Artists Don\u27t Get No Respect: Panel on Attribution and Integrity

When I was considering the question of the moral right to attribution and how unauthorized fan creativity relates to that concept, it struck me that there are two interesting issues from a theoretical perspective. The first is: who gets the credit? When I was in law school and discovered fan fiction, the reason why I got into intellectual property was because most of these stories had a disclaimer-no copyright infringement intended, these characters aren\u27t mine, I\u27m not making any money, please don\u27t sue. And as a student, my question was – does that work? Is that good enough? I was interested in these disclaimers because copyright law does not have an explicit place in the fair use test for evaluating disclaimers as a factor favoring a defense in the way that trademark law does. I, nonetheless, concluded that, in general, fan fiction was going to be fair use. It has yet to be litigated to any particular conclusion. Although cease and desist letters do so still go out, and fans still either comply or they say no, generally there is no result. That is, I think a lot of the copyright owners are unwilling to deal with the publicity and the possibility of finding this as fair use in a litigated case

Writing About Comics and Copyright

Academics who research and write about the visual world often complain about the way in which copyright law can hinder their scholarly endeavours, and with good reason. Writing about visual work without reproducing that work is an impoverished exercise, for both writer and reader. But, reproducing visual material can trigger concerns on the part of the conscientious author or – more often – demands on the part of the publisher about the need to secure copyright permission. In this respect, comics scholarship is no different from any other field of visual or cultural studies. Clearing rights for publication can be frustrating and time-consuming, and academic publishers often manage the business of copyright clearance by making their authors responsible for securing permissions. European Comic Art provides a good example. When an article is accepted for publication, authors are ‘required to submit copyright agreements and all necessary permission letters for reprinting or modifying copyrighted materials, both textual and graphic’, and are ‘responsible for obtaining all permissions and clearing any associated fees.’ Not all publishers, however, adhere to such a black and white position. The Journal of Graphic Novels and Comics is published by Taylor & Francis. In the ‘Authors Services’ section of their website, the publisher acknowledges that reproducing short extracts of text and other types of material ‘for the purposes of criticism may be possible without formal permission’. To better understand when permission is needed, the publisher directs its authors to the Publishers Association’s Permissions Guidelines. To better understand what rights need to be cleared, authors are directed to the publisher’s own FAQs about using third-party material in an academic article. Thirteen of the publisher’s FAQs expressly relate to the reproduction of visual material, and of those only two concede the possibility of reproducing work without permission (they relate to, respectively, the use of ‘screenshots or grabs of film or video’ and the use of ‘very old paintings’). What is not clear from the FAQs document is whether the publisher is purporting to accurately represent the law in this area. If so – as we shall see – the FAQs document is clearly deficient. If, however, Taylor & Francis is simply using the FAQs document to set out the parameters of its own editorial policy on the reproduction of copyright-protected third-party material, then so be it: the publisher is perfectly entitled to adopt such editorial guidelines as it sees fit. I would suggest, though, that in cleaving to an editorial policy that fails to take full advantage of the scope which the copyright regime allows for the lawful reproduction of copyright-protected material without need for permission, the publisher is missing an opportunity to enable and encourage its contributors to augment and enrich comics scholarship as a discipline. It is in this respect that The Comics Grid is more ambitious and forward-thinking: it actively promotes the lawful use of copyright-protected content for the purposes of academic scholarship. The journal’s copyright policy sets out that third-party images are reproduced on the basis of ‘educational fair use’, with readers and contributors directed to Columbia University Libraries’ Fair Use Checklist for further information. This is a checklist that has been developed to help academics and other scholars make a reasonable and balanced determination about whether their use of copyright-protected work is permissible under s.107 of the US Copyright Act 1976: the fair use provision. Obviously, The Comics Grid locates its copyright advice within the context of US copyright law. But, as a Glasgow-based academic, with an interest in both the history and the current state of the UK copyright regime, my particular focus within this comic concerns the extent to which academics – or indeed anyone interested in writing about comics – can rely upon UK copyright law to reproduce extracts and excerpts from published comics and graphic novels without having to ask the copyright owner for permission. To address that issue we must consider three key questions. What constitutes ‘a work’ protected by copyright within the context of comics publishing? What does it mean to speak of ‘insubstantial copying’ from a copyright-protected comic? And what can be copied lawfully from a comic for the purpose of criticism and review

Unauthorised adaptation of computer programmes - is criminalisation a solution?

