I feel for the modern day professional photographer. I was at a conference recently and a gentleman that represents photographers says they are getting killed. They post an image and people just rip it and don't pay them anything. He was actually lamenting that they would have more power to collect monies if they had something akin to the performing rights organizations that music has. Getty sues because they run a business based on licensing. If they don't sue, why would anyone license use of their images or videos, especially businesses that can afford to/need to use their services. I find this pretty smart and it seems they are looking towards the future trying to strike a balance between revenue and reality.
Then they are joint authors? That agreement must be explicit and decided at the onset.... Then perhaps she gave an implied non exclusive license to use her performance and she has decided to rescind that license? Or she saw them filming and didn't realize her image would be used. She must have wandered on set.
The ruling of this judge makes my stomach turn. Actors in motion pictures are unequivocally performing works for hire and as such surrender rights in their performances. Yet the court says she has rights in the performance separate from the words and actions in the script? I can only envision the 9th circuit judge somehow tying the theory of right of publicity (a state claim in California) to grant rights to this actress and thus granting a copy right interest into the work. Then is she involved in a joint work between her and the filmmaker? That has to be shown as the intent of both parties from the onset and explicitly at that. This ruling makes no sense.
"Fans interested in bootlegs tend to be the kinds of fans who buy everything and spend tons of money on live shows as well."
I couldn't agree more. This and many of have his past copyright litigation decisions seem out of touch and ill advised. Bootlegs generally sound so crappy you'd have to be a die hard fan to listen. If he wants the links taken down that is his prerogative, but the monetary/ damages aspect is disappointing,
"For all that some people constantly claim that 'infringement = theft', the law certainly treats them completely and utterly different in severity and punishment."
Absolutely. The theft of a cd/dvd is the theft of a physical thing that retails under $20. Infringement is the taking of the underlying content that could have cost millions to produce. In addition, this appropriation of content then could allow someone else to reproduce it and sell it (bootlegs) (someone else making money instead of the producer) or interfering with the producers ability to commercial exploit their product (offering it for free on the internet).
"By the light that turns on when you're recording."
Are you implying there is no way a red light can be disabled to record secretly?
"The other point about this particular incident is that he was wearing the glasses when he bought his ticket and when he gave his ticket to the ticket-tearer."
Perhaps this was meant to catch him in the act. The more I think about it, I don't think it was a pr stunt. They were operating under the assumption he was recording.
Yes, this whole situation was unfortunate. It's a story because he wasn't doing what they thought he was. Yes they made a mistake. If he was recording the same thing would have happened except he would have been arrested.
I believe that is why he was questioned as opposed to being arrested.
"If you are potentially breaking federal statutes, federal authorities will often be involved. Ice was rolled into homeland security some years ago."
He wasn't breaking ANY statute.
Family Entertainment and Copyright Act 2005
18 U.S.C.A. § 2319B
(a) Offense.--Any person who, without the authorization of the copyright owner, knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work protected under title 17, or any part thereof, from a performance of such work in a motion picture exhibition facility, shall--
(1) be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both; or (2) if the offense is a second or subsequent offense, be imprisoned for no more than 6 years, fined under this title, or both. The possession by a person of an audiovisual recording device in a motion picture exhibition facility may be considered as evidence in any proceeding to determine whether that person committed an offense under this subsection, but shall not, by itself, be sufficient to support a conviction of that person for such offense
"I love how you assholes justify breaking everyone's balls because of "copyright"
I am sorry you feel there is something wrong in enforcing this law.
"LAB is one of the more reasoned, controlled copyright advocates."
"but the attempts and lengths he goes to defend the existing, over-the-top practices are a sign of his irreparably blind dedication."
Hardly, I just fail to see things and stories strictly in black and white, good vs. evil constructs. I feel you do yourself a disservice if you can't view it from the other side. Why would the MPAA be concerned with someone potentially using new technology to record in a movie theater? Why would federal authorities be involved? Why would they question him about higher ups and what organization he worked for?
How do you tell? How are they supposed to know? If you think someone is shoplifting from your store don't you check the bag they brought in?
