 |
Copyright in the News
| |
Che Guevara: copyright heroics
Guerrillero Heroico ("Heroic Guerrilla Fighter") is the tile of Alberto Korda's iconic photo of Che Guevara. Taken on March 5, 1960, when Guevara was 31, in Havana, Cuba, at a memorial service for victims of the La Coubre explosion Korda said, he was drawn to Guevara's facial expression, which showed "absolute implacability". See Wikipedia article ...
The photograph was internationally exploited by an Italian businessman in 1967 - the year of his death and seven years after it was taken. Korda tried to gain control of some of its commercial use but was apparently happy that “... as a supporter of the ideals for which Che Guevara died, I am not averse to its reproduction by those who wish to propagate his memory” . However, he did not agree with its use for advertising for instance alcohol and sued Smirnoff Vodka giving his out-of-court settlement money to Havana healthcare. The distinction between commercial and non-commercial is perhaps, and in the end, the only sustainable one that copyright exceptions for education (= learning) can make in the digital age.
The image of Korda's photograph is apparently in the public domain as Cuba was not part of the World copyright system at the time it was published. The image of Guevara's face that we usually see was cropped from the original photograph. See 'Guerrillero_Heroico' in Wikipedia Commons Cuba signed the Berne convention in 1997
Diana Diaz - Korda's daughter - since his death in 2001 - has been pursuing companies who use the image commercially for compensation. However, to fund this work, she has herself sold licences to a range of 'Che' products - berets, t-shirts and basball caps. The paradox of the Marxist revolutionary's image becoming a global icon and now a brand is all too apparent; as author Michael Casey points out, "As Cuba has demonstrated, 'revolution' is a brand, not a goal in istelf." The extent to which, if at all, a person or the ideas they stood for, can live through an iconic image remains very open.
:: About Alberto Korda
:: Guardian article: Jamie Doward 7th March 2010
:: Book: 'Che's Afterlife: The Legacy of an Image' by Michael Casey.
| | |
| |
Jim Fitzpatrick, an Irish graphic designer, made the original poster style image in 1967. See his very interesting Flickr page Making of an Icon which tells the story and shows a series of versions and uses of the image ... Fitzpatrick gave copies of his image away -free on the streets of London as part of the expression of his belief in what Guevara stood for. His image has been versioned and developed all over the world ever since. Fitzpatrick has said that any royalties he does collect will, following Korda's lead, be donated to the Havanna children's hospital.
A spoof Andy Warhol version, based on Fitzpatrick's image has become one of the best selling prints. See Fake Warhol Guevara rip off.
Obama Hope image - (See below) - has the same 'gaze' - looking out beyond the camera, the viewer and the immediate concerns of the context to a wider, far-seeing, dimension of life than perceived by us poorer mortals. Not that this use of the 'further-seeing gaze' is in anyway new - but has been used in posters, painted portraits and sculpture for centuries.
| |
Stephen Fry 'The Digital Revolution' ...
| |
Stephen Fry on copyright in the digital age. A new 'collaborative' project by the BBC. Rushes and sequences from the programme are available for viewing download or embedding with a BBC Digital Revolution licence; looks like a derivative of the earlier BBC 'Creative Archive licence' itself based on the Creative Commons structure. In this case you must acknowledge Fry andd the BBC but can re-use, edit and mix but again must keep the share-alike licence and acknowledgements going.
:: view and download from the BBC.
:: read the licence from the BBC.
... and more ...
:: Stephen Fry on Copyright at the Round House, 2009 via You Tube.
and ...
:: About the BBC archive
| |
© the way ahead: November 2009
| |
Wikipedia versus National Portrait Gallery
National Portrait Gallery (UK) threaten legal action against Wikipedia (USA) because one of its contributors has been systematically downloading high-resolution images from the NPG website and adding them to Wikipedia. The resultant discussion has raised a number of issues that learners and teachers face every day. Watch this space to see how this important 'debate' is resolved.
:: The images were extracted from behind a protection application.
