giandujakiss: (Default)
-- like female characters:
Hollywood’s Other Piracy Problem: 3-D Printers

Right after watching the trailer for “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” last April, Ken Landrum began building his own Stormtrooper gun. From his home in St. Louis, he cobbled together images of the “blaster” featured in the ad, and then used software on his personal computer to design nearly 40 separate pieces to be 3-D printed and assembled into a near-exact replica of the Walt Disney Co. prop.

“My goal is to make it better than the studio did,” he said. At a minimum, he has done it faster: Mr. Landrum posted photos of his design on a message board for 3-D printing enthusiasts—some eight months before the movie premieres and five months before most official Disney toys hit shelves. As the movie’s opening gets closer, fans have filled his inbox asking for the files needed to print their own. Mr. Landrum said he handed out more than 100 in one week in mid-July, recently deciding to start charging $55 a file. “It’s gone haywire,” he said.

Mr. Landrum’s hobby is part of a looming problem for Hollywood. The steady rise of 3-D printing as an accessible activity for millions means that the specter of digital piracy, which has wreaked havoc on the media business in the Internet age, now hangs over sales of physical products long considered immune to such forces.
Hey, if you won't exploit the market, someone else will. That's capitalism.
giandujakiss: (Default)
Companies that specialize in trawling through user-created YT web videos, and then licensing the good ones to sell to production companies to use in TV shows, etc.

(Behind a pay wall; to see the article, try googling the headline "Finding Video Gold in the Web’s Garbage")
giandujakiss: (fandom)
Earlier I posted that the OTW and EFF posted its petition to renew and expand the DMCA exemption for vidders. The industry filed an opposing brief, and the OTW/EFF filed their reply here.


Apr. 2nd, 2015 03:30 pm
giandujakiss: (Default)
The OTW is looking for any examples of vids made with blu-ray source, regardless of how you got hold of the source. Please see this post.


Feb. 10th, 2015 10:33 am
giandujakiss: (fandom)
The OTW, in conjunction with the EFF, just submitted this year's petition for a DMCA exemption for vidders. It's 145 pages, and it features lots of commentary from vidders (including me, natch!) about what they do and why they do it and why they need to have access to copyrighted source material.

If this is like the last time, copyright holders - basically the MPAA, etc - will submit an opposing statement, and the OTW will then get a chance to reply. There may be hearings.


Feb. 2nd, 2015 01:46 pm
giandujakiss: (fandom)
The deadline approaches for vidders to submit comments to the OTW to use when petitioning the Copyright Office to allow vidders to circumvent copy protections for DVDs and online sources. [personal profile] rivkat says:
The US Copyright Office is considering whether to renew and expand the DMCA exemption for remix. Vidders/fans’ input is needed: “We’re asking that fans write in about their need for high quality source from DVDs or Blu-Rays; sources that are only available on Blu-Ray; or sources from places like iTunes or Amazon when that’s necessary to make a timely vid to participate in an ongoing fannish conversation.” More at the link—even general comments about the importance of high quality source for a vidder’s message/artistic aims would be very helpful.
giandujakiss: (fandom)
Originally posted by [personal profile] tishaturk at DMCA exemption: worse than cleaning the tub
(Title courtesy of [ profile] devildoll because OMG so true.)

Already cross-posted lots of places, but here's one final reminder!

The OTW's Fan Video & Multimedia Committee is once again working with the Legal Committee and the Electronic Frontier Foundation to petition for a DMCA exemption granting vidders, AMV makers, and other creators of noncommercial remix video the right to break copy protection on media files. In 2010, we won the right to rip DVDs; in 2012, we got that exemption renewed and expanded to include digital downloads (iTunes, Amazon Unbox, etc.). In 2015, we'll be pushing to add Blu-Ray—and, of course, to renew the exemptions we've already won in the last two rounds of DMCA rulemaking.

