Jazz Palin

This is an amazing example of creating a transformative work from the Palin, Couric interview we have all seen. The jazz pianist has punctuated Palin's quirky speech rhythms and inflections by harmonizing and arranging a song around her "melody." This is an excellent criticism of Palin, as it very effectively elucidates the absurdity in what she is saying. Works like these are brilliant ways to creatively build on artifacts of culture while bringing subtle criticism into the mix.

RIAA litigation campaign

Hello, all. Anyone who is interested should check out the "Threat Level" blog at Wired...very solid. Anyway, they had a post today on the retrial of RIAA v. Thomas (you remember...the woman who was sued for $222,000 as a consequence of sharing 24 songs on the Kazaa network). The decision to rehear the case means that "the RIAA's 5-year-old copyright infringement litigation campaign has never been successful at trial." This comes as a shock, to me at least, considering the horror stories we've read and discussed in class surrounding the music industry's crackdown on file-sharing . Perhaps the RIAA is not as much of a formidable threat as we think it is? Check out the Plaintiff's supplemental brief PDF at the end.

MySpace Music

I read yesterday on the CNET news blog that MySpace will begin to crack down on unauthorized uses of copyrighted material - this includes songs, film clips, television clips, etc. The author of the blog writes that MySpace will "use database technology from Gracenote to analyze uploaded songs and other material. Unauthorized material will be taken down, and users who repeatedly post such material will be blocked form the site."
I think this is an incredible example of what we spoke about last class - record companies and copyright owners emphasizing control over material, in an attempt to act as "gatekeeper" and assert power over social ideas. This, of course, is incredibly short sighted. MySpace has been a safe-haven for emerging artists and established ones alike; MySpace has been a forum, more or less, for musicians and users to share music, both copyrighted and not, with fans and friends. Music is a strong part of one's identity, and is thus a major component in any online social networking site.
This sudden crackdown, however, seems a bit too calculated - MySpace plans to open its own music store soon, in which users buy music from MySpace artists like they would through iTunes. Personally, I'm a little on the fence about this move, and would love to discuss it in class if we get an opportunity. On one hand, selling music is of course an important and potentially valuable revenue stream for any website. On the other, MySpace needs to worry about its credibility amongst youth fans. In selling music and cracking down on copyright infringement, MySpace is just another iTunes competitor whose "cool" ran out.

Brokeback to the Future

In lieu of last class' discussion on 'slash' culture, I've posted a recontextualized mash-up trailer of sorts that uses music from Brokeback Mountain with clips and dialogue from Back to the Future.  Videos like these are a natural evolution of the Kirk/Spock videos we watched in class, and it's clear this type of culture jamming requires a good deal of time, effort, and skill.  It is also emblematic of a new trend has also seemingly arisen in which movie trailers are recut to provide a humorous new take on classic films (generally by shifting genres)...

Parody of a parody! Check out this YouTube video coming from NYU law.



It's especially interesting to see how this video validates how much the original has become a part of our common culture. Rock on Aqua! It also brings to light how increasingly difficult it is to define originality. There is no doubt that this parody is creative and original, despite the fact that it draws so heavily upon another work (which drew upon another work...whoah, man). In a cultural moment of such heavy information flow consumption is more about contributing back to that process. More and more, originality can be found in the individualized way in which we do that.

briana berry

"Crimes of Fashion"

It is a rare moment when I actually buy a fashion magazine. They're over-priced and usually so long that I can't get through them. I just buy them to look at the pretty pictures. But the last time I flipped through a Harper's Bazaar, something else caught my attention: a promotion for th website http://fakesareneverinfashion.com. The promotion had a picture of a pair of black stilettos with handcuffs around the heels. What's interesting about the website, though, is that it doesn't focus on the criminality of taking someone's idea and selling it for way cheaper, but instead on the social aspect by connecting fakes with drug trafficking, child labor, and even terrorism. They've turned buying pirated merchandise into a moral issue.

Forward Strides for the Internet

So this article basically says that there has been growing pressure on certain websites to censor the content of its users, not necessarily for copyright violation, but just in general, and some of these sites are now fighting back starting a coalition against this type of government pressure.  Companies as large as Google are a part of this.  To me, this is a huge step forward in establishing what will and will not be able to be done on the Internet in the future.  While this doesn't necessarily deal with copyright issues on the web, it is a step in the right direction, if companies are starting to fight back for the rights of its users.  Maybe eventually this will translate to issues of copyright as well.

Photography + Copyright

I was leafing through my modern art book the other night, cramming for the midterm, when I came across Honore Daumier's lithograph "Nadar Raising Photography to the Height of Art." In 1862, Daumier commemorated the court decision acknowledging photography as an at form protected by copyright law. This amusing lithograph is a commentary of photography's early struggles to be recognized as a fine art form. Daumier presents Nadar, one of photography's early masters, takes pictures with his camera on a hot air balloon as it rises over Paris. Daumier celebrates the rise of photography that was confirmed by the courts decision to make photography protected under copyright law. 

I thought this was an interesting history lesson on copyright and its effect on the arts!

Google pays for copyright infringement

On Tuesday a settlement was reached between Google and the Association of American Publishers after a three year battle in which the latter party sued Google for copyright infringement of millions of copyrighted books, which were scanned, digitized, and made available under the Google Print Library Project. The tech giant will have to pay up to $125 million dollars. The settlement calls for Google to pay $34.5 million for a nonprofit Book Rights Registry, pay fees for the millions of copyrighted books already scanned under the Google Print Library Project (which will be $60 per work), and cover the legal costs of the Guild's counsel (legal fees for suing party). While Google maintains that their library project offers an opportunity for the books to receive exposure, copyright holders had legitimate grounds for suing.

I cannot decide if the Google team took a chance in creating this project of mass copyright infringement thinking they could beat the system or if they truly thought there was nothing wrong with their idea. Of course, copyright maximalists will recognize such a project and have no mercy in seeking payment for copyright infringement.

Looks like Google is still tied up in another lawsuit...they are currently in a battle with Viacom. Google's YouTube video website is subject to a $1 billion lawsuit from Viacom, which is claiming damages in a lawsuit alleging that YouTube has illegally profited by tens of thousands of pirated clips from copyrighted shows. Do you think Google will learn its lesson now?

Fair Use Issues at UCSD

http://ucsdguardian.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10457&Itemid=4


UCSD is dealing with a site called postyourtest.com in which students can post old exams from professors for other students to download. UCSD exams account for 90% of the material on the site. Professors are now posing the complaint that the site is an infringent of their copyrights on their exams. UCSD entitles all professors to a copyright on their exams according to the article. I personally view this as UCSD overstepping its rights. An exam is not a form of expression. I'm not really sure how to label an exam. I'm inclined to say that this exam is akin to the one we discussed in class regarding the telephone book. One telephone book printer can not sue another for copyright infringement because it isn't possible to monopolize that kind of information nor claim any sort of ownership of it. Now if another telephone book maker were to copy the design and layout of another phone book we might be talking. Regardless of whether tests are even copyrightable or not, the owner of postyourtest.com is protected by the DMCA in his willingness to take down any material he posts that UCSD wants removed. What then is the big deal? Why are professors still considering legal against Demir Oral, the site's creator? I believe this is an intersection between ethics and law. I don't know that the way that Oral runs his site is necessarily wrong legally but I can understand the Professors concerns with the ethics of the situation at hand. They don't want students having this advantage at their disposal. They'd rather have them study the old-fashioned way. That being said if a resource is available to students that can benefit them is there not something to be said for them harnessing it. Perhaps I'm opening a can of worms with this but if we as a culture are ok to take download music and not find a problem in it then perhaps there's nothing wrong with using the internet to share tests? Ethics are not universal... one person might believe the recording industry is being cheated out of dollars while another may say they are not, one person might believe the sharing of exams online is wrong while another may not. I do believe this is an issues of ethics and because ethics are not universal I don't believe UCSD professors have the right to force their ethics on others.

