192 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. the outputs of generative AI programs will continue to pass immediately into the public domain.

      I wonder if this isn't reading more into the decision than is there. I don't read the decision as a blanket statement. Rather it says that the claimant didn't provide evidence of creative input.Would the decision have gone differently if he had claimed creative intervention? And what if an author does not acknowledge using AI?

    2. The US Copyright Office rejected his attempt to register copyright in the work – twice

      AI-generated work not eligible for copyright protection. OTOH, how would anyone know if the "author" decided to keep the AI component a secret?

    1. the Office re-evaluated the claims and again concluded that the Work “lacked therequired human authorship necessary to sustain a claim in copyright,” because Thaler had“provided no evidence on sufficient creative input or intervention by a human author in theWork.

      What is sufficient creative input? The initial command and any subsequent requests for revision could arguably be consider creative input.

  2. Jan 2023
  3. Dec 2022
    1. In September, the US Copyright Office granted a first-of-its-kind registration for a comic book generated with the help of text-to-image AI Midjourney. The comic is a complete work: an 18-page narrative with characters, dialogue, and a traditional comic book layout. And although it’s since been reported that the USCO is reviewing its decision, the comic’s copyright registration hasn’t actually been rescinded yet. It seems that one factor in the review will be the degree of human input involved in making the comic. Kristina Kashtanova, the artist who created the work, told IPWatchdog that she had been asked by the USCO “to provide details of my process to show that there was substantial human involvement in the process of creation of this graphic novel.”

      If copyright status hinges on the level of human involvement, then this will quickly become one more (c) grey area.

    1. In our new book, Rebecca Giblin and I call this "chokepoint capitalism". In today's highly concentrated creative labor markets, copyright's normal role of giving creators bargaining leverage over their supply chain is transformed.
    1. Found via a fediverse post by Carl Malamud: https://code4lib.social/@carlmalamud@official.resource.org/109574978910574688

  4. Nov 2022
    1. . Barbrook shows how this futurist prophecy is borrowed from America’s defunct Cold War enemy: Stalinist Russia. Technological progress was the catalyst of social transformation. With copyright weakening, intellectual commodities were mutating into gifts. Invented in capitalist America, the Net in the late-1990s had become the first working model of communism in human history.

      Amazing mix of stalinism, gift-economy, less copyrights & social progress in one paragraph.

  5. Oct 2022
    1. It is the work itself that is copyrighted, not the form.56 While works mustbe in a fixed form to qualify for copyright protection, that protection is for the workitself. Some forms are necessarily part of some types of works (e.g., sculpture), butthis cannot be said of most printed works.57 The form in which a work is fixed isirrelevant, and Congress recognized the importance of media neutrality when itadopted the language in the Copyright Act.58 Digitization changes only the form,and “the ‘transfer of a work between media’ does not ‘alte[r] the character of ’ thatwork for copyright purposes.”

      Content, not form, is Copyrighted

      Wu's comment on New York Times Co. v. Tasini: "Digitization changes only the form, and 'the transfer of a work between media does not alter the charachter of that work for copyright purposes.'"

    2. I believe it is possible to build a digital library thatrespects both of the intended beneficiaries of the Copyright Clause—copyrightowners and society—while testing commonly held assumptions about the limita-tions of copyright law. In balancing these goals, TALLO permits circulation of theexact number of copies purchased, thereby acknowledging the rights inherent incopyright, but it liberates the form of circulation from the print format.

      Liberating purchased information from the form in which it was purchased

    1. The 2010 court case Vernor v. Autodesk disrupted this business model by challenging the “you bought it, you own it” notion that had long been the standard for physical books.Footnote 23 Resulting from this case, ebooks were deemed computer software that only needed to be licensed, rather than physical products owned by the purchaser. This verdict meant publishers did not need to sell ebooks to libraries with the same freedoms and rights as print books.

      Vernor v. Autodesk

      I've read a little about this case, and I don't think it says that licensing is the only way to sell ebooks. The case does affirm that the licensing provisions trump copyright rights, but it is still possible to "sell" copies of an ebook and be covered by first-sale rights.

  6. Sep 2022
    1. Artist receives first known US copyright registration for generative AI art

      BS. Author got copyright on a graphic novel, i.e. an arranged series of whatever images plus authored text. Even if author got copyright on individual images (because of iterative prompting to get useful results), and in any jurisdiction where copyright is automatic/does not need to be claimed/received the author actually does, it still is unremarkable. Claiming the algorithm to be the author would still be unremarkable in terms of copyright as long as it is a person or legal entity claiming those rights. Having the algorithm hold the copyright would be interesting (but copyright presupposes a human or human controlled legal entity) See: monkey-selfies where at issue wasn't whether a monkey could have creative intent, but whether a monkey coud hold copyright (no, obviating the need for an answer on creative intent).

