BAlbrecht 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (23) comment rss

  • On the post: AP Exec Claims That Its Moves Look Stupid To The Untrained Eye… Not Clear On What The Trained Eye Thinks

    BAlbrecht ( profile ), 13 Apr, 2009 @ 10:13am

    Let 'em try

    Fine.
    If the AP can convince their clients that they deserve a premium rate so they can finance a voracious legal team to run around suing folks, that is certainly their prerogative.

    Personally, if I was a client, I'd start shopping...

  • On the post: UK Musicians: Extend Copyright, But Give The Copyright Back To The Musicians

    BAlbrecht ( profile ), 06 Apr, 2009 @ 05:06pm

    What's the point?

    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...

    Time to change the business model, folks.

  • On the post: Just Because You Can Do A DMCA Takedown Doesn't Mean You Should…

    BAlbrecht ( profile ), 23 Mar, 2009 @ 05:11pm

    To play a bit of the Devil's Advocate here:

    From reading the update on the post, it seems fairly clear that the primary issue was concerning the photographs used by Apartment Therapy.
    The reality in the world of commercial photography is that rights-managed usage licenses are the norm. The photographers charge for their work based upon the agreement that the licensee will only distribute it in accordance with their contract. Apartment Therapy was violating those licenses by "distributing" those images without permission--and apparently without even giving proper credit. As such, like it or not, this is indeed a clear violation of copyright.

    Now having said that, a couple thoughts come to mind:
    --Why is the NYT issuing the takedown notices and not the photographers themselves? If they are NYT employees, then ownership defaults to the NYT and the opinions above are valid, and
    --The world of rights-managed photography had better sit up and take notice of this situation as this type of "infringement" is becoming commonplace, and in many cases benefits the authors way more than threatening legal action. Allowances had better be written into the contracts *along with stipulations to provide proper credit* before the whole situations spins out of control like the RIAA/MPAA.

    Lastly, there is *no* excuse for sicking the legal staff before even making a phone call. But then, the NYT has gotten what they deserve from this, haven't they? A nice black eye from the AT readership.