And we need your help to do it! If you make or watch vids, AMVs, or other forms of fan video, we need you to tell us:

1. Why making fan videos is a transformative and creative act;
2. Why video makers need high-quality source;
3. Why video makers need to be able to manipulate source (change speed and color, add effects, etc.);
4. Why video makers need fast access to source (such as using iTunes downloads rather than waiting for DVDs);
5. Why video makers need to be able to use Blu-Ray; (ETA: They're happy to receive comments about the need for superior Blu-Ray quality, and also to receive comments about the need for the extras/outtakes/bloopers that often are released only on Blu-Ray)
6. Why video makers need to be able to use streaming sources; and
7. Anything else you think we should keep in mind as we work on the exemption proposal.

We're also looking for vids that we should add to the Fair Use Test Suite, and we'd love to have your suggestions.

If you have thoughts about any or all of these topics, you can comment on this post OR contact me (Tisha) directly at tisha dot turk at gmail dot com or fanvideo-chair at transformativeworks dot org, or email the Legal Committee at legal at transformativeworks dot org. You don't have to use your real name; we can use your name or pseudonym or describe you anonymously as "a vidder" or "a fan video artist."

The DMCA is U.S. copyright law and only directly affects U.S. vidders, but it does potentially have ripple effects outside the U.S.: Strong DMCA exemptions help send the message that fan creativity should be protected everywhere. With that in mind, please feel free to send your thoughts even if you don't live in the U.S.

Also, please help us signal-boost! This info has been posted to LiveJournal and Dreamwidth vidding communities and on Tumblr; if you can think of other places the OTW should post, please let me know—and if you can spread the word in your own communities, on streaming sites, etc., please do.

This entry was originally posted on Dreamwidth (comment count unavailable comments). Comment wherever you prefer.


Sep. 6th, 2014 07:37 pm
giandujakiss: (fandom)
Vidders, your help is needed
Fan Video & Multimedia is once again working with our Legal Committee as well as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to petition for a DMCA exemption granting vidders, AMV makers, and other creators of noncommercial remix video the right to break copy protection on media files. In 2010, we won the right to rip DVDs; in 2012, we got that exemption renewed and expanded to include digital downloads (iTunes, Amazon Unbox, etc.). In 2015, we’ll be pushing to add Blu-Ray. Right now we’re in the data-gathering stage: asking fan video makers to talk with us about how they get Blu-Ray source and why Blu-Ray is important.

RivkaT adds:

The exemption will expire if not renewed! The big copyright industries fought really hard last time, and renewal is not a foregone conclusion, even though we’re still right. As always we need (1) examples of vids that make a critical commentary on the original source, particularly examples from the past 3 years, as well as (2) vids that need very high quality source, in technical terms, to do what they do. With Blu-Ray, we need (3) explanations of how getting Blu-Ray source can be done, so we can educate the Copyright Office, and (4) explanations for why Blu-Ray source is important.

If you can help with any of these, please let know!


May. 22nd, 2014 04:14 am
giandujakiss: (Default)
Originally posted by [personal profile] morgandawn at Vimeo unveils “Copyright Match” system to remove infringing videos
article here

"The highly popular online video service Vimeo
announced Wednesday that it's introducing a new system called “Copyright Match” to automatically remove copyright-infringing videos from the site."


Jan. 27th, 2014 04:41 pm
giandujakiss: (fandom)
Tomorrow, Naomi Novik will testify before a congressional subcommittee regarding fair use protections. There will be a streaming broadcast, and she's already submitted written testimony.

ETA: Apparently her testimony is at 1 pm, not 2 as it says on the site.
giandujakiss: (fandom)
Rebecca Tushnet blogs here and you can see the submission here (pdf). It includes comments from fans, solicited by the OTW, about the importance of remix in their lives.
giandujakiss: (fandom)
Originally posted by [personal profile] rivkat at Your fandom stories are needed!

Two US agencies are holding hearings on copyright reform; enough powerful people (ok, companies) think that copyright law needs changing that this might actually happen.  Don't let it happen without fannish voices: the OTW is soliciting stories of how creating transformative works has helped people in day-to-day life, whether that's through building language skills, video editing, writing, coding, or anything else.  You don't need to provide personal information, but the more specific the better.  You can submit your story through this form.  We need to speak up, or we'll be left out.
giandujakiss: (Default)
Originally posted by [personal profile] otw_staff at Legal Needs Your Help!
Banner by Diane of two people talking with word balloons that contain the OTW logo and 'OTW Announcement'

The OTW's Legal Advocacy project engages in legal cases and responds to fan requests that involve matters of U.S. copyright and fans' rights to engage in fan practices such as creating fanworks.

