Posts tagged fair use

Pinterest, Copyright and Fair Use While Pinterest is now the number three social media site behind Facebook and Twitter there’s still a bit of confusion over copyright and fair use when it comes to pinning. Fortunately, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has a Pinterest-specific article about just that and looks at online precedents for fair use of copyrighted material. The short of it runs like so: For most users, Pinterest’s platform will provide a forum for fair uses. Posting pictures with captions and commentary, designed to spur further commentary and collaboration, are paradigmatic fair uses. Most users seek no commercial benefit, and only use as much of the underlying image as is necessary for the commentary. Thus, a typical Pinterest user, to the extent she draws from copyrighted works, will be making acceptable fair uses of those works. For the long of it, visit the EFF. Besides copyright and fair use, they dive into Pinterests’ evolving terms and conditions and the confusion that they spawned. Image: Screenshot of the FJP Infographics and Visualization board.

Pinterest, Copyright and Fair Use

While Pinterest is now the number three social media site behind Facebook and Twitter there’s still a bit of confusion over copyright and fair use when it comes to pinning.

Fortunately, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has a Pinterest-specific article about just that and looks at online precedents for fair use of copyrighted material.

The short of it runs like so:

For most users, Pinterest’s platform will provide a forum for fair uses. Posting pictures with captions and commentary, designed to spur further commentary and collaboration, are paradigmatic fair uses. Most users seek no commercial benefit, and only use as much of the underlying image as is necessary for the commentary. Thus, a typical Pinterest user, to the extent she draws from copyrighted works, will be making acceptable fair uses of those works.

For the long of it, visit the EFF. Besides copyright and fair use, they dive into Pinterests’ evolving terms and conditions and the confusion that they spawned.

Image: Screenshot of the FJP Infographics and Visualization board.

On Copyright and Occupying the Wall Street Journal Susie Cagle interviews the creators of various “Occupy” newspapers to see what reactions they’ve received from established brands. The question is whether appropriation of corporate logos, brands and marks is protected free speech or copyright infringement. In Oakland, the Oakland Tribune sent the Occupied Oakland Tribune a cease and desist letter. In New York, the Wall Street Journal has remained silent about the Occupied Wall Street Journal. In Chicago, there appears to be some absurdity going on. Via The Atlantic: A source with knowledge of to the Occupied Chicago Tribune’s legal situation who preferred not to be identified said the Chicago Tribune’s lawyer had pushed hard in the company’s demands in informal negotiations.“Occupied Chicago Tribunesaid okay, we’ll use ‘Chicago’s Occupied Tribune.’ The lawyer objected. So they said okay, we’ll change it to ‘Occupied Tribune,’ and the lawyer objected. They said okay, we’ll change it to ‘Occupied Chicago Times.’ The lawyer objected again.” “Then he allegedly said something like, ‘You cannot have anything that has a T in the name.’ And that’s when finally it had reached such a point of absurdity that they decided to fight back.” Image: Inaugural issue of the Occupied Wall Street Journal, via Marcus Franklin.

On Copyright and Occupying the Wall Street Journal

Susie Cagle interviews the creators of various “Occupy” newspapers to see what reactions they’ve received from established brands. The question is whether appropriation of corporate logos, brands and marks is protected free speech or copyright infringement.

In Oakland, the Oakland Tribune sent the Occupied Oakland Tribune a cease and desist letter. In New York, the Wall Street Journal has remained silent about the Occupied Wall Street Journal.

In Chicago, there appears to be some absurdity going on.

Via The Atlantic:

A source with knowledge of to the Occupied Chicago Tribune’s legal situation who preferred not to be identified said the Chicago Tribune’s lawyer had pushed hard in the company’s demands in informal negotiations.“Occupied Chicago Tribunesaid okay, we’ll use ‘Chicago’s Occupied Tribune.’ The lawyer objected. So they said okay, we’ll change it to ‘Occupied Tribune,’ and the lawyer objected. They said okay, we’ll change it to ‘Occupied Chicago Times.’ The lawyer objected again.”

“Then he allegedly said something like, ‘You cannot have anything that has a T in the name.’ And that’s when finally it had reached such a point of absurdity that they decided to fight back.”

