<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Copyright and authorship</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/04/copyright-and-authorship/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/04/copyright-and-authorship/</link>
	<description>Temporarily Torontonian</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:04:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/04/copyright-and-authorship/#comment-96141</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 21:55:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5865#comment-96141</guid>
		<description>&quot;As American University’s Center for Social Media concluded, “rights clearance costs are high, and have escalated dramatically in the last two decades,” and “limit the public’s access” to documentary film. The consequence of this ecology of creativity is that the vast majority of documentaries from the twentieth century cannot legally be restored or redistributed. They sit on film library shelves, many of them dissolving, since they were produced on nitrate-based film, and most of them forgotten, since no content company or anyone else can do anything with them. In this sense, most of these works have been made orphans by a set of agreements concluded at their birth, which--like lead in gasoline--were introduced without any public recognition of their inevitable toxicity.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;As American University’s Center for Social Media concluded, “rights clearance costs are high, and have escalated dramatically in the last two decades,” and “limit the public’s access” to documentary film. The consequence of this ecology of creativity is that the vast majority of documentaries from the twentieth century cannot legally be restored or redistributed. They sit on film library shelves, many of them dissolving, since they were produced on nitrate-based film, and most of them forgotten, since no content company or anyone else can do anything with them. In this sense, most of these works have been made orphans by a set of agreements concluded at their birth, which&#8211;like lead in gasoline&#8211;were introduced without any public recognition of their inevitable toxicity.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/04/copyright-and-authorship/#comment-96140</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 21:53:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5865#comment-96140</guid>
		<description>&quot;Documentaries in particular are property of a special kind. The copyright and contract claims that burden these compilations of creativity are impossibly complex. The reason is not hard to see. A part of it is the ordinary complexity of copyright in any film. A film is made up of many different creative elements--music, plot, characters, images, and so on. Once the film is made, any effort at remaking it--moving it to DVD, for example--could require clearing permissions for each of these original elements. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tnr.com/print/article/the-love-culture&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;But documentaries add another layer of complexity to this already healthy thicket, as they typically also include quotations, in the sense of film clips. So just as a book about Franklin Delano Roosevelt by Jonathan Alter might have quotes from famous people talking about its subject, a film about civil rights produced in the 1960s would include quotations--clips from news stations--from famous people of the time talking about the issue of the day.&lt;/a&gt; Unlike a book, however, these quotations are in film--typically, news footage from CBS or NBC.

Whenever a documentarian wanted to include these clips in his film, he would ask CBS or NBC for permission. Most of the time, at least for a healthy fee, CBS and NBC and everyone else was happy to give permission so as to be included. Sometimes they wanted to see first just how the clip would be used. Sometimes they would veto a particular use in a particular context. But in the main there was a healthy market for securing permission to quote. The lawyers flocked to this market for permission. (That’s their nature.) They drafted agreements to define the rights that the quoter would get.

I suspect that most filmmakers never thought for a second about how odd this “permission to quote” was. After all, does an author need to get permission from The New York Times when she quotes an article in a book about the Depression? Indeed, does anyone need permission from anyone when quoting public statements, at least in a work talking about those statements? Ordinarily, one would think that this sort of “use” is “fair,” under the rules of copyright at least. But most documentarians--indeed, most filmmakers--did not care to work through the complexity and the uncertainty of a doctrine such as “fair use.” Instead they agreed to licenses that govern--exclusively, as they typically asserted--the rights to use the quotes that were in the film. So, for example, the license would insist that the only right to use the film came from the license itself (not fair use). And it would then specify the scope and term of the right--five years, North American distribution, for educational use.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Documentaries in particular are property of a special kind. The copyright and contract claims that burden these compilations of creativity are impossibly complex. The reason is not hard to see. A part of it is the ordinary complexity of copyright in any film. A film is made up of many different creative elements&#8211;music, plot, characters, images, and so on. Once the film is made, any effort at remaking it&#8211;moving it to DVD, for example&#8211;could require clearing permissions for each of these original elements. <a href="http://www.tnr.com/print/article/the-love-culture" rel="nofollow">But documentaries add another layer of complexity to this already healthy thicket, as they typically also include quotations, in the sense of film clips. So just as a book about Franklin Delano Roosevelt by Jonathan Alter might have quotes from famous people talking about its subject, a film about civil rights produced in the 1960s would include quotations&#8211;clips from news stations&#8211;from famous people of the time talking about the issue of the day.</a> Unlike a book, however, these quotations are in film&#8211;typically, news footage from CBS or NBC.</p>
<p>Whenever a documentarian wanted to include these clips in his film, he would ask CBS or NBC for permission. Most of the time, at least for a healthy fee, CBS and NBC and everyone else was happy to give permission so as to be included. Sometimes they wanted to see first just how the clip would be used. Sometimes they would veto a particular use in a particular context. But in the main there was a healthy market for securing permission to quote. The lawyers flocked to this market for permission. (That’s their nature.) They drafted agreements to define the rights that the quoter would get.</p>
<p>I suspect that most filmmakers never thought for a second about how odd this “permission to quote” was. After all, does an author need to get permission from The New York Times when she quotes an article in a book about the Depression? Indeed, does anyone need permission from anyone when quoting public statements, at least in a work talking about those statements? Ordinarily, one would think that this sort of “use” is “fair,” under the rules of copyright at least. But most documentarians&#8211;indeed, most filmmakers&#8211;did not care to work through the complexity and the uncertainty of a doctrine such as “fair use.” Instead they agreed to licenses that govern&#8211;exclusively, as they typically asserted&#8211;the rights to use the quotes that were in the film. So, for example, the license would insist that the only right to use the film came from the license itself (not fair use). And it would then specify the scope and term of the right&#8211;five years, North American distribution, for educational use.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/04/copyright-and-authorship/#comment-80882</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 20:59:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5865#comment-80882</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8215519.stm&quot; title=&quot;BBC NEWS &#124; UK &#124; Tourists warned over fake goods&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tourists warned over fake goods&lt;/a&gt;

Holidaymakers could be fined thousands of pounds - or even jailed - for buying fake designer goods when abroad, copyright lawyers are warning.

Authorities in France and Italy are not just targeting those who produce and sell fakes but also those who buy them.

In France, the maximum fine is 300,000 euro (£260,000) or three years in jail.

The UK government has decided against criminalising consumers. Instead it has launched an information campaign aimed at people using markets and boot sales.

Seizures of counterfeit goods on the continent more than doubled in 2008, with customs authorities seizing 178 million fake items - mostly imported from China.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8215519.stm" title="BBC NEWS | UK | Tourists warned over fake goods" rel="nofollow">Tourists warned over fake goods</a></p>
<p>Holidaymakers could be fined thousands of pounds &#8211; or even jailed &#8211; for buying fake designer goods when abroad, copyright lawyers are warning.</p>
<p>Authorities in France and Italy are not just targeting those who produce and sell fakes but also those who buy them.</p>
<p>In France, the maximum fine is 300,000 euro (£260,000) or three years in jail.</p>
<p>The UK government has decided against criminalising consumers. Instead it has launched an information campaign aimed at people using markets and boot sales.</p>
<p>Seizures of counterfeit goods on the continent more than doubled in 2008, with customs authorities seizing 178 million fake items &#8211; mostly imported from China.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/04/copyright-and-authorship/#comment-79680</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 16:51:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5865#comment-79680</guid>
		<description>&quot;A new Canadian study &lt;a href=&quot;http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/04/1638223/Study-Deconstructs-Canadian-Copyright-Lobby-Deception?from=rss&quot; title=&quot;Slashdot Your Rights Online Story &#124; Study Deconstructs Canadian Copyright Lobby Deception&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;deconstructs how copyright lobby groups manipulate public opinion&lt;/a&gt; by laundering proposals through seemingly independent groups. The study started after the Conference Board of Canada was shown to have plagiarized several of its IP reports and now shows the connections that all lead through the MPAA and RIAA. Michael Geist writes, &#039;It is not just that these reports all receive financial support from the same organizations and say largely the same thing. It is also that the reports each build on one another, creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus on the state of Canadian law and the need for specific reforms.&#039;&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;A new Canadian study <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/04/1638223/Study-Deconstructs-Canadian-Copyright-Lobby-Deception?from=rss" title="Slashdot Your Rights Online Story | Study Deconstructs Canadian Copyright Lobby Deception" rel="nofollow">deconstructs how copyright lobby groups manipulate public opinion</a> by laundering proposals through seemingly independent groups. The study started after the Conference Board of Canada was shown to have plagiarized several of its IP reports and now shows the connections that all lead through the MPAA and RIAA. Michael Geist writes, &#8216;It is not just that these reports all receive financial support from the same organizations and say largely the same thing. It is also that the reports each build on one another, creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus on the state of Canadian law and the need for specific reforms.&#8217;&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/04/copyright-and-authorship/#comment-79678</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 16:44:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5865#comment-79678</guid>
		<description>Blog index &gt;&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sindark.com/wiki/index.php?title=Blog_index#Intellectual_property&quot; title=&quot;Blog index - Sindarkwiki&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Intellectual property&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Blog index &gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.sindark.com/wiki/index.php?title=Blog_index#Intellectual_property" title="Blog index - Sindarkwiki" rel="nofollow">Intellectual property</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