:: The NPG offered, over a long period of time, lower quality images such as it uses as an alternative.
:: Wikipedia uses several rationales for its image publishing based on USA public domain rules, 'fair use' and the idea of the 'Corel vs Bridgeman' case (read twice!). It also points out that it's rationale might not pertain in other countries.
:: NPG works to "fair dealing" and UK law.
:: NPG rationale is that charges for images are ploughed back to enable it to fulfill its duty of providing free access to the Gallery and its website.
:: Read report on Culture 24 (UK).
:: Follow discussion on Wikimedia
:: To see the portrait of Shakespeare by John Taylor - the Chandos portrait - of about 1610 click here:
'Shakespeare' © National Portrait Gallery, London. NPG 'copyright guidance'
:: Read NPG Copyright, Creator's Rights and Terms of Use
| |
Obama - who owns the look of Hope?
Twitter-age summary; quotes are paraphrases.
:: Freelance photographer, Mannie Garcia, takes photo of an upandcoming politican Obama in April 2006 for Associated Press (AP)
:: 5 Nov 2008: Barak Obama gets elected President of USA.
:: Artist Shepard Fairey searches web using Google Images for a likely picky of Obama to represent the new age dawning - chooses the Garcia one.
:: ... artist chooses to crop image to just show Obama's head ... (original has added 'Clooney')
:: ... and makes a posterised-style high-key colour image for a poster which is widley distributed and re-used on election posters, buttons, etc. The colours of the USA flag (public domain) in the background are transferred to the representation of Obama's face.
:: Press Association (PA) cry, "Foul! we own the photo-image; you can't do this!"
:: Photographer says, "Well I sort of expect it... and, at this point, goes the modest route for 'recompense' - "it would be nice to have a signed copy of the print or something."
:: PA not so modestly bring in the legal guys....
:: Opposing eagles say: "It's fair use"... and "he didn't make any money" ... and "it was just part of the original photo" ... and "he's created something new and transformative" ... and so on ...
:: Photographer changes position and says "It's my copyright", and sues both PA and Shepard Fairey saying "I wasn't a PA employee anyway".
:: PA say "he was so ..."
:: Fairey gets more famous and his poster is hung in big galleries and copies of the poster sell well on e-Bay...
:: Fairey says "in any case PA used a photo by another photographer of my poster without my permission ..."
:: PA say "well we own the copyright and we want acknowledgement and compensation... "
:: "... so it goes ..." (K. Vonnegut - wasn't there but might well have written the story - 'CopyCatch 22' perhaps)
Shapesoftime says:
:: A photographer is not just an automan-recorder - it's being there and having the skill to identify/capture the "decisive moment" (as in Cartier-Bresson) that counts and that is an expression of a fact/idea that can (in UK) be copyrighted and should be acknowledged.
:: At this point everyone has won: Fairey is a better known artists; Garcia a better known photographer and PA's photo image is worth a great deal more than before the artist used it ... there's now at least two iconic images and one iconic persona involved - so if everyone has won how does compensation fit in?
:: "Fair Use" is a USA term and doesn't apply in UK which has "fair dealing", which is quite different. It is worth noting that "Fair Use", requires that you create something new, something "transformative", out of your use of someone else's work - it's not just about getting a 'free' copy.
:: Point to watch 1: be sure who you are vis a vis employment when you get creative
:: Point to watch 2: provide acknowledgements and sources for your use of other people's work.
:: One point everyone agrees on: Obama, as a public person doing a public thing and, to some extent an embodiment of the public, has absolutley no say ... particularly as its a nice picture of him.
:: Fairey's creative method isn't a 'click the posterise button' on 'Photoshop' but is a more traditional process - quite 'painterly' - think Rauschenberg, Warhol, etc... pre-digital guys.