      Read an SF novel once where an AI was held by a legal entity, and that AI ran that legal entity, which was how it gained autonomy. Fun enough, but a legal entity would still need a human ultimate beneficial owner and human director / decision maker. Those can be shills, regularly are even, but that does not diminish their liability nor means acknowledging the AI's personhood or whatever.

    2. Example of 'journalism' muddying the waters in order to have a story to publish at all.

      • copyright presupposes a human or legal entity copyright holder
      • copyright is a given when a certain threshold of creative effort is surpassed
      • copyright is given to a work

      The work copyrighted here are not the algorithmic assisted images, the work is a graphic novel, a collective of arranged images, written text etc. One could do that with any public domain stuff and still have copyright on the work. Additionally the author prompted the algorithm towards desired outcomes. Both satisfy the creativity threshold. Like in https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2022/06/dall-e-mini-siso-stereotype-in-stereotype-out/ where I listed the images as public domain (because I thought my prompts were uncreative), but the resulting arranging / juxtaposing multiple prompts as copyrighted by me (obviously not the algorithm).

      There's no ghost in the machine. Machines are irrelevant to copyright considerations.

    1. Can copyright vest in an AI? The primary objective of intellectual property law is to protect the rights of the creators of intellectual property.10 Copyright laws specifically aim to: (i) promote creativity and encourage authors, composers, artists and designers to create original works by affording them the exclusive right to exploit such work for monetary gain for a limited period; and (ii) protect the creators of the original works from unauthorised reproduction or exploitation of those works.

      Can copyright vest in an AI?

      The primary objective of intellectual property law is to protect the rights of the creators of intellectual property.10 Copyright laws specifically aim to: (i) promote creativity and encourage authors, composers, artists and designers to create original works by affording them the exclusive right to exploit such work for monetary gain for a limited period; and (ii) protect the creators of the original works from unauthorised reproduction or exploitation of those works.

    1. To my knowledge, conferring copyright in works generated by artificial intelligence has never been specifically prohibited. However, there are indications that the laws of many countries are not amenable to non-human copyright. In the United States, for example, the Copyright Office has declared that it will “register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being.” This stance flows from case law (e.g. Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc. 499 U.S. 340 (1991)) which specifies that copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the mind.” Similarly, in a recent Australian case (Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd), a court declared that a work generated with the intervention of a computer could not be protected by copyright because it was not produced by a human.

      To my knowledge, conferring copyright in works generated by artificial intelligence has never been specifically prohibited. However, there are indications that the laws of many countries are not amenable to non-human copyright. In the United States, for example, the Copyright Office has declared that it will “register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being.” This stance flows from case law (e.g. Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc. 499 U.S. 340 (1991)) which specifies that copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the mind.” Similarly, in a recent Australian case (Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd), a court declared that a work generated with the intervention of a computer could not be protected by copyright because it was not produced by a human.

    1. With the advent of AI software, computers — not monkeys — will potentially create millions of original works that may then be protected by copyright, under current law, for more than 100 years.

      With the advent of AI software, computers — not monkeys — will potentially create millions of original works that may then be protected by copyright, under current law, for more than 100 years.

    1. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No partof this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever withoutpermission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in criti-cal articles and reviews.—U.S. copyright notice

      The traditional U.S. copyright notice that appears in the front of most books ("No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.") is the result of the centuries long intellectual history of ars excerpendi.



    1. copyright laws (the Dwarfelles are used as substitutes for the original Dwarfs, since Disney owns the Dwarf characters, and this is not a Disney film).
  7. Aug 2022
    1. I consider this a Public Domain image as the image does not pass the ‘creativity involved’ threshold which generally presupposes a human creator, for copyright to apply (meaning neither AI nor macaques).

      I say this, but there's a nuance to consider. I read a post by someone creating their company logo with Dall-E by repeatedly changing and tweaking their prompt to get to a usable output. That is definitely above the creativity threshold, with the AI as a tool, not as the creator. Similarly, NLP AI tools can help authors to get to e.g. a first draft, then shaped, rewritten, changed, edited etc., which crosses the human creativity threshold for copyright to kick in. Compare with how I sometimes use machine translation of my own text and then clean it up, to be able to write faster in e.g. German of French, where the algo is a lever to turn my higher passive language skills into active language use. (Btw comment added to see if that updates my original hypothesis annotations of this article in my Obsidian notes, or if it happens only once when first annotated. The latter would mean forcing annotation and thus break my workflow)

  8. Jul 2022
    1. The Copyright Act sets up this balance of rights as between rights holders and users. And one of the things that users get is the ability to control use of particular copies that they buy. So this is where the doctrine for sale comes in.

      First Sale doctrine

    1. NFTs do not supplant copyright law, not even close. NFTs are bound by normal everyday rules of copyright.

      NFTs and Copyright

      When you buy an NFT, sometimes you get the copyright, but most of the times you don't. Again, it entirely depends on the original terms of sale related to the NFT.

  9. Jun 2022
    1. We write on behalf of plaintiffs Hachette Book Group, Inc., HarperCollins PublishersLLC, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and Penguin Random House LLC (the “Plaintiffs”) to request apre-motion summary judgment conference pursuant to Individual Practice 2(B).

      Purpose of Letter

    1. But the copyright on the materials still gives the organization control over how the information is used, which is what some tribal leaders find objectionable.

      Oral cultures treat information dramatically different than literate cultures, and particularly Western literate cultures within capitalism-based economies.

  10. Feb 2022
  11. Jan 2022
    1. national copyright legislation

      What if the national copyright legislation is overly protective or hinders open practices? Where is the recommendation to influence copyright reform?

      I'm thinking of this while listening to this episode of the Walled Culture podcast --Salvador Alcántar Morán: Mexican Copyright Unfit-for-purpose in the Digital age, the Public Domain as a Human Right, and the Need for a True Multistakeholder Approach and a Global Perspective on Copyright

      He talks about how the Mexican copyright framework is not adapted to the digital age and shaped mainly by the creative industries, the copyright industry’s scaremongering tactics. He also explains how the fact that Mexico has the lengthiest copyright term (100 years after the author’s death) negatively impacts the country’s collective memory and the public domain. In his view, the public domain should be considered as a human right. He further emphasises the need for normal citizens and other stakeholders, that are currently neglected, to be more involved in shaping a copyright framework that works for the digital age based on a true multistakeholder approach. He also talks about the need for a more global perspective on copyright in general.

  12. Dec 2021
    1. A domain name or URL

      Interesting! I had not considered whether a domain name could subject to copyright protection - and the answer is, "no."

    2. In contrast, a recipe that creatively explains or depicts how or why to perform a particular activity may be copyrightable.

      I wonder if this is why those insufferable recipe blogs are all set up they way they are? Is it to allow for enough original authorship to be copyrightable?

    3. Some works, however, contain elements that either lack the required creativ-ity or are placed outside the bounds of copyright by the law.

      Two reasons why a work is not subject to copyright protection.

    1. Why isn’t our goal to have all OERs eventually exist in the public domain? If we really care about ease of reuse, if we really respect creators of derivative works, and if we really want to see the open education movement succeed, we should have the public domain as our final goal.

      The fact that this hasn't happened yet and there's no indication that it's going to happen any time soon must mean there are some pretty compelling forces at work. What are they?

    2. how can a community so focused on freedom approve of any restrictions? Specifically, when expressing concern about restrictions making it difficult to reuse works, how can this community approve of the copyleft or share-alike concept?

      The fundamental question is a good one, but I am not sure that "approve" captures CC's current position toward the SA restriction. The broader point that "free" should equal public domain is well-taken and thought-provoking.

    1. Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to pre-pare, or to authorize someone else to create, an adaptation of that work.

      This is one of the best arguments for assigning Creative Commons licenses to instructional materials that omit the NoDerivatives restriction, allowing others to create adaptations without permission. This is also a cautionary note for instructors who are adapting course materials using preexisting. All Rights Reserved work without permission.

    2. it is not possible to extend the length of protection for a copyrighted work by creating a derivative work

      In the case of textbook editions, I assume this means that the copyright on the first edition cannot be extended by creating a second edition.

    3. Compilations of data or compilations of preexisting works (also known as “col-lective works”) may also be copyrightable if the materials are selected, coordi-nated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes a new work.

      The examples are helpful. The list of required readings for a course could be considered a compilation or collection if the instructor could demonstrate originality in the selection and ordering of those readings.

    4. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must incorporate some or all of a preexisting “work” and add new original copyrightable authorship to that work.

      The use of the phrase "new original copyrightable authorship" to distinguish an adaptation from preexisting work is suitably vague. See William Fisher's lecture on the concept of originality for more information about what constitutes, "originality."

    1. d’étudier la possibilité de mettre en place un cadre international concernant les exceptions et limitations au droit d’auteur à des fins pédagogiques et de recherche afin de faciliter les échanges et la coopération transfrontaliers en matière de REL ;

      Parfois bien utile de ne pas être trop puristes au sujet des licences. Il y a une grande diversité dans les usages «libres» de ressources qui ne le sont pas toujours.

  13. Nov 2021
    1. copyright and open licensing of educational material

      A very excellent example of this in action is the Copyright First Responders Pacific Northwest that creates a network and directory of librarians who "have received training and, crucially, support one another in providing basic front-line triage for copyright questions in their home libraries and, in many cases, beyond." Sort of like 911 for copyright?

      The program is modeled after the program created at Harvard... one can wonder what if this was scaled or spread more widely?

    1. The usual targets of The Publishers Association include domains that facilitate access to the popular Libgen library and eBook portals eBookee and FreeBookSpot. The trend was maintained this week when ISP TalkTalk revealed that more domains had been blocked in the UK. The new additions are as follows: ebookee.unblockit.kim, ebookee.123unblock.world, ebookee.mrunblock.bar, ebookee.nocensor.biz, ebookee.unbl4you.cyou, ebookee.unbl0ck.icu, ebookee.unblockproject.top, ebookee.proxybit.sbs, freebookspot.unblockit.kim, libgen.unblockit.kim, libgen.123unblock.world, libgen.mrunblock.bar, libgen.nocensor.biz, libgen.unbl4you.cyou,, libgen.unbl0ck.icu, libgen.unblockproject.top, libgen.proxybit.sbs
  14. Oct 2021
  15. Sep 2021
    1. From a media point of view, Genius was offensive for its initial underlying claim: that it was okay to take anyone’s content for zero compensation, so long as it “added transformative value” by tacking on a comment box where people could say it sucked.

      Hot take 🔥

  16. May 2021
  17. Apr 2021
    1. COPYRIGHT Rsync was originally written by Andrew Tridgell and is currently maintained by Wayne Davison. It has been improved by many developers from around the world. Rsync may be used, modified and redistributed only under the terms of the GNU General Public License, found in the file COPYING in this distribution, or at the Free Software Foundation.

      Only answered:

      • who maintains
      • what the license is
  18. Mar 2021
  19. Feb 2021
    1. Because the Berne Convention in most countries by default grants copyright holders monopolistic control over their creations, copyright content must be explicitly declared free, usually by the referencing or inclusion of licensing statements from within the work.
    1. what is allowed

      What is allowed = what is legal (i.e. copyright law) and what the journal is willing to publish or reject. If authors are told they should consult the journal and the only response is the journal's own policy, assuming it contradicts the right retention strategy (RRS), the Publisher/Editor/Production Editor will be misinforming the author and denying them their legal rights.

    2. However, we are unable to support one route to compliance offered by Plan S,

      The publishers below will not support the Plan S rights retention strategy (RRS). In its simplest form the RRS re-asserts the authors' rights as the rights holder to assign a copyright license of their choice (CC BY informed by their funding agency) to all versions of their research/intellectual output. In the case of the RRS states that the author should apply a CC BY license to their accepted manuscript (AAM) if they cannot afford to pay article processing charges or choose not to apply a CC BY license to the Version of Record (VoR), which they are free to do. Therefore, this statement is either saying the undersigned will not carry publications forward to publication (most appropriate approach), or they will not support the same copyright laws which fundamentally protects their rights and revenue after a copyright transfer agreement is signed by the rightsholder.

      Academy of Dental Materials

      Acoustical Society of America

      AIP Publishing

      American Academy of Ophthalmology

      American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus

      American Chemical Society

      American Gastroenterological Association American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

      American Medical Association

      American Physical Society

      American Society for Investigative Pathology

      American Society for Radiation Oncology

      American Society of Civil Engineers

      American Society of Hematology

      American Society of Clinical Oncology

      American Association of Physicists in Medicine

      American Association of Physics Teachers

      AVS – The Society for Science and Technology of Materials, Interfaces, and Processing


      British Journal of Anaesthesia

      Budrich Academic Press

      Cambridge Media

      Cambridge University Press

      Canadian Cardiovascular Society

      De Gruyter

      Duncker & Humblot



      Erich Schmidt Verlag

      French Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

      Frommann-Holzboog Verlag

      Future Science Group 


      International Association for Gondwana Research

      IOP Publishing

      Journal of Nursing Regulation

      Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT).

      Julius Klinkhardt KG

      La Découverte

      Laser Institute America

      Materials Research Forum LLC

      The Optical Society (OSA)

      Pearson Benelux

      SAGE Publishing

      Society of Rheology

      Springer Nature

      Taylor & Francis Group

      The Geological Society of America

      Thieme Group

      Uitgeverij Verloren

      Verlag Barbara Budrich

      Vittorio Klostermann

      wbv Media


      Wolters Kluwer

  20. Oct 2020
    1. Computer software, for example, can be protected by copyright, patent, trade secret and trademark.

      did not know that

  21. Sep 2020
    1. Many organizations assert copyright for any media which they touch, without any consideration of whether the media is eligible for copyright or whether they own the copyright.

      Shouldn't cases like these be taken to trial? Imagine someone forbidding access to a public square under allegation that it belongs to them. Afraid of being prosecuted, people start paying this person to enter the public square. One day someone decides to take the case to court. The court can't simply rule that the person can't continue asking for money to use the square. The person should be punished for having deterred people from freely using the square for so long.

  22. Aug 2020
    1. More information about limitations and exceptions to copyright

      Under more information about limitations and exceptions to copyright add section titled Case Studies: Case studies provide valuable information relating to the state of affairs in various countries, as well as the opposing views when debating copyright issues.

