Future of copyright lund

  • 1,465 views
Uploaded on

A consideration of the future of copyright in an era of social media and networked collaborative models. What are the implications for archives and archivists?

A consideration of the future of copyright in an era of social media and networked collaborative models. What are the implications for archives and archivists?

More in: Education , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,465
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Archives & The Future of Copyright John D. Lund, 2012
  • 2. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Keep in Mind A Little History  The Statute of Anne, 1710:  “An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned.”  Designed to provide an incentive to create but still lead to an expansion of the public domain and provide public benefit.  Designed to limit monopolies and preference by the King
  • 3. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Keep in Mind A Little History  Prior to the Act it was printers not authors who were granted the monopoly rights over works.  Limited exclusive rights to authors or owners of books already in print prior to April 10, 1710 to 21 years and for books not yet printed or published 14 years and an additional 14 years if the author was still alive at the end of the first 14 year period.  The published works had to be entered into the Stationer’s Register maintained by the Stationer’s of London.
  • 4. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Keep in Mind A Little History  1921: An Act to amend and consolidate the Law relating to Copyright, (S.C. 1921, c. 24) When this bill came into force 1924, Canada adopted life+50 as the basic term. Previously Canada used "28- and-14; 28 on formalities; another 14 possible on renewal." (Wallace J.McLean)  A Chronology of Canadian Copyright  http://www.digital-copyright.ca/chronology
  • 5. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Keep in Mind A Little History  U.S. Copyright chronology:  Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 empowers the U.S. Congress  “To promote the progress of science & useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”  First statute passed in 1790 provides 14 year term renewable once for a total of 28 years.  1831 term extended to 28 years renewable 14 years  1909 term 28 years renewable 28 years  1962 get into an extension rut  1976 life plus 50 years for all works forward, except for corporate works, which have 75 year term  1998 Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, life plus 70 or 95 years, an extension of 20 years.
  • 6. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Keep in Mind A Little History  Statute of Anne, 1710  http://www.copyrighthistory.com/anne.html  Statute of Anne, 1710, short interpretation  http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/aus
  • 7. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 The Times They Are A Changing Recivilization  Don Tapscott argues that the digital revolution has brought an end to the industrial model, the world wide web has drastically dropped transaction costs, the costs of collaboration in an open market and the old vertical corporate model (firm) is now unbundling into focus companies that work within networks or business webs. How we innovate and create goods and services is changing. Networking has moved online.  How will archives capture and preserve the context of such a networked model?  Does the traditional copyright model fit this paradigm?
  • 8. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 The Times They Are A Changing The Traditional Argument  Robert Levine, “How the internet has all but destroyed the market for films, music and newspapers” - The Observer, Sunday 14 August 2011  The internet changed all this, not because it enables the fast transmission of digital data but because the regulations that enable technology companies to evade responsibility for their business models have created a broken market. Scores of sites now offer music, while hundreds of others summarise news. Part of the problem is rampant piracy – unauthorised distribution that doesnt benefit creators or the companies that invest in them. It also puts pressure on media companies to accept online distribution deals that dont cover their costs.  But the underlying issue is that creators and distributors now have opposing interests
  • 9. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 The Times They Are A Changing The Traditional Argument  This hour has 22 minutes - copyright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_7p4cvBURk
  • 10. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Free Culture Lawrence Lessig  In 2003, Lawrence Lessig took Eldred v. Ashcroft to the Supreme Court to argue the constitutionality of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.  He has argued the need to “free culture” in the face of increasing pressures by big media to lay punitive damages against those who infringe copyright.  Lessig argues that the twentieth century marked the move away from a read-write culture to a read only top down culture where we do not participate but only consume  The remix culture, the generations that have grown up with the internet are leading the way back to a read-write culture  The copyright wars are a clash between a need to control, to hold onto platforms that support a known economic model and those who have adapted to the new platform.
  • 11. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Free Culture Lawrence Lessig  Lawrence speaks better than I:  http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_crea
  • 12. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Coffee Break Coffee Break  Coffee Break
  • 13. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Free Culture Implications for Archives  The battle between free and open creativity and closed creativity will affect what archives receive in the future.  There are direct implications on access and fair use policies:  The effect of the rules is that consumer rights found in the bill are lost when the copyright owner installs a digital lock that can restrict access….  In fact, the government admitted at the Bill C-32 legislative committee that the digital lock rules, which extend far beyond those required for compliance with international treaties, trump education rights. Moreover, many of our trading partners have adopted more balanced digital lock rules and even the U.S. offers greater flexibility than Canada.  Michael Geist, Toronto Star (thestar.com), Oct 1, 2011  The implications of the copyright wars goes beyond concerns over copyright.
  • 14. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Cory Doctorow  “Stop talking about cultural freedom and start talking about freedom.”  “It isn’t about artists it is about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, due process, right to get a job, right to get an education ….”  How Copyright Threatens Democracy  Run from 20:00 to 27:33  “Technology giveth and technology taketh away!”
  • 15. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Privacy and Copyright  Is it an accident that we are seeing debates over copyright and privacy occurring in the news concurrently?  “Online surveillance bill could change, Harper signals: Proposed legislation has renewed debate on privacy and security issues,” Feb 15, 2012  Moore defends Canada’s ‘different path’ on copyright bill: Minister says creative industries can manage how digital locks are used to battle piracy,” Feb 16, 2012
  • 16. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 C reative C ommons
  • 17. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Creative Commons It is about sharing! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DKm96Ftfko It is a return to the commons.
  • 18. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Creative Commons The Licenses  Attribution: lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation.  Attribution – ShareAlike: lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.
