AP Accelerating It’s Own Demise with Misguided Plans

Today’s blogs are all afire writing about the latest twist in the AP’s comical and borderline pathetic attempts to shore up its broken and obsolete business model: charging outrageous fees to anyone looking to quote FIVE WORDS OR MORE from an AP article.

Should you read an AP article and want to quote it in a blog post you are asked to click on a “copyright use” link that leads you to this:

Now, I don’t want to guess what the AP thinks it can charge me for using this image.  The fact is, just because they charge doesn’t change the principle of “fair use” and this image is being used so that I can critique it’s absurdity.

The bigger problem, if you are the AP, is that everything about this policy is counter to the way information is consumed and shared in the modern, digital age.  The AP can bitch and moan all they want to about the “good old days” but that doesn’t make time move backwards.

As the ability for people to  both gather and distribute news around the globe grows, the question is not what will the AP do in some misguided attempt to protect its work from being shared but why do we really need the AP at all.  If the AP disappeared tomorrow news would continue to be reported and most people wouldn’t notice anything had happened.

That’s not a good sign for the AP.

Related articles by Zemanta

• I for one welcome AP’s war on links and fair use (inquisitr.com)
• By The AP’s Own Logic, The AP Ripped Off Obama (techdirt.com)
• Quote 5 Words From the Associated Press? That’ll Be $12.50 (mashable.com)

Pez Candy Company Threatens a Super-Fan in Classic Copyright FAIL

The deeper one digs into copyright laws and how they are wielded the more confused I become.

First, I hear a story on NPR about a guy who runs a tiny Pez “museum” where lovers of the iconic candy dispenser often travel from miles away just to share in their obsession.  Sounds harmless, right?  In fact, I’d go further and say, we’re I the head of Pez, “Wow! That’s fantastic.  This guys is providing us with a wealth of free publicity and keeping our product firmly in the minds of our customers and we don’t have  to do anything but reap the rewards!”

Instead, the Pez people have done nothing but harass this guy…

Doss says this is not the first time he and Pez have crossed dispensers. When he first opened the place, Pez made him change the name from the “Pez Museum” to the mouthful it now is — “the Burlingame Museum of Pez Memorabilia.” Doss calls it harassment.

“It’s as if we’re making something here and putting their name on it. That’s not what we’re doing,” he says.

But Pez Candy Inc. says that’s exactly what the museum is doing. If it was just selling all things Pez, that’d be fine, they say. But, they add, you can’t sell things that aren’t official merchandise, like Pez T-shirts the museum printed up. And you can’t use that 7-foot-tall Pez dispenser the museum made, that stands just inside the front door.

Alan Behr is the lawyer for Pez in Connecticut. He says it’s not really a giant Pez dispenser because Pez doesn’t make a giant dispenser.

“It’s only Pez if we say it’s Pez. The same way you will not see a Mickey Mouse in the United States made by anybody but Disney,” he explains. “It’s only Mickey Mouse if Disney says it’s Mickey Mouse. Otherwise, it’s an infringement. You have to control what is core to your brand.”      LINK

Yes, the boldface is my own addition.  I didn’t want you to miss that last point.  According to the Pez Candy Company it is more important to control your brand (whatever the hell that means) than it is to support super-fans who have the potential to create sales both directly and indirectly.  Rather than give this guy a big pat on the back, they are turning him against them! Where is the profit in this? Where is the logic?!

It’s enough to drive a guy insane, I tell ya…

Also, will Pez Candy come after me for using an image of their dispenser with express written consent?  Stay tuned.

Are the Fine Arts Exempt from Copyright Lawsuits?

While groups like the RIAA and the MPAA do everything in their power to stamp out creativity in the name of protecting some glorified sense of intellectual property, it looks like painters are having no problem profiting from work that clearly borrows the images of previously copyrighted content.

A great example of this is the Crazy 4 Cult 3-D Artwork show put on by Gallery1988.  All the work in the show was based on a number of cult film favorites including “Edward Scissorhands” and “Pee Wee’s Big Adventure.”  Below is an example of one of many paintings based on “The Big Lebowski”

Now, there is absolutely no question that this is The Dude himself and one highly doubts that the artist, Misha, would have been able to sell the painting for $800.00 if it was just some random guy, instead.

