Let me preface this post by reminding folks that IANAL (I am not a lawyer).

Example of White House Flickr Photo

The U.S. government policy on photographs and copyright is pretty straightfoward: photos produced by federal employees as part of their job responsibilities are “not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no U.S. copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work.”

Why, then, is the Obama White House asserting that no one but “news organizations” can use its Flickr photos? Why is it asserting that manipulation is prohibited? Why is it asserting that photos may not be used in “commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House”?

Read more…

Yes, this is a little late in coming, but I wanted to blog about it for my friends and colleagues in the MCDM community anyways. It seemed especially fitting to send this out to the gang because not only does the subject cover a multitude of issues we’ve discussed and continue to study relative to the Digital Media program, but it’s got Stephen Colbert, too. And as far as I’m concerned, anything with Stephen Colbert is required viewing.

So, a couple of weeks ago Lawrence Lessig from Stanford appeared on The Colbert Report to discuss how copyright law is complicating things for everybody in the digital era, especially for kids, who are, unfortunately, being turned into criminals by institutions like the RIAA. Here’s the interview:

Lessig on The Colbert Report

Of course, near the end Colbert pretty much invites the world to take his material, even this interview, and “remix” it however they want. Three cheers for encouraging the Colbert Nation to steal Viacom’s intellectual property! And, of course, it was only a matter of time before the Interwebs would be all over this challenge.

Read more…

This week, President Bush signed the Pro-Copyright law. We now have a copyright czar. For me, having a copyright czar reeks of dystopian new-speak that would make Orwell proud. Why does copyright need a czar? How about potentate or terminator? Why czar? Oh well, I guess it fits with other recent efforts. We have a drug czar in our war on drugs. How is that war going? Are we winning? I don’t think so. I think we’re running neck and neck in that war with the war on poverty, i.e., we’re losing. Come to think of it, do we have a poverty czar?  Apparently Hillary Clinton thought it was a good idea but it never got any traction. For whom would this czar act as overlord, the rich? This would just get awkward…no future in it. Read more…

According to ArsTechnica, the European Union is proposing to expand musical copyright terms from its current 50 years by adding 45 years. The argument? “[A]ging performers can’t afford to be cut off from sources of income just when they need them the most.”

The EU recommendation ignores the advice of a University of Amsterdam law professor who heads the Institute for Information Law (IViR). In 2006 and 2007, the IVir produced two reports for the EU that concluded “that a copyright term extension would be a bad idea with costs for consumers, competitors, and society as a whole.” You can read results of the research in this paper: Never Forever: Why Extending The Term Of Protection For Sound Recordings Is A Bad Idea (pdf).

Reportedly, a commission in the UK also determined that this extension would be a “bad idea.” Read more…