  • 19. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Creative Commons The Licenses  Attribution-NoDerivs: allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to you.  Attribution – NonCommercial: lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non- commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non- commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.
  • 20. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Creative Commons The Licenses  Attribution – NonCommercial-ShareAlike: lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.  Attribution – NonCommercial-NoDerivs: only allows others to download your works and share them with others as long as they credit you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially.
  • 21. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Creative Commons There are three levels of licenses  Legal Code - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode  Human Readable - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/  Machine Readable – here is where we pretend to be machines and there is a code for us to read. .
  • 22. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Creative Commons Who Uses Creative Commons? Al Jazeera Nine Inch Nails. Flickr Wikipedia
  • 23. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Made in Canada Three Canadian Positions  Digital Copyright Canada  “All Canadian Citizens are “Rights Holders”!  “Coalition reflects the broad spectrum of Canada’s art community: artists, curators, directors, educators, writers, associations and organizations from the art sector.  The coalition focuses on 3 areas: fair access to existing works, certainty of access, opposition to anti-circumvention laws.
  • 24. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Made in Canada Three Canadian Positions  The Creators Copyright Coalition, press release June 7, 2011, excerpt: • Payment for use of copyright material • “Hand-outs” must not replace legal rights • Collective rights management is good for both creators and consumers • Collective licensing and tariffs, supervised by the Copyright Board, are a better solution than exceptions from copyright infringement • Copyright laws must be clear in order to avoid excessive litigation; and
  • 25. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Digitization Three Canadian Positions • There must be effective and equitable remedies against content theft “Legislation built on these core principles will benefit both creators and users,” said Freeman. “The end goal is to get clear laws in place that allow users to access our work while ensuring creators get paid for use so we can continue innovating and contributing to Canada’s digital economy.”
  • 26. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Made in Canada Three Canadian Positions  ACTRA (Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists)  Canada’s New Copyright Bill a Blow To Artists: “ Half the Bill is missing,” June 2, 2010  “How is it ‘balanced’ to allow people to make copies of our work without giving us anything in return? Half the bill is missing, the half that respects and pays creators,” said Ferne Downey, ACTRA National President. “The simple step of extending the private copying levy to digital devices is a win-win solution for consumers and artists, it seems like it would have been a no-brainer.”
  • 27. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Emerging Alberta – Considered Case Study  Case Study, Emerging Alberta  What would you do?
  • 28. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 A Collaborative Model John D. Lund, 2012
  • 29. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 A Collaborative Model Collaboration – open source economics  Yochai Benkler  Luis von Ahn – captchas  Rip: A Remix Manifesto / Girl Talk  What does this have to do with Archives?  It has the potential to change our role as professionals – NARA – Citizen Archivists  Ancestry.com  It has the potential to fundamentally change what we receive – who is the creator? How do we capture the context?
  • 30. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Remix Intersection btwn Collaboration & Copyright  Back to Larry Lessig – Re-examing the Remix  From 04:31 to 9:09
  • 31. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Doc Oc Intersection btwn Collaboration & Copyright  An excerpt from an article concerning preserving social media:  “Social media doesn’t exist in a vacuum. When posting on Facebook, an employee may link to a YouTube video. Or an organization’s website may hyperlink to a PDF of a white paper from another site. An archival solution has to include the original Facebook post or website record, but it also has to be able to follow and capture the YouTube link or third party source’s white paper….” Rakesh Madhava, “10 Things to Know About Preserving Social Media”  What are the copyright implications of this preservation scenerio?
  • 32. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Doc Oc Intersection btwn Collaboration & Copyright  Google Docs  Slide Share  TED  While collaboration among employees is not new, what is new is the capacity and ease to collaborate outside the framework of the firm or corporation.  It is easy enough to identify the holder of copyright when employees work for a single firm but in a collaborative model where the boundaries of the firm are irrelevant where does copyright reside?  Who is the freelancer and who is the employee?
  • 33. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Collaborative Exercise Exercise  Can you think of one or two collaborative efforts/resources not mentioned here?  In what case would you treat individual participants as authors and in what case would you treat the collective as the author?  Would you approach the dilemma in a new way, find new tools, or are our traditional methodologies sufficient or even more important?
  • 34. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Use Fees Use Fees  Use fees vs Copyright  Library of Congress Photostream  http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/  Hi-Res, at the Library of Congress  http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/fsa/
  • 35. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Terms of Service Terms of Service  Facebook Terms of Service excerpt:  You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:  1.For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub- licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
  • 36. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Terms of Service Terms of Service  Facebook Terms of Service excerpt:  3.When you use an application, your content and information is shared with the application. We require applications to respect your privacy, and your agreement with that application will control how the application can use, store, and transfer that content and information. (To learn more about Platform, read our Privacy Policy and Platform Page.)  http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms?ref=pf
  • 37. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Terms of Service Terms of Service  Flickr (Yahoo Groups) Terms of Service excerpt:  Yahoo! does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Service. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service, you grant Yahoo! the following world-wide, royalty free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable:
  • 38. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Terms of Service Terms of Service  …. With respect to photos, graphics, audio, or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service other than Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This licence exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Service….  You irrevocably waive any moral rights or other rights with respect to attribution of authorship or integrity in the Content you submit.  http://www.flickr.com/  http://info.yahoo.com/legal/ca/yahoo/utos/utos-ca01.html
  • 39. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Terms of Service Terms of Service  Zenfolio – