A New Animated Web Series About Copying And Copyright
from the check-it-out dept
A group of filmmakers has decided to put together an interesting new animated web series called "Copy-Me" all about copying and copyright -- and more specifically about culture and sharing, and why that's important (while also debunking some of the usual myths about copyright). Among the things they've claimed the series will cover are:- The importance of the public domain.
- Artists making money without restricting access to their work.
- A bit of copyright history.
- The paradox of originality.
- The state of the Internet today
- The impact of copyright on every single part of society today.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copy me, copying, copyright, creative commons, culture, sharing, web series
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hundreds of Billions of Years?!
"Copying is a practice that people have been doing for hundreds of billions of years."
I've heard of the people who think that people have only been around for 6000 or so years, but this is the first I've heard about people who think that people have been around an order of magnitude longer than scientists think that the universe has been around...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hundreds of Billions of Years?!
Maybe it's an oblique reference to 7 proxies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hundreds of Billions of Years?!
Humans have been around for around 150,000 to 200,000 years or so based on archaeological evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hundreds of Billions of Years?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hundreds of Billions of Years?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hundreds of Billions of Years?!
besides, you don't KNOW that we haven't been around for hundreds of billions of years; this could be the elevntythousandth time a big bang cycle has run its course...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hundreds of Billions of Years?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, yeah, party on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The jokers didn't even dare to admit who they were LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ignoring the fact that the IndieGoGo page does in fact name the people who made the video, I bet you're too dumb to see the irony of this comment, aren't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Achievement Unlocked: Moded
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Man, doing exactly what they're saying they want you to do...such a rebel!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Domain as a Scientific Concept
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Domain as a Scientific Concept
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Domain as a Scientific Concept
But, regardless of labels, you're totally right: it's really sad that people now think copyright is the default and the "public domain" is the exception, when in fact the exact opposite is true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Domain as a Scientific Concept
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course I'm not saying we live in a vacuum, but to the extent we can control what we copy, at least some of us go out of our way to not copy and it's a false narrative to say that "we all do it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You contradict yourself in the same sentence. That is partly what they're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
After all, 95+ year copy protection lengths and retroactive extensions is not exactly the epitome of ethics. It's a product of having no moral values whatsoever and it's not hard to imagine that those responsible for this public domain theft, those that lobbied congress for these laws through secretive meetings and revolving door favors, have no regard for morality whatsoever. They likely also infringe and their moral argument is simply a selfish one that they present to others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Given how many IP maximalist, 'Pirates are the root of all evil and must be stopped by any means necessary' and 'Piracy is a horrible practice that costs creators billions each year'-type people/groups end up getting caught pirating stuff themselves... yeah, that's probably a fairly safe bet there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
These people claim it is unintentional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"When we copy, we justify it. When others copy, we vilify it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140406/07212626819/sony-youtube-take-down-sintel-blenders- open-source-creative-commons-crowdfunded-masterpiece.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like Nemo, Pierrot lives in a pink sea anemone and starts life half-orphaned because one parent was swallowed up by Liona, the scorpion fish. “The beginning of the story is the same, even if the scenarios then become different,” Le Calvez said."
http://www.today.com/id/3840185/ns/today-today_entertainment/t/author-claims-finding-nemo-plag iarism/#.U0XkBaLMROo
So Kamina apparently came up with a similar idea before Nemo but his idea got ignored. Later, Disney comes up with Nemo and stores will no longer sell Kamina's work because it's too similar to Nemo. So the work is similar enough to Nemo to be considered infringement against it but Nemo is not close enough to Pierrot to be considered infringing on it despite the fact that Pierrot came out first. The double standard here is amazing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Define "it". Most people break laws they're not even aware of, and recent history shows you can have your work claimed as infringing even if you've not copied a damn thing. That's even before you get into the murky subtleties of things you should be able to do but corporations are doing their best to outlaw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whenever you speak, you are copying words, you are using pre-arranged letters and words and making them into a sentence.
So, when you say you're careful not to copy, perhaps you should be more precise, and say you don't copy commercial movies and TV shows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/ulr/article/viewFile/7/11-Copyrights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
* But then, some courts have found that a single-line poem, or a 13-second performance, is deserving of copyright protection. So who knows for certain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I didn't see the indiegogo link on their site but saw it via their Twitter account.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/copy-me-a-webseries-about-copying--3/x/7054659
Looks cool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thanks so much for the input,
Alex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or least your favorite website to steal movies with!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Their IndieGoGo clearly states that this is an independent project, and even runs through the entire (small) budget and how it's coming from crowdfunding.
Of course there's no guarantee that's true, I suppose, so... Do you have a reason to doubt it, and some evidence to the contrary to present? Or does it just make you uncomfortable that a growing number of individuals are standing up against broken copyright law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
also the same poster/snowflake as https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140408/12314926842/new-animated-web-series-about-copying-copyrig ht.shtml#c86 ("Astroturf. Dark, brown Astroturf.")
and https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140408/12314926842/new-animated-web-series-about-copying-copyrig ht.shtml#c98 (in which he proved the person he responded to 100% correct)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Records, Privacy
State libraries, and others, are the repositories of "public records" which are labeled as "archives" and are so defined in state code. Yet these agencies assume common-law copyright over these old manuscripts, demanding permissions rights, and royalties based on print runs, and collecting personal information in the process, inconsistent with Freedom of Information laws and Privacy Laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Records, Privacy
but wants a license fee to use a 100+ year old picture. When the picture is marked 1897, how are you claiming copyright over it? (no, the scan does not count)
which is a shame, the pictures are pretty cool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Public Records, Privacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Public Records, Privacy
http://gothamist.com/2014/04/08/citys_department_of_records_release.php?fb_action_ids=1020273 5551643525&fb_action_types=og.likes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Records, Privacy
http://nycma.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet
"Some of the images in the Online Gallery may be subject to third-party rights such as copyright..."
Here is the link to the Terms of Use.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/html/gallery/orderform.shtml
RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS:
Please note that photographic prints are provided for personal use only and may not be transferred to another individual or institution without permission... If you wish to PUBLISH a photograph, or use it for any COMMERCIAL purpose, you must apply for permission and pay the appropriate license fee.
- - - - - -
Here is the Copyright Law on Archives making reproductions.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.pdf
§ 108 · Limitations on exclusive rights:
Reproduction by libraries and archives
(a) ...it is not an infringement of copyright for... archives... to reproduce... or to distribute... if—
(1) made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage...
- - - - -
The commercial limitation applies to ARCHIVES which may try to benefit commercially. They cannot SELL permissions and collect royalties unless they have a license to do that from the copyright holder.
It is NOT an infringement to copy and distribute, but it IS an infringement to AUTHORIZE.
- - - - - -
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf
Reproduction of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians
Senate Report: Discussion of Libraries and Archives in Profit-Making Institutions
The limitation of section 108 to reproduction and distribution by libraries and archives “without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage” is intended to preclude a library or archives in a profit-making organization from providing photocopies of copyrighted materials to employees engaged in furtherance of the organization’s commercial enterprise, unless such copying qualifies as a fair use, or the organization has obtained the necessary copyright licenses.
- - - - -
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat072204.html
Thus, vicarious liability requires two elements:
(1) the right and ability to supervise or control the infringing activity; and
(2) a direct financial benefit from that activity...
In the 1976 Act, Congress recognized secondary liability in the grant of rights under copyright, providing authors and copyright owners with the "exclusive right to do and to authorize" the enumerated rights. As the legislative history to the Act explains, "[u]se of the phrase 'to authorize' is intended to avoid any questions as to the liability of contributory infringers."
- - - - - -
Going back to Copyright Law,
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.pdf
(e) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to the entire work... made from the collection of ... archives... if the... archives has first determined... that a copy... cannot be obtained at a fair price, if—
(1) the copy or phonorecord becomes THE PROPERTY OF THE USER...
- - - - - -
Compare this to the above Term of Service:
...prints... may not be transferred to another individual or institution without permission...
- - - - - -
Compare to this case:
http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2010/07/cci-update-legal-action-against-a-cultural-instit ution.html
I also wonder how much the desire to run a photo reproduction permissions business and generate some revenue may have contributed to the museum’s seemingly sloppy practice. Regardless of how the case turns out, the legal process is going to prove to be expensive, and if the Smithsonian should lose, it could face up to $150,000 in statutory damages per image. $50 per image in licensing revenue hardly seems worth it if the desire to generate revenue led to the mistakes that appear to have been made.
- - - - -
See: ANNE PEARSE-HOCKER v. United States
- - - - - -
(1) ... and the library or archives has had NO NOTICE that the copy or phonorecord would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research...
- - - -- -
In the above, there is NO authority granted to archives to ASSUME responsibility for the USE of a work.
Compare to the Library of Congress, where the following phrase is inserted into the standard copyright notice used for copy services:
http://www.loc.gov/duplicationservices/cond.html
"All responsibility for use of the reproduction is assumed by the applicant."
- - - -
Collecting information about the USE of a copy, opens an archives up for secondary infringement liability,
And
violates state Privacy Laws.
What law authorizes the collection of this personal information - - how will the personal information be used, how long will it be kept, is it subject to freedom of information, etc.?
If 10 people sell their copies of an image on eBay, and 20 people obtained a copy of that image from the Archives, how will the Archives know which recipient violated the Restrictive Covenant? The Terms of Service are unenforceable, against public policy, and represents censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Public Records, Privacy
http://www.nypl.org/blog/2014/03/28/open-access-maps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]