Image: Inaugural issue of the Occupied Wall Street Journal, via Marcus Franklin.

Use of Brands In Video Games Is Free Speech—EA Lawsuit From paidContent In a new lawsuit, Electronic Arts (NSDQ: ERTS) says free speech rights permit it to use brand name helicopters in the hit gameBattlefield 3. The case is part of a trend in which video game makers are pushing the bounds of trademark law to make their games more realistic. In its latest claim, EA is asking a California court to declare that its use of Bell helicopters is a form of artistic expression protected by the First Amendment. It claims the helicopters help depict realistic combat in Battlefield 3, a game set in 2014 in which players can command US soldiers in Paris, New York and Tehran to stop an impending nuclear attack. EA filed the lawsuit after aviation company Textron Inc warned that it would take legal action over trademarks for the AH-1Z, UH-1Y and V-22 Bell helicopters. The case follows a similar suit last year in which an Indiana company sued EA for using the word “Derringer” to describe Tommy Guns in its Godfather video game franchise. A court sided with EA, and ruled that artistic expression trumped the company’s trademark rights… The video game cases show how rights of creative expression have recently been trumping intellectual property rights which, in other industries, seem to be constantly expanding.

Use of Brands In Video Games Is Free Speech—EA Lawsuit

From paidContent

In a new lawsuit, Electronic Arts (NSDQ: ERTS) says free speech rights permit it to use brand name helicopters in the hit gameBattlefield 3. The case is part of a trend in which video game makers are pushing the bounds of trademark law to make their games more realistic.

In its latest claim, EA is asking a California court to declare that its use of Bell helicopters is a form of artistic expression protected by the First Amendment. It claims the helicopters help depict realistic combat in Battlefield 3, a game set in 2014 in which players can command US soldiers in Paris, New York and Tehran to stop an impending nuclear attack.

EA filed the lawsuit after aviation company Textron Inc warned that it would take legal action over trademarks for the AH-1Z, UH-1Y and V-22 Bell helicopters.

The case follows a similar suit last year in which an Indiana company sued EA for using the word “Derringer” to describe Tommy Guns in its Godfather video game franchise. A court sided with EA, and ruled that artistic expression trumped the company’s trademark rights…

The video game cases show how rights of creative expression have recently been trumping intellectual property rights which, in other industries, seem to be constantly expanding.

paidcontent.org

Looks like Congress has declared war on the internet

Via Mathew Ingram, GigaOm:

Many internet users in the United States have watched with horror as countries like France and Britain have proposed or instituted so-called “three strikes” laws, which cut off internet access to those accused of repeated acts of copyright infringement. Now the U.S. has its own version of this kind of law, and it is arguably much worse: the Stop Online Piracy Act, introduced in the House this week, would give governments and private corporations unprecedented powers to remove websites from the internet on the flimsiest of grounds, and would force internet service providers to play the role of copyright police…

…What it really is, however, is a disaster for the internet. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes in a post on the proposed legislation, the law would not only require ISPs to remove websites from the global network at the request of the government or the courts (by blocking any requests to the central domain-name system that directs internet traffic), but would also be forced to monitor their users’ behavior in order to police acts of copyright infringement. Providers who do not comply with these requests and requirements would be subject to sanctions. And in many cases, legal hearings would not be required.

…The bottom line is that if it passes and becomes law, the new act would give the government and copyright holders a giant stick — if not an automatic weapon — with which to pursue websites and services they believe are infringing on their content. With little or no requirement for a court hearing, they could remove websites from the internet and shut down their ability to be found by search engines or to process payments from users. DMCA takedown notices would effectively be replaced by this nuclear option, and innocent websites would have to fight to prove that they deserved to be restored to the internet — a reversal of the traditional American judicial approach of being assumed innocent until proven guilty — at which point any business they had would be destroyed.

When Does Curation Become Suspendible Aggregation?

Despite its recent hiring spree, the Huffington Post’s bread and butter is content curation. Their rationale to those creating the original is that they’re driving traffic back to the source so it’s actually win-win all around.

Yesterday, Ad Age’s Simon Dumenco took exception to that, writing that what’s really going on is isn’t so much fair use as unethical aggregation. 

