Zazzle & Warner Bros. Pretend All References To Wizard Of Oz Are Covered By WB Copyright

from the there's-a-problem-here dept

Lowestofthekeys alerts us to the situation of one W. Thomas Adkins, who had some t-shirt designs of his own making for sale on Zazzle... until they were taken down in response to a copyright claim. After Adkins requested more info on why his images were taken down, Zazzle explained:

...your product was removed due to an infringement claim by Warner Bros. Studios. While the artwork as you claim is original, the characters from the Wizard of Oz are currently property of Warner Bros. As a guideline, designs from the Wizard of Oz that are currently prohibited for sale on Zazzle’s Marketplace are:

• All inspired artwork and character renderings from the Wizard of Oz
• Quotes from the Wizard of Oz Franchise
• All tags and descriptions that reference the Wizard of Oz

- Zazzle

There are a few problems with this. First of all, characters from the Wizard of Oz are not, in fact, "property of Warner Bros." The original book, written by L. Frank Baum, was published in 1900 and is in the public domain. The popular movie version, in which Warner Bros. holds the copyright, came out in 1939. This does lead to some interesting copyright questions, and a few lawsuits. For example, last year, we wrote about a lawsuit involving t-shirts designed with public domain Wizard of Oz images. And then there's a brewing fight over whether or not Disney can make a film based on the public domain parts of the Baum books if it makes no reference to the 1939 movie.

Basically, what the law has said is that if you're making references to the specific characters or character traits that were portrayed in the movie, but which are not from the books, then its under WB's copyright. So, if you were to display pictures of the actual actors or specific expressions or outfits that are from the movie, but not the books, then there's an issue.

From Adkins' post, however, it appears these were the images on the t-shirts that were removed from Zazzle:

It is difficult to see how either of these come anywhere close to infringing on WB's copyright. The first one merely displays a witch's pointy hat. While it seems that the origin of the pointy, wide-brimmed witch's hat has been lost to history, the various reports online suggest it long pre-dates 1939 and the movie. In fact, it appears that images in the original books show the witch in a pointed, wide-brimmed hat. So the hat is not copyright to Warner Bros.

Then there's the flying monkey. Problem being... the flying monkeys were in Baum's books, and Adkins' drawing is quite different from the version in the movie.

The concept of water melting the witch? Also in Baum's books, and as Adkins details in his blog post, it way predates the Oz books anyway.

Basically, everything in Adkins' images appear to reference the original Baum books and not the movie. Assuming Warner Bros. did make a copyright claim, as Zazzle's email stated, then it is engaging in copyfraud here and asserting copyright against images it has no rights over.

That said, Adkins also exaggerates his own rights in his response to Zazzle, which he posted. After explaining to Zazzle why his works did not infringe on WB's copyright, he unfortunately goes on to say:

As such, I respectfully request that my material and corresponding artwork be returned to circulation for purchase immediately.

Failure to do so would be an infringement on my copyright of my created artwork which, as verified by the testimony above, does NOT infringe upon Warner Bros. Entertainment’s copyright on the 1939 film or the specific celluloid representations of the characters made in said film. If my copyright continues to be infringed upon I will seek legal action against both Zazzle and Warner Bros. Entertainment.

Uh... no. Zazzle choosing not to display your work is, in no way, copyright infringement. As a private company, Zazzle has every right to refuse to display any particular work, even if its reasons are dumb. The public (and people like Adkins) are free to mock them, but there is no copyright issue there, and especially not infringement by Zazzle. The service certainly does not have the greatest reputation because of its quick trigger finger in pulling down perfectly legal content, but that doesn't mean it's illegal. Claiming that not displaying someone's work is infringement is just ridiculous, and takes away from Adkins' otherwise strong arguments.

Either way, the original point stands: Adkins' works don't appear to be infringing WB's copyrights. If WB did make the claim, it appears that WB went way too far. Adkins should have just filed a standard counternotice to Zazzle, and one would hope Zazzle does the right thing and puts the works back up.

Filed Under: copyfraud, l. frank baum, public domain, wizard of oz
Companies: warner bros, zazzle

Flickr Finally Realizes That Not All DMCA Takedowns Are Legit

from the about-freaking-time dept

A few months ago, we noted how in certain cases Flickr would completely delete images (and comments) when it received a DMCA takedown notice. That meant that even if the takedown was bogus -- as so many are -- after you contested the takedown and could put back the image, you probably lost everything else on that page. That's kind of ridiculous. As Jake Rome alerts us, Yahoo (owner of Flickr) finally realized that perhaps it should change its policy and, instead, put the targeted image in limbo to allow the uploader to contest the takedown:

We want to let you know that we have implemented a global change in the standard takedown process that will benefit the whole Flickr community going forward.

When a photo is removed from the site based on a notice of alleged copyright infringement, we will temporarily show a placeholder and the member will have an opportunity to respond before the image is made unavailable.

If the alleged copyright infringement is found to be fraudulent, the image in question will be restored, and the photopage will look like before.

It's really quite amazing that it took this long for Flickr to realize this was needed.

Filed Under: copyfraud, dmca, takedown
Companies: flickr, yahoo

Copylaundering: Jay Leno Airs Campaign Video From YouTube, NBC Claims Ownership Of Original

from the what-a-neat-little-trick dept

This is easily one of the best responses to copyfraud I've ever read. Sure, Jay Leno is a pretty easy target for a roast, but musician Brian Kamerer does a brilliant job of taking him to task over a bogus YouTube takedown. I strongly suggest reading the whole thing, but here's the short version of what happened.

A few years ago, Brian helped a friend, who was running for mayor, create an intentionally silly campaign jingle and commercial, which they uploaded to YouTube. Two years later, they heard from another friend that the video had appeared on the Jay Leno Show as part of a segment about local campaign commercials. They just got a kick out of it, and moved on—until now, another three years later. Brian discovered that the YouTube video had been taken down on a copyright claim... by NBC (most likely as the result of a ContentID match as NBC uploaded old episodes into the system). So Leno mines the internet for material to air on his show—without permission or even the courtesy of letting them know—and then, years later, the network claims ownership of that material and accuses the actual creators and copyright holders of infringement. Brian is unimpressed, to say the least—and even supplies a script for how he imagines things went down:

JAY LENO

Hey remember those loser kids, we played their bit once, remember those guys? Let’s get em.

WRITER

What? Who? Why?

JAY LENO

Those guys, we took their video about three years ago and played it, I loved that song, remember?

WRITER

Oh yeah, sure, I remember those guys. So, what is it you want to do to them?

JAY LENO

I want to have the boys at NBC say that we own the video, so that if they try to watch their video on YouTube, they won’t be able to, and it will look like they stole the video, like Carlos Mencia!

WRITER

Or we could just leave those two nice boys alone. After all, you loved that song, remember?

JAY LENO

You’re fired! Secretary! Get me someone who has the balls to frame these two unknown assholes, so that eventually their work will be blocked on YouTube! And I need fifty more classic cars!

He's kidding of course—he knows that's not how it really happened. The real problem is that the system is broken: the law favors the accuser and permits this kind of copyfraud, giving NBC absolutely no incentive to narrowly target its takedown efforts. But Brian, quite reasonably, points out that he's not interested in excuses—everything that happened revolves around the public face of Jay Leno, and he sees no reason that Leno shouldn't bear the blame.

I know you’re reading this going, “Brian, you don’t understand! It’s not me, it’s just some NBC internet robot that scans YouTube videos and then compares the videos to the vast NBC library and just blocks the YouTube videos that match up, because the robot assumes the video has been stolen. Besides, you don’t own anything on YouTube! Don’t be mad at me, funny man Jay Leno! I liked your video! It’s the robot’s fault. The robot fucked up.”

Don’t hide behind NBC on this one, dude. And don’t blame YouTube. And forget about the robots. I’m not talking to the robot now. I’m talking to you, Jay Leno. Where does the buck stop on The Jay Leno Show, if not with Jay Leno himself? The buck stops with you Jay.

As more people fall victim to copyfraud—including this process whereby a TV network launders your copyrights into their own—and tell the story publicly (and entertainingly) as Brian has done, the aggressive entertainment companies are going to have a harder time recruiting stars as mouthpieces for the anti-piracy cause. Increasingly, they are going to see their own artists rebelling against their bogus takedowns and over-enforcement, as some already are. Combine that kind of pressure with transparency efforts like Google's newly available takedown data, and eventually something's got to give—starting with any remaining shred of public respect for copyright law.

Filed Under: brian kamerer, contentid, copyfraud, jay leno
Companies: nbc

Live Copyfraud Discussion With Jason Mazzone; Techdirt Book Club

from the join-us dept

As we mentioned earlier this week, we're experimenting with doing a live discussion for the Techdirt book club. For April, the book was Copyfraud by Jason Mazzone who will be joining us today to talk about it at noon PT (3pm ET).
And don't forget that the book club book for May is Reclaiming Fair Use by Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi. We'll be publishing more excerpts in the coming weeks...

Filed Under: book club, copyfraud, discussion, jason mazzone, live chat

Combating The Culture Of Fear And Doubt By Reclaiming Fair Use! (Techdirt's May Book Club Choice)

from the fair-use-matters dept

We're running a bit late with book club related stuff due to my ridiculous travel schedule, but we're going to get back on track. First up, rather than just having Jason Mazzone, the author of April's book club book Copyfraud, do a blog post, we're going to host a live chat here on Techdirt, and that will take place this Friday at noon PT/3pm ET. Just show up on the site then and assuming no technical difficulties, we'll do a Q&A session/chat using the popular CoverItLive platform. If you haven't yet read Copyfraud, please check out the chapter we posted (part one and part two).

As for the book for May, it is the excellent Reclaiming Fair Use by Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, two of the most recognized scholars on fair use issue. It's really a great book if you're trying to understand fair use and why it's important. As always, the book is available in lots of places -- with Amazon being a popular one. While I recognize the ebook pricing is still somewhat higher than some folks here think is reasonable, it is at least lower than the last few books. Also, Patricia has granted us permission to re-publish a fair bit of content, which we'll be doing over the coming weeks. Today, we'll kick it off with part of chapter one on The Culture Of Fear And Doubt, and How To Leave It. So with that, we'll jump right into the excerpt from that chapter:

---

Gordon Quinn, for forty years a professional filmmaker including as executive producer on the award-winning film Hoop Dreams, was working on a public television program in 2001. New Americans is about the lives of new immigrants to the U.S. In one scene, Israel Nwidor, a Nigerian immigrant trained as a chemical engineer and now working as a cab driver, is listening to a George Strait song in his car when a white guy on a motorcycle pulls alongside and gives him the evil eye. It's one of those little moments that reveal a lot.

Twenty years before, Gordon wouldn't have given the song playing on the speakers another thought. But over the last two decades, he had become hyper-conscious of the copyrighted material in documentaries. Broadcasters and insurers had become hyper-vigilant, demanding assurances that he had licensed every stray bit of copyrighted material. Did the reunited family sing “Happy birthday”? License it. Were the middle-school girls on a sleepover listening to pop songs? License them. Did the little autistic boy love “Puff the Magic Dragon” as a comfort song? License it. And what about those posters on the walls? The books on the shelf?

As a result, Gordon didn't doubt that he would need to license the George Strait song that Israel was nodding along to. Only he knew from experience that he probably wouldn't get an answer to an email sent to the music company. The amount of money involved would be so trivial that the music company's licensing executives wouldn't even respond.

So Gordon cut out the scene. Nobody watching it even knew they were missing anything. It was one of a thousand little cuts that nobody knew they were missing, each one of them a silent erasure of a piece of reality.

*

Cyndy Scheibe, a psychology professor at Ithaca College and director of Project Look Sharp, a media literacy initiative, uses comic strips from newspapers and other pieces of popular culture— clips from documentaries, popular films, and print advertisements--in her classes to teach about point of view and representation. Her team at Project Look Sharp has created online curriculum materials about the media’s representation of the Middle East, featuring among other things a clip from the Disney film Aladdin.

Could Cyndy's teaching materials safely be shared with other teachers? Did she dare to put it on an open website? The Ithaca College legal experts and administrators were divided, and finally demanded that both Cyndy and her colleague Chris Sperry personally pledge their willingness to go to court to defend themselves should their use of unlicensed copyrighted material be litigated. Cyndy and Chris gambled, and let the site go up. They erred on the side of caution where they could. For one exercise that involved comparisons of covers of the magazine Newsweek, they tried to license the covers from the news corporation. But the company would not license them for an appropriate fee, and furthermore, the company told them, Cyndy and Chris would also have had to negotiate with the subjects of the covers. The company spokesperson was actually talking about two kinds of rights: the company’s copyright, and the celebrities’ right of publicity. Cyndy and Chris believed, correctly, that they did not need to get permission from the likes of Osama bin Laden, since they had a First Amendment right that overrode any publicity claims he could make. As for the copyright claims, they decided to use the magazine covers under fair use; they and their university counsel believed there was no question.

Even when they were sure they were within the law, though, Cyndy and Chris were given pause by what they’d heard in the rumor mill. That little clip from Aladdin—did that put them in jeopardy from the Disney Corporation? They’d heard that Disney was wildly litigious. They finally added that clip to the website, and held their breaths.

They were relieved to see Project Look Sharp be widely used, and even more relieved as the threat of litigation failed to emerge. They had pledged if necessary to loot their 401(k)’s for legal funds to defend their rights to reference their own culture, and--for now--they thought they didn't have to.

Filed Under: book club, copyfraud, fair use, free speech, patricia aufderheide, peter jaszi

Sad State Of Copyright: Guy Using Short Clips Of Music In Viral Videos Accused Of Infringement

from the ridiculous dept

Brian LaSorsa points us to the unfortunate case of Steve Kardynal, a pretty popular maker of funny online videos. There are all sorts of creative people who have been enabled to create and put their works out to the world thanks to things like YouTube. Kardynal makes funny sketches, with some of the most popular being his "Songs in Real Life" videos, in which he creates scenes where every so often the dialogue actually is a short clip -- between 3 and 10 seconds -- from a popular song. Unfortunately, as he notes in the video explaining what happened, the second one of these videos received a takedown from Sony (a year after it was posted):
Realizing that getting three strikes on YouTube means he would lose his account -- which already has about 100 million views -- he's pretty freaked out. In response, he's set his other "Songs in Real Life" videos to private to hopefully avoid getting any other strikes while he tries to figure out what to do.

While his videos are no longer available, with a little searching you can find them elsewhere. I don't know how long this will remain available, but here's someone who put all three of the "Songs in Real Life" videos into a single video. It's difficult to see how this isn't fair use, and I'd argue that this is a clear case of Sony engaging in copyfraud.

As Steve notes, all of the video clips are between 3 and 10 seconds. No one is going to reasonably claim that this takes away from the market for that song. Furthermore, as he also points out, he listed all the songs that were used in the description of his video and made it easy for people to go buy the songs. In other words, it's difficult to see how these videos didn't actually help the market for these songs, rather than hurt it. The Lenz v. Universal case showed that copyright holders need to take fair use into account when they issue DMCA takedowns, and it certainly doesn't look like Sony did so in this case.

But, really, what's even more interesting about this story is just how much it has impacted Steve. He talks about how he's afraid to lose all that he's worked on and how it's like losing a family member. This is the exact opposite of what copyright law is supposed to do. Here it's being used to stifle and shut down creativity. And while some may claim that what Steve feels is no different than what an artist whose work is infringed on experiences, it seems quite different, actually. With an infringement, an artist hasn't lost anything. It's just that their own wishes for how the music is used or paid for gets denied. In this case, the content is actively being shut down. There's a real loss. That's unfortunate.

Filed Under: comedy, copyfraud, fair use, songs in real life, steve kardynal, viral video
Companies: sony, youtube

The Chilling Effects Of Copyfraud: Blocking A Researcher From Fair Use... And Scaring Him Into Staying Quiet About It

from the chilling-effects dept

I recently came across yet another story of copyfraud, but due to the nature of our litigious society and the way in which certain companies over-aggressively defend their rights, I need to prevent many of the details from being explained here, and have had to anonymize nearly everything. A family friend recently published a very interesting research paper on a popular topic. To demonstrate a certain point in the paper, he found a perfect image from a book that was published over 50 years ago. Again, to avoid identifying the situation, I cannot provide any more info, other than to say that this the image represented a tiny portion of a much larger work -- and that its usage without a doubt met all of the criteria of a typical fair use defense. The use was for non-profit educational purposes, it was a tiny part of a much larger work (and, in many ways, an inconsequential piece of that larger work, even if it was perfect for the point being demonstrated). The effect on the market for the original work was at worst nil, and at best positive, in that it might cause people to seek out the original work. In my review, it appears that the original work is now long out of print, and it is available only by collectors at an extremely high price. Thus, the use of the work is not for this person's financial benefit, and has absolutely no impact on the original publisher.

Even so, because we unfortunately live in a society where it's been drilled into our heads that you must get permission (even if the entire purpose of the fair use doctrine is for situations like this where no permission is needed), my friend reached out to the very, very large and well known conglomerate that holds the copyright on the original. He explained what he wanted to do and why, very clearly and concisely. The company's response was actually quite friendly, all things considered, and the person who responded appears to reject his request regretfully, noting that she is "in the unenviable position" of having to say no. The reasoning, the letter states, is that the work is protected by intellectual property laws and that the company "must be constantly vigilant and sometimes stringent in exercising control over their use."

There are significant problems with this. The whole point of fair use, again, is that these kinds of uses do not need permission. Furthermore, while trademark law does require some level of "vigilance," the same level of vigilance is not required for copyright law, and it is entirely possible to turn a blind eye to such usage and not lose the powers that copyright grants. Finally, there would be no harm at all in allowing this or even granting the guy a simple license. That would take away nothing from the company's IP rights.

But the bigger issue to me is actually the chilling effects that this situation has had. After sharing all of these details with me, I asked if he would be okay with me publishing the story with the full details. And he refused. Despite recognizing the near certainty of winning any legal dispute (as well as the fact that it is unlikely he would actually get sued), the very small risk alone is too much to bear. The idea that a massive global conglomerate might suddenly choose to sue this guy for some non-profit research he did out of personal interest -- just because of a single graphic to (humorously) illustrate a single point -- just isn't worth it. And that's the classic tale of a chilling effect of copyright law. Scaring people into not speaking up or not presenting their story.

Filed Under: chilling effect, copyfraud, education, fair use, permission

50 Cent Sued Over Infringing Sample; When Will Hip-Hop's Stars Speak Up About Copyright?

from the now-would-be-a-good-time dept

The folks at dajaz1, who know better than anyone how copyright stifles culture and free speech, send in the news that Robert Poindexter of The Persuaders is suing 50 Cent for copyright infringement over a sample on a free album he released in 2009. This is likely to end in settlement, with a payout to Poindexter, because 50 Cent isn't offering any defense beyond the fact that the album was free. Unfortunately, this carries little to no legal weight. The courts have been unkind to sampled music over the years, as detailed in the excerpt we posted (part 1 and part 2) from this month's book club feature, Copyfraud. But, as dajaz1 explains quite clearly, sampling and remixing on free albums and mixtapes has always been an essential part of hip-hop, and is even embraced by labels:

This has been happening for many years on mixtapes and it’s quite common so 50′s attitude on this not shocking. Its the same attitude of every artist in urban music and it’s been like that from jump. In fact that’s why mixtapes are given away for free and not sold commercially. To put a bar code on a tape or sell it commercially violates many laws, but to give it away for free under the guise of “promotional use” has been the name of the game for decades and largely considered ok. This type of stuff is why these labels suddenly calling websites like us “rogue” for releasing them or trying to shut people down or put them in jail for making, releasing, or offering them for download has always been ridiculous. The attitude 50 is taking here is the same one every urban artist operates under and the promotional department of the major labels have been looking the other way on for years. Hell the major labels have been active participants. If you can’t clear the song you throw it out on a mixtape, or for free to radio mixshows and the blogs/internet as a freestyle/remix. Every major label artist that has made it in the rap genre has utilized these tactics so a loss in this case could be devastating not only to rap as a genre but the labels as well.

This is just another example of how copyright is totally out of sync with reality. This kind of activity is indispensable to culture, and it doesn't stop no matter what the law says—but it does get stifled, and driven underground, which is the opposite of what copyright is supposed to accomplish. As the chapter we posted from Copyfraud notes, several albums that are widely considered to be classics and important moments in music history (like Paul's Boutique or It Takes A Nation Of Millions To Hold Us Back) would be almost impossible to legally release today. Meanwhile, highly acclaimed mashups like The Grey Album are praised by the musicians whose work has been mashed, but are technically illegal and exist only as bootlegs by the grace (read: fear of bad publicity) of the record labels.

The big question is: can artists like 50 Cent do something about this? Hip-hop is one of the most popular and influential genres of music in the world, and its superstars command huge audiences. Most hip-hop fans don't realize that the genre is a legal minefield that exists because most artists cross their fingers and ignore the law entirely, while a rich few pay obscene royalties and settlement fees. Someone like 50 Cent is in the perfect position to raise more awareness of broken copyright law, and I hope that this attack on the lifeblood of hip-hop culture spurs him to do so.

Filed Under: 50 cent, book club, copyfraud, dajaz1, mixtape, sampling

Got Questions About Copyfraud? Now's The Time To Ask Them!

from the ask-away dept

This month's Techdirt book club book is Copyfraud, by Jason Mazzone. If you missed them, we published some excerpts (part I and part II) earlier this month, and hopefully some of you have had a chance to dig into the full book. Over on our Step2 platform we're collecting questions and voting on them to send to Mazzone to kick off the discussion, which we'll have in a couple of weeks. You can, of course, also ask questions in the comments to this post, but we're using Step2 because it makes it much easier to track which questions get the most votes (and, if you have a login to Techdirt, it works there too, so you don't need to re-register or anything). We look forward to the discussion on this important aspect of copyright law that doesn't get nearly enough attention.

Head to Step2 and submit your questions »

Filed Under: book club, copyfraud, discussion, jason mazzone, step2

Copyfraud: Techdirt Book Club Selection For April, Part Two

from the page-turner dept

Last week, we introduced this month's selection in the new Techdirt Book Club— Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law by law professor Jason Mazzone—and posted the first half of Chapter 3, which deals with Samples and Mashups and touches on some important moments in the history of copyright law (and hip-hop). Today we've got the second half of that chapter, which looks at the ongoing effects of the laws in this area on things like The Grey Album and the mashups of Girl Talk, and notes how it would be almost impossible to make an album like The Beastie Boys' Paul's Boutique today.

We'll be having our discussion with the author towards the end of the month, so there's still plenty of time to pick up a copy of the book. You can find it at Amazon in hardcover or ebook form (those are both affiliate links, so we get a tiny cut if you buy via them) or get it from lots of other sources. It's also available to check out from many libraries. Stanford University Press also has some ebook rental options. If you don't read the book but still want to participate in the discussion, you can still ask questions based on this sample chapter, as well as Jason's original paper on Copyfraud. He was also recently on the Surprisingly Free podcast discussing the book.

For now, enjoy the rest of Chapter 3! Don't forget to read the first half.

Filed Under: beastie boys, book club, copyfraud, girl talk, jason mazzone, mashup, sampling