Patents

So, I was reading one of my google alert e-mails and I came across this article: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/10/intellectual-pr.html and it reminded me about Heller's talk and book. He states that "A portion of my talk will focus on how patent law may react during a public health crisis. The reality is that in a pandemic situation, the patent rights covering important treatments will be ignored. Under TRIPS, during a national emergency would-be patent infringement becomes a legitimate unauthorized use. At some later point, the patent holder should receive payment based on "the economic value of the authorization." In all likelihood, however, that ex-post payment will be a small fraction of the potential monopoly profits that could have been earned." Well, if under a national emergency patent infringement is no longer punished and is legitimated, well who is to say that epidemics, diseases, etc (Cancer/Alzheimer's) should not be covered under the same rules. These problems run rampant and should be considered a public health crisis! It just doesn't make sense and even though Michal Heller said that there are no exceptions in areas such as creating treatments and prevention why should there be an exception to a public health crisis?

With the presidential election creeping upon us (one week! Yikes!), the number of “Obama” merchandise being sold on the streets of New York (particularly around Union Square) is grow exponentially. While some of the merchandise have their own versions of pictures of Obama or the Obama signs, many are just simply copies of Obama campaign materials. The most commonly copied image, of course, is the Obama “Change” poster with his face by Shephard Fairey. Now, while I don’t know this for sure, I’m almost positive that image of Obama is copyrighted. However, the Obama campaign has yet (& is unlikely too) to crack down on this “illegal” use of a (most likely) copyrighted image and/or this use of his name and likeness without explicit permission. (Although, who knows…maybe it is legal, maybe they’re paying the Obama camp a portion of each proceed, but that’s doubtful). However, since the majority of this press in the forms of shirts, tote bags, etc is largely a form of good (& free!) press, its unlikely that anyone will crack down on the (not that anyone in the Obama Campaign probably has time to this anyways).

But perhaps, if the merchandise was negative (not that anti-Obama merchandise would sell very well in NY anyways), someone from the Obama camp might’ve already gone down there to shut it down. But other the other hand, whether the merchandise is pro-Obama or pro-McCain, one can argue that the merchandise stimulates conversation & debate about the election, which ultimately, Americans like to think is what American should be all about. Censoring negative merchandise endorsing or attacking either candidate by claims of copyright infringement thus limiting debate and conversation, is no way of encouraging dialogue. Thus, this just another example of how copyright can sometimes limit out everything around us without us noticing.

SNL

So my roommate is currently working with SNL, usually she comes back with awesome stories about the show, in general its been a great experience for her. Regardless, we talk a lot about this class because making sense of the ambiguity of copyright law has been something that frustrates me--so this past week she offered an interesting and relevant story. The cold open this past week when Jon Hamm hosted, was a press conference with Joe Biden and John Murtha, both trying to redeem themselves from idiotic comments made in the past week; it was relatively funny. The interesting part, however, is that this was not supposed to be the opening at all. Later in the show there is a segment called the Barack Obama Variety Hour, this was supposed to be the cold open. The Variety Hour, however, is of course a segment filled with singing and SNL would have to pay rights on those songs every time this segment of the show aired. So, when this show airs the next time, this particular segment will be clipped out, if it had been the cold open the viewer of a the syndicated episode would miss the iconic phrase "LIVE FROM NEW YORK ITS SATURDAY NIGHT". Rather than dealing with this issue later on, SNL moved the variety hour to later in the show and presumably it will be cut from the show for any later airings. I can only imagine how something like this can be creatively stifling for a show such as SNL. Once again, nicely done copyright laws.

Chinese threatening to sue microsoft

According to this article I read on computerworld.com, microsoft introduced an update to its Windows XP version being sold in China. Apparently, when the software is pirated, the software detects the unauthorized use, and turns the computer background to black, with a "permanent nag notice" on the bottom of the screen. I think that it's pretty upsurd that people who are this are in such an uproar. Its as if they feel entitled to pirate content. 

wipe out

This week's lawsuit is one that advocates familiar issues. Since I was a a young girl living in Brazil I recall of American networks ripping off shows from international and foreign broadcasters. I also recall constantly watching this Japanese show in which guests would have to go through obstacles to win a prize but mostly to embarrass themselves for entertainment sake. Then, ABC created their own rip off of these competition series called "Wipe Out", including many obstacles copyrighted to Tokyo Broadcasting System.
In THR I found a small description of what the lawsuit says: "'Wipeout' unlawfully appropriates the premise, the format, the sequence of events, the introductory segment, the tone, the scene setups, the narration, the dialogue that arises from constructed situations ... of the shows"
Funny how ABC and many major broadcasting networks are so quick to pursuing stricter copyright laws within the country while they freely enjoy the exploitation of foreign intellectual property.
(the picture is taken from THR's website where you can find out more about this subject)

Apple Is Mediating With Psystar

I didn't even know they sued them! Apple is currently bringing in a mediator to help settle its suit again Psystar for creating computers that run Apple OS X Leopard. They claim the company violated their softward license agreement. They are also suing for trademark and copyright infringement. I however would like to pause and suggest, "What would Harold Innis have to about this?" Actually what would a lot of scholars have to say about this? Getting back to my point though, Innis would probably label this a knowledge monopoly. I sure think it is. Apple is trying to tie it's OS up in its own computers. Going after companies such as Psystar entitles Apple to a monopoly on it OS... though I do think they're thought process is flawed. Apple rose from the ashes because of the Ipod and that had a splash effect that brought people to its computers. What I'm trying to say is Apple might make more money licensing its OS to computer-makers providing people with more options when they buy Apple computers. Sounds kind of the like how the RIAA might actually find labels make more money when Peer to Peer is left untouched.

Chester French

http://www.myspace.com/chesterfrench

I work at Rugby and as part of the CMJ Music Marathon and Conference, Rugby is hosting a series of free concerts with a new band(s) every day this week. Today, Chester French performed. At the end of the concert, they handed out a copy of their single "She Loves Everybody." This CD single is cleverly packaged in what looks like a condom wrapper. However, the packaging looks suspiciously similar to the packaging that Trojan uses. In fact, the trademarked trojan horse appeared several times on the casing. Ironically, Chester French had a TM symbol next to it, but they seem to have paid no attention to trademark they were using. 

Patents & PR

Today at work, one of my supervisors was writing a pitch for one of our clients, Anastasia, the Beverly Hills “Brow Guru.” Anastasia is apparently Hollywood’s go-to brow shaper and has her own line of brow and other cosmetic products. In addition she has a unique technique for shaping brows and a unique way of training the brow professionals, whom work for her; currently, Anastasia’s company has applied for a patent on her training techniques.
Until that patent is officially accepted or rejected, Anastasia’a techniques are considered patented despite its “pending” status. The pitch-writing supervisor was confused about whether to include the fact that Anastasia’s techniques were patent pending in her pitch, because in reality, the patent could be rejected at anytime. However, as my other supervisor assured her, it was fine to say that it was “patent pending” because until its officially rejected, its patented. (Patented until proven guilty?) Furthermore, by claiming that Anastasia had special techniques even possibly worthy of a patent is a good PR move because it sets the client, Anastasia, apart from other brow specialists and makes her look unique within the field of cosmetology. So patents are not only a form of “protecting creativity” it also can be a PR move too.

Quick lesson in law..

In our last class, we spoke about how websites like MySpace and Facebook have very dense and restricting end-user license agreements (EULAs) that effectively put the user at the mercy of the site. This brings to mind a common defense that is used in contract law, known as the doctrine of unconscionability. Basically this is a defense to void a contract that is deemed fundamentally unfair. To be enforced, there must be a valid procedural element, either because there is an inequality of bargaining power, an absence of meaningful choice for one party, or because the terms of the contract are hidden and therefore surprising. There must also be a substantive element whereby the terms of the contract are so one sided that it "shocks the conscious" of the court.

After doing a bit of Googling, it seems that several cases have been litigated where click-wrap license agreements have not held up in court because of this claim of unconscionability (against PayPal, At&T, Supercuts, Circuit City, etc). In these cases, the judge concludes that the user had no bargaining power and the terms were grossly unfair. I don't know if this doctrine has been tested in the arena of social networking sites, but I would be interested to see the verdict of such a case. This could set a powerful precedent that would change the balance of power towards end-users like us.

Prince Rakeem and Mechanical Royalties in Practice

The first Wu-Tang Clan album came out in '93, and it marked the beginning of perhaps the most successful collective music industry coup of all time, considering the primary and ancillary income generated by all nine members of the group and their subsequent spin-offs.  The Clan was introduced to the world on Enter the Wu-Tang, but the main differential success was in their creation of a gritty feeling and atmosphere, which is in large part due to the production of the RZA.  This style of production, which invoked primarily soul samples (as opposed to James Brown-style funk), has been cited as a key influence by many of today's most successful producers, such as Kanye, Just Blaze, and 9th Wonder.  The credit for this raw aesthetic has been attributed to the RZA, of whom deserves a large bulk of the recognition, but many of the artists he sampled also experienced renaissances of their own.  I recently read an interview with the inimitable producer (http://www.hiphopcore.net/interviews/93%7Ceng-rza.html), and was surprised to note RZA's anecdote regarding the underrated soul legend Syl Johnson:

"As for Syl Johnson, when I sampled his music, he called me up, he's like: 'Yo man, thank you man…'. I said : 'Yo, I will use 10 more of your songs in the next 5 years. I wanna pay you $100,000 right now'. He's like 'What?!' (laughs). I paid him… I used the songs… He's back in business and he's makin' $1,000,000 a year now. So it's a blessing to help other older brothers get their shit cause so many of them have been robbed, cheated of their publishing.

This is a refreshingly positive example of a DIY licensing ethos at work.  Sampling and clearance CAN be a mutually positive experience.

Microsoft Users in China Lash-Out

This is an interesting take on the software discussion we had the other day.  A new update for Microsoft Windows apparently turns desktop wallpaper's black.  The computer is left completely functional, however, if the update detects pirated software, it warns the user periodically that they are running an illegitimate copy of Windows.  THe article doesn't specify whether or not there is a mechanism worked in to the update that would report the use of pirated material to Microsoft, but either way, Chinese users in particular are in an uproar over it.  Interesting to me, and especially pertaining to the discussion on Monday, is that there is no warning of any type of anti-piracy measure in the update, it is simply an OS update, that works as a droid, to find pirated material.  Seems like a bit of a privacy violation to me.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith are Asian?

Everyday on my way to and from school on the Route A Bus, I notice a familiar billboard advertisement. It is a rather large display (at least 15 feet wide and 6 feet tall) posted above a beauty spa and retail shop. I'm sure we're all familiar of the poster board add for Brad Pitt's and Angelina Jolie's "Mr. & Mrs. Smith". The two Hollywood stars are leaning against a wall with the front leg bent up. Pitt is in a tux while Jolie flaunts a black dress with a thigh high slit.

A quick glance at the Chinatown ad brings the movie to mind despite the fact that there are some clear differences between the movie's ad and the one in Chinatown. The characters in the Chinatown ad are both Chinese. The gentleman is sporting the tux while the lady wears a long red Chinese dress with a thigh high slit and both are standing positioned the same way as Pitt and Jolie with arms crossed and one leg bent. This ad itself conveys the same implicit message..."Classy, yet deceiving man and woman out to kick butt and get each other."

The first question that came to mind was, "How on earth did they get these Chinese people to accurately copy the Mr. & Mrs. Smith ad?" It has me fooled everytime, but then I realize that the main characters are Asian, not white. Then I ask, "Is that illegal?" You've gone into copyright in regards to text and in regards to artwork. What about visual ads? Are they considered to be artwork? I believe creative art should not be within reach of copyright law. But this ad is simply a picture. I would hardly call it creative. And for the first time in a while, I think there is a problem with the Chinatown ad. If I, a trained media and communications student trained to analyze and critique media and ads, can be fooled into thinking that is Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt perched in Chinatown, then I'm sure the average citizen would fooled as well and would have to look twice. But that business is purposely using that familiar Pitt & Jolie image (or associated image) as their advertisement for business. Like I said before, art should not be subject to copyright infringement, and although I think I would normally call advertisements a form of art, I do not think this is the case, and I do not think it is coincidence.

Randomly a third question just came to mind. What if that store has had that image above their business for years...even before Mr. & Mrs. Smith came out? Then the studio and producers of the movie would be subject to copyright infringement for using that exact same image unless they've paid for the rights.

Happy Birthday from Harry Belafonte

I got a birthday card last week that read "Wishing you bunches of fun..." on the front and opened up to play Harry Belafonte's song "Day-O" (day oh, me say day me say day, that one). Musical cards are always somewhat surprising, but the sample was a full minute long. So this wasn't even just a sample, clearly American Greetings had licensed the song. Although, I'm sure they would have had to pay for the license regardless of how long the clip was. But this song came from the 1950's! The song would have been in the public domain before the Copyright Term Extension Act. Interestingly though, Belafonte didn't write the song, and given how stringent recording contracts used to be, I doubt that he owns any part of the masters of the song. Of course the songwriters and publishers are receiving royalties from this usage but I wonder: is Belafonte receiving mechanical royalties?

briana berry

radiohead

I remember last fall Radiohead put up their album online, and users could donate any amount of money, including $0.01, to download their cd, eventually the album would be released and sold. There as a mixed response about the entire process, whether it was silly for them to do it, whether they would lose money, and of course like all financial situations it would take some time for this circumstance to settle down, in order to figure out whether this was a successful venture. Now, a year removed, it turns out it was. According to an article I was looking at, Radiohead made more money when this album was released then their previous album...surprising. So while a lot of people downloaded the album for practically free, it seems like this whole idea was a pretty big success. Its user generated press releases I guess, and the best sort of PR no doubt, to release your album for free to your most dedicated fans, have them love the music for what it is, and then go on to sell it.

http://gawker.com/5063971/radiohead-stunt-somehow-pays-off

a fair(y) tale

the video is a compilation of different Disney movies mashed together to tell the "fair(y) tale" of fair use. To add to the post below which has to also do with the fair use video posted, today, Lawrence Lessig wrote an article (Copyright and Politics Don't Mix) for the New York Times. He says, "Copyright law has become a political weapon because of a statute passed a decade ago: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act." He goes on to say, "The answer to this problem is not to abolish or ignore copyright. Instead, the law should be revised, bringing focus to the contexts in which its important economic incentives are needed, and removing it from contexts where it isn’t." I agree with Lessig on both accounts, that copyright should not be used as a political weapon (but I don't agree that politicians should get special treatment when it comes to addressing copyright infringements on networking sites). I also think it is important that the law should be revised because as it stands it is quite ambiguous.