I appreciate your analogy and am slightly more sympathetic. I think the analogy would be better served in a shoplifting situation. Incredibly inconvenient for the patron. My point more is that when dealing with private entities you get crazy reactions. Regardless how you feel about the laws I would not wear a potential recording device on my face in a theater and be surprised if anything happened.
"Now, that said, while I highly doubt this was a PR stunt on Google's behalf, I can totally see it as being an attempted one, and one that backfired badly, on behalf of the *AA's, to 'make an example' out of a movie pirate."
"But don't lose sight of the fact that THIS MAN DID NOTHING AND LOST HOURS OF HIS LIFE to these assholes."
I barely understand the outrage. It is illegal to record in a movie theater. This is pretty well known by much of the adult population of the United States. A shame he is from the Balkans and might not have realized it but.....a movie theater is private property. They were well within their rights to call the authorities if they suspect someone breaking the law in their establishment.
"Just like photos, you can use a voice action to start video recording by saying "ok glass, record a video."
from google glass help
I am more concerned with the potential to abuse privacy rights by these devices then a potential stunt to get people to talk about $3,000 glasses and where people should and shouldn't wear them.
"And perhaps YOU don't care that ICE is now the private Gestapo of the MPAA, catching all those "piracy-terrorists," but some of us would like our tax dollars spent on something more worthwhile."
If you are potentially breaking federal statutes, federal authorities will often be involved. Ice was rolled into homeland security some years ago. I suggest a trip to ICE's website to see what they have been doing since 2008. It is quite a bit more than being MPAA goons.
I disagree with your interpretation of the case law.
Copyright's function/effect today is to provide a limited monopoly of use by the copyright holder. This has purposeful economic consequences.
"The Copyright Act does not give a copyright holder control over all uses of his copyrighted work. Instead, s 1 of the Act enumerates several ‘rights' that are made ‘exclusive’ to the holder of the copyright. If a person, without authorization from the copyright holder, puts a copyrighted work to a use within the scope of one of these ‘exclusive rights,’ he infringes the copyright."
The full passage is necessary to provide context:
"The limited scope of the copyright holder's STATUTORY MONOPOLY, like the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a BALANCE of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be ENCOURAGED and REWARDED, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts."
"The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an ‘author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good."
"That's not really true. The uses listed are merely illustrative examples"
I believe one of the most important parts of statutory interpretation is acknowledging what is present. You will note that these illustrations are not meant to be exhaustive, but they do have purpose. They are to show the nature of uses generally considered fair use. They are the same in many respects and a common theme can be observed.
"Even if does not do any of those things, it may still be fair use"
I am speaking from a practical standpoint. As one often would be claiming fair use in a litigious context, I would highly suggest, right from the beginning, contemplating whether the use is or is similar to the uses mentioned in the first paragraph of the statute. They are there for guidance.
I do find it disappointing blue's comments are always blocked and the responses to his arguments are not. Some of his points are valid.
"Putting entire digital movie / music files online for anyone to download is NOT sharing, not fair use, nor fair to its creators; it does remove some degree of potential profit and some degree of actual profit."
I agree. While it maybe "sharing" it most certainly is not fair use. In addition, the creator or copyright holder should have control of the dissemination of the work. Isn't that the point? And when I state this, I do not mean the purpose of copyright from the 1700's but its current purpose, to maximize the commercial exploitation of the work by the right holder.
"Fair use is about the rights of the public to speak, to make use of content, to comment, to criticize and to express themselves."
This is indeed true but is often confused and twisted by both sides of the copyright argument.
"to make use of content"
Yes the public can use, but for what purpose. In the United States, what is often ignored is the paragraph before the four factors of statute 107, which states:
... the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
Is the use a criticism or comment? Does it dissect the work? Is it commenting or criticizing the work itself? Does the use break it down, analyze it? Is it news reporting? Is the use academic?
These are some of the questions that must be addressed even before the four factors are weighed to determine fair use.
This is patently false. Megaupload paid members to post content encouraging the posting of infringing content. In addition, they received a direct financial benefit by selling memberships where members had access to infringing content. Google does not do this.