nameless-traveler recently posted concerns that "The Obama administration announced that it will be bringing back a piece of SOPA legislation that would make streaming copyrighted material a felony" and linked to a petition against SOPA at https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitio
But here's the thing. The Obama administration did not announce that they are bringing back a piece of SOPA legislation (apart from the fact that only Congress can introduce legislation).
( Here's what's going on:Collapse )
- Current Mood:lawyerly
Our analysis of the claims Smash made in trying to defend their actions is here.
An update about the settlement is here.
More thoughts on disclaimers are here.
The best bit from all of this, we think, has been Universal saying this in a court document: "Defendants do not and cannot provide any legal authority for the proposition that" fanfiction is "in the public domain".
Remember that the next time you have a fair use battle against a major multinational.
All you have to do is hit the share button on a post or essay or fanfic you really like and it appears in its entirety in your journal to share with your friend's feed. The original poster/creator does get a notification and at the top there's a link stating...originally posted at "shadowkat67" or whoever the original poster is.
Is this permissible under International Copyright Law? Does anyone know? I've admittedly been out of the field for ten years, and it kept changing while I was in it, so I'm not certain what the rules are now.
In *my* opinion, this should be fine. After all the author posted the fic to the public. I'm not saying by doing so that they gave up the rights. I'm saying by doing so, they acknowledge the risk of doing so. In addition since posting it to the public, doesn't that mean they wanted it to be seen? That they didn't care if it was to be seen? With that in mind, why wouldn't it be ok to distribute said fic? It has the old author credited. Like I said, just my opinion.
Can I or can't I? I've looked up LJ TOS and FF.NET TOS and they pretty much, to me, say, if you post on our site, we are not responsible for whatever happens.
Could they then claim it was original? Could they sell it as their own work? Would it change the situation if the original fanfic, with the names unchanged, was still available online?
I ask because I've read a lot of Twilight AUs with all werewolf or vampire characters as humans, and the characters are often so changed it seems they might as well be original.
EDIT: Also, what about real-person fiction (RPF) AUs, or fics that don't mention whatever real thing the people are a part of (their band, or the show/movie they acted in, etc)? If the names were changed, what would that mean? Could it be called original, and would having the fic with names unchanged online affect that?
- Current Mood: curious
Even though most of the Canon is in the public domain (except the Casebook), the characters of Holmes, Watson, et. al. are protected by copyright. At least, I think they are, but it's very hard to tell because the Web site that purports to be the Conan Doyle Literary Estate refers to Andrea Plunket, whose copyright over the Holmes characters is not recognized by US law. Jon Lellenberg is the American literary agent for the Arthur Conan Doyle estate, according to this New York Times article about the Holmes copyright.
I'm confused because many people are publishing Holmes pastiche without getting licensing or permission. Last weekend I spoke to an editor at Quirk Books who had several Holmes pastiches for sale, and none were officially licensed. He told me it is not necessary because the stories are in the public domain. But if the characters are still protected by copyright, how can publishers print so many pastiches without hesitation? And if publishers can do it and profit from it, can I, a solitary author who would probably self-publish my pastice, do the same without breaking the law?
I've wanted to write a Holmes pastiche for years and only the copyright issue has held me back. Any advice you have would be appreciated!
There was a convention in Australia over the weekend which was very strict on only "recording devices" and disallowed even cameras after the first 5 minutes of each guest's panel. To date only a few videos have been posted.
I have been contacted by the Convention organsiers and asked to remove links to the fan videos and an audio recording, and would like advice on where I stand on this. Obviously if the fans remove the material the question is moot.
Not necessarily a factor, but at this Convention they did play an illegally downloaded episode of Supernatural (it even had the CW watermark on it!) and they played a number of fanvids which they hadn't obtained permission to use. Hence my added level of annoyance.
Any advice appreciated.
Sam Cushion had a twirock band called Midnight Sun; his songs were all electronic and instrumental. He was advertising the albums as "the unofficial scores" to the various books in Twilight. Apparently Summit Entertainment not only had an issue with people believing that Midnight Sun was officially associated with Twilight, and with Sam making money from his albums, they claimed that the word "twirock" itself violated copyright, and demanded that Sam remove all of his music from the Internet.
I can see the issue with the confusion over who was behind Midnight Sun, I can see the issue related to Sam's making money, but it really bothers me that Summit is claiming the right to shut down anyone who comes up with an instrumental song and calls it "Death of Rosalie Hale" or "Arrival In Volterra" (two of Sam's song titles - others, like "Papercut" and "I Should Infuriate You More Often", were less obviously Twilight-related). I don't know Sam Cushion at all and he's not asking me to do this; he seems depressingly resigned to the fate of his music.
Of course, the far-reaching implications are that Summit Entertainment can shut down any little fourteen-year-old who sings a song about Edward Cullen on YouTube, and any company with the copyright to a fictional work can shut down anyone who creates a song about that work. They didn't just tell Sam to stop selling his albums and be more clear about his lack of any official tie to the series.
Claiming that the word "twirock" is a copyright violation struck me as really absurd. Do they have a right to do this?
Would anyone be willing to glance over my draft copyright policy? I hope this doesn't edge too close to the "legal advice" line. I'm really just hoping that someone can spot any blatant problems I've overlooked, either legally or in terms of non-geeky fen going "WTF is copyleft!?" I'm expecting that I'll be writing most of the CC material myself, but of course, since it's a wiki I can't guarantee its future. So I'm trying to write a policy that anticipates and minimizes potential problems.
The draft is here. Thanks!