Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Fair Use Fundamentals Infographic

Fair Use Fundamentals InfographicThe Fair Use Week web site has this infographic on Fair Use Fundamentals.  Thankfully, it carries a Creative Commons license, so you are able to share and reuse it, if you wish - and I think you will indeed wish to use it!

Friday, February 20, 2015

Another copyright video from John Green

John Green provides a wonderful illustration of several problems with current copyright law in this video entitled "Across Three Continents: A Tale of Tumblr, Copyright, and Excellent Posters." I encourage you to take a few minutes and watch it.


--
Thanks to Kristen Hanmer for pointing me to this one, too!

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Video: Places I've Never Been

This is AWESOME!  Author John Green explains where a quote attributed to him really came from, and tries to set the record straight. Mis-attributions are quite easy these days with the Internet. Wouldn't it be nice if we all worked to get the attributions correct?

--
Thanks to Kristen Hanmer, MSLIS for pointing out this video to me.

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Blog post: Fair Use: The Foundation of Jon Stewart’s Success

Jon Stewart
In this blog post, Jonathan Band talks about how Jon Stewart was able to use Fair Use to use clips in his commentary.  As Band says:
But for fair use, Stewart’s rebroadcast of these clips would be willful copyright infringement, subject to statutory damages of up to $150,000 per clip.
You can read the entire blog post here and it is a worthwhile read, whether you like Jon Stewart or not.

Monday, February 16, 2015

Blog post: Mental Labor, Books, Objects, and the Origins of American Copyright Law

The Society for U.S. Intellectual History (S-USIH) has a blog.  Kurt Newman wrote a fascinating post in January on the origin of copyright law in the United States. We know that the federal law was enacted in 1790, but what happened before then?  Have any of us read the history on the copyright.gov web site?  Likely not.  Newman peaks our interest early in his post with this:
Soon thereafter, lobbying by prominent men of letters...led to the passage of copyright laws by the legislatures of Massachusetts and Maryland. Thus, by the time that the Continental Congress met to consider copyright matters, three state-level copyright regimes had already been set in motion.
And was was being copyrighted?
The state copyright statutes stipulated the protection of an array of inanimate things: “books,” “books and writings,” “books and pamphlets,” “books, treatises and other literary works” and “books, pamphlets, maps and charts.” Most also called attention to the special ontological properties of a certain textual object: the “unpublished manuscript.”
How do we now think about the objects being copyrighted?  Has our thinking been determined or adversely influenced by these early laws?  I think we need to ask ourselves that, especially as the objects continue to change.

--
Thanks to Brandon Fess, MSLIS '15 for pointing out this blog post to me.