Hasbro balked on a fighting game based on a show targeted to kids 2-11? How is this bad or surprising? You can paint this as some kind of travesty but it isn't. Hasbro wasn't approached about licensing and the developers could have saved some scratch by doing what they did in the end, change the characters a little.
I suppose this is a bummer but TCPI is well within their rights. I think a cease and desist letter would have been a tad more charitable way to stop the use of the copyrighted character's images. There was no licensing involved and you have to pay to play I guess is the message here. Or They just didn't want their children's brand associated with a party at a bar with drinks named after it's characters. Definitely not a fan friendly move.
There are many purposes for the permissions asked. However, because a company states a beneficial reason for a certain permission does not mean there can not be another use. You are indeed giving them permission for exactly what is stated. How they will use the information is strictly their "word." This is the same stink that occurred with Facebook messenger's permissions and Facebook said they would not use the permissions granted in a nefarious way and there were many legitimate reasons for them. Why the about face now? and why for Spotify?
Speeding, hit and runs, armed robbery, murder... that's just a few examples of cases where a crime is 'facilitated' by the product of a business, yet when someone speeds, do we blame the car manufacturer?
I think a more apt analogy would be you are the bartender/owner of a bar where people meet then plan and carryout hit and runs, armed robbery and murder. You as the bartender/owner hear them planning these crimes. There are some legitimate patrons, but word on the street is if you wanna find some people to do these crimes, then your bar is the place to go. You as the bartender are against illegality,so you say, but you don't do anything besides say you're against these crimes.... wink wink. Obviously copyright infringement is not on the same level as the crimes mentioned but I think you get my meaning.
There are plenty of legit uses for bit torrent. In addition,the law provides finding infringing content is definitely not their job. I am more struck as to what would you have the RIAA do? There is nothing inherently wrong with a business based on selling music, or film etc. I have not agreed with many of the tactics used by many copyright holders in the past. However, if a certain behavior is illegal, and said illegal behavior frequently facilitated using another business, that claims they don't condone illegal activity, to take their statement at face value would suggest they might do something.....
I chose photograph specifically for the lack of transformative element. Generally, use of a photo is exactly as the photo was taken. I don't believe a court likely taking a photo and placing it within another photo or ad transformative. Courts have noted taking a photo and placing within a book as transformative. Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd.But I think this would be different. In any event, we can agree to disagree. I think Perfect 10 a bit different because it could be argued a thumbnail pic has less resolution and is "kinda" transformative, where as,in my example and yours, the photo would be unadulterated.
I chose a photograph specifically because the photographer is the rights holder and the photo was used without permission and there would be no transformative element. Moral rights do not figure into the equation because the politician did not license the use. I am not fond of moral rights and was not trying to imply after a sale the creator has any say in what is done with the creation. Interesting you brought up compulsory licensing because the license is contingent in not changing the song. So the compulsory license almost gives a moral bend because you don't have to get permission from the author but you can't really change it, in fact, in a way, controlling the song.
The Fair use test includes an evaluation of whether the original creator's economic efforts are being stymied and perhaps I should have been more clear. I think many ignore the literal meaning of copyright is the "right" to "copy." The control of derivative works etc. Whether there is a philosophical disagreement with the enumerated rights given is personal but as the statute is written, if a creator doesn't want their art used by someone or for something they are intrinsically opposed, regardless if they are economically harmed is their right. I think a perfect example, the photographer who is against discrimination based on sexual orientation and their photo being is used in a political ad by a candidate opposing gay marriage. If fair use was only an analysis of whether the photographer was being prevented from making money, this outcome could happen all the time with no recourse for the photographer. Thankfully, this is not the case.
"Once people try to make a business out of creativity, we run into problems."
This statement suggests that creators should not try to make a business from their creations because it causes problems, to which I could not disagree more.
"The big problem with current copyright law is it treats everyone's creative act like it has business potential."
Who is to decide that is does not have business potential? You, another? Business potential is decided by the market. The protections given by the statute to the creator allow him or her to explore the possibility without another with more capital using the same creation and not monetarily compensating the originator.
"With an opt-in system (and searchable database) people who feel their works have value can pay to protect it, and everyone else can just be free to create. I'd have a lot more sympathy then when people cry infringement."
An opt in system would automatically exclude those that were unaware or unable to pay the cost of registration, unless of course this registration were free. All are free to create. I do not believe sympathy for infringement is necessary, the law provides protections.
Yes. The graph shows options to acquire content other than cable. If, as the author laments, and as the title suggests, piracy is not mentioned, then option E would include piracy. Why, pray tell, would a writer, writing for a major publication not mention piracy as an option? I believe there is a one glaring reason.The premise of the article seems odd and the answer rather obvious.
There is no doubt that Kutiman is incredibly creative and the work would definitively lean more towards fair use as very small parts of the original sources were used to create a new work. However, there are many mashups or remixes that use the entire vocal track of one song over the instrumental of another. In this context I can understand and support the licensing aspect. The court has defined a sample as requiring licensing in that it is the exact performance that is used. It is not similar, it is a copy. In addition, an argument (although weak) could be made that the mashup or remix is depriving the original creator to commercially exploit the work in the same manner.
"Often times you have to defend the scum, in order to protect the rights of the innocent."
Yes, I agree. Perhaps what I am suggesting is if the SOLE purpose of a site is to post these types of images, can a site operator REALLY state they had no idea as to what type of content was posted? To feign ignorance is just dishonest, like running pawnshop and turning a blind eye to stolen property and then saying there was no way to check. I don't have the solution just voicing my thoughts. When commerce is involved, it is hard to justify an operator is not responsible in any form or fashion as to the content they are profiting from.
I wonder if protecting revenge porn sites was intent of the 230 protections. I would like to hear justifications as to why a site created solely to post intimate pictures of others (presumably, without the subject's consent) should be protected. These are not public figures and individuals have an inherent right to privacy. If someone took a photo of you in a compromising position, and you intended it for an individuals use and then it was posted on the internet, wouldn't you like some recourse? Shouldn't you have a say? I believe in freedom of speech but wonder the cost in this context. In addition, someone is profiting from an image the subject did not intend to sell.
What should really be determined is if Left Shark was a work-for-hire and if it was, Perry very well could own the rights. The argument against Left Shark's ability to be copyrighted because it is a costume seems pretty week. There are many characteristics of Left Shark that are different from other shark "costumes" that a case for its uniqueness could be established.
"You can't really blame the movie industry, ever since music became easily available online it's become freaking impossible to find any band playing live.
Live music generated $16.6 billion in 2006, and 23.5 billion in 2011. See? Digital music is killing the music industry."
I appreciate the irony. As the income generated from the sales of recordings fell, live performances become even more important for artist to earn a living. 95% is the percentage thrown around of a major act's income derived from live performance. Eventually the movie industry will come around and admit an illegal download is an opportunity for monetization lost because the consumer could not get the content how and when they wanted it.