      • South Africa: a case study of politics and the global economics of limitations and exceptions to copyright. The current debate in South Africa regarding proposed amendments to the Copyright Bill allows showcases the different sides of the debate, and how legal frameworks, e.g. the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa also informs decision making.
      1. US Government Threatening To Kill Free Trade With South Africa After Hollywood Complained It Was Adopting American Fair Use Principles, by Mike Masnick, 4 November 2019.
      2. South Africa’s Copyright Amendment Bill – one year on, by Denise Nicholson, 30 March 2020. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
      3. South Africa’s Copyright Amendment Bill Returned to Parliament for Further Consideration, Mike Palmedo, 22 June 2020. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
      4. See the light and pass the Copyright Amendment Bill, by Mugwena Maluleke, Tebogo Sithathu, Jack Devnarain, Tusi Fokane, Ben Cashdan and Jace Nair, 24 June 2020. © Mail & Guardian Online.
      5. South African President’s Reservations to Copyright Bill Not Supported by Law, by Sean Flynn, 13 July 2020. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

      For a comprehensive list of materials relating to the South African Copyright Amendment Bill processes, see Copyright and Related Issues: USTR GSP trade threats re: Bill, list compiled and amended by Denis Nicholson

    2. More information about limitations and exceptions to copyright

      Additional Resource: I would like to recommend adding:

      What if we could re-imagine Copyright? (ed. Rebecca Giblin, Kimberlee Weatherall) published in 2017.


      A collection of essays examining examining new opportunities for Copyright, in a non-North American context (published in Australia), including Copyright duration, formalities such as registration, the purpose of copyright.

    1. More information about the Commons

      Additional Resource: I would like to recommend adding:

      How Creative Commons works, and why it enables access to knowledge by Denise Rosemary Nicholson (author) and Paul G West (contributor)


      Clear & accessible description of CC and relevance to knowledge, and this article also demonstrates how CC is impacting legal changes to Copyright in other counties ( e.g. South Africa).

    1. 3 Steps for Licensing Your 3d Printed Stuff by Michael Weinberg

      I found this to be a very interesting article, exploring the line between copyright and licensing of physical objects vs. the code (or digital file) used to create the object. This paper delves into a range of questions - what is being licensed, what is copyrightable, what is covered under a patent, what is a creative work, what is a functional work. Although this paper was published in early 2015, the content remains relevant now. (June 2020 Cohort CC Certificate)

  23. Jul 2020
  24. Apr 2020
    1. How Long Does Copyright Protection Last? How long does a copyright last? The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1, Copyright Basics. Do I have to renew my copyright? No. Works created on or after January 1, 1978, are not subject to renewal registration. As to works published or registered prior to January 1, 1978, renewal registration is optional after 28 years but does provide certain legal advantages. For information on how to file a renewal application as well as the legal benefit for doing so, see Circular 15, Renewal of Copyright, and Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright.
    1. However, as stated by Pourret [18], a majority of the journals in geochemistry also have a green colour according to the SHERPA/RoMEO grading system, indicating that preprint (and the peer-reviewed postprint version) articles submitted to these journals can be freely shared on a preprint server, without compromising authors’ abilities to publish in parallel in those journals. Moreover, Pourret et al. [17] highlighted that the majority of journals in geochemistry allow authors to share preprints of their articles (47/56; 84%).
      • Bahwa sebagian besar jurnal di bidang geokimia, membolehkan pengarsipan modus hijau (Green OA), atau pengarsipan dokumen riset, data, makalah versi preprint di repositori nirlaba (misal repositori kampus).

      • Di tahun 2020, fakta ini masih belum banyak diketahui oleh para dosen/peneliti. Mereka cenderung menerima untuk dikendalikan oleh jurnal dalam proses publikasi, tanpa keinginan berargumentasi untuk mempertahankan hak miliknya terhadap makalah (to retain copyrights).

  25. Mar 2020
    1. https://guides.library.utoronto.ca/c.php?g=448614&p=3199145

      Librarians are masters at finding material and checking copyright. This is what we do and what we've done for years but most of us really don't have an understanding of what is OER and how it can be used. As librarians continue to be in forefront of this movement, we need to be educated with language we understand so we can interpret it to those we serve. This source gives an indepth interpretation in librarian-understandable language

    1. Do Creative Commons licenses affect exceptions and limitations to copyright, such as fair dealing and fair use?

      This question is such a common one. I don't think most people understand that Creative Commons doesn't replace copyright. At my institution most people seem to think that it's either one or the other and if it is licensed under creative commons, that it is always free to use with no copyright restrictions. This does a nice job of clarifying that.

    1. his is a creative educational fair-use mashup which ironically makes use of clips from Disney films as it explains how copyright works. The discussion of fair use begins around the 6-minute 30-second mark in the video:

      The value of this resource is it's ability to take a very serious topic, copyright, and make it humorous enough to keep the watcher interested. It would also make an interesting video for discussion since most of the images should be recognizable to most students.

