, a heavily-financed legal team could easily get a magistrate to find in favour of the retailer.
This is depressing because looking at the works as an ordinary human, it's obvious one is a copy of the other. Heck the creative commons is about building on other artist's shoulders, not looking over them photocopier in hand.
Emily riffs and builds on the work of the Pre-Raphaelites, of Dick Bruna and many others. As she does this, she creates her own individual vision which takes its place alongside the work that inspired her. This is why we need a Creative Commons and this is where the spirit of Copyright Law needs to move to.
The 'artist' who created this copied stuff didn't riff or build, he simply cut, paste and twisted with a view to the bare minimum he could get away with. This is both sad and frustrating as it helps preserve the very copy protections that are hampering innovation and choking out our creative industries:-(
Also, please upload the following graphic to your Amazon customer pictures. Let's see how long it takes them to remove the items:-)
Thought I'd drop this in here as it's quite exciting really :-)
I've just done something a bit odd. I watched Jonathan Ross' Film 2009 on BBC1 and then called the duty officer (well, invested 50p on directory assistance to get the duty officer's number). He's not called the duty officer anymore and doesn't have a phone number as such... In today's BBC one uses the internet to do these things :-)
I just posted the following comment on the official complaints site:
To whom it may concern:
I would like to complain about the segment on copyright theft in tonight's Jonathan Ross film 2009.
I have three specific complaints.
- The piece was not balanced and presents a one-sided view. All quotes were from film-industry representatives and all opinions reflect those of powerful copyright lobbyists such as the RIAA and MPAA
- The segment failed to discuss the relevant and significant trend that many, many law-abiding, tax-paying, child-rearing citizens are deciding to exercise their fair-use rights under copyright legislation. These citizens are trying to effect democratic change and create better and fairer copyright law. The segment derides their activities as plainly criminal
- The segment repeats a number of damaging and discredited clichés and makes no effort to explain any of the issues beyond those clichés. In particular, the phrase "piracy is killing the film industry" is repeated in a couple of formats.
Just as video didn't kill Hollywood and home taping did not kill the music industry, the market forces and technical, cultural and economic ecosystems in which the players in the copyright wars are currently fighting are complex and deserve a measured, in-depth explanation.
I expect no less of the BBC.
and as I was looking for the details Google let me to the fabulous "home sewing" graphic :-) The artwork and blog post it goes with are the work of Bo Peterson from Malmö, Sweden (thanks Bo).
While most companies keep their most valuable research projects under wraps, HP has taken a different tack. Everything is out in the open and there is a real emphasis on collaboration with universities, government and other industry players.
"Open innovation is a very key approach to our work. We can't build everything ourselves," said Mr Banerjee.
"We want to tap into the best ideas from around the globe and to bring those ideas to market faster," said Rich Friedrich, who develops research partnerships with universities and government agencies and is also the director of the Open Innovation office.
In its report due out on Monday, HP said it has made 45 awards to 35 universities across 14 countries. It will announce a second round in May.
Well, I'm sure there's some IP-hounding in there somewhere--but still, encouraging to hear an innovator declare an open approach as a key part of business success (survival, actually)
Wow, I've been suggesting that institutions who depend on high-quality photography to engage their audience should collaborate with Flickr photographers (many museums have better images of their collections on Flickr than they do on their internal resources—I should say 'more colourful' or 'more resonant' that 'better' as the internal photographs serve a specific academic purpose) but I never expected the Getty agency to do it...
Not sure if this is wonderful and stimulating or the first brick in a whole new wall?
Interesting piece by Tim Brown on the migration from an economy of consumers to an economy of creators. He mentions a few of the likely casualties that are likely along the way, one of them being the record industry.
This is interesting stuff and is close to research I've being doing for a while now. He concludes with a nicely put statement on the nature of value definition:
We get more of what we measure. If we measure consumption we will get more of it. If we measure participation we will get more of that and we might just find we are already far wealthier than we realize, or perhaps far poorer. More importantly if our economy measured different types of value we could focus on designing things that created growth without automatically requiring that we consume more stuff.
I had this to add on the RIAA and fellow conspirators...