As an example, he looks at the traffic stats for an article he wrote that the HuffPo later picked up. End result, 57 new page views from people clicking through from the HuffPo piece to the Ad Age piece. By comparison, Techmeme drove over 750 page views.

Ender result: Hufffington Post suspends writer, apologizes for over-aggregated post.

In a letter from Peter S. Goodman, Executive Business Editor of AOL Huffington Post Media Group, to Dumenco, Goodman writes:

We have made a very substantial investment in original reporting here, bringing in dozens of new writers in recent months. And while we will continue to curate the news for our audience, what occurred in this instance is entirely unacceptable and collides directly with the values that are at work in our newsroom. We have zero tolerance for this sort of conduct. Given that, the writer of the offending post has been suspended indefinitely.

More broadly, your complaint has prompted us to redouble our efforts to make sure our reporters and editors understand that this sort of thing is unambiguously unacceptable.

You think?

Update: via SoupSoup, Dumenco Writes Back:

I have to say, though, that I’m disheartened by your decision to indefinitely suspend the writer who “over-aggregated” (in the words of Steve Myers at the Poynter Institute’s Romenesko blog) my post at AdAge.com. I’m certainly not alone in feeling this way. I imagine that, like me, you’ve been reading the reactions that have been rippling across the media blogosphere, and you’re finding that there’s general unanimity that HuffPo is singling out — indeed, scapegoating — a young writer for engaging in a style of aggregration long practiced, condoned and encouraged by Huffington Post editorial management.

Let us pause for a second and consider copyright. This includes you and me and news organizations like the Daily Mail. Currently, the Daily Mail is accused of publishing a photo by Steve Leachman (above) without permission. That they should do so, and in the way that they’re accused, boggles. Via the British Journal of Photography: Leachman tells BJP that the watermarked image has been taken from his Flickr account or personal website, and has been airbrushed to remove the watermark - upon closer inspection of the image, BJP can confirm that the image used by Mail Online appears to have been airbrushed using Photoshop’s Clone Stamp tool. Simply, just because a content object is online doesn’t make it fair game. It doesn’t put the work in the “Public Domain.” In the United States, we have something called “Fair Use.” And if you’re in the United States, and producing work in the United States, you can read up on it here. If you’re elsewhere, learn what you can and cannot do… pronto. I can’t pretend to know global copyright law and certainly can’t pretend to be a lawyer, but I can point you to the Creative Commons which licenses work that those of us on Tumblr should be aware of and use. If you’re not familiar with the Creative Commons, I highly recommend heading there now to learn about content that you can use and remix for your own purposes. And if you’re a content creator of any type — be it indie artist or mainstream publisher — I recommend using the Creative Commons to both license and clarify the license on your work. Our social media, User Generated Content age makes for legitimate confusion but for publications like the Daily Mail: please, you know better. — Michael

Let us pause for a second and consider copyright.

This includes you and me and news organizations like the Daily Mail.

Currently, the Daily Mail is accused of publishing a photo by Steve Leachman (above) without permission. That they should do so, and in the way that they’re accused, boggles.

Via the British Journal of Photography:

Leachman tells BJP that the watermarked image has been taken from his Flickr account or personal website, and has been airbrushed to remove the watermark - upon closer inspection of the image, BJP can confirm that the image used by Mail Online appears to have been airbrushed using Photoshop’s Clone Stamp tool.

Simply, just because a content object is online doesn’t make it fair game. It doesn’t put the work in the “Public Domain.” In the United States, we have something called “Fair Use.” And if you’re in the United States, and producing work in the United States, you can read up on it here. If you’re elsewhere, learn what you can and cannot do… pronto.

I can’t pretend to know global copyright law and certainly can’t pretend to be a lawyer, but I can point you to the Creative Commons which licenses work that those of us on Tumblr should be aware of and use.

If you’re not familiar with the Creative Commons, I highly recommend heading there now to learn about content that you can use and remix for your own purposes.

And if you’re a content creator of any type — be it indie artist or mainstream publisher — I recommend using the Creative Commons to both license and clarify the license on your work.

Our social media, User Generated Content age makes for legitimate confusion but for publications like the Daily Mail: please, you know better. — Michael