So, here’s the question: why is this work protected but not, say, the work of musical mashup DJs?  Both are creating original work from existing content and both benefit from the public awareness of the underlying works.  Or how about the ridiculous case of J.D. Salinger suing to stop publication of a book that explores the character of Holden Caufield as an old man?

The point is that we’ve truly lost our way in terms of copyright law.  While creativity and technology have come together to allow for an exponential growth in the reach of diversity of new art the lawyers and those paying their wages are doing everything in their power to shut down the whole process.

Rick-Rolling Kurt Cobain Round in His Grave

One of the most frustrating things about the way copyright law is as a tool to shut down creativity.  In the world of music, this is best exemplified by the “mashup” where an artist takes elements of pre-existing songs and remixes them into something never heard before.

This recent example, taking Rick Astley’s meme-sensation “Never Gonna Give You Up” and mashing it will Nirvana classic “Smells like Teen Spirit,” is a blast:

Now, it is hard to understand how this video could be seen as a crime against the original artists but it will likely be shut down if the creator, DJ Morgoth of Germany, ever tried to profit from his efforts.

Can you imagine the trouble an artist like Andy Warhol would have had today?  He would never have made it out the gates without a fleet of lawyers on retainer.

Also, wasn’t “Teen Spirit” a trademarked deodorant? Where was their law suit?!

MacGyver Should Sue MacGruber. Right?

Considering the way that judges have been ruling lately, seemingly bending over backwards in an effort to “protect” intellectual copyrights against evil writers (see: J.D. Salinger v. John David California), musicians (see: GirlTalk) and artists (see: Shepard Fairey) I am waiting for the next law suit to be filed in MacGyver v. MacGruber.

See, MacGyver was a TV from the 80’s where a guy would somehow extricate himself from a bad jam with nothing more than a stick of gum, a ballpoint pen and his belt.

MacGruber is a Saturday Night Live skit in which Will Forte plays a guy who tries to do exactly what MacGyver did, but fails.

Now, there would be absolutely no entertainment value at all to MacGruber if it weren’t for the existence of MacGyver.  One could easily argue that the producers of MacGruber should pay the producers of MacGyver for having taken their premise and turning it into a mockery.

Of course, MacGruber is a parody and should be protected from such a law suit.

In fact, I’ll bet the MacGruber people are already figuring out how much it is going to cost.

Judge Indefinitely Bans “Coming Through The Rye”

If there is one thing I learned during almost ten years developing feature film scripts, is that there is no such thing as a completely original idea.

Every script I read (well into the thousands) could be seen as being derivative of a pre-existing work.  In fact, if one eliminated every script from Hollywood that was derivative of a pre-existing work there wouldn’t be any screenplays left.

The same can be said for the world of novels.

Unfortunately, one Judge Betts disagrees and has indefinitely banned the wholly original novel “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye” which imagines what  Holden Caufield would be like at the age of 76.  While clearly building from the foundations of “A Catcher in the Rye” there is nothing in the new work that is a direct quote or paraphrase from the original.

Judge Betts has rejected the defenses’ argument that the new novel…

…did not violate copyright laws because it amounted to a critical parody that had the effect of transforming the original work.

This is one of the major elements of the “fair use” defense and one that did not strike me as even a bit far-fetched.  Instead, Judge Betts claimed:

“Both narratives are told from the first-person point of view of a sarcastic, often uncouth protagonist who relies heavily on slang, euphemisms and colloquialisms, makes constant digression and asides, refers to readers in the second person, constantly assures the reader that he is being honest and that he is giving them the truth.”    LINK

If that’s enough to ban a this book, I’m sure there is an endless stream of young adult fiction that should certainly be given the same treatment.

Seeing judges ban books is never a good thing.  Seeing a judge ban a book for such flimsy reasons as this is downright frightening.  If her ruling stands, expect to see a long line of similar suits in the near future.

Morning Fun – Winston Churchill Remixed

Maybe because the sun is out and the sky is blue but I thought it would be nice to start the day with a great example of how the art of the remix deserves to be recognized as original art and not just a series of thefts.