I also found this article through, Lessig's blog:
http://technologizer.com/2008/10/13/copy-protection/
It's 25 Arguments for the Elimination of Copy Protection by Harry McCracken...which is mostly just examples of "copyright gone wrong", nevertheless it makes a few good points and provides good examples.

John Mccain and Youtube

About a week ago YouTube removed a commercial uploaded by John Mccain's campaign due to complaints by Copyright owners. The video included bits from various news channels, who cited provision from the DMCA as means for its removal. ACcording to the act, If the creator of a video complains that it has been removed inappropriately, it cannot be reposted onto the internet for a period of 10-14 days, which a member of Mccain's campaign described as being a "lifetime in a political campaign." What I love about this is that Mccain voted for the DMCA, and now it's biting him in the ass.

rating out is so easy

This week I have experienced the burdens of copyright in a personal level. Ebay has taken down one of the items I had put up for sale because apparently my description of the item is much alike someone else's description of the same item. All I could think is how it is legal to discriminate against descriptions. Soon I'll say the sky is blue and nobody will be able to agree with me because that will be considered copyrightable. So I decided to look into ebay's IP policies and I found a nice description of what to do in case you believe somebody has infringed your IP rights:
"if you have a good faith belief that a listing on eBay infringes your copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property rights, all you need to do is download our Notice of Claimed Infringement (NOCI) form, fill it out, and fax it to eBay. Download eBay's NOCI form"
Notice the quote "all you need to do". Ebay has just made it very simple for anybody to rat out anybody else, regardless of the truth and the context. Because of this facility, somebody found it extremely easy to erase me (the competition) from the listings.
"Ratting out is so easy, all you have to do..."

the most interesting man in the world vs. chuck norris or IS chuck norris?

I don't know if you guys have ever heard the Dos Equis radio or tv commercials about "the most interesting man in the world." Well, if you have or haven't, I've always thought they were very good and as I was sharing them with some friends the other day I realized that they sounded A LOT like our beloved Chuck Norris facts...

Here's a script from one of the Dos Equis tv commercials (which you can find at the official website www.staythirstymyfriends.com):

The police often questions him, just because they find him interesting.

His beard alone, has experienced more than a lesser man's entire body.

His blood, smells like cologne.

He is the most interesting man in the world.

(and then it closes with him saying: "I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I drink Dos Equis-- Stay thirsty my friends."

And here's one of the radio commercials- so you can really get the point:

His charm is so contagious, vaccines have been created for it.

Years ago, he built a city out of blocks-- today, over six hundred thousand people live and work there.

He is the only man, to ever ace a Rorschach test.

Every time he goes for a swim, dolphins appear.

Alien abductors have asked him to probe them.

If he were to give you directions, you'd never get lost--and you'd arrive at least five minutes early.

His legend precedes him, the way lightning precedes thunder.

He is the most interesting man in the world.....

And to add to it, of course, the man in the commercial is rugged with a beard. Much like our own Chuck Norris. The whole idea behind these advertisements is so much like the Chuch Norris facts we hear and love every day (found at www.chucknorrisfacts.com), such as:

If you have five dollars and Chuck Norris has five dollars, Chuck Norris has more money than you.

There is no "ctrl" button on Chuck Norris' computer. Chuck Norris is always in control.

Chuck Norris can eat just one Lay's potato chip.

Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird.

Etc, Etc. The similarity was just striking, but I don't know if anything is going to be done about it. Chuck Norris is actually suing this internet fact book filled with all these facts I included above, who knows if this could become a case. Seeing the way things get passed around here I don't see why not, and the sort of things especially. But they are great commercials, and all these laws really do end up stifling creativity. Hopefully nothing will be done about it and it will be left as is, because to me, no matter how much the similarity-- it's still different and creative and a new work of art...

The professor makes music

A few of you have asked me to let you know when I'm playing music in local clubs. My band, Brave New Girl, will be playing Thursday night at Bar 169 (21+, FYI), which is on 169 E. Broadway.

You are in no way expected or compelled to attend, and obviously, this is extracurricular and has nothing to do with your grade in my class. :-)

A Boundless Internet

A few years ago my mom and her best friend built a boundless playground in my town. (A boundless playground is a fully accessible playground designed for children of all abilities and disabilities.) Last week, she called me to tell me she had received a call from an organization in San Antonio, Texas that was in the process of a similar project. She told me that her best friend, who had helped her with the park, went on their website only to find pictures of the park that they had built. The playground in San Antonio was not built yet, but they were advertising the playground through pictures of the playground in my town. Furious, my mom's friend called her to tell her about it and demand that they have them take it down. But--my mom told her not to. My mom was flattered and said that it was good "advertising" for them. Instead, they called and asked them to reference the pictures and acknowledge the source. I am not sure if this necessarily falls under copyright infringement, but I found the two responses to be very interesting. Copyright infringement is a form of flattery in a way, and often times, it is good publicity. Maybe copyright infringement shouldn't always have such a negative connotation.

If only it was always this simple.

Let's go crazy...Lessig WSJ

Hello, all. Not sure if anyone came across this article by Lessig in the WSJ.  Anyway, it's nothing new from what we've been reading/discussing in class, but interesting that it was picked up nonetheless (given their reputation for conservatism). Runs through examples of "piracy" such as the YouTube "Let's Go Crazy" video, Girl Talk, amateur creativity, etc. My apologies for not posting this sooner. 

360 Degree Model for Internet TV

This week at my internship one of my tasks was to find a way to add high quality video to the company's website. Browsing the web led me to find Brightcove. Brightcove, Inc. is a unique company that has utilized the power of the Internet to rethink and recreate the way digital media is delivered and consumed. This concept is a new take on the traditional methods that have grown increasingly archaic for today’s marketplace. Brightcove has essentially created the first 360 degree business model for an Internet TV platform. By combining distribution, publishing, and technology, Brightcove.com has altered the way we acquire and process digital content. The rise of P2P technology and other file-sharing communities disseminating low bandwidth, low quality, occasionally pirated material, led founder and CEO of Brightcove, Jeremy Allaire to create an alternative distribution business that benefitted more than just one party. By appealing to content owners, advertisers, distribution affiliates, and consumers, the company gained immense popularity and financial success very quickly. The company began as a website that combined distrubtion, publishing, and technology to create a new alternative for the consumption of Internet video content that varied from the traditional model in which, control resided mostly with broadcast networks and cable providers . Rather than revoke control from both content owners and consumers, it seems that Brightcove's goal is to empower both groups by harnessing the power of technology. The fundamental notion of technology is based upon the idea that humans create tools to fulfill a necessary function or enable some sort of task. In my opinion, Brightcove's business model is successful, because it gives all members of the transaction what they want. Allaire’s vision is a democratization of TV and video distribution and production that makes a lot of sense to more than just one of the parties involved. Content owners want control over the distribution and monetization of their product, and consumers want delivery of products or content of the best quality, quickly, easily, and inexpensively. Thus, the key strategy employed by Brightcove is this exchange of content from owner to consumer in the most direct, efficient, and cost effective manner for both parties. My question is... if the Internet provides the technological capability to distribute material and a receptive market exists, then why not seize the opportunity? Has our society completely morphed into one who is interested solely in consumer-generated media and sites that provide this content for free a.k.a. YouTube? By providing a customizable, one-stop shop for media delivery based on web technology, Brightcove is a unique and alternative platform empowering video producers and content owners to build broadband businesses while affording viewers more control of their material, effectively creating a synthesis of the four players in the media business and establishing a more streamlined method of distributing digital content.