In Haupt t/a Softcopy v Brewers Marketing Intelligence (Pty) Ltd 2006 4 SA 458 (SCA) Haupt sought to enforce a copyright claim in the Data Explorer computer programme against Brewers Marketing Intelligence (Pty) Ltd. His claim was dismissed in the High Court and he appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The Court held that copyright in the Data Explorer programme vested in Haupt. Haupt acquired copyright in the Data Explorer programme regardless of the fact that the programme was as a result of an unauthorised adaptation of the Project AMPS programme which belonged to Brewers Marketing Intelligence (Pty) Ltd.This case note inter alia analyses the possibility of an author being sued for infringement even though he has acquired copyright in a work that he created by making unauthorised adaptations to another's copyright material. Furthermore, it examines whether or not the law adequately protects copyright owners in situations where infringement takes the form of unauthorised adaptations of computer programmes. It is argued that the protection afforded by the Copyright Act 98 of 1978 (Copyright Act) in terms of section 27(1) to copyright owners of computer programmes is narrowly defined. It excludes from its ambit of criminal liability the act of making unauthorised adaptation of computer programmes. The issue that is considered is therefore whether or not the unauthorised adaptation of computer programmes should attract a criminal sanction. In addressing this issue and with the aim of making recommendations, the legal position in the United Kingdom (UK) is analysed. From the analysis it is recommended that the Copyright Act be amended by the insertion of a new section, section 27(1)(A), which will make the act of making an unauthorised adaptation of a computer programme an offence. This recommended section will close the gap that currently exists in our law with regard to unauthorised adaptations of computer programmes

A Response to Professor Menell: A Remix Compulsory License Is Not Justified

At the recent Columbia Law School Kernochan Center Symposium Creation Is Not Its Own Reward: Making Copyright Work for Authors and Performers, a diverse group of creators, academics, lobbyists and practicing attorneys presented their views on how copyright law succeeds or fails in providing the creators of copyrighted works with appropriate rights and protections in the ever-changing digital copyright ecosystem. Speakers disagreed not only on whether or not the copyright system was working in favor of or against the interests of creators, but also on fundamental copyright principles. This is not surprising; while most academics and practitioners seem to accept, to one extent or another, that creators are not treated well in the digital age, there is no consensus on the 200-year-old constitutional threshold question: should copyright be viewed as a property interest or an economic theory? If a property interest, then copyright might actually work better for authors and performers in the future. But if an economic theory, the chance for authors and performers to thrive and prosper in the digital era decreases dramatically

Copyright and Creativity: Authors and Photographers

The history of the occupations “author” and “photographer” provides an insightful perspective on copyright and creativity. The concept of the romantic author, associated with personal creative genius, gained prominence in the eighteenth century. However, in the U.S. in 1900 only about three thousand persons professed their occupation to be “author.” Self-professed “photographers” were then about ten times as numerous as authors. Being a photographer was associated with manufacturing and depended only on mastering technical skills and making a living. Being an author, in contrast, was an elite status associated with science and literature. Across the twentieth century, the number of writers and authors grew much more rapidly than the number of photographers. The relative success of writers and authors in creating jobs seems to have depended not on differences in copyright or possibilities for self- production, but on greater occupational innovation. Creativity in organizing daily work is an important form of creativity.occupations, authors, photographers, copyright law, economic history

Copyright Infringement on Parody Video: A Legal Perspective

The study aims to find out and analyze copyright infringement related to making parody videos with cinematographic work content. The researcher analyzed one of the parody videos made by Shopee as advertising content. The parody video made came from one of the cinematographic works, namely Dilan 1991. The research method used was normative juridical. The approach used is the statutory approach and conceptual approach. The author examined that in Shopee ads, the making of the Dilon 2019 parody video satisfies the provision of Article 5 of Law Number 28 of 2014 on Copyright. Two rights are retained by a creator or copyright holder, namely moral rights and economic rights. Article 5 of the Copyright Act governs the moral interests of the author and copyright holder.The study indicates that the 2019 Dilon parody video made by Shopee as advertising content is a form of copyright infringement and is not included in fair use. That is because the parody video making violates the moral rights and economic rights of the creators of cinematography Dilan 1991

The ratification and implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty: a look at the future of South African Copyright Law

Includes bibliographical references.This dissertation will analyse South African copyright law and its ability to facilitate blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print disabled people. The Marrakesh Treaty intends to promote the making and distribution of copies of, among others, books in formats accessible to visually impaired persons. South Africa did not sign this Treaty yet, intends to sign and ratify this Treaty in the future. This dissertation will analyse the current South African copyright law and policy related to visually impaired persons. To gain insight, this work will also analyse international framework, and foreign copyright law. The aim of this analysis will be to find ways of how the future of South African copyright law should look like, according to the Marrakesh Treaty, to be able to facilitate VIPs. This research also intends to expose the possible law and policy related barriers for non-ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty. Furthermore, this dissertation will analyse what the possible legal implications thereof will be. The main goal of this dissertation will be to formulate a proposal on how the Marrakesh Treaty should me implemented in South African copyright law. This proposal will take into account possible barriers or policy related issues that arise from prior research

Two Comparative Perspectives on Copyright’s Past and Future in the Digital Age, 15 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 698 (2016)

This book review compares two recent titles on copyright law: THE COPYRIGHT WARS: THREE CENTURIES OF TRANS-ATLANTIC BATTLE by Peter Baldwin, and COPYFIGHT: THE GLOBAL POLITICS OF DIGITAL COPYRIGHT REFORM by Blayne Haggart. Both books are meticulously researched and carefully written, and each makes an excellent addition to the literature on copyright. Contrasting both titles in this joint review, however, helps to reveal a few respects in which each work is incomplete; indeed, each book occasionally reads as a critique of the other. Baldwin’s book places contemporary debates in a much deeper historical context, but in so doing overlooks some of the unique challenges contemporary technology poses to the law as well as the historically unprecedented obstacles that contemporary law raises to some forms of socially valuable innovation. Haggart’s book, in contrast, maintains a narrower focus on the contemporary era, yielding a superior accounting of the institutional and social interests now at stake in the global copyright debate, but fails in some respects to appreciate the ways in which the much lengthier course of historical development constrains future copyright policy-making. The review concludes by suggesting some respects in which both books might serve as valuable guides for copyright policy-makers at both the national and international levels

Super Bowl I, Jazz Radio, and \u3ci\u3eThe Glass Menagerie\u3c/i\u3e: Copyright, Preservation, and Private Copies

Copyright law is often described as providing incentives to make and disseminate creative works. Copyright law should also seek to foster the preservation of creative works so that people can enjoy, use, study, critique, and build upon them long after they are first created. Traditionally, copyright law fostered preservation largely because most copyright owners principally exploited their works by making and distributing many tangible copies of those works. Those copies could end up in many different hands, and each copy could potentially survive into the future. Some kinds of works, though, were disseminated principally by performance, and as a result, the audiences for those works generally did not acquire a copy that they could preserve. As a result, most of the time the burden of preserving such works fell entirely on the author or copyright owner, and not all copyright owners expended the resources necessary to preserve their works. In some instances when a copyright owner has not preserved a copy of her work, a copy made privately by an audience member, usually without the copyright owner’s knowledge, may become the only existing copy of the work. Many examples of this situation involve radio and television broadcasts, including broadcasts of major sporting events, such as Super Bowl and World Series games, and broadcasts of important musical performances by significant artists, ranging from the Metropolitan Opera to jazz greats such as Ella Fitzgerald to The Beatles. In these situations, a stalemate can result because the owner of the privately made copy owns the only remaining copy of the work, while a copyright owner may own copyright rights in the work embodied in that copy, and neither owner alone can exploit the work. A current standoff over the only known recording of the telecast of Super Bowl I is an example of such a stalemate. Such a stalemate can threaten copyright’s goal of preserving creative works. In these situations, that goal can probably best be achieved if the privately made copy ends up in the hands of an archive that can preserve the work. But current copyright law leaves unclear the question of whether transferring the privately made copy to an archive would infringe any copyright in the work embodied in the copy. That uncertainty may deter parties from transferring a private copy to an archive and may thereby contribute to the complete loss of the work itself. Congress should eliminate this uncertainty by amending the Copyright Act to provide that transferring a copy of a copyrighted work to an archive for preservation purposes does not infringe the work’s copyright, even if that copy was made without the copyright owner’s authorization. Such an amendment would be simple to craft and would not interfere with the legitimate interests of copyright owners. And as copyright owners disseminate an increasing amount of copyrighted material by online transmission rather than by distributing tangible copies, this exemption for archival transfers could become increasingly important in allowing privately made copies to help preserve such material for posterity

Reanimation and Copyright. Rob Scholte’s Work. Part II.

A viable way to defend the rights of later picture makes to use and change the works of their predecessors is by reference to the artistic merit of the later works. Rob Scholte intentionally infringes on copyright law by making new works, and it is the artistic merit of his work that should give him that liberty.