7 posts tagged “lessig”
UPDATE: Lessig was apparently successful in this suit.
And another big win today for the Stanford CIS project
...a New York Supreme Court (that's the lower court in NY; the highest Court is the Court of Appeals) has denied Yoko Ono an injunction to stop the distribution of a film that uses a clip of Lennon's Imagine. Wonderfully, the Court explicitly refuses to follow the 6th Circuit's "no de minimus" rule sound recordings, and holds that there is fair use under New York's common law copyright regime...
I respect and admire both the individuals named here; I'm not a lawyer or biologist.
I did however leave a comment disagreeing with PZ on Lessig's defense of the Fair Use (of Lennon's "Imagine") claim made by the makers of "Expelled."
I had mixed feelings about Yoko Ono's lawsuit against Expelled — fair use is a desirable goal, but I don't think Premise Media was exercising fair use, since their movie wasn't about Lennon's music or ideas — so I can't say that I'm at all surprised or upset that the lawsuit is likely to go down in flames. I'm also not appreciative of the fact that Lessig thinks this is a "great success"; it is at best a mixed result, because while it may support Lessig's principled defense of fair use, it is also a case where he's supporting people who are promoting lies and ignorance.
It really doesn't matter much now, though. The propaganda movie is a dead issue, a complete flop, and it is not going to come back from the dead after a court decision that had no effect on its declining popularity is reversed.
Thank you #1 and #5, I agree, and mildly disagree with PZ.
Questions asking "is this a Fair Use" are complicated enough WITHOUT attempting to make a value judgment on the work in question.
I too would like to see Fair Use expanded, but my reason for that position is that Copyright law has in my opinion been completely corrupted and made into a vehicle for monopolies, corporations and excessive profiteering.
Were the copyright term restored to the original 15 years then we would have a lot more time to argue whether this or that is really "Fair Use." But of course, you would rarely have a survivor inheriting "rights of authorship" and attempting to "protect" something they did not create (Yoko)
Another example is the owners of the rights to "Gone With the Wind" attempting to suppress publication of "The Wind Done Gone" a re-telling of the story from the slaves' perspective. (They failed to suppress, thankfully)
So, broadly, Intellectual Property Law is so completely broken, you almost have to become a lawyer to completely grok how perverted it really is in relation to its intent.
The Mouse is In Control. Disney is Dead. Hannah Montana is Fake.
This comment is (c) copyrighted (tm) trademarked and (r) registered.
Lessig Response:
nicely put. thanks.
You're welcome
From the Lessig Blog:
Lessig has made available the first version of his argument for the "Change Congress" movement.
Here's a text-based (.PDF/.doc/.rtf) of the argument for the Change Congress movement. First version, many flaws, feedback welcome.
Netroots nation was previously known by the name "YearlyKos", the yearly get-together organized by Marcos of the DailyKos.
Related post: Lane Hartwell & The Richter Scales
Related link: Thomas Hawk: More Crappy Censorship From Your Friends at Yahoo!
Dear Mr. Lessig,
Thank you for your reply a long while ago regarding my frustration over wikipedia photos! Now, let me try another tack in light of recent events. Apologies for the length.
Could it be made legal to... expand and merge clear fair use, quotation, transformative use, allowable "under the limit" use with "damaged" use:
- lo-fi audio (unpleasant, noisy, covered by other sound, tinny, bassy)
- lo-fi speech (almost or partly incomprehensible)
- lo-fi image (important detail missing, no color, no color fidelity, small part of image)
- lo-fi text (tiny, unreadable)
- lo-fi video (fuzzy, tiny, misshapen, jerky, lower frame rates)
If the use is clearly not fair use, or not agreed to:
the
less "fair" the use is, the more you have to degrade the thing you are
using, so it is absolutely undeniable that you are using the work
because you must, but not stealing the thing.
In Hartwell v. Richter, let's assume there is only one photo of the subject, and no permission (but at least some sort of access.) Then, you have a painter or illustrator work from the photo, creating a new independent work. That may not always be possible, affordable, practical, scalable.
But, let's assume you are willing to torture the thing you want to use without permission.
Why
can I not take the photo, print it on poor paper, get it wet, step on
it, leave it in the sun, then scan it at poor fidelity, so that I have
an indisputably inferior derivative "copy." Can I not use that,
without permission?
My point here is that I think it would be a huge help if we could say that there is always more abuse, more squashing, more scratches, more dust, more noise, more distance, you can apply until you reach the point where a claim of infringement is so ridiculous as to make even the most aggressive lawyers blush. It becomes "fair use" because it's no longer aesthetically intact.
Take the Richter video into an editor, identify the Hartwell content, apply some censorware to the video, so that you see it strobe, or reverse, visually, so you see the censor marks but also sort of see underneath. Anyway, Ms. Hartwell might welcome a reversal of the take-down, and perhaps they could try to discuss compromise. Perhaps everyone wants to see it now. Perhaps its not as good as all that. But, a single challenge should not mean sudden death and amnesia (take down and forget.)
Maybe people will realize satire and parody have the easy legal argument, and in fact have to be very close to the original to have that protection.
Disney, Warner Bros., now with many decades of paid-for mythology that we'll be paying to see again on the screen or in the park. And, don't use Mickey or Bugs, or they will sue you, but they will use them promiscuously and greedily.
Perhaps social pressure will make people stop enforcing copyright when the real goal is to silence others and maintain a monopoly. A runaway success in remix culture may get clout and cash and permit creation of hi-fi derivative works.
Or, we can do nothing and wait for the corporate singularity (I'm trademarking that right now) to occur. That's when for obvious reasons different conglomerates merge geographically, so that entire states are serviced by one phone company multi-monopoly, one content provider, one retailer, et cetera.
We need to prevent the "owners name their own prices, at the last possible moment" bargaining, and try to force a uniform sane fee for a tortured derivative work, so you can retreat enough to be safe, then go forward. Each case should not be another fight to the finish over claims of infringement that call for death and amnesia. (and never offer reasonable licensing terms)
Their properties are not hated, people hate the way they are used like a bludgeon... And if they could just relinquish some control and see what develops.
Am I living in a fantasy to think this could be possible?
The kind Mr. Lessig responded:
From a practical perspective, it is a great solution. From a legal perspective, it is weaker, since copyright protects a "work" and not any particular copy of it. In some contexts, I agree this would be a great solution.
Let's show him our support, shall we?
Molly Wood, who people may know from CNet's Buzz Out Loud, just started up a blog on an important topic:
The Culture of Ownership (dot org)
Hey Molly, I've been enjoying your BOL stuff for a while now, and I just wanted to drop by and say hello.
I also am interested in questions of ownership and its adverse effects -- as you can see by this comment I left for a fellow blogger (on making a painting from a photo.)
I've been following Lessig for years now, and I've learned enough to know the current mess is certainly unprecedented and definitely bad for the people and the culture. Other than that, everything is up for debate.
Remember, sound recordings were going to ruin songwriting (sheet music). VCRs were going to ruin TV. Cable TV was a pirate operation initially. Referencing established master works was once the norm. The first printing press owners did not pay or get permission from authors.
Copyright and patent law was meant to protect the creator's financial interest for a few (15?) years only. Mickey Mouse was derivative of Steamboat Willie. All but Disney himself are work-for-hire. Now, it is the Mouse who is in control.
Musicians who do "covers", DJs who make mixes should be "work for hire" too. Points (royalty) can be awarded for big success, or in lieu of cash.
But, punitive damages, the courts, and the behavior of the Media Megalopolies has turned the entire thing on it's head, and made greed and fear the primary motivators in the creative arts.
A sorry state of affairs, indeed.
(Hey I'm going to re-post this on my blog and point to yours Ok? ok)
-Richard