A few years ago, a pizza shop named, “NYPD Pizza” opened up near my house back in California. I remember driving by the pizza shop soon after the lettering went up and asking my dad, “Is it legal to call a pizza shop NYPD pizza?” To me, it seemed like the name of the pizza shop was a copyright infringement case waiting to happen, especially since the pizza shop’s logo looked very similar to a the actual NYPD police badge and I always wondered how they were getting away with it. Apparently, they weren’t; in 2005, NYPD filed suit.

Just recently a judge recently handed down a decision on the suit The ruling stated, that NYPD Pizza was allow to retain its name, so long it makes it clear that it is no way affiliated with the actual NYPD—New York Police Department—and redesigns its logo to not resemble a NYPD police badge.

Poster Boy

I was flipping through the latest New York Magazine and one of the articles was about this artist, Poster Boy, and anonymous "slice and dice" artist who vandalizes or creates artwork out of existing posters. He mashes up everything from movie posters to advertisements for the NYPD and creates new posters with very new messages. Sort of cultural vigilante if you will, Poster Boy, who remains anonymous--and masked--considers his work "anti-media, anti–established art world" according the NYMag article. Though he's been caught he's remained free of any serious charges, and continues to cut. He's pieces are social and political commentary and while I'm not sure that this is copyright so much as vandalism, he couldn't use his work or sell it or publish it, even if the vandalism was not an issue. So this kid who is doing really interesting post modern responses to advertisements, questioning the motives of major political and media figures, and asking or provoking important questions about society, and he is undoubtedly a criminal. If anything its a shame, while his work is vandalism, there is an underlying issue of copyright. Is his work satirical, if vandalism were not an issue, could he legally present his works? Empirically he disagrees with copyright law, and he makes a good point. Copyright in this particular sense infringes on his right to free speech, his messages use the medium of others but presents a very unique and individual idea. So, a bit of a tangent, but nonetheless, could this be presented as copyright superseding freedom of speech?

http://nymag.com/arts/art/profiles/50969/

What About Sonny?

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act passed in 1998 has had a profound impact on holders, but more noticeably on their estates and corporate successors. After reading about this piece of legislation's affect on copyright debates repeatedly, I had to ask myself: what did Sonny Bono have to do with it?

Well, actually, the former Sonny & Cher star turned Republican Congressman (!?) passed away in a skiing accident the year the bill was passed. So the major fist behind the Act was his widow and political successor, Mary Bono. What is it with California voters anyways? So she fought for this Act to be passed in the name of her late husband but implicitely in her own interest. The Act adds 70 years beyond the author’s lifetime of copyright protection. So 70 years after the author is dead, everyone from his children to distant relatives will still be able to benefit from the copyright. Is the Federal government not paying you enough, Mary?

BRiana BeRRy

Spillage from the ever growing pool of media

I met a photographer from the Philippines this weekend who was cruising around the states trying to have an adventure. He doesn't really know anyone here so he meets people in the various cities that he travels to and crashes on their couch for a few nights. I had just so happened to have picked up a couch on craigslist and invited him to stay with me a few days. While he was staying with me he showed me a DVD that some new friends of his in Chicago had made. The video was called Future Schlock. basically it is a total random collection of old TV show clips, cheesy movies, and commercials. When i first started watching it i was frustrated by its chaotic, erratic flow. It doesn't have any sort of goal, it is merely this mishmash of various clips.

As I kept watching it, i began to laugh from the absurdity, but then i began to appreciate it. I realized that I really understood the video, not just each clip but the collection as a whole. By watching these snippets, it was almost like a pallet cleanser for my media saturated brain. We are constantly overrun by images that try to grab our attention, or trying to make us like something, or think a certain way. By watching Future Schlock I was seeing familiar clips from the Home Shopping Network, Operah, and kung-fu flicks, but i was seeing them in a context which had no agenda at all. I just let them all wash over me, taking each one at face value. It was brilliant.

This video expresses and brings into light a tension that exists in our culture as caused by the growing databases of information that have become impossible to navigate and comprehend. There is so much recorded media that is sitting in the stacks of our internet libraries that we cannot even begin to understand it all. This video uses these clips but in a unique, artistic manner. I have decided to share it here on this blog because the majority of these clips are from outdated commercials or TV shows from different countries. Getting licenses clear for each of these clips would surely be an impossible endeavor; if copyright laws were enforced on the creation of this film it would prevent a very valuable expression, one that articulates the tensions of losing control over our public domain in a clever and enjoyable way, if you are interested in seeing the full video let me know, they do not have any sort of encryption on the DVD so i made a copy from the Philippine photographer.

McCain, "My Hero"

So once again its the same thing. Just as Sara Palin did earlier on, using Heart's "Barracuda" as a theme song.. McCain just used the Foo Fighter's "My Hero" as his. So basically, the Foo Fighters are upset because the Republican Party has already done this multiple times without contacting either the band, management, record labeler, or publisher. The Foo Fighter's are just asking McCain too stop using the song, and to show respect for the works of others, to show respect for intellectual property. 

But what's even more interesting than picturing John McCain using a Foo Fighter's song prior to an official statement-- was the comments section of the article that mentioned the situation. People really have no idea what's going on in the world of intellectual property! everyone, for pages and pages, is fighting over what they BELIEVE to be actual copyright laws. And they're all so adamant about it... and so wrong. It's kind of hilarious actually. Here's an example of what a certain Jason wrote: "I love the foo fighters, but i don't think the artist has the right to choose who uses or who plays or likes their song. Once a song is published and made available to the public then anyone has the right to re record it or use it...I've been in the music business all my life and i don't feel sorry for someone who's crying about having their song exposed to more fans!" And one a Mr. Viper wrote: "Don't think anyone can sue. It's not like artists sue dance clubs that play their music." It's really interesting that someone who was interested enough to read this article and then went as far as to writing such a comment, knows so little. Makes me think how little anyone knows about it..

The Melody's No Longer Unique

A friend of mine is a music composition major, and we were talking about matters of IP since I think he has an interesting perspective on it.  One of his professors is a leading music copyright lawyer and had worked on a case that involved an old lady in Washington who sued a major pop star for "stealing her music."  The "stolen" music here turned out to be Beethoven's 9th symphony and the case was dismissed at court.  The melody had been used so many times throughout history that it was no longer unique; monks used it as far back as the 15th century.  I think that the concepts here are really important to look at, especially if you're a fan of thinner copyright protection.  Arguably most melodic samples have been used or heard before in one way or another.  Which is why it's so ridiculous when you hear that a 1 or 2 second "sample" is considered copyright infringement.  It's like placing a (c) on a chord...it's just completely unreasonable in my opinion.  This also ties into what Bollier argues, about how court decisions vary so much across the board, which causes confusion and a "chilling effect" on creativity.  Sure the Washington case's being thrown out seems great, but it's almost irrelevant when placed next to the other court decisions that cater to incredibly strict copyright rights on songs, or rather, very short strands of a melody.

Barbie v. Bratz

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/05/23/barbie-battles-bratz-as-toy-makers-head-to-trial/

Bollier's discussion of Mattel's Barbie empire reminded me of a lawsuit that I briefly read about earlier this year. Last spring, Mattel sued MGA Entertainment the maker of Bratz, a sassier, yet very competitive doll for copyright infringement. The Wall Street Journal covered the trial fairly extensively. Mattel claimed that the designer of Bratz was a still a Mattel employee when he created the concept of Bratz. According to Mattel, Bratz was largely inspired from the designer's experience with Barbie. MGA claims that Barbie altered their dolls to more closely resemble Bratz. Bottom line: Barbie sales dropped as Bratz continued to climb. In the end, a federal jury  ordered MGA to pay Mattel $100 million, only a fraction of what they sought.

The Rhetoric of IP Job Descriptions

While surfing the net for internship prospects I came across this blurb on a large fashion company's site.

New York based Intellectual Property team seeks an intern for departmental assistance

The Intellectual Property Intern will:

 

• Assist IP Department in its daily tasks
• Prepare discovery and cease and desist letters
• Review existing cases and settlements
• Conduct case research 

Now this might all seem pretty straight forward but I want to call to attention the word "discovery". There is something symbolic of surveillance culture signified in that word. These job description is a call to order for future watchdogs of IP. It is a summons for people who will "discover" violations of fashion copyright. Without that word "cease and desist" letters carries a different meaning. There is something less menacing about this absence of surveillance. 

Though I know one might simply look at this job description and write it off, I can't help but find a certain level of severity in it. It really does force one to consider the certain degree of big-brotherness inherent in working with IP. Food for thought for our future IP attorneys in the class, I suppose.

iFraud?

My computer recently contracted a terrible, terrible virus and needs to be reformatted. Since I am not able to back up the files on my external hard drive, I was at first really upset that I will lose all of my music. Then, I remembered that there’s a useful program out there called the iDump which allows users to upload music from their iPod back on their hard drive.

Now that I think about it, I am shocked by how this program is such a flagrant breach of copyright and distribution law. I tried to do a bit of research on its history, and I ended up even more confused. First, it’s not just the iDump, there are many other programs out there that exploit the iPod platform (iGadget, iSproggler, iDirectionz, etc). Second, notice that all these programs follow the classic apple model of throwing a word after the letter “I”. However, I’m assuming that these programs are not being developed by Apple and the creators are merely trying to ride on its brand image (whether this in itself is legal I don’t know..). Third, it’s difficult to find information online about Apple’s affiliation or response to the iDump. This leads me to believe they are not proactively fighting the software, which in contrast is extremely easy to find and download online.

I’m no computer whiz, but I was under the impression that it was not all that impossible to restrict the use of these third party applications. (For example, my version of Microsoft Office 2007 was obtained illegally and I don’t have a verification code. I spent a good 3 hours, to no avail, trying to find a crack that would allow me to d/l the MSN stock quote add-in to excel).

All of this lead me to question: are music labels and companies like Apple that are hurt by the use of the iDump fighting the right battle? Why waste time going after the people that commit copyright infringement when you can go after the people that create a medium for infringement? If someone can clarify on any of my confusions, I would encourage you to write a response. The only other option is that somehow this application is actually legal, in which case my question would be: wtf, how?

Copyright Violations in Mumbai

I know that this doesn't have to do with copyright in America, but I thought it was interesting for the class anyways. 

Apparently, cops in India are being trained both to recognize copyright violations, and to promote the idea of

Intellectual Property. Interestingly, this seems like a complete deviation in some ways from the way we treat IP in the

States. Although the piracy rates are probably much worse in India, here, it isn't the cops who are usually involved

in combatting piracy. So they are allowing police to get involved in something they probably shouldn't. Besides this,

An entirely American, made-up, and perhaps bogus notion is being made to cross the ocean, most likely, solely for

benefit of American corporations. Doesn't seem right.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Mumbai/Cops_get_sound_training_on_copyright_laws/articleshow/3571662.cms

Commentary or Copyright Infringement

Gallery 1988 in Los Angeles has just debuted a new show comprised of over 50 famous LP sleeves painted over by different artists. These pieces, which are selling for a couple of hundred dollars a piece, have not had their 'samples' cleared by the artists (illegal due to the Visual Artist's Rights Act of 1990). One could claim that they employ Fair Use based on parody, though most of the pieces are, at most commentary. Here is a link to a website featuring images of each piece: http://1988covers.blogspot.com/
In Brand Name Bullies, Bollier discussed Dadaist Marcel Duchamp's reinterpretation of Da Vinci's "Mona Lisa," which is simply an image of the painting with a funny title and a mustache painted on top of it. These types of artistic commentary are essential to art movements like post-modernism, yet they problematize current aspects of copyright law. The show in question will probably not result in a lawsuit, because the pieces are all priced fairly low, but even their ethical status comes into question. Musicians, record label executives, and most importantly, album cover artists (who are often underpaid) all contributed the value of these pieces of art, yet they will not receive any profit.
P.S. Gallery 1988 held a show in 2006 that featured recontextualizations of Disney Character entitled "Remixing the Magic," and they miraculously got the copyright maximalists to cosign the event. Here is an LA Times piece describing that show: http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/23/news/wk-gallery23

I Wonder What Coke Would Say About This One...

This is a photograph of a photograph displayed in a gallery on Bowery between 1st and 2nd. It was taken with my camera phone, so I apologize for the poor quality and the glare.

What is important to note is that the trademark for "Enjoy Coke" is clearly being parodied in a vulgar manner. The font, layout, and "enjoy coke" phrase served as the template to this raunchy t-shirt.

Furthermore, Bjork, (the woman featured) is a famous Icelandic singer-songwriter, composer and actress who is known for her quirky style. That she is endorsing the t-shirt is more significant than an average person, who holds little weight in terms of influence and scope.

The fact that this is being displayed in a public gallery is also significant. Of course, it is hard to predict what the legal ramifications of this art work may be. According to Bollier's "Brand Name Bullies," this does not portend well for the photographer, and possibly Bjork. Bollier states, "In general, parodies that put wholesome characters into off-color or obscene circumstances don't seem to go over too well in the federal courts. One of the landmark cases in this area is Coca-Cola Co. v. Gemini Rising, in which a marketing company created a poster that adapted the famous Coca-Cola script" (101). This may end up being yet another Gemini Rising situation. Only time will tell.

Girl Talk/ illegalart.net

So I've finally gotten around to getting the new Girl Talk cd, and I just started "illegally" downloading it, I'm waiting for it to load as I type. I mean, the website to download it is called, illegalart.net, I feel pretty scandalous. I browsed through the site, its home to a few other artists, primarily sample based music and illegalart is sort of a safe haven for them. In navigating through the website I found an interesting interview from the founder of the website, for Splendid primarily discussing copyright. Philo T. Farnsworth, the founder, basically says that "We're against copyright law when it impedes an artist's ability to interact with pre-existing recordings. We're not against copyright protecting artists from someone copying their material and selling it without compensating them". The issue, as many see it, is that copyright laws tend to infringe on fair use rights...thus stifling artistic expression. Its an interesting interview if anyone is curious to read more...

http://splendidezine.com/features/illegal/

No! This is MY collection of street names!

Recently, I’ve begun helping the NYU Office of Global Affairs assemble/revise their Paris Student-to-Student guide for future NYU students studying abroad in Paris. In one of my meetings with the person in charge of the guides, she mentioned that she wanted to add a map of Paris to the guide, for obvious practical reasons, but she was still in the process of looking for maps cheap enough for NYU to purchase to include in the guide, which I found interesting on two levels.

First of all, while I kind of realized in the back of my mind that maps are copyrighted, I find it odd that you can copyright a map considering it’s really just a accumulation of information. If you can’t copyright a phone book because it’s simply an compilation of information, how can you copyright a map which is essentially a compilation of street names?

Second, wouldn’t NYU’s use of the map fall under “fair use” since its used for educational purposes? NYU is not selling guides; they’re simply educational guides for students to use in Paris, so with that in mind, what makes NYU’s use of a map different from an article a teacher posts on Blackboard for students to read for the next class? They’re both educational.

But alas, there’s no definitive black line in IP between what’s infringement & what’s not, so I’m left scratching my head one again.

Studios sue Real Networks

I remember which case I was talking about on Thursday so I thought of posting it up for this week's applied blog. It turns out, Real Networks is offering a software that allows its users to make copies of DVD's, arguing that it violates the DMCA regulations. Real argues that "the program was compliant with Hollywood’s DVD protection regulations, since it featured encryption of the digital copies, thus preventing illegal file sharing."
However, the studios are moving forward with the lawsuit, which if won by the studios, Real will be losing around 15 billion dollars. The studios include Walt Disney Company, Twentieth Century Fox, Sony, Warner Bros, Columbia Pictures, Universal Studios, Paramount Pictures which are also backed by the Motion Pictures Association of America.
I fear that if this lawsuit goes forward and is won by the major studios, which it probably will, the United States will enter a state of "locked in syndrome" (quoting from Diving Bell and The Butterfly) which refers to a state of paralysis in which the mind is awake but the body is refrained from making any actual physical movements. In other words, brilliant minds will continue to appear while The United States will be refrained from moving forward or progressing. And it appears we find ourselves refrained from acting upon it, as we are also apparently stuck in a state of mass indifference.

iTunes please don't fail me now...

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/02/technology/ituneswins.fortune/
"Apple May Shut Down iTunes To Protest Proposed Royalty Hike"
Copyright Royalty Board votes Thursday on increase in rates, threatening iTunes' 99-cent price structure.

So,I think that this post is an appropriate especially after this topic came up with our guest speaker but also because I rely on iTunes. No, really...I rely on iTunes more then I should (for music, tv shows, movies and everything else it offers me.) The thought that apple may shut down iTunes to me was a stab in the gut. Unlike many people I know, I REFUSE to illegally download music and end up spending way more then I should in the iTunes store. So, for iTunes to say that if the increase in price were to happen they would shut down, I would consider myself left stranded and lost. Since I first read the article, there has been an update that the "Judges rule against steep royalty increase for online music stores," I still cant help but wonder why iTunes would threaten to close versus raising their prices? Granted, the increase of song would be quite significant (66% increase) , I cant help but wonder if people would still want to pay for the convince and reliability? "Apple pays an estimated 70 cents on the sale of every dollar it collects per song to the record companies responsible for each track. The record companies turn over 9 cents to the music publishers who control the copyrights to these tunes." If the dispute was "with music publishers over royalties on downloaded songs" why wouldn't the publishers take up a fight with the record companies who take in 70cents each song and argue with them about the distribution of that money? In fact, if you look at the breakdown in Sinnreich & Gluck of a CD retailing for $19.95, the retailer gets $5.95 to the record labels $6.17, therefore almost making as much as the record label. Also, the distribution $4.30 and the manufacturing $1.00 also take in money. I'm not sure how it really works for iTunes but it seems as though the artist, producer, songwriter, and record label (especially the record label) are making much more money off of iTunes because there esse ntially areno manufacturing costs and iTunes does more jobs then one in this process.

Ivan "Ghostbusting-ass" Reitman

I'm taking a class on Film Music, and we had a guest speaker the other day who discussed recording a theme song for "Ghostbusters."  This guy was not Ray Parker Jr, rather he was the songwriter initially commissioned to compose a title song for Ivan Reitman's 1984 film.  This guy's song didn't get picked up for the movie because it didn't satisfy Reitman's request to come up with a song that sounded exactly like "I Want A New Drug" by Huey Lewis & The News.  Now there was a famous lawsuit in which Huey Lewis sued Ray Parker Jr. (the guy who recorded the 'who you gonna call' song used in the film) for "plagiarism."  Now the two settled out of court agreeing to non-disclosure, but it has been revealed that Parker coughed up a very large amount of money.  This is all kind of screwed up, because Reitman was the one who generated the theft concept, yet he walked away empty-handed.  This brings up some interesting copyright related concepts, such as the notion of 'song plagiarism,' who is to blame for copyright infringement, and with something as gigantic as the Ghostbuster theme song (not only in the film, but its soundtrack, a music video, the video game, the trailer, and surely licensed often), how can you monetize something of such magnitude.  Anyhow, interesting case.

PS:  Ghostbusters recently became the first movie ever to be sold on a usb flash drive:  custompc.co.uk/news/604788/ghostbusters-is-first-film-to-be-released-on-usb-stick.html

Reality Television

Hey guys, sorry for the late posts, being Jewish is tough from time to time. Anyways, I called my dad last night to check in, see how the high holidays were treating him and my mother and what not. It sounded noisy and then it was quiet; I could tell he had just left a room of people, or a banquet hall of some sorts. I, of course, asked him what he was up to and he told me he was leaving a copyright conference.
I yelled, "Dude!"
He said, "What?"
"I'm in a copyright course! What was the conference about?"
He told me, to my surprise, that he's been a long time member (30-plus years) of the Los Angeles Copyright Society, and that a former entertainment lawyer-turned-UCLA Professor named David Ginsberg was discussing how the rules of copyright infringement apply to reality television.
"Very cool topic, Pops," I said.
In scripted television, he explained, you must show access and substantial similarity in many categories that include plot, dialogue, etc. Reality shows, on the other hand, can have very similar formats, but since it's "reality," the plots, characters and dialogue are, by their very nature, different. This makes it incredibly difficult, almost impossible, for one reality show to successfully sue another reality show. This is why some "original" shows, like The Real World, American Idol, The Apprentice, etc, have so many obvious imitators.

Anyways, I thought it was a pretty cool little tidbit. I had always wondered why Big Brother was never sued by The Real World, why America's Best Dance Crew was never sued by Dancing With the Stars, or Rock of Love sued by Flavor of Love (though I guess this one's a spinoff on the same network). Pretty interesting though.

IP in the Cocktail world

For most college students, the word cocktail extends about as far as a vodka soda or a Long Island Iced Tea. For me, up until about a year and a half ago, being a bartender consisted of pouring draft beer, shots of jaeger, and apple martinis for eight hours straight. I was introduced to the "cocktail" by a very close friend of mine who was a bartender at a very fine establishment where alcohol and spirits were taken incredibly seriously. Ingredients were precisely measured before mixing out of devices called jiggers, allowing for consistency and perfection. And you could mix anything you had at your disposal! From whiskey to tequila to cordials like campari, benedictine, pastis, and even some I had never heard of like chartreuse and maraschino. After starting a job at a restaurant/cocktail bar in Soho, I fell in love with the art of mixing drinks and found myself reading cocktail books all day every day. Even though no recipe is set in stone due to various factors, (such as the ripeness of the lemons used to squeeze lemon juice or the ratio of water to sugar in the simple syrup) bartenders are quick to claim a drink as their "own." For example, a close friend of mine brags that he created a drink consisting of gin, aperol, yellow chartreuse, and grapefruit bitters. While the ingredients are on the obscure side, it is not entirely unlikely that that combination of spirits has not landed in the same mixing glass before (granted perhaps in different proportions). Several cocktail bars even list the creator of the drink next to the drink's ingredients on their cocktail menus.

Recently, I met a bartender who works at a very prestigious, well known spot in the city. When I went to visit him last week, he made me one drink that was on the menu and one that was not. Before I left, he made sure to tell me not to mention to anyone that he had made me a drink that was not part of his bar's menu or standardized list of cocktails, but rather was one that he had made up on the spot. Fortunately where I work, we have the luxury to experiment creatively behind the bar (just as long as we don't go through an entire bottle of liquor). I was stunned by the boundary imposed by his boss. The cocktail he had made me was absolutely delicious. Just imagine what kinds of new concoctions could emerge from behind that bar should such limits not exist. I asked him why the rule was in place and he revealed to me that he had to sign a contract with the owner when he got the job stating that any drink that he created behind her bar belongs to her. Additionally, all the recipes used by the bartenders are confidential, trade secrets that cannot be discussed. This was the most ridiculous thing I had ever heard. Not only does it make cocktails seem completely snooty and unapproachable, but it completely limits the freedom and creativity of the bartenders. It seems silly to me to attempt to own property that is both a liquid and digested in a matter of minutes. Perhaps this is a smart business maneuver, as it protects the integrity of the bar, but in my mind alcohol is fluid and has a temporary effect, and is therefore difficult to bottle, capture, and call one's property.

lessig commons

I'm not sure if anyone has had a chance to check out the Creative Commons site yet...It's definitely worth a look. While a noble concept, there does not seem to be ample incentive for those with truly creative content. Without having really examined the quality of material that is protected under the auspices of the project, I am immediately inclined to assume that CC is nothing more than a dumping ground for mediocrity.

Macarena In Silence

I have noticed that in several discussions regarding the absurdity of certain copyright restrictions that the Macarena, arguably one of the most absurd dances of all time, has been cited as an example. One Girl Scout leader commented in an article about the club's suit with ASCAP related that "It seems so different, when you do the Macarena in silence." The poor girls had to dance in silence because a) it was a great press angle, right? and b) ASCAP was trying to sue them for refusing to pay royalties on campfire sing-a-longs.

So my question is, might the dance itself be a copyright? Can you have a copyright on choreography? For our purposes, we can regard cheesy dance jams as choreography. As it turns out, YES you can. Although the only copyright case to reach the federal courts was regarding the choreography to the nutcracker in Horgan v. MacMillan, the genius behind the Electric Slide has been suing YouTubers left and right under these laws. Although you can't necessarily issue copyrights discriminating against arts with integrity and those that are so purely for commercial gain, this seems out of line. Particularly because it is nearly impossible to regulate such property. This falls under the copyrights that are such a common part of our culture that people assume they are public domain. Well they assume that until they get sued. From what I have found, Los Del Rios do not own a copyright on the Macarena and have never pursued legal remedy in it name. Thank God.

BRIANA BERRY

Bathroom-Stall-Pull-Down-Table...Patent?

I'm not sure if any of you have/had class in Meyer, or the Psychology Building that's the same color as Bobst, but I noticed something related to IP while in one of its obnoxiously lilac-colored bathrooms the other day.  In each stall there's a little pull-down shelf/table thing from way back in the day that was intended for your "purse and other things."  I'm not sure if anyone ever used/uses it (it seems pretty useless for me, I just hang my stuff from the hook behind the door), but beneath the sticker on the shelf there was a U.S. Patent number.  I'm sure the patent's up by now, so if any of you are looking to make bank in the bathroom-stall-pull-down-table industry, you can go for it. :)

Copyrighting Prayers?

As I sat in synagogue today for the holiday and flipped through my prayer book, I happened upon the copyright information page.  I wasn't that surprised to see that the book was, in fact, copyrighted.  What I was astonished to see however, was that in further explanation of what "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" encompassed, it stated that the 'hebrew text' was under their copyright.  I could understand the translation and the layout, etc. but the hebrew text? That essentially means that the prayers themselves are copyrighted.  How this is even possible is beyond me.  It'd be like copyrighting the bible.  The prayers are completely standardized and used by everyone, this particular company that released this prayer book did not write them whatsoever, perhaps they decided to include some as opposed to others, but even still, this wasn't the arrangement or the compilation it was the actual text.  It boggles my mind..

Parodical Graffiti at the F/V

This is no ordinary graffiti. Exiting the 2nd avenue F/V subway stop the other night, I looked to my left and was astonished to find some pretty incredible "graffiti" (I would argue that this is art, but it's a means of semantics) displayed on the building wall. Thank goodness for camera phones.

The image on the left is the visual equivalent of "sampling." The influences here are twofold: first, we see the face of Michael Jackson (or at least the face of Michael Jackson after myriad plastic surgical procedures, but that's a very different analysis for a different day). That Mr. Jackson's image was used in the graffiti was parodical in and of itself.

But what else is notable about the image is that it emulates the famous Andy Warhol's Marilyn Monroe prints, "stealing" from Andy the artistic approach of exaggerated discoloration and coloring "outside of the lines." It certainly makes for a shocking---if not somewhat awe-inspiring image.

The image on the right also has a double meaning (if not multiple meanings). Of course, we immediately recognize the face of Barack Obama. Significantly, his head is set against the vibrant backdrop of the American flag. Whether this was intended to indicate a sense of strong patriotism and an idolization of Obama or rather a cynical skepticism is unclear and difficult to discern. What is discernable is that Obama is clad in Clark Kent (AKA "Superman") clothes. Superman is published by (and presumably owned by?) D.C. Comics. He was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.

It would be interesting to see how D.C. Comics felt about this use of Barack Obama to supplant Clark Kent's face in Superman gear. As this is a clear parody, I would assume that it would safely avoid being targeted by suit (of course, the artist is not identifiable since this was technically graffiti), but given the outlandish and outrageous tales of unconstitutionality we have heard in our class, I wouldn't be surprised if this would raise an issue, particularly considering the political context in which it's used.

These images reminded me of Lethem's "The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism", in which he discusses how his first novel Gun, With Occasional Music, was crafted into the gun-shaped artwork of Robert The.

Art is the re-creation and re-configuration of existing elements to create something innovative and new, and this graffiti certainly did so. How it would fair in the realm of copyright and intellectual property law is uncertain at best.

David Harvey, Neoliberalism and Copyright law

I am reading David Harvey's "Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction" He describes why and how neoliberalism ("the theory of political economic practices proposing that human well-being can best be advanced by the maximization of entrepreneurial freedoms within an institutional framework characterized by private property rights, individual liberty, unencumbered markets and free trade") has been enforced inside the US and across the world. He pinpoints the year 1973 as the turning point in the rise of neoliberalism, and the 70's in general as a tide-turning period of neoliberal revolution/coup. Seeing that the 1976 Copyright Act was passed exactly during this period I instantly saw David Harvey's insights are in tandem with Michael Keller, David Bollier and John Tehranian (among others). Harvey doesn't directly speak about the copyright expansion, but he describes the forces behind it: "The corporatization, commodification, and privatization of hitherto public assets have been signal features of the neoliberal project. Its primary aim has been to open up new fields for capital accumulation in domains formerly regarded as off'limits to the calculus of profitability... All of these processes amount to the transfer of assets from the public and popular realms to the private and class-privileged domains." He speaks about a general movement, that includes copyright and IP law as well other systems like social security, welfare and healthcare, that is redistributing the American public's property to the hands of a few large corporations.

"apple drops iphone non disclosure agreement"

Checking the online news last night I ran into this article and thought it went along perfectly with the course, especially with what we've been speaking about lately. Apparently there have been hundreds of complaints dealing with the iphone's non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Apple started using it with the iphone, along with their several patents, in order to protect the hours of innovation that have gone into creating the software for the iphone. Because it is not only a brilliant creative idea, but also a system of great technical innovation-- it requires a lot of protection in order to keep it safe from its many competitors. But because of the great number of complaints they have received, they have finally realized that by protecting themselves they have been dissuading its users from creating software, and in turn, not providing the best possible software for their loyal consumers. They have come to the realization that in order to help the iphone grow, and become even MORE successful-- they have realized that the more people they have creating new software, the better the system can get.

Obviously.

Since there are many other companies ruthlessly following apple, as apple has definitely set a standard for a company within the past few years-- maybe this will open the minds, and in turn the software, of other companies. Perhaps this is a step forward for IP.