Jeanne Hoffman, of Kosmos Online, a project sponsored by the friendly folks at the Institute for Humane Studies, recently recorded a podcast interview with me. Our discussion covered such things as career engineering, how IHS helped me win freedom, and the current state of intellectual property scholarship. You can listen here or read a rough transcript here.
Showing posts with label copyright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label copyright. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Monday, June 28, 2010
Barbie, Political Philosopher
Toy Story 3 offers many pleasures and not a little wisdom. I absorbed them with a shocking output of tears, both the laughing kind and otherwise. At one point, too, I raised my fist in solidarity, moved by the political philosophy voiced by Barbie (brilliantly played by Barbie). I liked Barbie's quote so much that I put it on a t-shirt:
Nice, huh? Click on the picture to customize the shirt for your build and style.
Fellow Bluebook geeks will notice that, despite its graphic fripperies, the shirt sports a proper legal citation. Scholars might take comfort in the fact that I crosschecked the quote against the junior novel version of Toy Story 3. Lawyers for Disney/Pixar must admit that my usage falls within the traditional bounds of the fair use defense to copyright infringement, and Hasbro cannot justly complain that the shirt's use of "Barbie" violates that trademark.
Tyrants might not like the shirt, granted. But Barbie showed us what happens to tyrants. I won't say more about that, here; just go see the movie!
UPDATE: Notwithstanding law and logic, Zazzle.com pulled the shirt almost immediately after I posted it for sale. I'm currently trying to correct the matter. Sorry for the inconvenience.
[Crossposted at Agoraphilia and The Technology Liberation Front.]
Monday, June 14, 2010
You Might Do Not Have to Use Files
The grandly-named Public Domain Archive, evidently a production of Osaka-based Digirock, Inc., offers a few MP3s of classical music and historical speeches. Thanks to a suggestion from Tyler Cowen, I'm enjoying a 1942 recording of Beethoven's 9th even as I type. Am I breaking the law in so doing? The copyright notice posted on the Public Domain Archive, while quite charming, hardly reassures:
To the People
In japan, All files open to the public on this site are certainly lawful.
But, if you do not live in Japan, You might do not have to use files.
You should check the law of your country.
As proves too often true for works, like this 1942 recording, that fall under the aegis of the 1909 Copyright Act, it is not easy to figure out if the underylying work enjoys any claim to protection under U.S. law. Perhaps, after all, it was not published with the proper formalities, here, and thus fell into the public domain.
In this case, though, it looks like we can dodge those complications. U.S. copyright law affords exclusive rights only to copying, creation of derivative works, public distribution, public performance, and public display. See 17 USC § 106. So long as I listen to a MP3 solely via streaming, without saving a copy, it is hard to see how I've violated any of those rights. Perhaps Digirock, Inc. has violated U.S. law by offering me the MP3, but that is no concern of mine (and probably not much of a concern to Digirock, Inc.).
That legal scenario suggests an interesting conclusion: an offshore copyright-free zone—one set up by intellectual pirates or in a stubbornly independent country—might give U.S. residents ample, free, and legal access to all sorts of copyrighted works—even ones protected under U.S. law.
[Crossposted at Agoraphilia and The Technology Liberation Front.]
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
The Hand Rule
Judge Learned Hand famously opined that if the burdens of preventing an accident outweigh its cost multiplied by its probability, it does not constitute carelessness to avoid those burdens. Doesn't that little gem make you want to break out in song? I've got just the thing: The Hand Rule, a little ditty I recently composed and played for some students at Chapman Law School.
Though I've yet to record The Hand Rule, I can offer you a .pdf of the lyrics and chords as well as a PowerPoint, complete with pictures of Learned Hand, to accompany the performance (both uncopyrighted). Here's a sample of a verse and the refrain:
In the case of Carrol Towing Co., Learned Hand set forth to showSilly? Yes, but it gets students to pay attention and remember what they learn. So goes the modus operandi of the Law and Fun school.
The meaning of "reasonability."
Defendant failed to leave in charge, a man to watch its unmoored barge.
And plaintiff's cargo met calamity.
"Negligence!" plaintiff complained and on appeal, Judge Hand explained,
The proper scope of liability.
Learned, learned, Learned. Learned in the law was he.
Learned Judge Hand, Learned, he judged so learnedly!
So learn what the Hand Rule teaches: "There's no liability,
If the burden of the cost exceeds the loss times the probability."
[Crossposted at Agoraphilia and MoneyLaw.]
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Halloween Doppelgangers
If you've walked into a Halloween store recently, you've probably been treated to a soundtrack of what seem to be classic haunting favorites, like "Thriller" and "Ghostbusters" and "Weird Science." But if you listen closely, you will realize the original songs have been spirited away, their places taken by substandard doppelgangers -- lousy covers performed by unknown studio musicians.
But why not just play the originals? After all, Michael Jackson's "Thriller" is probably playing on scores of radio stations nationwide this very minute, as I compose this blog post. So why not play it in the stores, too?
You'll know the answer if you've read my post from two years ago on the strange phenomenon of crappy karaoke covers. Rather than using modern technology to strip out the vocals from originals, karaoke track producers recreate the whole songs from scratch. Halloween stores are doing the same thing for the same reason. To use the original recording for any commercial purpose, you must get the permission of the copyright holder and negotiate a price; but to use the melody and lyrics, you don't need permission and you pay only a low price fixed by statute.
The result, of course, is economic waste. Were it not for this legal structure, both Halloween shoppers and karaoke singers could use the originals, and economic resources wouldn't get spent on the creation of lousy knock-offs. The goal of the law, of course, is to assure that the artists get compensated for their effort. But the reality is that the artists get only nominal compensation (from the music/lyrics payment), while music listeners get treated to second-rate performances.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Free Willie?