  26. Jan 2020
    1. 2. "Teach students to request permission when in doubt about the status of a particular work or the appropriateness of their use of that work." Students should understand that the materials they want to use are probably protected by copyright; that the creator owns copyrighted wor

      this should be handled in conjunction with an early research phase and having a back up plan.

    1. In 1981, a congressional subcommittee developed guidelines for off-air taping of television and radio broadcasts for educational use. Those guidelines allow educators to tape a radio or television broadcast for instructional (not entertainment) use if the program is recorded simultaneously with the broadcast. the program is being broadcast without charge. the program is recorded only in response to a specific request. the program is recorded (but not necessarily used) in its entirety. the program is not altered. the tape is retained by the educational institution for no longer that 45 days after the date of the recording. the tape is used only once with each class during the first ten consecutive school days of the 45-day retention period. the tape is used from the tenth to the 45th day of the retention period for teacher-evaluation purposes only.

      video copyright guidelines

    2. The guidelines developed in 1976 for the educational use of music include the following: Multiple copies of sheet music may be copied in an emergency (for an imminent performance) to replace purchased copies that are not available, provided purchased replacement copies are substituted as soon as possible. For academic purposes other than performance, multiple copies of excerpts of works may be made, provided the excerpts don't include more than 10 percent of the whole work or make up a part of the whole that would constitute a performable unit, such as a section, a movement, or an aria. The number of copies may not exceed one copy per student. For academic purposes other than performance, a single copy of an entire performable unit (section, movement, aria, etc.) may be made if the unit is out of print or available only in a larger work. Sheet music that has been purchased may be edited or simplified if the fundamental character of the work is not distorted and that lyrics are not altered or added. A single copy of a sound recording of a student performance may be made for evaluation or rehearsal purposes and may be retained by the educational institution or individual teacher. A single copy of a sound recording of copyrighted music may be made from sound recordings owned by an educational institution or an individual teacher for the purpose of constructing aural exercises or examinations and may be retained by the educational institution or individual teacher. Copying to create, replace, or substitute for anthologies, compilations, or collective works; copying works intended to be consumable, such as workbooks, exercises, or standardized tests; copying for the purpose of performance (except in an emergency); copying as a substitute for purchase; and copying without the inclusion of the copyright notice are not permitted.

      music copyright guidelines


      what to do with music, tv, and videotapes.

    1. Most copyright experts recommend this rule of thumb -- when in doubt, assume a work is copyrighted and ask permission to use it.

      expert advice.

    2. U.S. copyright law, found in Title 17 of the United States Code,

      Copyright law, title 17 US code

    3. Copyright, according to Dictionary.com, is "the legal right granted to an author, a composer, a playwright, a publisher, or a distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work."


  27. Dec 2019
  28. Oct 2019
    1. make the teaching and learning problems caused by copyright the core issue we are solving with OER

      I still wonder to what degree open educational practices are necessarily or always tied to copyright. That is, can OEP be implemented on copyrighted texts?

    1. However, in the present era of publishing, those rights are consistently being called into question. Gennaro (2012) is particularly frank about how copyright law has come to privilege publishers at the expense of those who created the work in the first place: ‘Once you have transferred copyright to a journal [in order to publish] you cannot ethically use the words that you have written in another journal article; you no longer own those words’ (p. 109). Nevertheless, Bently (1994) remarks on Roland Barthes’ contention that once text has been published, the words no longer belong to that author or anyone else for that matter.

      What about publishing to your own site...or from your own site?

  29. Sep 2019
  30. Aug 2019
    1. In January 2019, most works published in 1923 entered the public domain. If Congress does not interfere by creating new copyright extensions, this will occur every year with works from successive years.

      In 2024, the first Mickey Mouse cartoon is scheduled to enter the public domain. Theoretically, anyone will be able to publish new stories using that particular image of Mickey Mouse. But later designs and characters will still be under copyright. And the publisher will have to make sure that they cannot easily be mistaken for an official Disney product, because trademark rights never expire.

    1. associated with activism contesting copyright and intellectual property legislation

      This is so important and such a hot topic issue!!!

  31. Jul 2019
    1. Responsabilità dell'hosting provider nella giurisprudenza italiana, in rapporto alla presenza nella sua infrastruttura di materiale illecito.

      Si evidenziano le differenze rispetto alla direttive e-commerce che stabilisce il framework europeo su questo tema, con l'identificazione della figura dell'hosting provider attivo (non meritevole dell'esenzione prevista dalla normativa europea) e quello passivo.

  32. Mar 2019
    1. In a perfect world, the author would sell you a license to the book and you'd just read it on whatever platform suited you. For now, the leading ebook providers are not making this easy so I end up with some titles (and associated annotations) on one platform and other titles on another, which is far more complicated than it needs to be.

