This issue is press heavy. I am reading the Bill, re-reading it, and enjoying the commentary.
Text of Bill C-61 here.
Great fact sheets here.
Information of the legislative process re a Canadian Bill here.
20080614
20080602
Radiohead v. Prince
I attended Coachella Valley Music and Arts festival this year, where Prince performed on the Saturday night and covered Radiohead's 'Creep'. When clips appeared on YouTube Prince's label had them removed. Thom Yorke responded:
Associated Press Story
Let's look for potential copyright in this picture.
The Copyright Act section outlining "works":
Section 3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, “copyright”, in relation to a work, means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever, to perform the work or any substantial part thereof in public or, if the work is unpublished, to publish the work or any substantial part thereof, and includes the sole right.......
The song Creep (music and lyrics) is a work, and let's assume Thom Yorke is the owner. As owner, he has the right to perform the song Creep (music and lyrics) in public. However, it seems that Prince is the owner of another work: his performance of Creep. The person who filmed Prince's performance may have treaded on Prince's right to publicly present the work as a cinematographic work on YouTube. Who should decide? Thom?
As you can see, Copyright and ownership is complex and intermingled.
"Really? He's blocked it?" asked Yorke, who figured it was their song to block or not. "Surely we should block it. Hang on a moment."
Yorke added: "Well, tell him to unblock it. It's our ... song.
Associated Press Story
Let's look for potential copyright in this picture.
The Copyright Act section outlining "works":
Section 3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, “copyright”, in relation to a work, means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever, to perform the work or any substantial part thereof in public or, if the work is unpublished, to publish the work or any substantial part thereof, and includes the sole right.......
(d) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, to make any sound recording, cinematograph film or other contrivance by means of which the work may be mechanically reproduced or performed,
(e) in the case of any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, to reproduce, adapt and publicly present the work as a cinematographic work,
(f) in the case of any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, to communicate the work to the public by telecommunication
......The song Creep (music and lyrics) is a work, and let's assume Thom Yorke is the owner. As owner, he has the right to perform the song Creep (music and lyrics) in public. However, it seems that Prince is the owner of another work: his performance of Creep. The person who filmed Prince's performance may have treaded on Prince's right to publicly present the work as a cinematographic work on YouTube. Who should decide? Thom?
As you can see, Copyright and ownership is complex and intermingled.
New Copyright Bill this Summer
Geist reports on his blog that the new Copyright Bill is being introduced Wednesday.
The draft may well circulate before the CSUSA meeting next week.
The draft may well circulate before the CSUSA meeting next week.
20080601
CSUSA - Annual Meeting
The Copyright Society of the USA (CSUSA) is having their general meeting on June 8th to June 10th in Newport, Rhode Island. CSUSA is:
"dedicated to advancing the study of copyright law and related rights in literature, music, art, theater, motion pictures, television, computer software, architecture, and other works of authorship, distributed via both traditional and new media".Page of meeting details
20080531
solar iPods
I came across a patent application relating to solar cells on portable devices. It may be linked to (or owned by) Apple.
U.S. Patent Application No. 20080094025
A sample claim:
U.S. Patent Application No. 20080094025
A sample claim:
A portable data processing system, comprising:a processing system;a memory coupled to the processing system;a set of solar cells coupled to the processing system, the set of solar cells including a first group of solar cells having at least one solar cell and a second group of solar cells having at least one solar cell, each group of solar cells coupled in series with the processing system and the memory to provide power to the processing system and the memory, the first group of solar cells capable of providing sufficient power to the processing system and the memory when the second group of solar cells is at least partially obstructed, and the second group of solar cells capable of providing sufficient power to the processing system and the memory when the first group of solar cells is at least partially obstructed.
20080529
Orphan works
A great resource for orphan works is the U.S. Copyright Office's page
For a detailed review check out the Statement of Marybeth Peters before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and IP. The recommendation:
For a detailed review check out the Statement of Marybeth Peters before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and IP. The recommendation:
"we recommended a framework whereby a legitimate orphan works owner who resurfaces may bring an action for “reasonable compensation” against a qualifying user. A user does not qualify for the benefits of orphan works legislation unless he first conducts a good faith, reasonably diligent (but unsuccessful) search for the copyright owner"In Canada, we call them unlocatable copyright owners, an overview of Canadian treatment is on The Copyright Board of Canada's page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