Thanks to comments on my earlier post, Copyright Duration and the Mickey Mouse Curve, I've been encouraged to reflect on what would happen if, in fact, Steamboat Willie had fallen into the public domain. Could we then reuse Mickey Mouse, the star of that show, without facing any liability to the Walt Disney Company? I drafted this answer for my book, Intellectual Privilege (here edited for blogging):
Scholars have made surprisingly strong arguments that Steamboat Willie, a cartoon that the Walt Disney Company cites as establishing its copyright rights in Mickey Mouse, has fallen into the public domain. As a thought experiment, let us assume the truth of that claim. What would happen if Walt Disney Company—if, indeed, nobody—held a copyright in Steamboat Willie? Certainly, each of use would by default enjoy complete freedom to copy, distribute, display, or perform the cartoon, because the expiration of the work's copyright would also end the exclusive rights of the Walt Disney Company and its assigns the exercise those statutory privileges. So, too, would we escape copyright's limitations on making derivative versions of Steamboat Willie—versions that might show Mickey standing at a lectern rather than at a pilot's wheel, for instance, or have him expounding on copyright law.
The Walt Disney Company would retain its copyrights in later, plumper versions of the Mickey Mouse, of course. Contemporary artists wanting to reinterpret the character free from the company's veto would thus have to draw inspiration primarily from the earlier, skinnier, version. Given that the characters would share a common ancestor, however, even mice derived solely from Steamboat Willie would often strongly resemble the modern-day Mickey Mouse.
Would Walt Disney Company object to those unauthorized reuses of Steamboat Willie? It might, indeed. Some such uses might substitute for sales of the company's wares, after all, or cast its most prominent spokes-mouse in an unsavory light. But copyright law would, per the assumption behind our thought experiment, offer the company no solace. The Walt Disney Company could not plausibly claim that patent or trade secret law gives it the power to limit free use of Steamboat Willie, either. Nor could it invoke the right of publicity, which though sometimes shockingly effective in limiting speech about celebrities, has thus far not stretched to cover cartoon characters.
Trademark and unfair competition law would probably offer the Walt Disney Company its most potent weapon against any movement to emancipate Steamboat Willie. Generally speaking, that area of law allows the holder of a name, symbol, or other mark to prevent latecomers from using in commerce marks likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of a particular good or service. Thus, for instance, can Nike bar someone from putting its famous "swoop" on non-Nike clothes. The Walt Disney Company uses Mickey Mouse as a mark designating its goods and services. If a consumer did not know (ex hypothesis) that the image and voice of Mickey Mouse, qua the character Willie, had fallen into the public domain, and that consumer saw a cartoon of a substantially similar Mickey Mouse in a new context, the consumer might naturally, yet wrongly, assume that the newer Mickey Mouse had issued from the same source as so many other cartoons featuring the character: The Walt Disney Company. On that argument, consumer ignorance would give the company cause to censor derivative versions of the copyright-free Mickey Mouse.
Perhaps the addition of disclaimers, such as noting, "Not a Walt Disney Company production!" in a cartoon's margin, would suffice to dispel consumer confusion. That would ward off only a "passing off" claim—one where a mark's holder accuses another of selling bogus wares under that mark—however. The same disclaimer would set the defendant up for a "reverse passing off" claim—one where Disney would charge that cartoonist wrongly sold Disney's product (intellectual creations about Mickey Mouse) under another's name. Disney could thereby damn those who use Steamboat Willie both if they do use disclaimers and if they do not. Happily for anyone who wants to free Willie, however, the Supreme Court has cut through that Gordian knot of liability.
The Supreme Court held in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation that, once a work has fallen into the public domain, its former copyright holder cannot use federal unfair competition law to demand credit from those who reuse the work. Still more broadly, the Court flatly excluded copyrighted works from the scope of section § 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act, the federal law barring passing off, whether direct or reverse. The Court explained the policy reasons for thus limiting unfair competition law:
Assuming for the sake of argument that [defendant] Dastar's representation of itself as the "Producer" of its videos amounted to a representation that it originated the creative work conveyed by the videos, allowing a cause of action under § 43(a) for that representation would create a species of mutant copyright law that limits the public's "federal right to 'copy and to use,'" expired copyrights.
Dastar voiced broad concerns, and lower courts have read it accordingly. They have extended it to bar state law claims of unfair competition, a result the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause would apparently mandate. Lower courts have also extended Dastar to bar unfair competition claims arising out of the use of uncopyrighted and uncopyrightable works. Plainly, the case has done a great deal to ensure that copyright's privileges go no farther than copyright itself.
The exact scope of Dastar's preemptive effect remains as yet uncertain, granted. Even if it suffered the uncopyrighting of Steamboat Willie we've hypothecated here, for instance, the Walt Disney Company would perhaps still have the right to bring suit under § 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act against those using liberated versions of Mickey Mouse to deceptively market their wares, such as by falsely advertising a new Spaceship Willie as a Disney original. The Dastar Court left that question open. Lower courts have, however, read the case to bar § 43(a)(1)(B) claims alleging no more than false marketing about whether permission was granted for an uncopyrighted work. Under that reasoning, the Walt Disney Company could not even stop the authors of Spaceship Willie from selling it as, "A wholly original take on Mickey Mouse," or, conversely, as "Mickey Mouse in the finest tradition of Walt Disney." Thus might Dastar and its progeny help Mickey Mouse, when and if he escapes copyright, from achieving the status of a great cultural icon, akin to Santa Claus or Uncle Sam.
[Crossposted at Agoraphilia, TechLiberation Front.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)