I present to you, Winston Churchill, Remixed:

Should Care Bears and My Little Pony Sue Atom.com and Dan Meth?

The extremely talented Dan Meth has made a very funny animated short that imagines what it would be like if the cuddly toys of our childhood were remade into violent action films.

Among the characters used are the Care Bears, My Little Pony and a number of other recognizable copyrighted characters.  Now, logically, this would fall under the “fair use” clause of the copyright laws since Dan Meth actually drew his own versions of these characters and placed them in completely original scenarios.

Funny Videos | Funny Cartoons | More Video Clips

However, look at the J.D. Salinger v. John David California case in which Salinger is claiming that California’s book, an imagining of Cauldin Hauffield as a 76-year-old man, is infringing on his copyright for the character as it exists in “A Catcher in the Rye.”

In both cases, the later artist has taken an existing and well-known character and transplanted a new version of that character into a foreign landscape.  In both cases, it could be argued, that the later artist has used the original character in ways that it’s first creator never intended.  It could even be argued that these new versions could have an effect on how people feel about the original versions.

In both cases, a major reason anyone would be interested in the new work is exactly because it is a reimagining of a well known pre-existing character(s).  Without our original understanding and knowledge of the Care Bears as sickly sweet, plush, pastel bears, Dan Meth’s version of those bears as violent, blood-dripping My Little Pony killers there really wouldn’t be any point to the video at all.

The multi-million dollar question is does this mean that Dan Meth should have to a) get permission from the underlying rights holder prior to making a cartoon like this and b) does he owe that rights holder a percentage of any profits derived from the new work?

Even more complicated is deciding where to draw that line.

Just another example of why our current copyright laws are inadequate both for everyone involved.

Dear RIAA, Shut Down PS22 Quick! They’re Evil Thieves!

There is a heartwarming story making it’s way around the webosphere about an adorable elementary school chorus that sings covers of pop songs, including works by Coldplay, Survivor and Fleetwood Mac:

It turns out that this particular video make it all the way to Stevie Nicks herself:

Just got word from Stevie Nicks tour manager that she was completely blown away by the PS22 Chorus rendition of her song “Landslide!” He said she asked him to replay 2 times afterwards, crying each time she watched! Talk about humbling!! And the kicker?? She invited the PS22 Chorus to sing the song at Madison Square Garden for the upcoming June 11th Fleetwood Mac show!! Holy cow!!! Thanks must go to Perez Hilton for getting our video out there and making this incredible opportunity happen for the kids! Unbelievable!! LINK

Wonderful, right?

However, this seems like a video ripe for takedown by the RIAA.  These kids did not get the rights to perform this song and they are now spreading their cover for free!  This is just the sort of activity the record industry seems to keen on stopping – whether it is a chorus of school-kids or a couple of people doing a karaoke version of the latest Beyonce tune.

Of course, the idea that this video could somehow create a direct negative impact to the sales of Fleetwood Mac songs is simply absurd.  That won’t stop groups like the RIAA from spitting out takedown notices and DMCA claims faster than you can say, “hey, that was cute.”

Admittedly, the world of copyright law is beyond complicated but we need to find a way to let people legally play with all the content released into the world.  People are going to play with it no matter what so it’s really just a question of whether or not energy is spent prosecuting people or facilitating them.  I wonder which choice would make more money in the long run.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Cutest Chorus Ever: PS22 Chorus Sings “Landslide” by Fleetwood Mac (neatorama.com)

Best Rebuttal Ever to the Three-Strike Internet Laws

Just a short post to point out the brilliance of Ed Felten’s satiric proposal that France should extend its online three-strike law to the world of print:

My proposed system is simplicity itself. The government sets up a registry of accused infringers. Anybody can send a complaint to the registry, asserting that someone is infringing their copyright in the print medium. If the government registry receives three complaints about a person, that person is banned for a year from using print.

As in the Internet case, the ban applies to both reading and writing, and to all uses of print, including informal ones. In short, a banned person may not write or read anything for a year.

If you haven’t been following this issue, France is on its way to signing a bill into law that would require ISP’s to ban people from the internet for one year if they are accused of downloading copyrighted content more than three times.  Yes, accused of downloading, not convicted of it.

Read the whole post here.