:: The eyes looking beyond us into a wider dimension of life is a 'gaze' Obama's 'Hope' image shares with, amongst others, the Che Guevara image - (see above).
| | |
| |
Obama's smile: person or persona
| |
Teaching copyright: USA
The EFF has published a wide ranging set of resources called Teaching Copyright - teachers, pupils, parents would all find it helpful. It sets out, as the EFF, sees it, to redress the imbalance that exists through general 'public' misconceptions about copyright and those exaccerbated by the undue appropriation of rights by organisations representing some rights holders and 'publishers/distributors'.
The Copyright Alliance has set up a new non-profit charitable arm of the Alliance that will develop educational programs aimed at helping America’s next generation of creators succeed. See: Copyright Alliance
Following recent national reviews and consultation's the UK can expect a similar rush of copyright resources aimed at education over the next couple fo years.
FAQ
Q: And who are the EFF?
A: The Electronic Frontier Foundation. http://www.eff.org/ - civil liberties group defending citizen rights in the digital world.
Published July 2009
| |
Hooray! Wikipedia goes Creative Commons
After long negotiations Wikipedia has formally adopted the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) license as the main content license for Wikipedia and other Wikimedia sites.
Another significant step in interoperability enabling free culture.
Read more:
:: CC Blog
Published June 2009
| |
Penguins on the loose: March 2008
There are an increasing number of instances where digital publishers, in both the commercial and cultural sectors, are making some material more openly available for private and education use, keeping protection measures for materials and misuses that cause real harm to creators or their commercial practice. Taking this increased level of risk may well be balanced by finding new audiences and new streams of revenue.
Penguin books have announced that, like fellow publishers Random House, they would experiment with selling "DRM-free" digital versions of its audiobooks on the internet. Marjorie Scardino, Chief Executive of Pearson, who own Penguin, said that while it was vital to protect intellectual property, "I don't think we can be worried about every incursion from electronic selling and electronic use. We have got to think about what the future is going to be and look at how to experiment with it."
Story, 'Guardian', 4th March 2008
DRM? = Digital Rights Management, is a general term ranging from embedded information, through tracking to proprietary protection measures such as time limited use (e.g. BBC) and platform specific use (e.g iPod). The term TPMS (= technical protection measures) is sometime used to refer any technology (e.g. mechanical like dongle or digital) used to restrict access/protect material. There are widespread concerns that such measures can, in the course of protecting copyright owners rights and distributors' business modles, restrict the 'rights' of the citizen by effectively keeping materials in copyright for ever and eroding 'fair dealing' uses.
:: When were Penguin's first published? What do the different colours mean? See the story of Penguin books.
| |
'You Tube' versus Viacom ..... and others: 2007-2008-?
Latest twist - 4th July 2008 - ajudge in USA says Viacom can have all the user data from Google to help build their case; why are individuals details from round the world requried to do this...surely usage stats for items posted would be sufficient?
29th June 2008: Viacom - owners of MTV, SpongeBobSquarePants, South Park et al - are suing 'You Tube' for infringement of copyright for allowing hundreds of clips of their videos to be posted and published through 'You Tube'. 'Viacom' did not take the option of sharing advertising revenue from 'You Tube', instead they are claiming $1bn damages (150,000 clips watched by over 1.5 billion viewers).
And it's not just Viacom; A group led by the Football League and more music publishers (think Elvis, ZZTop, Meat Loaf) are taking similar action. July 2009 US court rules that UK group can't sue as they didn't take out USA copyrights.
Google's defence? "Viacom's complaint threatens the way millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment and political and artistic expression."
But... everyone is watching... is the way You Tube works covered by the DMCA or not? That is the question Horatio....
DMCA? The DMCA (or Digital Millenium Copyright Act) is a law in USA offering isp and internet providers "safe harbour" against claims which actually reside with the person who puts up the stuff. The flakey part being that millions of people clearly go to 'You Tube' as consumers of Viacom's and other publishers works...so are we taking commerce or internet freedom?
factoid :: Google paid £830 million for 'You Tube'.
case still pending (july 2009)
| |
Virgin Mobile adverts: September 2007
In 2007 'Virgin Mobile' in Australia had a bright aisea for an advertsing campaign. Taken some amatuer photographs from 'Flicker', add some edgey titles and post iberally around the environment.
The Hire Car Crash advert
Orignal Flickr photo and the Virgin Ad: Photo. Gillian Gunson, Flickr profile. This photo is licenced - some rights reserved with Creative Commons licence, Creative Commons, Gillian Gunson, BY-SA 2.0 deed.en GB
:: Read the story ... 'Car smash advert and they flipped the photo too!
The Pen Pal advert
In September a Flickr users noticed the adverts had a Flickr link printed on them and wonderd if the person who had taken the photo actually knew about it. He posted his photo and thoughts onto Flicker and Hey Presto! the girl in the photograph replied.."hey that's me! no joke. i think i'm being insulted...can you tell me where this was taken."
and a little later the original photgrapher, "I took that!". Neither the girl in the ad nor the photographer knew anything about it.
The original photograph had been taken at a community event by a friend and posted on Flickr to share. A 'Creative Commons' licence had een used - the one that asked for acknowledgement but he didn't choose the "non-commercial" option. The photographer began a process to sue Flickr for not informing him more fully about the meaning of 'Creative Commons' licences, though this suit was dropped on the basis that it wasn't Flickr's role to do this.
The girl in the photograph was a minor and her parents set out to sue Virgin Mobile in terms of invasion of privacy and the use of the image. Latest! The case is still pending...
The Images On Flicker
:: See the advert and the original discussion... advert and discussion
:: Another Flickr user had a different take on Virgin Mobile's use of their photograph...'Delete them' advert
Original news stories, Sept 2007
:: story 1
:: story 2
:: story 3
What can we learn?
:: big companies don't necessarily know/abide by the rules
:: 'Flickr ' works: both as a publishing tool and as a community
:: 'Creative Commons' works: though you need to understand the different categories and choose appropriately.
:: personal image safety matters...
:: ...and, matters even more for minors
:: it's about respect for the people in and behind the image
:: oh...and designers will flip images to fit...whatever...
.
| |
Rotten Apples: Beatles vs i-Pod: May 2006.
Once upon a time, in 1991, the two Apples made an agreement following a lawsuit that spelled out how each company would be allowed to cut the big pie and use the their Apple trademarks. Apple Computer paid Apple Corps $27 million and agreed not to enter the music distribution business under the Apple Computer name and logo.
However, Apple Corps said it believed Apple Computer has been doing just that with the iTunes Music Store, and filed a new suit in 2003. (Music fans can purchase and download songs to their PCs through iTunes.)
The judge disagreed with Apple Corps, upholding Apple Computer's argument that it wasn't violating the 1991 agreement because it was not the original source of the content available on iTunes. "For (Apple) Computer to cross into Corps' territory with its (trade)mark it would have to have indicated, by its use of the mark, that (Apple) Computer was the source or origin of the music." The judge wrote, "It did not do so and has never done so." In other words they only passed the music on..they weren't a record label as such, so that was OK.
More reports...
C/net news
zdnet news
the offical court ruling.
History of the Apple Computer logo
The original Apple logo was designed by Jobs and Wayne, and depicts Isaac Newton sitting under an apple tree. However, this design was soon to be replaced by the now famous rainbow apple; There were many people who said Apple Computers would go bankrupt if they went ahead with the rainbow Apple logo," says Rob Janoff, the graphic designer credited with thinking up the world-famous emblem. Janoff, 57, first met Jobs while working at Palo Alto in California. Janoff received no extra payment for the logo. Read the full story in Wired.
BTW: First legal download from Beatles is the version of Sgt Pepper recorded by McCartney and U2 at the Live 8 concert in a world record time of 45 minutes from recording to download. It's just 0.99p
| |
The great MIRO take away: 20th April 2006
| |
Earlier stories and reviews
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
2550
|
|
Shapes of Time
Copyright - Copyleft
Introduction
Resources! Marvels!
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