    1. This article originally appeared at http://katab.asia and all the copyright belongs to them.

  33. Dec 2018
    1. This blog post from the Copyright Licensing Agency based in England explains the main concerns surrounding copyright in college and education settings.

    1. New rules always create confusion but that is not a strong argument against them. The legal complexities of CC reflect the complexity of copyright. That the CC licenses are being used suggests that they are useful. The question is how? Claiming they are not useful is unlikely to be correct. Perhaps the usefulness is social not individual, so people are using them to do good. I take no position on this.

      This opinion/ editorial and the resulting dialogue adds some dimension to some of the pro and con arguments for adapting Creative Commons practices.

  34. Oct 2018
  35. Aug 2018
    1. 3 Steps for Licensing Your 3d Printed Stuff by Michael Weinberg. CC BY-SA 3.0 A set of instructions for how to license 3d printed materials https://www.publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/documents/3_Steps_for_Licensing_Your_3D_Printed_Stuff.pdf

      Relevant content in the unit: Unit 3.2, Acquiring Essential Knowledge, What types of content can be CC-licensed, suggested additional content (related to both paragraphs in current content).

      While the primary purpose of this paper is about 3-D printing, this resource is a great overview of copyright law related to electronic files, whether they be photographs or the files for a 3-D printing project.

      This is an especially good resource for those interested in specific examples of the delineation of the functional, non-copyrightable aspect of a work and the artistic expression, copyrightable aspects of a work.

  36. Jul 2018
    1. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

      I prefer sources that are short and to the point, with links allowing me to explore various topics if  I need to.  This piece goes over all of the basics of creating and maintaining a copyright license. While that is not the objective, typically, of someone taking a Creative Commons course, it helps to see this information from a pro-copyright perspective to understand all sides of the issue.

      It's also a primary source, meaning that the department issuing the copyrights in the United States also wrote this piece, which means it should be as accurate as possible.

    1. So basically in an effort to stop 1,000 pieces of infringing content, you'd end up pulling down 50,000 pieces of legitimate content. And that's with an incredible (and unbelievable) 99.5% accuracy rate. Drop the accuracy rate to a still optimistic 90%, and the results are even more stark:
  37. May 2018
    1. Copyright Bradford District Infrastructure Partnership (2018)

      Is BDIP going to be kept running? Implications of copyrighting to BDIP?

    1. Old Navy / Gap is using stolen designs on clothing. Instead of settling with the artist, they are denying copyright infringement, and fighting the artist in court. Sleazy.

  38. Feb 2018
  39. Nov 2017
    1. Whilemuchofthefocusonthedigitalcommonshasfocusedonitasthecauseofintellectualcopyrightproblems,arguablyitistheotherwayaround:digitalcommonsaroseasachallengetothisconcentrationandusurpationofcreativeproduction.Howrapidlythisconcentrationhappenedoverthreedecadesandhowthedigitalcommonsemergedasachallengetothisoligopolisticsystemisasignificantaspectofunderstandingactsofcommoning.
    2. Yetthedigitalcommons—theriseofaninternationalmovementtocreate,contribute,share,anddistributedigitalobjects—isamorefundamentalchallengethanareactiontothemorerecentrestrictionsofcopyrightlaw.Thechallengeisagainsttherelentlessdrivetoconvertknowledgeintocapitaloverthepasttwocenturies

      [...] As Lawrence Lessig puts it starkly, ‘[E]very act on the Internet is a copy. Every act in a digital network produces a copy.’[64] This results in the creation of something called digital commons: a commons produced by the participation of creators and commoners.[65] The very principle that creates digital commons also creates tendencies against commodification: its very production entails creators contributing resources without the direct monetization of their contributions and commoners enjoying the benefits of these resources. Thus, digital commons constitutes a major challenge to the commodification of creative or immaterial labour, and this is why the battle over intellectual property law has become decisive.

      La naturaleza cooperativa de estos movimientos y la mercantilización de movimientos centralistas como el capitalimos entran en profunda confrontación. Puede un movimiento de naturaleza distribuida, tener la influencia propias de los sistemas de acumulación? Por ejemplo, los hashtags que crean tendencias a las cuales se suman los usuarios de manera distribuida, se hacen visibles gracias a plataformas centralizadas (como Twitter) que se benefician de la centralización y la usurpación del valor. Podría, por ejemplo, una nueva criptomoneda que explicite la mercantilización en la economía de la atención, como lo hace Steemit, de manera que use una técnica similar a la del capitalismo (mercantilizar conocimiento) para explicitar la usurpación de valor que está creando o permita contravernirla. El tema de cómo estas redes alternativas se viralizarían es aún una pregunta abierta.

