Clipmarks | kelvin273's 'copyright' clips

J.K. Rowling's Crazy Copyright Caper

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 02:24:30 GMT

clipped by: kelvin273
clipper's remarks: I'm still trying to figure out how having a website with all the book's information doesn't interfere with the market for Rowling's future Potter Encyclopedia.

Clip Source: www.nytimes.com

“I feel as though my name and my works have been hijacked, against my wishes, for the personal gain and profit of others and diverted from the charities I intended to benefit,” she said in a declaration to the court.

And what perfidious act of “hijacking” has RDR Books committed? It planned to publish a book by Steven Vander Ark, who maintains a fansite called the Harry Potter Lexicon.

So long as the Lexicon was a free Web site, Ms. Rowling looked kindly upon it. But when Mr. Vander Ark tried to publish part of the Lexicon in book form — and (shudder!) to make a profit — Ms. Rowling put her foot down. She claims that she wants to publish her own encyclopedia someday and donate the proceeds to charity — and a competing book by Mr. Vander Ark would hurt the prospects for her own work.

But more than that, she is essentially claiming that the decision to publish — or even to allow — a Harry Potter encyclopedia is hers alone, since after all, the characters in her books came out of her head.

Tags: books, harry potter, publishing, copyright

FTC complaint about copyright notices

Mon, 03 Sep 2007 04:04:58 GMT

clipped by: kelvin273
clipper's remarks: It's nice to see somebody actually doing something about this.

Clip Source: news.com.com

perspective I'll bet you can recite most of the copyright warnings that appear on your screen when you pop in a DVD, or at the end of football game, can't you?

Did it ever occur to you that, in many cases, these serious, ubiquitous warnings may not actually be accurate?

Perhaps they've just been around so long that they've been accepted as fact, but in many cases, as very recently pointed out by the Computer and Communications Industry Association, they are at best misleading and, at worst, flat-out wrong.

The group filed a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission earlier this month against some of the worst offenders--among them, NBC Universal, Major League Baseball and the National Football League--alleging that the statements used by these corporations often include gross misrepresentations of federal law and characterize as unlawful acts that are explicitly permitted by law. NBC Universal immediately characterized the complaint as "frivolous,"

Tags: copyright, fair use, media

Novelist gives away film rights to book -- sort of

Sat, 24 Mar 2007 04:11:02 GMT

clipped by: kelvin273
clipper's remarks: I like this idea. While movie rights are a huge portion of an author's income in the current environment, I think it may actually be in the interest of an obscure author to let people allude to and rip off their work in order to establish a reputation among the general population.

Clip Source: jonathanlethem.com

On May 15th I’ll give away a free option on the film rights to my novel You Don’t Love Me Yet to a selected filmmaker. In return for the free option, I’ll ask two things:

I’d like the filmmaker to pay (something) for the purchase of the rights if they actually make a film: two percent of the budget, paid when the completed film gets a distribution deal.

The filmmaker and I will make an agreement to release all ancillary rights to the film (and its source material, the novel), five years after the film’s debut. In other words, after a waiting period during which those rights would still be restricted, anyone who cared to could make any number of other kinds of artwork based on the novel’s story and characters, or the film’s: a play, a television series, a comic book, a theme park ride, an opera – or even a sequel film or novel featuring the same characters.

Tags: entertainment, books, movies, copyright

Artist sued for football paintings by U of Alabama

Tue, 14 Nov 2006 04:19:53 GMT

clipped by: kelvin273

Clip Source: copyfight.corante.com

November 13, 2006

Is Painting Still Like Photography?

Posted by Alan Wexelblat

In the days before photography permitted instant capture of a scene, arists would be paid to sketch or paint an event or scene and copies of that rendition would appear in broadsheets and other newspaper predecessors. Even today we have sketch artists on courtrooms where photographers are not permitted.

So the question, then, is this: if a painter depicts an actual event or scene is that creative work protected in the same way as a photograph of the event would be?

This is the question being asked by painter Daniel A. Moore, because he is being sued by the University of Alabama which claims that his paintings of Alabama football game scenes violate the University's trademark "crimson and white color scheme".

Moore has been painting football scenes for years, so it's not clear why he's being sued now. He claims to have made millions from paintings and reproductions of them; the University won't comment but seems to have taken umbrage at Moore's move into more merchandise-like things such as mugs and calendars.

Moore doesn't stand on the gridiron sidelines and paint as the action happens - he works from photos and his own experience of the event. One of the contentions raised by the University is that this means his paintings contain no (or not enough) original content to be protected by separate copyright.

Just about everyone in the Times story seems to think this is a dumb lawsuit but mostly on social grounds; it's not clear to me where this falls out from a purely legal standpoint.

Tags: sports, art, copyright

CNN censors Bill Maher

Sun, 12 Nov 2006 02:45:15 GMT

clipped by: kelvin273

Clip Source: copyfight.corante.com

November 10, 2006

CNN Remixes Itself

Posted by Alan Wexelblat

The questions of copyright and "official" versions just keep getting funnier.

This time we have CNN attempting (apparently successfully) to force YouTube to take down as copyright violation the original broadcast version of a show. But they have no problems with YouTube copies of an edited version, which they themselves showed.

Confused? Me too. Here's what I can piece together:
Bill Maher guests on Larry King Live. This show is shown live to parts of the US (East Coast) but rebroadcast from tape for later time zones (West Coast). On the live version, Maher made some remarks suggestiong that RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman is gay. My hipper gay friends tell me this is an open secret. He's closeted and all that, but yeah he's gay. OK, whatever.

Except CNN doesn't seem to like those remarks so when Maher's appearance gets rebroadcast for the later showing those comments are edited out. Of course people notice (duh, CNN really doesn't get it) and people who recorded the original version post it to YouTube. People also post the edited version. CNN sent a copyright violation letter to the person who posted the original, unedited version, and then edited its online transcript of the show to match what was later shown.

Here's the Americablog entry, which contains both the cease-and-desist letter and a link to the Huffington Post blog, which has the entire video and the screaming headline "CENSORED BY CNN".

Way to publicize a controversy and make yourselves look like idiots, guys.

Clip Source: clipmarks.com

Tags: politcs, media