-
“After Parrish died, two rival art dealers entered into a bitter tug of war over his artwork. The battle raged in angry lawsuits from coast to coast. (cf Cutler v. Gilbert) Each dealer claimed to be protecting the Parrish legacy as charges of fraud, count
-
“On the homepage it says that Openstudio is an “Experiment in Creativity, Collaboration and Capitalism”.”
-
“The 13 Most Beautiful Avatars images will be exhibited, in the real-world, at the Italian Academy at New York’s Columbia University. For the Ars Virtua show, in Second Life, a 3D replica of this physical exhibition space has been recreated for presentati
Month: December 2006
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.
links for 2006-12-07
-
“While regular copyright hinders further ‘downstream' copying through its “all rights reserved” rule, CC licensing on this type of site presents the unauthorised copy as available, often even for commercial reuse.”
-
“The SL art world was abuzz with talk when Tayzia Abattoir bought four of Golam Amadeus' paintings – two of which grace the walls of her Crescent museum in Tabor (233,77,23).”
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:
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.
links for 2006-12-05
-
“…an avatar consumes 1,752 kWh per year. By comparison, the average human, on a worldwide basis, consumes 2,436 kWh per year. So there you have it: an avatar consumes a bit less energy than a real person, though they're in the same ballpark.”
-
“George Martin, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr have produced an album of Beatles mashups. Yes, really. “
-
“I’ve been giving away my books ever since my first novel came out, and boy has it ever made me a bunch of money.”
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.
links for 2006-12-02
-
Record company boss tells his kids off if they “steal” music but record companies would bankrupt your kids if they did the same.
links for 2006-12-01
-
A mediaeval bestiary
-
Does what it says on the tin. Silly use of a CC license for code though.
-
“The Arts Council England and OpenBusiness.cc announce the release of a report, which represents the results of a six-month study into artists' attitudes towards copyright, creativity and alternative licensing practises, in particular Creative Commons (
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.