If we could value the increase in the amount of music being listened to, or the social connections that sharing music creates, or the increase in the number of music creators, or the meaning that an individual gets from creating their own music would we find that instead of the destruction of value we had instead experienced a significant creation of value?
You've highlighted something I struggle to explain in my everyday consulting. The destruction of an industry doesn't equate to the destruction of the value creation that industry one enabled
People have been using music to build tighter bonds, promote happiness and produce babies for millennia. For a few years in the Nineteenth century Ricordi managed to turn Opera publishing into a business and for a respectable chunk of the Twentieth century the record industry managed to leverage talent growth and distribution into a viable industry.
But just as the once great Ricordi family business was subsumed into other content-based businesses, just as the extensive Victorian industrial ecosystem surrounding the design, production and maintenance of steam engines shrunk to a niche business in the far reaches of Hunan province the record industry of 1980 must die. Well, it needs to shrink and adapt, but it's late Twentieth century form is obsolete.
It will die and be replaced by a different value creation ecosystem focused on making more babies, sharing more music and being happier while supporting the artists who choose to make music their primary income stream.
Exactly what the ecosystem will look like I don't know but I do know this. It's nothing to be afraid of :-)
James Boyle The Public Domain time to go shopping methinks.
I know I bang on and on about this stuff (go on, you know you want to support the EFF) but the more I follow the news of the FSF and the EFF's progress in the American courts the more I feel like a new deal on copyright is just around the corner...
In a filling with the US Copyright Office, Mozilla and Skype have added their voices of support to a request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation for an exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act related to iPhone jailbreaking.
Have just got off the phone with Ohna and it seems that Google/Youtube's behaviour is even more absurd than I thought...
Ohna's film Son wasn't just posted by her production company. Oh no:
- YouTube vetted a large number of independent film-makers for their "screening room" project and approached Ohna to ask her to participate.
- Not only was Son hand-picked by Google, it was reviewed by an approval board and checked for copyright.
- In an effort to promote the filmmakers, YouTube proposed that each film have a "buy now" button.
So let me get this straight. You go out and find the best films. You have lengthy conversations with the producers of each. You check each for quality and appropriateness of content and verify that each producer owns the right to broadcast the work.
Then, you nail them with a copyright-theft cease-and-desist and take down the film you've just spent months organising the screening of.
Never mind that this is just the worst possible PR job in the world. Isn't this frankly just downright stupid?
Well it used to be Big Oil or Big Business but we really are seeing the emergence of Big Copyright
Ohna's award-winning short film has been pulled by Google because of an automated copyright alert. This smells exactly the same as Google's ongoing mistreatment of the little guy. The same rules apply: justice cannot be applied by formula or filter. Unless each case is handled (note 'hand' as in 'human') individually by a trained adjudicator a never ending stream of injustice ensues.
I suggest Google work out how to pay for this adjudication service soon as sooner or later they're going to need a new business model...
Yesterday our short film SON was taken off YouTube's screening room because someone at Paramount Pictures copyright police company decided that maybe we had used some footage from Son Of Rambow. Whoever made this decision had obviously not watched the film as SON is obviously all original footage and in fact the only ressemblance to Paramount's film is the word SON in the title and the fact that there is a young boy in the cast. Despite the obvious blunder Paramount are making no effort to remedy the situation by removing their notice from YouTube and by doing so are damaging our reputation and possibly causing us loss of income.
The woman could use some words of support. Go comment on her post
And if you are aware of similar events, make you register each and every case with the EFF's chilling effects website.
Please immediately tell this person (details updated, thank you Peter)
Judge Louis L. Stanton
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St., Room 2250
New York, NY10007
+1 212 805-0252
+1 212 805-0389
that obtaining your personal history will in no way assist Viacom in identifying which of their intellectual properties has been illegally distributed. Please add that the phenomenal (how many millions of users?) negative impact on personal privacy utterly outweighs any spurious copyright swinery...
Man this is infuriating, and while I'm on the topic can I add that the making available argument is tantamount to arresting car owners because their ownership makes available the possibility of running over a pedestrian or saying that owning a gun is legally equivalent to shooting someone:-(
Time to increase my donations to the EFF, and you should too OK?