    3. Copyrightderivesitslegalforcefromlawsthatprotectexclusiverightstoandcontrolofintellectualproperty.EvenifitsoriginscanbetracedtoearlymodernEurope(sixteenthtoeighteenthcenturies),itismoderninthesensethattheformationofintellectualproperty—thatis,theconversionofcreativeproductssuchaswords,data,images,andsoundintopropertyforexchange—isaresultoftheaccumulationofcapitalinmodernsocieties.

      This is what Lyotard highlighted as the commodification of knowledge in what he then called computerized societies. The conversion of intellectual or, more broadly, cultural capital into economic capital is possible under the protection of copyright laws. This is the force of copyright law. Since it introduces a tension between creativity and calculability, it is doubtful that copyright law either protects or encourages creativity. Instead, creativity is commodified by copyright. The performative force of copyright is that both the creator and consumer must—knowingly and unknowingly—repeat and iterate it. The force of copyright law would be nothing if it were not performed. That is the reason why maintaining its imaginary force requires enormous energy: copyright mobilizes massive efforts to maintain its legal, performative, and imaginary force. If creativity were not commodified, copyright would not exist. Commodification transforms the use value of things into exchange value for being sold and bought.

  40. Oct 2017
    1. what does it mean to be human in a digital age

      Been thinking about this from the infolit angle for a few years. Info is easy to find and access, and a little less easy to filter and evaluate. What matters more is creativity - what we can do with info, how we can connect it, what we can make out of it - all of which is impeded by copyright and enabled by openness.

  41. Sep 2017
  42. www.europarl.europa.eu www.europarl.europa.eu
    1. Periodical publications which are published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should alsobecovered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive.

      The European Parliament's Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) also suggests that scientific publications be covered by Article 13of the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market.

      This means that a right of reproduction of press and scientific articles is hold by the publisher.

      Refers to https://hyp.is/08MxBJ4GEeeMFI_wNQiGuA/eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:167:0010:0019:EN:PDF

    1. Filtering obligations -Undermining the foundations of Open Access7.The provisions of Article 13 threaten the accessibility of scientific articles, publications and research data made available through over 1250 repositoriesmanaged byEuropean non-profit institutions and academiccommunities. These repositories, which are essential for Open Access and Science in Europe, are likely to face significant additional operational costs associated with implementing new filtering technologyandthe legal costs of managing the risks of intermediary liability. The additional administrative burdens of policing this contentwould add to these costs. Such repositories, run on a not-for-profit basis, are not equipped to take onsuch responsibilities, and may face closure. This would be a significant blow, creating new risks forimplementing funder, research council and other EU Open Access policies.
  43. www.europarl.europa.eu www.europarl.europa.eu
    1. Les publications périodiques qui sont diffusées à des fins scientifiques ou universitaires, telles que les revues scientifiques, devraientégalementêtre couvertes par la protection accordée aux publications de presse en vertu de la présente directive.

      The European Parliament's Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) also suggests that scientific publications be covered by Article 13of the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market.

      This means that a right of reproduction of press and scientific articles is hold by the publisher.

      Refers to https://hyp.is/08MxBJ4GEeeMFI_wNQiGuA/eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:167:0010:0019:EN:PDF

    1. Article 2Reproduction rightMember States shall provide for the exclusive right to authoriseor prohibit direct or indirect, temporary or permanent repro-duction by any means and in any form, in whole or in part:(a) for authors, of their works;(b) for performers, of fixations of their performances;(c) for phonogram producers, of their phonograms;(d) for the producers of the first fixations of films, in respect ofthe original and copies of their films;(e) for broadcasting organisations, of fixations of their broad-casts, whether those broadcasts are transmitted by wire orover the air, including by cable or satellite.Article 3Right of communication to the public of works and rightof making available to the public other subject-matter1. Member States shall provide authors with the exclusiveright to authorise or prohibit any communication to the publicof their works, by wire or wireless means, including themaking available to the public of their works in such a waythat members of the public may access them from a place andat a time individually chosen by them.2. Member States shall provide for the exclusive right toauthorise or prohibit the making available to the public, bywire or wireless means, in such a way that members of thepublic may access them from a place and at a time individuallychosen by them:(a) for performers, of fixations of their performances;(b) for phonogram producers, of their phonograms;(c) for the producers of the first fixations of films, of theoriginal and copies of their films;(d) for broadcasting organisations, of fixations of their broad-casts, whether these broadcasts are transmitted by wire orover the air, including by cable or satellite.3. The rights referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not beexhausted by any act of communication to the public ormaking available to the public as set out in this Article.
    1. copyright is about ambiguity, not right and wrong answers, may be a helpful way of framing copyright education

      Does this relate to Perry https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry.positions.html ? I wonder.

    2. want to remain neutral or impartial

      Education, in a broad sense, is the pursuit of truth. If we support the pursuit of truth, we are not neutral.

  44. Aug 2017