No, sculptural works in a public setting are definitely not not something protected from filming by copyright. See this document (warning: pdf) for more guidance.
Now, the area around the performance is certainly more grey. My guess-and, yes, it is an opinion-would be that an infringement claim would hinge around your usage of such a recording. Posting a limited amount of the footage on YouTube or used with journalistic intent should be exempt. But if you were selling that footage for direct profit you might find a jury to be sympathetic with the plaintiff.
My thoughts exactly. This is a political campaign, and the more she reveals her ignorance of the law, the less likely it becomes that she'll win the seat. If she chooses to Palinize herself, more power to her. Maybe she's really vying for a job on Fox News...
Except a determination of unsafe driving requires a contextual judgment. There are arguments that can be made the other way--that under certain specific circumstances, it may be safer to be within an intersection while the light turns red. The problem with automated devices such as cameras is that they ignore the context of the situation. As such, I personally think it's impossible to say with any certainty that Mr. Ginsburg's driving was unsafe.
...which is why we need legislation that allows for the punitive punishment for those filing frivolous lawsuits. Any lawyer who files a suit such as this without a clear understanding of IP laws would be potentially exposed to large penalties for their actions, thus deterring the suit to begin with. In addition, it would also create a market for legal defenses paid on contingency.
NPR radio just did an interesting story (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122457774) on the elevator system in the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. One of the items in the story was about the Last Elevator Operator in D.C.--something we should all truly lament.
History is full of stories of how technology has made certain professions obsolete. Shall we pass legislation outlawing automatic elevators? Shall we subsidize elevator rides with admission fees--or even better, tax dollars?
Sadly the world of professional news journalism is undergoing major upheaval. Does this mean the end of news-gathering or quality reporting? To listen to some, you would think so. But take a broad look at history and you will likely realize that what is taking its place is far more useful and valuable to our culture than newspapers ever were. That is, unless you are one of those who hate to push the button to reach your floor, longing for the day when you had to pay someone else to operate the lift for you....
The real travesty here is the fact that this is a criminal matter? I mean, really, WTF?
OK, if the theater wants to ban cameras from its property, fine--let it kick out its customers. I don't really care.
And if the copyright holder wants to bring civil action against someone for infringement,fine. Let them bring their case in front of a judge and jury to assess the situation and render an appropriate judgement.
But to make the act *criminal*? That's just insane, folks. On what grounds are you contending that possessing a recording device on private property is causing enough individual or societal harm that it warrants criminal punishment--even jail time? Even if this woman intended upon using her recording for commercial gain--which it certainly seems like she was not--how can you justify elevating this to the level of criminal behavior?
I'm sorry, I'm just not buying this snake oil. And my legislators know it. How the hell have we managed to let an industry subvert our justice system for their own economic benefit just boggles the mind.
Breaking News is of very high value, and in many cases an exclusive perspective should not be discounted simply for a lack of corroboration. However, 2 elements must be taken into consideration, IMO:
--You must be willing to publicly and prominently amend the record (e.g., strikethroughs with corrections immediately following).
--You still must consider the implications of "getting it wrong." For example, if your original story is likely to cause irreparable damage to someone's reputation or livelihood, you have an ethical obligation to obtain further corroboration.
If you fail to do either, your own reputation will rightly be tarnished. I can think of several MSM sources I no longer follow due to their violation of one or both of these basic tenets.
The problem with the NFL is that the game has taken a back seat to the celebrity. The front office has become obsessed with controlling the image of its membership and forgotten the real reason fans like to watch. The league has taken on the model of the Vince McMahon's WWF. How do they expect anyone to take it seriously anymore?
I wholeheartedly agree. I make creative works *now*, and I want to clearly specify to my clients what they can and cannot do with my work.What are the alternatives?
--Copyright my work and ignore the fact my customers will violate the terms,
--Public Domain it and have no say over its use, or
--Copyright it and then threaten to sue the pants off of my customers when they violate it.
Now, remind me why I should wait for the vitriolic debate in the US congress over this? Especially when it is going to be controlled by the Special Interest lobby?
Four. A search without enough probable cause to justify a warrant is a clear violation of privacy rights, especially if you are USA citizen. If DHS feels time is of an essence, they can seize the laptop and wait for a warrant to be issued before violating you.This needs to change.
Actually, I do not think either of those organizations use AP. And this post is specifically about the ineptitude of the Associated Press, not wire services in general.
And I disagree that either of these organizations have to "massively increase" anything. That's kinda the point the newsfuturist was making in the first place.
Sometimes we tend to forget that the average reader of this blog is an individual who likely uses the internet for a great deal of their news and information gathering. I would contend however that at least in the US, we have yet to become the majority (though this will likely change in the next decade or so).
I live in a fairly rural and isolated area where there are still quite a substantial portion of the populace without a broadband connection. For those individuals, the national and international coverage that AP provides for the local paper is hardly irrelevant.
Having said that, I think our local daily (which I personally find to be a piece of garbage) would be better served by hiring a staff member or two to research the internet (and other sources) and find stories relevant to our community. A local reporter could then provide some contextualization to the big stories, while the 5 sentence digest stories could be be gleaned from just about anywhere. The AP in its current role is indeed unnecessary in such a model. See ya!
...which is precisely the point made in the OP. It's up to the songwriters to come up with a viable method of charging for their services, just like in virtually every other industry. Personally, I don't see any good coming out of the subsidization of their current business model. The current arguments for industry protectionism fall grossly short in this case, considering the harm done to innovation and how simple it is to change the earning model.
Republicans are responsible for over regulation. Democrats are responsible for over regulation. Lining their pockets is a bipartisan effort.
Both parties act in the best interest of large corporations as it is they who help finance the massive campaigns now required to hold office.
Your logic is incorrect not only because you assume that you are going to be able to attract 100 customers, but because your venture relies on a failed business model.
The *reality* of the market is that there is NO WAY you are going to prevent at least one of your thousand customers from sharing a copy of your work. Relying on your government to somehow make up for your inability to adapt to this new paradigm only serves to erode personal freedoms and stifle innovation.
It is up to you to come up with alternative methods to recoup your investment and profit from your innovative ideas. Many others have by recognizing that greater exposure leads to further opportunities, providing service and support for your ideas, providing supportive scarce goods, etc.
Personally, I am going to fight for my rights to privacy and ownership. The sooner you realize that the long term suppression of ideas is a *bad* thing for society, the better.
The Better Deal:
Artist records/produces own music, distributes it via a multitude of possible channels, promotes and markets through live performance, social networking, etc. and tells the labels to go f%# themselves.
As for the solo artist: How about you record your music, and if it is good then people will pay to have it performed live, or to use it in a commercial veture (movie, television, etc.,),. or pay you to compose something original? Your talent is the scarce good in that model.
All the discussion regarding various methods of reforming copyright are interesting and there's no question that some type of reform is long overdue. I personally believe you should be able to have some say over the use of your IP while you're alive, but that it should probably end there.
But in a marketplace collapsing due to the "zero cost" factor, what does it really matter whether the time frame is 3 years or 73? If your IP is widely available at no cost within 3 days of release regardless of your legal rights, then you're still left with the same underlying problem...