Copyright doesn’t protect ideas, only specific expressions of ideas
The constitutional goal of copyright is to encourage people to make and distribute new works. (ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 8)
To do so, copyright law gives authors, including filmmakers, the exclusive right to make copies make adaptive translations, publicly distribute, publically display, and publically perform (29)
. . .
So copyright gives you rights that you can use to control and get paid for your work. At its best, it produces a brilliant decentralized system of creativity.
Artists sometimes think they want to have as much copyright protection as possible. Well, this may be great on the output side; but what about the input side?
If everything is protected by copyright, then were do you go to get your raw materials?
Copyright law also tries to give artists access to the raw materials they need to create in the first place (32)
“Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Cretivity is impossible without a rich public domain. . . overprotection stifles the very creative forces it’s supposed to nurture. Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion ,each new creator building on the words of those who came before” (Judge Alex Kozinski, US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, qtd on 33).
The bottom line: page 34 (check it out!)
On Fair Use: 35-44
Fair use is one way copyright law mediates between the need to give incentives to creators and the need to use content to create and comment on the world. (44)
Term limits are another.
Term limits: 44-
The ever-lengthening copyright term seems to be having the opposite effect frofrom what the consitution intended. It hinders artists who want to use older works, even when the copyright owner can’t be found or wouldn’t care. The longer term also puts more pressure on fair use (44-46).
. . . to infringe a trademark, you would generally have to use it in a way that confuses consumers (48).
People who appear in documentary: 50-51
“What about getting permission from people who appear in the documentary? Permission is normally required—privacy is a legitimate claim. But there is an impotant first amendment exception that lets you show people involved in matters of public interest, without permission (50).
Errors and Omissions Insurance: 52-54
To show your film to a broader public through conventional distribution channel—like HBO or PBS—you need E&O insurance to cover possible lawsuits . . . and E&O Insurance is only required to get access to conventional distribution channels. Not with the internet and alternative methods of distribution, filmmakers can reach a broad audience without getting insurance. (52, 54).
Cease and Desist letters (55)
Without or without insurance, sometimes people get scared of using stuff that they have the perfect right to use. . . . If you receive one of these letters, you should go to www.chillingeffects.org for helpfl info.
Fair Use—Use It Or Lose it! (59)
From the Afterword (67)
The [copyright] system appears to have gone astray, to have lost sight of its original goal (67)
The flourishing of digital media has been seen by policymakers mainly as a thread—as the rise of a ‘pirate culture of lawlessness.’ That threat is real. But what is missing is a corresponding opportunity.
Copyright is not an end in itself. It is a tool to promote the creation and distribution of knowledge and culture. (68)
Best Practices Statement: Center for Social Media at http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org
Creative Commons “builds upon the ‘all rights reserved’ of traditional copyright to create a voluntary ‘some rights reserved’ copyright. It is a nonprofit and all of the tools are free.” (Boyles 72). (www.creativecommons.org)
To do so, copyright law gives authors, including filmmakers, the exclusive right to make copies make adaptive translations, publicly distribute, publically display, and publically perform (29)
. . .
So copyright gives you rights that you can use to control and get paid for your work. At its best, it produces a brilliant decentralized system of creativity.
Artists sometimes think they want to have as much copyright protection as possible. Well, this may be great on the output side; but what about the input side?
If everything is protected by copyright, then were do you go to get your raw materials?
Copyright law also tries to give artists access to the raw materials they need to create in the first place (32)
“Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Cretivity is impossible without a rich public domain. . . overprotection stifles the very creative forces it’s supposed to nurture. Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion ,each new creator building on the words of those who came before” (Judge Alex Kozinski, US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, qtd on 33).
The bottom line: page 34 (check it out!)
On Fair Use: 35-44
Fair use is one way copyright law mediates between the need to give incentives to creators and the need to use content to create and comment on the world. (44)
Term limits are another.
Term limits: 44-
The ever-lengthening copyright term seems to be having the opposite effect frofrom what the consitution intended. It hinders artists who want to use older works, even when the copyright owner can’t be found or wouldn’t care. The longer term also puts more pressure on fair use (44-46).
Trademarks: 47- 49
While copyright law protects artistic works, trademark law protects brand names and logos that tell consumers where products come from (47).
While copyright law protects artistic works, trademark law protects brand names and logos that tell consumers where products come from (47).
. . . to infringe a trademark, you would generally have to use it in a way that confuses consumers (48).
People who appear in documentary: 50-51
“What about getting permission from people who appear in the documentary? Permission is normally required—privacy is a legitimate claim. But there is an impotant first amendment exception that lets you show people involved in matters of public interest, without permission (50).
Errors and Omissions Insurance: 52-54
To show your film to a broader public through conventional distribution channel—like HBO or PBS—you need E&O insurance to cover possible lawsuits . . . and E&O Insurance is only required to get access to conventional distribution channels. Not with the internet and alternative methods of distribution, filmmakers can reach a broad audience without getting insurance. (52, 54).
Cease and Desist letters (55)
Without or without insurance, sometimes people get scared of using stuff that they have the perfect right to use. . . . If you receive one of these letters, you should go to www.chillingeffects.org for helpfl info.
Fair Use—Use It Or Lose it! (59)
From the Afterword (67)
The [copyright] system appears to have gone astray, to have lost sight of its original goal (67)
The flourishing of digital media has been seen by policymakers mainly as a thread—as the rise of a ‘pirate culture of lawlessness.’ That threat is real. But what is missing is a corresponding opportunity.
Copyright is not an end in itself. It is a tool to promote the creation and distribution of knowledge and culture. (68)
Best Practices Statement: Center for Social Media at http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org
Creative Commons “builds upon the ‘all rights reserved’ of traditional copyright to create a voluntary ‘some rights reserved’ copyright. It is a nonprofit and all of the tools are free.” (Boyles 72). (www.creativecommons.org)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment