Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Rene, Austria on February 20, 2007:

I don't know about the specifics about US copyright laws, but over here it is illegal to take "Quotes" from videos or audio material and post them, while it is legal to quote from a text.

I think that is so because you not only infringe on the "intelectual property" of the "work".

BUT there could be no full copyright protection of something like the Superbowl here, because it is no invented story, but only a report on something that is happening anyway. They might get the full copyright on the show-parts. For the game itself they could only get the reproduction rights as the owners of the equipment used to film and transmit the show, which run for 40 years here, I believe.

---

It is surprising that Austria apparently doesn't follow the Berne Convention, a treaty which is supposed to normalize laws between countries, and provide for international protections on a similar basis. The U.S. adopted it some years ago. -rc

Posted by John in South Carolina on February 20, 2007:

As I understand it, what is being copyrighted is the broadcast, not the actual game itself. If you could sneak in the equipment to broadcast the game, either through commentary or video, what is to stop you from doing it? Copyright won't - the game is not copyrighted. On the other hand, if you do broadcast it, then your work is copyrighted and you have all the rights to it.

---

On the other hand, the Chicago Cubs sued bars around Wrigley Field for letting customers watch baseball games over the wall. The legal premise: copyright violation. It didn't go to court: most of the bars settled rather than fight it. The case is covered in my True Stella Awards book. -rc

Posted by Thor Johnson on February 20, 2007:

Randy said: If the photos you take aren't valuable after two years, it's your decision to release their copyright. And that's the entire point: it's your decision. I happen to love "antique" photos -- they're worth something to me.

I love original prints... they have a uniqueness to them that shows through as time progresses... but I'm not sure what to think about a copy of the photograph (film or otherwise - C41 film doesn't age the same way as old slide film).

I would like to believe in the Public Domain growing and providing knowledge to all, but it doesn't seem to be able to grow today's environment unless the license is explicitly declared from the start (eg, the Creative Commons class of licenses).

Then again, I'm in the medical field, so if all we can protect is our "first implementation", we're going to go out of business once somebody starts copying our device without having to repay investors for the whole FDA process.

It's complicated.... but I am really upset about the land grabs commonly found in "licenses" these days (NFL recounts, AP newswire stuff, any form of EULA, etc).

And I'm not sure I quite agree with Greg about the ability to control the use of the work once it has been exposed to the public (I'll use film references here but the Audio industry also has a lot of issues wrt sampling, beats, etc). OT1H, if somebody took what I did and used it in an unpalatable way (eg, using our system to torture animals), I would find that reprehensible. OTOH, I've seen many pieces of art on DeviantArt and other places where it was a thought-provoking beautiful mix of other sources, and I'm not sure the original artist would be happy with the "contamination" of their art. Yet I was enriched by the secondary party (and did not even know of the original); can such a request be honestly refused.

Is it right, for example, for Disney to take Snow White, make it into an animated feature, then lock it away (seemingly for all time)? At what point can you use some of the more Disney features (in my book, Snow White was strangled with ribbons -- but I don't know which version came from where)?

OTOH, Would you object to Pixar's use of Sleeping Beauty concepts in Shrek (and Shrek II)?

I have admiration for both pieces, but:

All artists know that their ideas draw from others... is it right to prevent new artists from drawing from theirs?

Posted by Dennis, Lansdale, Pa on February 21, 2007:

Is the AP notice typical of the copyright law? ("Copyright 2007 Associated Press, All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.") If so, what bothers me is where do reference books, i.e. encyclopedias, atlases, etc., stand on this law? If you cannot rewrite copyrighted material how do we expect students to do research? "Oh, look at this. I found some great information about this subject, but I am not allowed to write about it!" Of course, I may be totally wrong about how reference material is handled and you should just ignore this post.

---

The answer to your question is no, and your scenario is part of the reason why. The biggest reason why, though, is because it's simply wrong to prohibit what the law doesn't allow them to prohibit, and most publishers are plenty content with what the law does allow. -rc

Posted by John in Atlanta, GA on February 23, 2007:

Thor said: Is it right, for example, for Disney to take Snow White, make it into an animated feature, then lock it away (seemingly for all time)? At what point can you use some of the more Disney features (in my book, Snow White was strangled with ribbons -- but I don't know which version came from where)?

