Copyright Law in the Digital Age
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-01-05/copyright-law-digital-age
Copyright laws emerged with the arrival of the printing press in 15th-century England. The printing patent served as a way to protect guild members from those who would copy their work. Today, we live in a world of digital abundance, where everyone is both a creator and a user. As more and more information is produced and shared online -- literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works -- some believe we need more ways to protect it without discouraging creativity. Diane and her guests discuss the role of copyright law in the digital age.
Guests
William Patry
senior copyright counsel at Google and author of "How to Fix Copyright"
Michael Carroll
director, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, Washington College of Law,American University and founding board member of Creative Commons, Inc.
Sandra Aistars
Executive Director of Copyright Alliance
Related Items
Program Highlights
The number of people in the world with access to the internet is estimated at more than 2 billion and all of those are able to share lots of information quickly, easily, and affordably. As a result, some believe we need new ways to think about protecting original content without discouraging creativity. Our guests explore how copyright law has changed in the digital age.
What Does Copyright Protect?
Copyright is a bundle of exclusive rights granted to artists who create an original work of authorship. It allows the creator exclusive rights to copy, distribute, publicly perform, or make adaptations to creative work. Limitations to copyright include fair uses. Copyright protects both published and unpublished work. Interestingly, this issue poses a problem for historians wishing to publish old letters as part of their research. The letter-writer owns the copyright to the letter, so in order to republish it, the historian would have to contact the writer for permission - not just the recipient.
Public Confusion About Copyright
There is a lot of confusion about copyright, Michael Carroll said, because the law is quite complicated. "The incentives are different in different industries for different kinds of creators," Carroll said. Copyright is automatic, and for some people, that's good news. But Carroll points out that for others, who want to create something to share online, this system might not be desirable. This is where projects like Creative Commons can be useful, Carroll said.
Enforcement
Copyright enforecement online can be difficult, according to Sandra Aistars. "It's one thing to say that the copyright lasts for the life of the artist plus 70 years. But in reality that term is far, far shorter because as soon as you've put something out publicly and publish it in the digital age it's very quickly disseminated online, often without your authorization. So that term is less meaningful," she said.
The Shepard Fairey Case
A caller asked about the recent copyright case involving artist Shepard Fairey's famous poster of President Obama that was taken from a photographer's print of the president and altered. The original copyright holder of the photograph took Fairey to court, and the case was eventually settled out of court. Both Carroll and William Patry said they believed what Fairey did fell under fair use, but Aistars disagreed. She said that Fairey's work appeared to be very solidly based on the original photograph and that Fairey recreated all the creative elements of the photographer's original image in his own work, rather than achieving a truly transformative meaning that would be necessary for the work to fall under fair use.
You can read the full transcript here
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Hello Dianne,
I love your show, and though I have thought of many, I have never actually made a comment, but now I have a question for your guests:
Our family has a library of antique books that belonged to our ancestors. I read one of the books that was incribed by the author to my grandfather, who was his cousin. The book was published in 1909. It is a great tale with a hero, and heroin and a pirate, whose name was Garsilaso de la Vega. It is set in Florida, New Orleans, and a bit in New York and Paris. It is a wonderful view of Florida as it was 100 years ago.
I looked it up online and the only place I can find it in is in a list of books published that year.
My question is, "Can I republish it now and make profit on it?"
I was a Communications Major in college and have had several courses that explored copywright law, but when it comes down to republishing a printed work, I would like an authority to back me up with the correctness of it.
I will listen to the show in the morning to see if they have an answer for me.
Thank you, Diane, for your wonderful insight into so many issues that are important to me!
Jane Collins
I'd like to ask about revising the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The act and it's "safe harbor" provisions seem to be regularly abused by numerous websites around the globe. While lip service is paid to the law, in actuality the spirit of the law is routinely ignored.
As a filmmaker I've spend hours sending dozens of DMCA takedown notices, only to find the exact same file uploaded on the same site the next day. In one case there were 300 copies of the film on a U.S. based cyberlocker. I sent DMCA notices and the next day another 200 copies appeared.
Why is the burden of proof placed on the rightsholder? Why can't there be a middle ground? Why can't these cyberlocker sites be forced to fingerprint removed content and prevent its re-upload? There are technological ways to protect the rightsholder and the website. Why is nothing being done?
Hello Dianne,
I am confused and concerned about the eBook copyright of the English
translation of _The Leopard_ by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa. The ePub
version can be purchased in just about any country in the world --
except in the USA. If you live in Mexico or Canada or Guatemala, for
example, you will have no problem purchasing the eBook from Amazon.com.
If you live in the USA, Amazon.com will not sell it to you. Nor will
anyone else.
Apparently this has something to do with the fact that Alfred A. Knopf
is the publisher of the hardcopy version of _The Leopard_ for
distribution in the USA, and Random House publishes it elsewhere. Random
House UK has produced the ePub version, yet even Random House USA can't
sell it in the United States.
Is there any solution to this problem? Who is copyright law protecting
in this case? I would like to buy the ePub version of _The Leopard_, but
I am not allowed to solely because I live in the United States.
Regards,
Vic Norton
I cannot get away from the realisation that had our current copyright scheme been in place at the time of Shakespeare, no-one would have to memorise his works because they would have been seized and burnt---and wouldn't have gone far beyond "Romeo and Juliet", as he would have been imprisoned thereafter.
Ironically, Disney himself would have suffered the same fate or nearly...of course, it's not at all unusual for the powerful to climb up a ladder and then to assiduously pull it up after them, not wanting company.
At the very least, intellectual "property", which needs the threat of State violence to back it up, deserves to be heavily taxed in order to help support the State---no mean revenue, given that in a world that will be increasingly dominated by small fabricating machines, the intellectual "property" in the specifications for them will be huge.
I have two questions for guests:
Is new law retroactive and supersedes the previous laws?
How far the retroactivity goes for work that became public domain under the previous laws?
Hello Diane,
Does copyright really need fixing? If any fixing needs to be done it needs to be done to the benefit of individual, independent authors.
As I'm listening to your show I hear suggestions that seem to diminish the protection of copyright law and would increase the administrative tasks of enforcing my copyright.
As an independent author (photographer) any diminishment of the copyright law would be harmful to my livelihood and any increase in my administrative duties to enforce my copyright would be unduly burdensome.
Sam D'Amico
Hi Diane,
Do your guests have data regarding economic effects of shortening or extending the duration of the copyright laws?
Ali - Needham MA
Works from 1909 are out of copyright, so you're free to republish them.
Hi Diane,
Do your guests have data regarding economic effects of shortening or extending the duration of the copyright laws?
Ali - Needham MA
P.s. its effect on general economy not only the financial gains or losses of a particular holder of a copyright.
I'd like to ask your guests why copyright protection is so much longer than patent protection. While great books and creative artworks are wonderful things, their benefit to society is hardly greater than a hybrid powertrain in a car that saves millions of barrels of oil, or a new cancer-fighting drug that saves tens of thousands of lives. Yet patent protection is only from 14 to 20 years. What is the justification for the much longer term of copyright protection?
Where does the posting and re-posting of photos, inspirational posters, etc. on Facebook fall? Are all those folks breaking the law?
books.google.com has scanned public-domain books from Public and university libraries. Good work!
Many of these same editions are now being removed from the Google library as unknown parties (mailing addresses) are placing these old editions under a NEW copyright.
I heard many of the copyrights associated with Mickey Mouse are coming close to expiring. What measures would a company like Disney be pursuing to combat this?
Thanks,
Scott Whittemore
Florida
Hello Diane,
I would just like to mention that most academics must sign copyright transfer agreements before academic publishers will publish their work. So we no longer own our own work.
Jay
Westminster, MD
Just a clarification on the term. Life plus 70 is only for works first published after 1977. Works first published between 1923 and 1977 are protected for up to 95 years from publication date - so a posthumously published work of even a long-dead author like Mark Twain could still be under copyright in the USA.
Most countries around the world have life plus 50 terms, including Canada to our north.
No.
The work must be your own creation. You may reprint and sell them.
You may add portions, a forward, additional information, &c., and THAT work could be copyrighted, but not the original work. Anything from 1909 is in the Public-domain.
archive. org or books . google . com may have a copy of the title in an electronic format.
Please explain fair use for classroom teachers. Can teachers use current newspaper and internet material for individual classes without getting permission?
Why is a singer afforded copyright on a piece of work but the recording engineer that helped produce the same work is not?
Hello Diane,
If I put a picture on my website and someone else uses it without authorization, are there easy and economical ways to remedy the problem?
In reply to JANE:
No.
The work must be your own creation. You may reprint and sell them.
You may add portions, a forward, additional information, &c., and THAT work could be copyrighted, but not the original work. Anything from 1909 is in the Public-domain.
archive. org or books . google . com may have a copy of the title in an electronic format.
Diane, we would like to hear your guests comments about "Its a Wonderful Life". The only reason it became part of our Christmas and an important part of our culture is because someone forgot to renew the copyright on the movie. Could one of the values society gets back from a creative process would come from a shorten copyright time?
Thanks,
Bernie
The 1998 extension was all about extending the term of existing copyrights like the 1927 Walt Disney film "Steamboat Willie" - which remains under copyright in the USA until Jan. 1, 2023.
Fair use from the perspective of a library media center. can universities digitize and stream media they own if password protected? and only on stream at a time ? what about multiple streams? etc.
I am an artist/animator. I have made a stop motion animation that uses parts of a logo from the 1960's of a major US corporation. I have significantly altered the logo and it is a parody. My understanding of copyright law is that if the image is altered significantly and/or is necessary for the purpose of parody can be used without permission. However, the recent case in which the courts ruled against artist Jeff Koons in terms of copyright violation is muddying the waters in terms of understanding what is permissible and what is not. I teach printmaking and digital imaging college classes, as well, where students are frequently asking me about these issues.
A question for the panel:
The university that I attend, as part of their anti-plagiarism policy, do not allow students to submit the same paper for two different classes or assignments without permission from all instructors involved, citing such an act as plagiarism.
Can it really be considered plagiarism for me to resubmit a paper for a grade, when I am the copyright holder for this paper and I give myself expressed permission to reproduce my paper for another class?
I play in a local cover band, and from time to time we host music events on property owned by one of the band members. He has been approached by people identifying themselves as representing ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers). This representative is demanding a payment purportedly for licensed use of such music, and threatening legal action if not paid. We are not recording music for resale, simply performing the music. We were told a commercial venue such as restaurants, sports bars, etc who hire/feature live cover music, routinely pay these fees. Is this correct? Thank you!
Can you comment on the Richard Prince case recently featured in the NY Times?
I had a independent psychotherapy practice for many years. In my waiting room, I usually played the radio for the local public radio station. As the station changed its programming, I moved to playing my own CD's in the waiting area. I was on the Pandora site yesterday and it indicates that playing any music in a public setting (even a doctor's office) requires paying licensing fees to protect rights of musicians. Please explain why playing my own CD's in my machine is not OK.
I am an artist who does a lot of work that appears on various products. The copyrights on my works are regularly infringed upon by other companies, and I have a very good copyright attorney that pursues infringements vigorously on a contingency basis. With American companies, these cases are invariably settled quickly, as the American companies and their attorneys seem to know they are in the wrong once it is pointed out to them. My problem is that in recent years, more and more infringements are being done by companies based in China. The products are produced there and distributed here in America (and I assume at least sometimes in other countries as well). It is extremely difficult, and in fact usually not worth the trouble, to pursue infringements occurring in China. At best, if there is a U.S. distributor, we can go after them, but for the most part I am seeing a lot of my work making money for other people with no control on my part, due entirely to our "global economy".
The Copyright Alliance represents big industries like MPAA and apparently doesn't even believe Fair Use applies to educators, who they allegedly proposed appeal to copyright holders before using material in class. -- http://www.sivacracy.net/2007/12/new_copyright_alliance_lies_ch.html
If they get around to discussing something worthwhile like the new internet censorship legislation called SOPA, they might read the following information that suggests anti-piracy groups like The Copyright Alliance toss about absurd and fraudulent statistics:
How Copyright Industries Con Congress - Julian Sanchez -- http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-copyright-industries-con-congress
"Intellectual property infringement was supposedly costing the U.S. economy $200–250 billion per year, and had killed 750,000 American jobs... The $200–250 billion number had originated in a 1991 sidebar in Forbes, but it was not a measurement of the cost of 'piracy' to the U.S. economy. It was an unsourced estimate of the total size of the global market in counterfeit goods... The 750,000 jobs number had originated in a 1986 speech (yes, 1986) by the secretary of commerce estimating that counterfeiting could cost the United States 'anywhere from 130,000 to 750,000' jobs. Nobody in the Commerce Department was able to identify where those figures had come from.
These are the numbers that were driving U.S. copyright policy as recently as 2008...
As one expert consulted by GAO put it, 'effects of piracy within the United States are mainly redistributions within the economy for other purposes and that they should not be considered as a loss to the overall economy.'"