We are happy to announce the new 2014-2016 CIS Affiliates.
The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School is a leader in the study of the law and policy around the Internet and other emerging technologies.
A healthy copyright system must balance the need to provide strong economic incentives through exclusive rights with the need to protect important public interests like free speech and expression. Fair use is foundational to that balance. It's role is to prevent copyright from stifling the creativity it is supposed to foster, and from imposing other burdens that would inhibit rather than promote the creation and spread of knowledge and learning.
The Fair Use Project (FUP) was founded in 2006 to provide legal support to a range of projects designed to clarify, and extend, the boundaries of fair use in order to enhance creative freedom and protect important public rights. It is the only organization in the country dedicated specifically to providing free and comprehensive legal representation to authors, filmmakers, artists, musicians and other content creators who face unmerited copyright claims, or other improper restrictions on their expressive interests. The FUP has litigated important cases across the country, and in the Supreme Court of the United States, and worked with scores of filmmakers and other content creators to secure the unimpeded release of their work.
We are happy to announce the new 2014-2016 CIS Affiliates.
I've been a CIS non-resident fellow (or now faculty afflilaite) now for a decade, beginning in 2004. I love being associated with CIS, and many of my closest friends have come from my connections with CIS. Whereever we've moved--Tuscon, London, Seattle, or New Orleans, CIS has always been a constant. When I was on the job market in 2006, I felt part of a crowd that year that included David Olsen and David Levine, as well as others connected to Stanford. CIS is an anchor.
As Congress winds down for the holidays, it delivers yet another lump of coal for the American people.
Contained in the 2015 Intelligence Authorization Act is a provision quietly inserted by the US Senate (just prior to voting) that authorizes the “acquisition, retention, and dissemination” of all communications data from U.S. citizens without a court order and then transferred to law enforcement for criminal investigations.
The first part of this article outlined the mechanics of the Megaupload website, and the novel questions of criminal inducement on which the government's indictment is premised. Here, we explore two more extensions of existing law on which the indictment is based, and the impact this prosecution is likely to have on Internet innovators and users alike.
It is now received wisdom that a properly functioning democracy requires transparency and accountability — information shared with the public that allows the public to know what its government is doing. It is equally uncontroversial to say that social media allows for an unprecedented amount of informal but structured dissemination and analysis of information. Despite these two basic points, U.S. freedom of information law has failed to harness the power of these new social media networks and, more importantly, formats in a way that amplifies public knowledge of government information.
Digital technology has made culture more accessible than ever before. Texts, audio, pictures and video can easily be produced, disseminated, used and remixed using devices that are increasingly user-friendly and affordable. However, along with this technological democratization comes a paradoxical flipside: the norms regulating culture's use — copyright and related rights — have become increasingly restrictive. This book brings together essays by academics, librarians, entrepreneurs, activists and policy makers, who were all part of the EU-funded Communia project.
This is the third in a series of articles focusing on the experimental economics of intellectual property. In earlier work, we have experimentally studied the ways in which creators assign monetary value to the things that they create. That research has suggested that creators are subject to a systematic bias that leads them to overvalue their work.
We filed an amicus brief on behalf of a group of library associations and others asking the Second Circuit to reverse a lower court’s injunction of the publication of 60 Years Later: Coming through the Rye an unauthorized story based on J.D. Salinger’s in Catcher In The Rye.
We filed an amicus brief in the Federal Circuit on behalf of the Warhol Foundation and Warhol Museum, contemporary artists and law professors in support of the U.S. Postal Service, urging affirmance of the district court’s finding of fair use.
We defended the publisher of the Harry Potter Lexicon against suit from J.K. Rowling and Warner Brothers.
Yoko Ono and EMI sued a documentary filmmaker for using a short clip from the John Lennon song “Imagine” as part of a critique of the lyrics of the song. We defended the filmmaker and successfully argued that the use of the copyrighted song was fair use.
"That trend is likely to continue, said Annemarie Bridy, a University of Idaho law professor and expert in intellectual property and technology law. "Information is very valuable, and as more and more of the value in our economy is attributable to information and intellectual property, you would expect the control of that information to become more and more contested," Bridy said."
"EFF Staff Attorney Daniel Nazer said that the ruling was unsurprising, but pointed out that the decision does not give free reign to judges to issue pumped-up awards.
"EFF is glad to see that the Court emphasized that enhanced damages should still be reserved for the most egregious cases," Nazer told The Register.
"We agree with the concurrence that district courts should be cautious not to impose enhanced damages too often, especially where non-practicing entities send threat letters out to numerous small businesses.""
"Attorney Andrew Bridges with Fenwick & West said adjudication is the only fair way to handle accusations that can lead to being kicked off the Internet.
"Who decides who's an infringer? There's only one competent authority to decide who's an infringer and that's a court.
"Every motion picture studio and record label has been accused of copyright infringement at least three times. And I bet they would not like to have their Internet service terminated.
"The type of claim Getty is making "failed in the United States in Perfect 10 v. Google," noted Ben Depoorter, Sunderland Chair at UC Hastings College of the Law.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Google's framing and hyperlinking as part of an image search engine constituted fair use because it was highly transformative.
JOIN US TO DISCUSS:
Prof. Edward Lee of Chicago-Kent Law School, author of The Fight for the Future: How People Defeated Hollywood and Saved the Internet — For Now.
CIS Affiliate Scholar David Levine interviews Jonathan Band of policybandwidth.com.
December 12, 2013 - Copyright and Fair Use Issues in the Visual Motion Arts
The song you sampled for an intro sequence that you don't have the license for-
The uncredited movie clips you inserted into a montage-
The image you pulled from social media-
You can use those in your production, because they're all covered by Fair Use ... right?