Categories
links

links for 2006-12-10

Categories
Aesthetics Satire

Thought For The Day

They say art killed Pollock, as if that could be!
In fact he missed a bend and drove his Ford into a tree. 

– Art & Language and The Red Crayola.

Categories
links

links for 2006-12-07

Categories
Free Culture

Latest Lessig Letter

The latest Lessig letter has lots of good stuff in it:

The new CC site design, which is cool.

The new license chooser, shaped like a jigsaw and based on intent, which is extremely cool and hopefully will give people more of an idea what they are and aren’t allowing when they choose a license.

The new license icons, which make the modules much clearer.

A nod and a wink about FDL compatibility. As long as this is SFDL compatibility, which would answer all my practical objections, I now think this is a good idea.

And a “secondary rights” idea which isn’t ideal but which Lessig is open about discussion of, which frankly is better than a perfect idea that isn’t open to debate.

Take a look:

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7143

Categories
Free Culture

Gowers Report – Good News For Artists

The Gowers Report contains some recommended measures regarding enforcement of copyright that should cause concern, but it also has some wonderful new proposals for “Flexibility” in copyright that I personally think are very good news for artists.

The Executive Summary on page 11 lists:

Recommendation 8: A private copying exception for format shifting.

This means that people won’t be put off buying your work because they aren’t allowed to rip it to their media players. Currently it is illegal to rip music to an iPod in the UK.

Recommendation 9: A private copying exception for research.

This is good for people undertaking research outside of an academic context. Copying for research in a commercial context was recently removed from Fair Dealing, making mood boards illegal unless you tear up your books.

Recommendation 11: An exception for transformative works.

This sounds like Transformative Fair Use: “transformative or derivative works, within the parameters of the Berne Three Step Test.” This is the measure I would most like to see adopted. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_three-step_test for the Three Step Test.

Recommendation 12: An exception for caricature, parody or pastiche.

We don’t currently have a parody right in the UK, unlike the US, although many people who have got their understanding of copyright law from US web sites and books assume that we do. Parody, pastiche and transformative use together cover much of Fair Use for artists.

Recommendation 13: A provision for orphan works.

Or at least proposing one to the European Commission. So if you don’t set up your estate to handle your work properly after your death it won’t be lost, and if you wish to capitalize on work whose rightsholder has disappeared you don’t run the risk of suddenly getting sued.

We need to start lobbying the government *now* to make sure that these measures are made law.

Categories
links

links for 2006-12-05

Categories
Free Culture

Giving It Away – Forbes.com

Giving It Away – Forbes.com

The golden age of hundreds of writers who lived off of nothing but their royalties is bunkum. Throughout history, writers have relied on day jobs, teaching, grants, inheritances, translation, licensing and other varied sources to make ends meet. The Internet not only sells more books for me, it also gives me more opportunities to earn my keep through writing-related activities.

The same is true for artists.

Categories
links

links for 2006-12-02

Categories
links

links for 2006-12-01

Categories
Free Culture

CC & DRM

Can DRM be applied to CC work?

According to Mia Garlick, to one third party who has spoken to CC, and by a close reading of the license, yes. As long as that DRM does not remove any rights the license gives the user.

Can CC work be distributed with DRM added?

Again yes, according to the same sources and with the same proviso.

Who has the right to add DRM to CC work?

According to Mia’s responses to the draft comments, possibly only the copyright holder(s?). This would mean that only the original author and authors of derivative works could add DRM. End users would not be able to.

What about Fair Use?

The CC licenses state that nothing in them is intended to reduce Fair Use. But adding DRM has the potential to reduce Fair Use in unintended ways. Any addition of DRM therefore has at least the potential to reduce Fair Use. This might mean that no DRM can be added, as any DRM removes the Fair Use rights guaranteed (although not granted) by the license.

What about noncommercial copying?

All the licenses allow at the very least noncommercial copying of unmodified work. DRM can be used to prevent this. But is this a right guaranteed by the license or merely a permission offered by it?

What does this mean for dual distribution?

Ironically, given the terms of this debate, it means that it may mean that the novel element of dual distribution would be the requirement to provide a transparent, non-DRM copy.

Should a transparent copy clause be added?

I do not like dual distribution clauses for cultural works and they do not sit well with CC’s style of remix culture licensing. It would be very difficult to get right. We would need to look at the FDL/SFDL, which have a similar requirement.

 I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, I may not be representing people’s views correctly, this post is more an enquiry than a statement.