But now our Legal Committee needs your help. We are helping with some (confidential, for now) court filings and would like to use the following information to help the drafters shape the arguments. We might possibly include fans' stories of facing legal difficulties, but would only do that with express permission from the fan.

What we need is the following: Read more... )
giandujakiss: (holmes)
Conan Doyle Estate: Denying Sherlock Holmes Copyright Gives Him 'Multiple Personalities'

Basically, a plaintiff is suing to declare that the copyright on certain of the Holmes stories has expired; the estate is claiming that all of the stories form a single canon, so they cannot expire individually.

The estate is arguing:
Plaintiff’s position would create multiple personalities out of Sherlock Holmes: a 'public domain' version of his character attempting to only use only public domain traits, next to the true character Sir Arthur created. But there are not sixty versions of Sherlock Holmes in the sixty stories; there is one complex Sherlock Holmes. To attempt to dismantle Holmes’s character is not only impossible as a practical matter, but would ignore the reality that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created a single complex character complete in sixty stories.

[T]he characters of Holmes and Watson were not completely created in pre-1923 works—a fact Plaintiff’s own list of 'Sherlock Holmes Story Elements' admits....Although Holmes and Watson were introduced in Sir Arthur’s 1887 novel A Study in Scarlet, the characters were not fully created or disclosed in that novel. Sir Arthur continued to create Holmes’s and Watson’s characters throughout the Canon, adding attributes, dimensions, background, and both positive and negative change in the characters until the last story.
The Hollywood Reporter writes:
The Doyle estate makes the case for a special breed of "complex literary characters" (unlike alleged "flat" television ones like Amos 'n' Andy) who develop their personalities, not always as expected, presumably making them more real. The defendant says, "Sherlock Holmes is such character, having all of the complex background and maturing emotions, thoughts, relationships and actions that characterize human development over time."

In short, it's an argument that rejects certain temporal views of copyright and certainly have implications to what's commonly assumed about the copyright term, which in the minds of many, is analogous to a clock. It's now up to the investigating judge to entertain this intriguing theory and see if the logic holds up as elementary.
FWIW, people who know more than me about IP think the estate's arguments will not hold up.
giandujakiss: (Default)
Zynga Sues Casual Sex App Over Trademark Infringement
Zynga Inc. (ZNGA) sued the maker of the “Bang With Friends” casual sex Internet application over claims it infringes Zynga’s trademark for its “with friends” family of games.

Bang With Friends Inc., the maker of the application with the same name for matching Facebook friends anonymously for casual sex, registered its Internet domain name last year, according to the complaint filed yesterday federal court in San Francisco.

The company “selected the name ‘Bang With Friends’ for its casual sex matchmaking app with Zynga’s game trademarks fully in mind,” according to the complaint. The application’s name infringes Zynga’s trademark covering games such as “Words With Friends” and “Chess With Friends,” according to the filing.
giandujakiss: (Default)
A proposal to reform first sale rights
In its current iteration, copyright law gives us content consumers a right that we’ve internalized so thoroughly that most people exercise it without noticing. It’s what lets you sell a pile of books during a stoop sale, haul in a stack of old records to trade for store credit, or lend a CD to a friend. It’s called “first sale doctrine,” and it means, simply, that while only the owner of a copyright has the right make the initial sale of each particular copy of a work, once that sale’s complete, the new owner of that copy can do almost anything she wants with it. Sell it, lend it, rip it up—it’s all allowed.

That’s not necessarily true for digital works....

In a new white paper, Sherwin Siy, vice president of legal affairs at Public Knowledge, a DC-based digital rights group that “promotes creativity through balanced copyright,” describes the problem of digital first sale ...Right now, first sale doctrine means it’s possible to own a copy of a work that someone else created. But that could change in the future.