As I understand copyright, Disney has no control over the Snow White or Sleeping Beauty stories -- they are in the public domain. Anyone is free to tell the Snow White story, or even make their own Snow White animated movie. What Disney has copyright on is the Disney animated movie, and probably anything they added to the story -- for example, the names and personalities of the dwarves, or the "Hi-Ho" song -- but not the poisoned apple, or the major plot points of the story.

As a rule of thumb, if it's already in the public-domain literature, you can't copyright it.

Posted by Mike from Dallas on February 24, 2007:

See the problem? Does it REALLY need to be THAT complicated? Which part is copyrighted? Which part isn't? Under what circumstances? By what intention?

It's pretty simple, folks, if you take someone else's work and pass it off as your own, it's theft. If you simply dump it into the public domain against the owner's wishes, then you've still devalued it. Same as watering down the whiskey.

As for whether I watch it for free in my own living room or in someone else's living room, who cares??? And the ratings system is a smoke screen. Most of Arbitron's and Nielsen's surveys are simply a log of which programs you watch, not where. And Nielsen only sets up 1500 boxes out of more than 100 million homes to remotely track programs.

I have a store with my business office in back. I spend many hours at the store and, sometimes, I like to catch the hockey game in my office. So I installed cable TV. Since it's a Business, I must pay a much more expensive business rate for my cable, not residential. Why? Because it's located at a business and I just MIGHT try to profit by the cable feed into that business. That is the problem many people have with the copyright laws. The law presumes you are guilty until proven innocent. Even before any 'crime' has been committed.

Posted by Ryan from Edmonton, Alberta ~ Canada on February 24, 2007:

When I made comments earlier, I think I should have been a bit clearer. When I did portrait or wedding photos (i.e. a event that I get paid to do) after two years I have little more to profit from it. I give my client the option of purchasing the negatives (yes I still have my 645 film cameras and a 35mm!) My stock stuff, I haven't made anything on yet and I just keep shooting because of the love of it. And yes old prints are awesome.

I think this has been said but to restate and reaffirm: It depends on the "artist" (or owner) and it depends on the circumstance.

However when reason is no longer reasonable, who can step in and advocate? (Like the Wal-Mart example from Bev) It seems “He who has the biggest pockets wins”. Every time. Maybe this isn’t a discussion on what is wrong with the copyright or the NFL. Maybe, just maybe, it is a problem that reflects our “me” society?

When we help others we help ourselves. When we don’t we stop growing. When I cannot draw upon another for inspiration (personally, professionally or even as a artist) I become stagnant and cease to create. When corporations abuse power and are allowed it hurts everyone.

---

I don't think you've made any changes to your stance. Again it's up to you to sell your negatives to your customer -- and it's only because of the law that you can! And indeed wedding photos can be valuable two -- even 20 -- years later. What happens if "that guy" whose wedding you photographed later becomes Prime Minister? Or a serial killer? You just never know.

And yes, the point and the discussion is more wide ranging than just about the NFL (or churches); just like True itself, the whole point is to spark thought and discussion, and come to understand the larger context. True isn't about "weird news"; even though it's mostly fun and entertaining, it's really all about the human condition. -rc

Posted by Thomas from Misissippi on February 26, 2007:

I see the NFL copyright pertaining only to the specific commentary presented. The factual information falls in the same category as any other new report, and is not covered by the copyright law.

Then again, copyright is far too long on all works, and applied in inappropriate ways.

My biggest peeve being photographs/portraits. They are works for hire, and the purchaser should own the rights. Just like if I pay someone to install tile in my home, where I own the end product not the installer, If I pay someone to take photographs (or paint a picture) I own the end result. My payment covers the photographer's skills and equipment which I may not have access to. Photographer/painters should remember that if I had not paid for this work, then it wouldn't exist at all.

My father was a independent portrait photographer for most of my childhood. I grew up in the industry. While I have the skills to do the work, I don't have the equipment, since thousands of dollars worth of equipment is an unjustified expense. So I pay someone else for thier time and equipment do the job.

Posted by Andi from North Carolina on February 28, 2007:

Randy said: If the photos you take aren't valuable after two years, it's your decision to release their copyright. And that's the entire point: it's your decision.

That's the most important part of copyright, and what it's intended to protect -- the creator's right to determine how and where the work will be copied and, therefore, used. And it is the creator's right. Whether you or I think the creator of the work is being greedy doesn't matter. He or she is the one who had the idea, skill, motivation, and talent to create the work; therefore, he or she gets to use it as he or she sees fit, whether that's giving it away for free now, charging for two years and then giving it away for free, or charging for as long as copyright allows.

As an independent digital artist who has had work stolen off my website more than once -- even though I have a copyright notice clearly posted -- copyright is an important issue to me. It takes a long time for me to create the 3D images that I do. Not only do I need to try to make some money from them to pay bills, but I also want to have a say in how they're used.

Unfortunately, places like ThePiratesBay encourage people to "share" illegal copies of music, movies, software, video games, etc. Once people get in the mindset that it's okay to "share" (ie, steal) this stuff, they don't just pirate from Big Business; they pirate anything digital that they can, even works from independent artists like me.

Wanna blame someone for how restrictive copyright law is becoming and how strict copyright holders are becoming about enforcing it? Blame pirateers. If people didn't illegally download and share files, things like DRM wouldn't have to exist.

Consider this -- if we did away with copyright law, what would stop music, movie, software or other businesses from getting a demo tape from a new artist, liking the song, and releasing it as a single or using it in a movie WITHOUT PAYING THE ARTIST? Copyright law doesn't just protect big business; it's also there to make sure new and independent artists don't get screwed.

On software: Read the EULA. Some software allows for it to be installed on only one computer, some in multiple computers in the same household, and even some in multiple computers in multiple locations as long as only one person uses it. If you're unclear what the EULA allows, email the software company and ask.

And remember that profits from older, previously released, but still popular software (and music, movies, etc) help pay costs to develop new titles.

On the Fair Use Clause: Per the US Copyright site, Fair Use is only a defense for copyright infringement. You're still infringing on the copyright holder's right to copy, but you're saying, "I have a good reason." You can still be taken to court, though, and your Fair Use defense might or might not be upheld.

One last thing: You cannot copyright an idea; you can only copyright the expression of that idea. So, no, the NFL and AP can't tell you that you can't "rewrite" or "retell" a game or news article as a result of their copyright.

Posted by Mike from Dallas on March 4, 2007:

If the Law is the Law is the Law, everything would be cut & dried. There would be no need for lawyers. Ever hear that expression? "Ask 4 different lawyers a question and get 5 different opinions." The Law is never clear which is why there are always two, or even more, sides to any lawsuit.

Copyright law should be to serve the public interest, not the corporate interest. But you don't see John Doe rushing to Congress with all his briefs and lobby money to make sure the Congressmen keep the law in the public interest. But you sure do see many corporations lobbying full time in an attempt to hijack the copyright laws FROM the public interest.

In many cases, copyright law does still serve the public interest, but there is another consideration. Ever hear of Predatory Lawsuits? These are lawsuits that have no merit, or barely so, that companies bring against each other AND against citizens with the deliberate attempt to use seemingly unlimited financial, rather than legal, pressure to force a surrender from the weaker party.

I see a rather naive conviction that, once one sells a copyright, that one still owns control over where and how it's used. While it may be a negotiating item during the sale, it holds little value afterward. One might sue the party which bought the copyright, but that entails considerable more expense and not necessarily a likelihood of success. A number of unbelievably poor movies, compared to reasonably good books, comes to mind.

I enjoy the logic when someone suggests that the only alternative to bad legal precedent is to do away with the law entirely, which would be a worse scenario and, therefore, we should all shut up and be grateful that it's not worse.

As for pirates, there have been pirates for hundreds of years, which is why copyright law goes all the way back to the beginning of American law. But in an effort to 100% eliminate any possibility of theft, the law has been hijacked to punish the legitimate consumers and cause unnecessary damage to competing companies in related fields.

And finally, a suggestion to contact the software company about its EULA for clarification is the same as asking the fox if it's okay for him to be in the henhouse. Remember when the phone company used to try charging you for each additional telephone on the same line? Or when the cable TV company tried to charge you for each additional TV hooked up to the cable input to your home? Same thing when I spend $500 for a software package and want to sometimes use it on my desktop computer, and other times on my laptop computer.

As companies try restricting copyright even further, piracy groups will increase in protest. There are already enought incentives to part with a few bucks that companies don't need to threaten us with bankruptcy to squeeze two bits more out of us.