Tag Archives: copyright

Trackbacks 03

Apple gives us a run-down of the Oracle of Kevin Bacon we spent time discussing in the symposium this week. She explains that technology is bringing the world together and making it a smaller place. I think it’s so sad that the ‘unconnected’ are so easily forgotten in sweeping statements like this. Three of five people in the world still do not have access to the Internet. We are so easily blind to the reality of information inequality. As can be seen in the late modern world, access to the digital world is closely connected to power and who wields this power. The disparity between those who are ‘media rich’ and those who are ‘media poor’ raise issues of technological infrastructure, or lack thereof. It’s something I’m very interested in – the idea of information rich countries and information poor countries who might be disadvantaged by their inability to access  the online realm.

Kate talks all about copyright in her blog post, making a really interesting observation that so often copyright is discussed with negative connotations (such as copyright infringement, or copyright limitations). Instead, I’m on Lessig’s team and think we should be moving more towards a celebration of all that copyright can allow, especially in the field of creative commons which can contribute to some amazing cultural movements such as remix culture and rewrite culture.  

Nicola tackles the idea of technological neutrality – something I’m still grappling with myself. She thinks that technology is neutral, until picked up and used by a human. I think that it’s a lot more complex than this, with debates around technological determinism and the relationship between technology and culture continuing to stump me with each new reading.

Symposium 03

Here are some of my musings from what was discussed in the first Networked Media symposium i was able to attend (I’m now two weeks post-arthroscopic surgery and can return to my regular activities! Hooray!):

The first question raised was ‘how much freedom do we have when writing critically of others or others’ work before we become liable for defamation or copyright infringement?’

Large copyright sign made of jigsaw puzzle pieces

We must begin to understand the rights and responsibilities of someone who operates a blog. As a blog owner, you are responsible for everything that is published on your blog – including in the comments. There is a difference between opinion and critique – we mustn’t make claims that are derogatory or defamatory towards people and dress them up as fact. The ‘truth’ is not a defence, and similarly, authorial intent counts for nothing. Regardless of if you intended for something to be offensive or not, if it has been perceived as offensive by someone or someones then it is.

There is a lot of complications when ascertaining whether your published material is ‘in the public interest’. Also remember that these laws differ between jurisdictions and across national borders. This is one of the growing concerns media professionals are adapting to in the face of globalisation, having to now work across a number of legal structures and licenses. 

It is up to the copyright holder to take action, however this area is becoming more and more aggressive, with entire law firms and organisations being dedicated to trawling the internet to find examples of copyright infringement (such as PPCA and APRA). Disney is a great example of how some organisations are being more lenient of traditional copyright law in order to benefit their audience-base who, in this example, formed such a community around the culture of Frozen (2013) where over 60,000 fan-made covers of the song ‘Let It Go’ have been shared across social media and have been collectively viewed more than 60 million times, even though these were all technically breaches of copyright.

We then spoke about the grey area of embedding. Adrian agreed that the existence of an embed button pretty much means you can use the content on your own site, because it is somewhat understood that the original source are the ones bearing liability. However, where this becomes a serious issue is when a user downloads the material and re-uploads it themselves instead of directly embedding it. The content is now being hosted on your own site, meaning you are infringing copyright.

Readings 02: Creative Commons

Reading 02.1

Observation #1: Thank goodness the first ‘reading’ is a video.

Observation #2: Copyright is automatic upon creation.

Observation #3: Kiri’s Kiwi is not particularly friendly looking. (See 1:38 of this video explaining Creative Commons).

Observation #4: Creative Commons licenses are a way for an author to say ‘hey, you can use my work, as long as you attribute me’. This enables the flow and distribution of information, without having to continually grant permission for usage of the copyrighted content.

Observation #5: However, there are rules.

I sure hope this image has a Creative Commons license! To cover my bases, click the image to be taken to the original source.

I sure hope this image has a Creative Commons license! To cover my bases, click the image to be taken to the original source.

  • The first logo means attribution to the copyright holder must be present. This is automatic with Creative Commons licenses.
  • The second logo means the content must be used for non-commercial purposes.
  • The third logo means share alike, and requires that any work that includes the content must carry the same license.
  • The fourth logo means no derivatives, i.e. you cannot change the content.

Observation #5.1: Jamendo sounds like an excellent resource for CC licensed music. Make mental note to check this website out.

Reading 02.2

Observation #6: Main legal issues that may arise for (Australian) bloggers are: copyright (surprise, surprise), moral rights, trade marks, defamation, and right of publicity.

Observation #7: Duration of copyright is generally the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years.

Observation #8: “You do not necessarily need a written agreement with every contributor to your blog – verbal permission is fine – but obtaining something in writing makes the terms of the licence (permission) clear to everyone.”

Observation #9: Ideas, facts, styles or techniques cannot be copyrighted. It is only the material form of the idea, fact, style or technique which is protected by copyright law.

Observation #10: If linking out to other websites on my blog, try to be sure that they are not infringing copyright.

Observation #11: There is no exception for “fair use” in Australia. Read more about the (somewhat) equivalent ‘fair dealing’ here.

Observation #12: Trade marks exist in two forms – registered trade marks and common law trade marks.

Observation #13: DO NOT DEFAME.

Observation #14: You may be responsible for material posted by other people on your blog (such as in the comments) and potentially liable for defamation. This applies to copyright infringement too.

Observation #15: There is a US-based international non-profit ‘digital rights’ group called the Electronic Frontier Foundation defending users’ civil liberties worldwide.

Observation #16: Freedom of speech is not written into the Australian Constitution, and as such, there is no explicit legal protection for acts of ‘freedom of speech’ like there is in the USA.

Observation #17: Remember that if you are operating your blog through a blogging service (like WordPress), you are liable to their Terms and Conditions. Yep, that sneaky little ‘agree’ button we all click after pretending to glance over the mountain of text that appears. I mean… sorry, what?

Reading 02.3

Observation #18: I love a bit of Lessig.

Observation #19: CC licenses are effective tools which facilitate and support the idea of remix culture and participatory culture.

Observation #20: Watch out for the creepy face-zoom at 3:25.

Observation #21: “That’s what literacy is, it’s the capacity to think critically, developed through a practice of using and reusing the creative work of others” – Lessig.

Observation #22: “We ought to use copyright law to enable the different business models of creativity, learning and knowledge that there are out there – not just the one [business model]” – Lessig.

Observation #23: Woah, this video was uploaded to YouTube in July 2006! YouTube was such a baby then! I’m pretty sure that’s just a few months before Google bought YouTube (in October…?).

Observation #24: Okay I’m not getting very distracted by reading about the history of YouTube.

OBSERVATION #25: OH MY GOD I JUST FOUND OUT GERIATRIC1927 (PETER OAKLEY) DIED IN MARCH. Ohhh he was such a great, pioneer of vlogging.

Observation #26: Alright, back to Lessig.

Observation #27: There’s no real way to measure how many CC licenses there are, but in the recording in 2006 Lessig said that we’re definitely in the tens of millions.

Reading 02.4

Observation #28: Here’s a link to the Creative Commons Australia website.

Reading 02.5

Observation #29: Why is this video talking about The White Stripes? Are they going to make an analogy about how we are The Seven Nation Army of Creative Commons License Holders??? (TSNAOCCLH – catchy, right?)

Observation #30: Oh it’s alright, they’re just here as a poetic example of the power of collaboration and co-authorship (see story about Redd Blood Cells). Great.

Observation #31: This video is really great. I dig the funky bass lines. But also, it really contextualises Creative Commons licenses by giving the history of how they came about.

Observation #32: CC isn’t supposed to compete with Copyright, but to complement it.

Reading 02.6

Observation #33: The Australian Copyright Council “supports a creative Australia by promoting the benefit of copyright for the common good” because “a society’s culture flourishes when its creators are secure in their right to benefit from their creative work and when access to those creative works is easy, legal and affordable.”

Observation #34: It’s bed time.

 

Week 04: Troubleshooting

This week I learned about EULAs for the first time, which are End-User License Agreements. This is a contract between the licensor and the purchaser of a software, and it establishes the purchaser’s right to use it. It can define the ways it can be used. These contracts are mostly digital, in the form of clicking a button which either ‘accepts’ or ‘rejects’ the installation of software onto a computer.

After talking a lot about copyright and intellectual property in the symposium, I decided to teach myself a little more about creative commons and attributions in order to substantiate what little I already know.

Creative Commons (CC) explains itself as “a nonprofit organization that enables the sharing and use of creativity and knowledge through free legal tools”. CC licenses are not an alternative to copyright, but instead work alongside them. What I didn’t know is that “copyright in most jurisdictions attaches automatically without need for any formality once a creative work is fixed in tangible form (i.e. the minute you put pen to paper, take a photo, or hit the “save” button on your computer).”

What I would like to understand further is how copyright and CC licenses extend internationally and across jurisdictions. I also need to learn what the icons for CC licenses represent. This will be a good resource for me in the future. I think CC is wonderful asset to the internet, and a lot of creativity and content would not be possible without them.

UPDATE 26/8/14: I’ve finally learned more about CC licenses, which you can read about here.

(Image via flickr)