“As more and more media is born digital…the idea that no one can ever actually ‘distribute’ a digital file without reproducing it can reap big rewards for copyright holders,” he writes in the paper. “When CDs are as obsolete as 8 tracks, and if there’s no physical media on the market, then there will never be sales of used media. No more used book stores. No more second-hand music shops. You would have to buy everything from the original producer. In light of this, copyright holders have every incentive to ensure that the law interprets any digital transfer as a reproduction and not a distribution.”

But judges have interpreted the law, as currently written, to say that digital transfers are reproductions—illegal copy. Extrapolating forward from this principle, though, its possible to imagine a radically different media market than the one that now exists. Siy’s paper argues for a rethinking of the law that would preserve a consumer’s rights to own and resell copies of art, software, music, and written work, even if they’re born digital.

Innovators that have tried to work within the current law to exercise those rights so far have not done well in court: In March, for instance, New York district judge Richard Sullivan sided with Columbia Records against a company called ReDigi, a resale marketplace for unwanted digital music files, when he declined to apply first sale rights broadly to digital music. ReDigi promises that, at the end of a sale made through its site, the seller will no longer have a copy of the song on her computer. But that didn’t matter. “The fact that a file has moved from one material object—the user’s computer—to another—the ReDigi server—means that a reproduction has occurred,” Sullivan wrote. Copy made; copyright violated, no matter the intention.

And it’s in the financial interest of copyright holders to keep the law from embracing that commonplace copying. As the physical form of content becomes not much more substantive than a flash of thought, content-lovers are being told they are buying access to it, rather than a copy of the thing itself. And Siy’s paper sneakily builds the argument—you hardly notice it happening—that content companies are taking away rights from their customers. They are now selling content in a way that’s limiting what the buyer can do with her copy. In this world, you’re not allowed to lend out your copy of a book or destroy it. You’re certainly not allowed to resell it.

We’re left with a more limited relationship to the creative work that we purchase.
giandujakiss: (Default)
Photoshop CC Turns Software Into a Monthly Rental
Yes, it’s still the program that just about every photographer and designer on earth uses to retouch or even reimagine photos. Yes, it’s still the only program whose name is a verb.

But now, Photoshop is also the biggest-name software that you can’t actually buy. You can only rent it, for a month or a year at a time. If you ever stop paying, you keep your files but lose the ability to edit them.

You have to pay $30 a month, or $240 a year, for the privilege of using the latest Photoshop version, called Photoshop CC. Or, if you want to use the full Adobe suite (Illustrator, InDesign, Premiere and so on), you’ll pay $600 a year.

The price list is stunningly complex. The fees may be higher or lower depending on how many programs you rent, whether you already own an existing version and which one, whether you commit to a full year or prefer to rent one month at a time. There are also discounted first-year teaser rates, student/teacher rates and a 30-day free trial.

But you get the point: the dawn of Software as a Subscription is now upon us.

Microsoft is conducting a similar experiment with the latest version of Office. An Office 365 subscription is $100 a year. But there’s a big difference: renting Office is optional. You can still buy it outright if you prefer.
I find this absolutely terrifying. It's devastating for amateurs, or aspiring professionals. And if Microsoft stops offering the purchase option and goes to subscription all the time? Devastating for students, amateur/newbie writers, anyone who works in an office but also works at home. And if these products are successful, I assume competitors will follow the example.


Jun. 14th, 2013 12:29 am
giandujakiss: (Default)
Birthday Song’s Copyright Leads to a Lawsuit for the Ages
The song “Happy Birthday to You” is widely credited for being the most performed song in the world. But one of its latest venues may be the federal courthouse in Manhattan, where the only parties may be the litigants to a new legal battle.

The dispute stems from a lawsuit filed on Thursday by a filmmaker in New York who is seeking to have the court declare the popular ditty to be in the public domain, and to block a music company from claiming it owns the copyright to the song and charging licensing fees for its use.

October 2017

12345 6 7
8 9101112 1314


RSS Atom


Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 19th, 2017 09:14 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios