I can totally make an interactive version, it's just a question of interest levels, since it's going to take some time and we've got lots of bigger projects on the go :) If there is a 2nd cryptic, it will be interactive! In the mean time hopefully you can at least have some fun with the clues.
you are obviously not familiar with cryptic crosswords (which is unsurprising since they rely in large part on grammar and syntax skills which are, um, not your strong suit)
I looked at that one, and while the publishing service has relatively permissive terms (only stopping you from putting puzzles behind a paywall), the Across Lite software itself, for making the puzzles, has far more restrictive non-commercial terms:
You may use the Software on any computer for non-commercial purposes. You may not use the Software to derive commercial value for yourself or for any commercial organization or government agency without the prior written consent of LitSoft.
Considering this is a commercial website, it seems using it to make crosswords here would violate the TOS. I suspect they don't really enforce that term, but nevertheless, it really put me off. "Non-commercial" terms are stupid and obsolete on the internet.
Of course, if there was considerable interest in this kind of thing, we'd totally consider a commercial license -- but im pretty sure this has very niche appeal and is not something i'll be doing too regularly.
i had thought about that, but for a crossword a PDF form would be a huge pain to both make and use I think... If there's enough interest, I will whip together something that runs in-browser with CSS & JavaScript -- but I didn't want to do that until I knew if there were many people who would use it
If you add up all the creators in history, the vast majority did their work before copyright. And if you add up all the human beings in history, the vast majority never even heard of the concept of copyright.
Ergo copyright supporters are a tiny, tiny minority, and only a tiny fraction of art and culture has been generated under a copyright system.
So you think there should be no fully private enterprise online? It should all be regulated common carriers -- not just ISP-level providers, but web services too?
That's just not true. We don't want the only online services to be those that can qualify for common carrier status -- that would be incredibly limiting.
You say there's "no downside"? I'm sorry, but I find that laughable. The "downside" of repealing DMCA safe harbors is obvious: virtually every popular internet service that exists, from Facebook to YouTube to Tumblr to Wordpress.com to Twitter to Dropbox, would be hit with massive lawsuits in which they would be found to be publishers with general knowledge of infringement, and thus liable, and the internet as we know it would be locked down in an instant.
That's not entirely true. Prior to the DMCA, standing copyright law would have made it even easier to go after a service provider for the content supplied by their users. That' why safe harbors were, in fact, an improvement -- though a qualified one, and one that came bundled with a bunch of bad things.
In fact, this exact point is very relevant to the YouTube v. Viacom ruling that just came out, and on which we will have a post momentarily. In short, it's a victory for youtube -- and one of the key points is that Viacom's argument relied on a pre-DMCA safe harbor notion of establishing liability, drawn from earlier copyright law. The judge specifically notes this fact and rejects the argument for that reason, calling it "anachronistic"
The fact is that both of you are right. The key is that there is a big difference between "derivative" and "transformative" -- you've used the terms interchangeably here, but they are in fact very distinct.
A work that builds upon another work is "derivative" (must license the original copyright, or else be infringing) until it reaches a certain level of change such that a court sees it as "transformative", at which point it is no longer considered to be infringing on the original.
The question of where that line is drawn is not simple or fully resolved. Different circuits have different standards, different judges will see things in different ways, and different artistic media have wildly different precedents. Copyright law lays out various tests for determining if a work is transformative, but they are not clear-cut and a lot of discretion resides with the judge -- so it's not just as simple as "get congress to change the law" (though that is certainly still a good goal).
A "group" in FB now is basically an enhanced mass email. You can add whoever you want to one. I'm assuming there's probably a way to block that buried in the granular privacy settings, but few people will have noticed/fully understood it.
not true -- collage is still fairly prominent in visual art, and the main things that keep it safe are the de minimis doctrine and the broader fair use argument (not just news/parody)
From a 2006 collage ruling:
Most importantly within the “purpose and character” factor, the court analyzed the transformative nature of Koons’s work. Courts will not “find a transformative use when the defendant has done no more than find a new way to exploit the creative virtues of the original work.” However, in this case, “Niagara” passes the transformative test “almost perfectly” because Koons changed the original copyrighted picture’s “colors, the background against which it is portrayed, the medium, the size of the objects pictured, their details.” Also, and “crucially,” Koons’s painting had an “entirely different purpose and meaning – as part of a massive painting commissioned for exhibition in a German art-gallery space.”
The transformative nature of Koon’s work dwarfed other issues, such as the commercial nature of the work and any bad faith allegations against Koons. Indeed, the court even minimized the parodic justification. The court did address the confusing and oft-criticized distinction between parody and satire (“parody needs to mimic an original to make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim’s … imagination, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing.”) before stating that “[t]he question is whether Koons had a genuine creative rationale for borrowing Blanch’s image, rather than using it merely to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh.”
In a copyright context, a lot of those questions are wrapped into the "impact on the market" pillar of a fair use defence -- and, indeed, they should really have much more prominence
CC is only enforceable via copyright. Existing exceptions to copyright -- fair use, transformative works, eventual release into the public domain, etc. -- all still apply to CC.
On the post: The Copy Culture Cryptic Crossword
Re: I've taken some liberties
On the post: The Copy Culture Cryptic Crossword
Re:
On the post: The Copy Culture Cryptic Crossword
Re:
On the post: The Copy Culture Cryptic Crossword
Re: Re: Re: Why not
On the post: The Copy Culture Cryptic Crossword
Re: Re: Free interactive crossword publishing
On the post: The Copy Culture Cryptic Crossword
Re: Free interactive crossword publishing
You may use the Software on any computer for non-commercial purposes. You may not use the Software to derive commercial value for yourself or for any commercial organization or government agency without the prior written consent of LitSoft.
Considering this is a commercial website, it seems using it to make crosswords here would violate the TOS. I suspect they don't really enforce that term, but nevertheless, it really put me off. "Non-commercial" terms are stupid and obsolete on the internet.
Of course, if there was considerable interest in this kind of thing, we'd totally consider a commercial license -- but im pretty sure this has very niche appeal and is not something i'll be doing too regularly.
On the post: The Copy Culture Cryptic Crossword
Re: Here's a solution that looks promising
On the post: The Copy Culture Cryptic Crossword
Re: Why not
On the post: MPAA Pretends To Be A Regular Defender Of Fair Use; The Evidence Suggests Otherwise
Re: Re: Re: Re:
most of the stuff is pretty old -- Techdirt keeps me very busy :) AJ is unable to comprehend the idea of making music as a hobby, though.
On the post: MPAA Pretends To Be A Regular Defender Of Fair Use; The Evidence Suggests Otherwise
Re:
Ergo copyright supporters are a tiny, tiny minority, and only a tiny fraction of art and culture has been generated under a copyright system.
On the post: Megaupload Points Out That The DOJ Has Contradicted Itself Concerning Legality Of Serving Megaupload
Re: SO no US address = immune from all prosecution?
On the post: In The Long History Of Specious DMCA Claims, This Is Definitely One Of Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Safe Harbors" in action
Sorry, don't agree.
On the post: In The Long History Of Specious DMCA Claims, This Is Definitely One Of Them
Re: Re: Re: "Safe Harbors" in action
You say there's "no downside"? I'm sorry, but I find that laughable. The "downside" of repealing DMCA safe harbors is obvious: virtually every popular internet service that exists, from Facebook to YouTube to Tumblr to Wordpress.com to Twitter to Dropbox, would be hit with massive lawsuits in which they would be found to be publishers with general knowledge of infringement, and thus liable, and the internet as we know it would be locked down in an instant.
On the post: In The Long History Of Specious DMCA Claims, This Is Definitely One Of Them
Re: "Safe Harbors" in action
In fact, this exact point is very relevant to the YouTube v. Viacom ruling that just came out, and on which we will have a post momentarily. In short, it's a victory for youtube -- and one of the key points is that Viacom's argument relied on a pre-DMCA safe harbor notion of establishing liability, drawn from earlier copyright law. The judge specifically notes this fact and rejects the argument for that reason, calling it "anachronistic"
On the post: When Is An Image 'Manipulated Enough' To Become An Original Creation?
Re: Re: Re: Re: YOU CANNOT COPYRIGHT NATURE!!
A work that builds upon another work is "derivative" (must license the original copyright, or else be infringing) until it reaches a certain level of change such that a court sees it as "transformative", at which point it is no longer considered to be infringing on the original.
The question of where that line is drawn is not simple or fully resolved. Different circuits have different standards, different judges will see things in different ways, and different artistic media have wildly different precedents. Copyright law lays out various tests for determining if a work is transformative, but they are not clear-cut and a lot of discretion resides with the judge -- so it's not just as simple as "get congress to change the law" (though that is certainly still a good goal).
On the post: Canadian Politician Removed From Provincial Assembly For Threats She Didn't Make On Facebook Group She Didn't Join
Re:
On the post: Government Has Already Fooled Us More Than Once On Privacy; History Belies How CISPA Will Be Used
Re: First problem is corporations collecting the data.
On the post: When Is An Image 'Manipulated Enough' To Become An Original Creation?
Re:
From a 2006 collage ruling:
Most importantly within the “purpose and character” factor, the court analyzed the transformative nature of Koons’s work. Courts will not “find a transformative use when the defendant has done no more than find a new way to exploit the creative virtues of the original work.” However, in this case, “Niagara” passes the transformative test “almost perfectly” because Koons changed the original copyrighted picture’s “colors, the background against which it is portrayed, the medium, the size of the objects pictured, their details.” Also, and “crucially,” Koons’s painting had an “entirely different purpose and meaning – as part of a massive painting commissioned for exhibition in a German art-gallery space.”
The transformative nature of Koon’s work dwarfed other issues, such as the commercial nature of the work and any bad faith allegations against Koons. Indeed, the court even minimized the parodic justification. The court did address the confusing and oft-criticized distinction between parody and satire (“parody needs to mimic an original to make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim’s … imagination, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing.”) before stating that “[t]he question is whether Koons had a genuine creative rationale for borrowing Blanch’s image, rather than using it merely to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh.”
http://whatisfairuse.blogspot.ca/2008/02/blanch-v-koons-fair-use-of-copyrighted.html
On the post: When Is An Image 'Manipulated Enough' To Become An Original Creation?
Re: The wrong question
On the post: When Is An Image 'Manipulated Enough' To Become An Original Creation?
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>