2600 Explains Eloquently How Excessive Copyright Harms Everyone
from the chilling-effects dept
Last week, we wrote about how the famous hacker magazine 2600 received a copyright threat letter concerning the cover of its Spring 2012 issue (which, we noted, meant that the three-year statute of limitations had passed for a copyright claim anyway). But this was even worse, because the "claim" was over some ink splotches that were in the background of an image that the threat letter claimed copyright over, and which 2600 used a tiny bit of on its cover. Except... that the splotches themselves were actually from a Finnish artist going by the name Loadus, and licensed freely for either commercial or non-commercial use.
There was some confusion over who sent the threat letter, as it officially came from a company called Trunk Archive, but was sent by a company called License Compliance Services (which appears to be a copyright-troll-for-hire business), but also used an entity called Picscout which is owned by notorious copyright troll Getty Images. Either way, after 2600 pointed out how ridiculous this was, License Compliance Services sent a ridiculous email saying the matter had been closed:
Subject: Case #373018082 , Ref #4440-1159-6664For what it's worth, that address is also the address of Getty Images, so it appears that LCS may be a part of Getty Images after all.
Hello, I just wanted to take a moment to inform you that after further review this matter has been closed.
Regards,
Madison Streete
License Compliance Services
P. 1.855.387.8725
E. lcs@lcs.global
605 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
Either way, 2600 points out that this response is fairly ridiculous, given that the company just tried to shake 2600 down for a large sum of money based on a totally bullshit claim. And from there, 2600 goes off on a nice and wonderful rant about the stupidity of copyright maximalism, and the belief that everything must be licensed and paid for. It's wonderful and you should read it:
We're talking about the attempts to license everything under the sun, using high technology to match the tiniest of images, and crushing the very concept of fair use. Art has always been derivative and transformative - our cover at the center of all this is a great example of such a work (just not with any of Trunk Archive's material). But by making people look over their shoulders whenever they try to create something unique using elements of existing works, a chilling effect is created that will result in less works being created. This is also bad for the original artist, who is robbed of the opportunity to see how their creation can be adapted and transformed into something completely different. But in the end, we are all hurt by this kind of thing. Creations such as remixes of music, mashups, new arrangements and interpretations, parody, patchworks of images, logos and pictures captured on film, snippets of code - they can all be identified and monetized. That neat little app on your phone that can identify music? Imagine that going out and automatically charging a fee for anyone who has captured a bit of that music on something they created. Every corporate logo you capture in a picture would also have to be paid for. Imagine where this technology can take us in the next few years if this unbridled greed isn't reigned in.Amen.
This has nothing to do with art as most any artist will tell you. It's about control and intimidation, using the prospect of payoffs to lure in unsuspecting contributors. With that in mind, the LCS/Trunk Archive slogan of "Creations Are Valuable" makes sense in a much more opportunistic light. That's why we need to make sure this derivation of art never catches on. Our case may be over, but this is a fight that is only just beginning.
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: copyright, copyright trolling, culture, licensing, sharing
Companies: 2600, getty images, license compliance services, trunk archive
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If that is your real name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"create something unique using elements of existing works" ... That's not unique.
"Fair use" must be FAIR. That does not mean, as you "copyright minimalists" wish, the entirety of $100 million dollar movies "shared" on Megaupload. That's illegal, am I right? Any "copyright moderates" around to support me? ... ... Nope, none spoke up. No moderates here.
It's not even difficult to create ORIGINAL graphics like the bit 2600 copied! Ten minutes with MS Paint and DONE, "retro" look, NO worries about copyright at all! WHY NOT DO THAT INSTEAD OF COPY? You are NOT thereby harmed, may even have made something you could sell! Instead of accused, often rightly, of stealing.
That's all I've got, so now just click "report" to censor this away, "moderates".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "create something unique using elements of existing works" ... That's not unique.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "create something unique using elements of existing works" ... That's not unique.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "create something unique using elements of existing works" ... That's not unique.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "create something unique using elements of existing works" ... That's not unique.
You didn't even read the first 3 sentences before spewing your incoherent drivel.
The artist who created the splotches released them for all to use freely, even for commercial use. The entire reason he posted them on DeviantArt was so that others could use them. But that's a concept no Copyright Maximalist could ever understand.
"...It's not even difficult to create ORIGINAL graphics..."
All art is derivative, there is no such thing as "original" art. Also a concept no Copyright Maximalist could ever understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "create something unique using elements of existing works" ... That's not unique.
Also, another rule that should be added to the job requirements is that you should read the article (the entire article or at least past the first three sentences) before posting. Some of you guys don't even seem to bother to read the first sentence. I know some of you have serious reading comprehension problems and all that crack you've done your entire lives causes you to get a headache whenever you try to read anything, and trust me I would have fired you a long long time ago if I could find a suitable replacement but the competition for becoming a shill is very low, but please please make some effort to read the article before posting. Even if you don't understand it because you're so brain dead from all those illegal drugs you're always doing but please at least try. You make our shilling organization look bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "create something unique using elements of existing works" ... That's not unique.
You actually pay your shills enough to plausibly pay for my illicit drugs habit?
Where do I apply?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "create something unique using elements of existing works" ... That's not unique.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "create something unique using elements of existing works" ... That's not unique.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "create something unique using elements of existing works" ... That's not unique.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "create something unique using elements of existing works" ... That's not unique.
Says the jackass troll who hasn't written ONE original troll posting here on Techdirt. Convincing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "create something unique using elements of existing works" ... That's not unique.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "create something unique using elements of existing works" ... That's not unique.
PS. Do you get paid by the comment, word or letter? I want to work from home too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so now just click "report"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 16th, 2015 @ 3:31pm
FTFU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only FIFTEEN MINUTES TO CENSOR! You're hot on that, kids, only thing you can do.
And @ "They had permission to copy: a free license from the creator. "Fair use" is irrelevant to the discussion, as is creating from scratch."
1) "fair use" is in second sentence of the block quote; it's YOU who didn't read all.
2) I disclaimed defending Getty, and did not at all assert this was not fair use.
3) "copyright maximalism" is the phrase Masnick used, on which I take off to state a degree of "minimalism" that isn't legal.
And going on attempt #6 to comment again! Knew the prior ease wouldn't last.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ "All art is derivative, there is no such thing as "original" art. Also a concept no Copyright Maximalist could ever understand."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: out_of_the_blue sez: "Accuracy is not important"
The moment you think accuracy is optional is where you start thinking that suing people with massive collateral damage is perfectly acceptable.
The RIAA tried that for nearly a decade. Not only did it not work, even fewer people sympathize with copyright.
But please do continue shooting yourself in the foot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: out_of_the_blue sez: "Accuracy is not important"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FRAUD!!!!
I thought fraud was a crime...or was that extortion? USDOJ, are you listening? Or how about another civil lawsuit...alleging 150K in statutory damages for falsely claiming copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shut down the troll companies
You know, like how a troll company for HBO sent a takedown notice to HBO.com for streaming "Game of Thrones".
Or how about stronger punishments for false claims? I hope 2600 sues Getty for this shakedown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Art
I'm gonna be using it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, thanks for giving me the credit for pointing that out in a comment on Techdirt's first article about this case whilst you were talking about fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]