Copyright and the World's Most Popular Song

Woah! It looks like Happy Birthday might not actually be under copyright.

"Happy Birthday to You" is the best-known and most frequently sung song in the world. Many - including Justice Breyer in his dissent in Eldred v. Ashcroft - have portrayed it as an unoriginal work that is hardly worthy of copyright protection, but nonetheless remains under copyright. Yet close historical scrutiny reveals both of those assumptions to be false. The song that became "Happy Birthday to You," originally written with different lyrics as "Good Morning to All," was the product of intense creative labor, undertaken with copyright protection in mind. However, it is almost certainly no longer under copyright, due to a lack of evidence about who wrote the words; defective copyright notice; and a failure to file a proper renewal application.

SSRN-Copyright and the World's Most Popular Song by Robert Brauneis

One bielyon dollars!

Ok, I exaggerate a little but this is getting a smidge ridiculous. The MPAA is demanding $15.4 million from The Pirate Bay to "cover the damages they suffered from 4 movies and 13 TV-episodes that were made available via the popular BitTorrent tracker". Sorry, but by that logic, never mind the insane math involved in coming up with that number, the MPAA should be suing Google too since I can find torrents of The Pink Panther via their search engine too.

Pirate Bay's response: “The worst thing is that I lost 100 kronor on a bet on the number they would come up with,” Sunde added. “And, it sucks that they didn’t claim more than for Napster and the other sites. It’s cooler to break the record.”

BBC removes Doctor Who fan’s knitting patterns from the Web

I'm not a knitter but I've been watching a lot of the photos on Flickr (especially the recent Face of Bo and Adipose creations) and wishing someone would love me enough to knit some of these for me. So when I read the story of the person who's received a cease and desist from the BBC for posting homebrew knitting patters online I felt just a little sick.

“We note that you are supplying DR WHO items, and using trade marks and copyright owned by BBC. You have not been given permission to use the DR WHO brand and we ask that you remove from your site any designs connected with DR WHO. Please reply acknowledging receipt of this email, and confirm that you will remove the DR WHO items as requested.”

Really, who is this hurting? No money is changing hands and the BBC isn't loosing any market share since they're offering no such thing officially. Hey Russell, what do you think about this?

Read more and link to the full story on the The Open Rights Group Blog.

Of Librarians, Photography, Copyright & Creative Commons

Before you read this post be sure you've read these other posts and I don't really feel like summarizing them, just responding to the issues at hand.

• 50 Reasons Not to Change
• Copyright Infringement and Creative Commons
• Creative Commons, Copyright and the Murky Middle
• Free Use Photos
• So What Are the Rules for Photographers?

I was going to post about this since I seem to be the "CC Guy" in the library world post-CIL2008 but then I decided not to as I'm not in the mood to write something worthy of what I have to say about it. Now, is looks like we will be discussing the issue on tonight's episode of Uncontrolled Vocabulary so I've decided to create this less-than-perfect response if for no other reason than to organizer my thought in preparation for tonight.

Resolved:

Whereas the original blogger of the image in question did not own the copyright on the image in the first place, they are just as "wrong" in republishing it on the Net as anyone involved.

Whereas the original blogger states "Please note that this image has a copyright, for non-commercial distribution with attribution" then displays the CC BY-NC-SA license, this wholly makes no sense. Either the image is under traditional copyright or it's under a CC license. You can't have it both ways.

Whereas Michael Casey followed the license as far as I can tell I consider him pretty much faultless in this situation.

Whereas the original blogger insists that you use her code to post that image anywhere else, that both a) does not jive with the CC license given and b) is not something most Web publishers will do since she could change the image to something else at any time and therefore that would display new, non-approved content on my site.

Whereas the original blogger is stating a copyright, and stating a CC license, and then stating that others must only post the image the way she wants, she is trying to have her cake and eat it too and that just won't work. Pick one. You can't have all three.

Whereas the original blogger issued a DMCA takedown notice to Yahoo! (owner of Flickr), I consider this to be a complete overreaction to the situation. She should have contacted Michael first and tried to work it out with him personally. I'm sure he would have been reasonable about it.

Whereas Yahoo! received the DMCA takedown notice they did the only thing that the law allowed them to do, and took the image out of Michael's account. Michael and I see this as completely unreasonable but I still find Yahoo! faultless since they had no choice under the DMCA. I hope that Yahoo! will restore the image pending their investigation.

Whereas Flickr does not allow for a public domain license, I agree that they should. Anyone know who to write to in encouragement of adding a PD license?

Whereas the new Free Use Photos Flickr group has been created, I believe this might only cause additional confusion and problems as most of those photos are in the "Free Use Photos" group yet still have a traditional full copyright listed for rights. In other words, we teach users to check the rights but now have to say "but as long as it's in this group, you're allowed to ignore the listed rights."

Whereas I was invited to participate in this group I have decided to respectfully declined. I am more than happy to let pretty much anyone use my photos as long as they give me credit. (In fact I've allowed several commercial organizations to use my photos without paying me.) My CC license allows for this just fine. I'm not willing to put my photos into the public domain at this point since then others could use my works without giving me credit.

Therefore I believe that the problem is not Creative Commons but a distinct lack of understanding of one or more of the parties. The solution is not to give up on CC as Michael has done, but further education.

More interesting Copyright Statements

In preparation for my upcoming Creative Commons presentation I've found myself reading copyright statements in books. I posted an amusing one last week. Here's a few more which are amusing, but in these cases, are meant to be serious. Italics are emphasis I've added.

Justin Charles & Co - 2003
“All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the publisher, nor be otherwise circulated in any form of binding or cover other that that in which it is published and without a similar condition being imposed on the subsequent publisher.”

Borderlands Press – 2007
“This book is fully protected under the copyright laws of the United States of America, and all of the countries covered by the International Copyright Union (including the countries covered by the International Copyright Union including the Dominion of Canada and the rest of the British Commonwealth), and all of the countries covered by the Pan-American Copyright Convention and the Universal Copyright Convention, and of all countries with which the United States has reciprocal copyright relations. All rights, including professional, amateur, motion picture, recitation, lecturing, public reading, radio broadcasting, television video or sound taping, all other forms of mechanical electronic reproductions such as information storage and retrieval systems and photocopying, and the rights of translation into foreign languages are strictly reserved.” [All that in just two sentences.]

February 2008 – Cemetery Dance
“All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the author, or his agent, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a critical article or review to be printed in a magazine or newspaper, or electronically transmitted on radio or television.”
[According to this quoting in a review on Amazon.com or your blog isn't allowed.]

Funniest copyright statement ever

I was saving this for my CC talk at CiL but it's too funny not to post.

All rights reserved under the International and Pan- American Copyright Conventions. No part of this book may be reproduced, replicated, reiterated, duplicated, conduplicated, retyped, transcribed by hand (manuscript or cursive), read aloud and recorded on audio tape, platter, or disk, lipsynched, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including genetic, chemical, mechanical, optical, xerographic, holographic, electronic, stereophonic, ceramic, acrylic, or telepathic (except for that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press who promise to read the book painstakingly all the way through before writing their reviews) without prior written permission from the Publisher.

Creative Commons @ MPOW

I don't usually cross-post between this personal blog and the office blog but a project I've been working on for about a month has just been implemented and I'm totally excited about it. Check out the details on the NLC blog.

If the RIAA & MPAA had brain scanners

Granted, neither of them worry (officially) about book piracy but today's xkcd makes me want to go read the new Harry Potter in a bookstore without buying it. Or, I could just download the PDF.

Sicko isn't on YouTube any more

It was reported over the weekend that Michael Moore's new film Sicko was available in it's entirety on YouTube. Well, despite Mr. Moore being on record saying as "I don't agree with the copyright laws and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labour. I would oppose that… I do well enough already and I made this film because I want the world to change. The more people who see it the better, so I'm happy this is happening." it seems he isn't in charge. Lionsgate films has ordered it taken down.

On presenting copyright

On Saturday I attended a training day for school media specialists. The three afternoon sessions were on Flickr & Blogging (presented by a co-worker of mine), Copyright (presented by someone I don't know) and Podcasting (presented by YT). I caught the end of the flickr presentation, sat through the whole copyright presentation and then did mine. At the request of a couple of folks who read my tweets during the copyright presentation, I've written this post.

Important note: I am not criticizing the presenter. Her presentation style was just fine and her information was accurate in the strictest sense. So please, do not view this a anything vaguely related to a comment on the presenter herself.

The first problem with presenting an issue such as copyright is the fact that it's a legal issue and the final arbiter of whether you're violating copyright lays with a judge or a jury after presenting a bucket-load of facts. Those situations generally require lawyers to sort out the details and several times the presenter reminded the audience "I am not a lawyer". This is not to say that she shouldn't present this topic. I've attended presentations on copyright with a panel of lawyers, and they couldn't do much better since many times the answer to a given scenario is "it depends".

Because of this, most copyright presenters will err on the side of caution, especially when presenting to people from schools as, after all, you don't want to do something that will get your school sued by a copyright holder. So, for example, the presenter mentioned this example from the flickr presentation in which the Westmont Public Library is using flickr to promote new materials. According to the presenter, before doing this, the library should "check the license" in the book to see if this "use" is allowed and, not finding such permission in the item, contact each of the publishers individually, get permission, file that permission away, and then proceed with photographing the item and posting it on flickr.

O.k. that might follow the letter of the law but I would hardly call that a realistic course of action. (In fact, School Library Journal would say that this falls under fair use.) Granted, that is the exactly the technically correct advice to give and I don't blame her for it. But such advice, in my opinion, needs to be tempered with a bit of reality. Maybe something along the lines of "this may, or may not, fall under fair use and be prepared to stop doing it should a publisher object." However, no such advice was given and I could tell that by the end of the hour, every school-media specialist in that room looked a bit more paranoid than they did at the beginning of the hour.

I am not trying to say that this is the fault of the presenter. She's presenting on copyright and therefore does not want (I assume) to run the risk of giving someone "bad advice" and getting in trouble for it later. That's natural. However, the fact that she's in the position she's in, shows just how screwed up the current copyright law is.

P.S. I will give the presenter kudos for pointing out that Mickey Mouse is the driving force behind copyright updating.

P.P.S. From NPR's Morning Edition today: Stanford Center Advocates for Fair Use on Web

University of Nebraska won't play along

I can't say that living in Lincoln is going to turn me into a Huskers fan but this news has started to turn me into a fan of someone on campus. Turns out that University of Nebraska will bill RIAA $11 for each threatening letter received from the RIAA. The RIAA has backed down!

How I Became A Music Pirate

Some wonder why people think it's o.k. to do things with music they've purchased that the RIAA doesn't want you to do. Well here's the story of how one man became a "music pirate".

"'Well' she responded, 'You didn't actually purchase the files, you really purchased a license to listen to the music, and the license is very specific about how they can be played or listened to.'"

Viacom sues Google/YouTube for (insert Dr. Evil joke here)

Here's the basic story and the Google Copyright Blog has the full text of the complaint as a PDF.

"YouTube is a significant, for-profit organization that has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google."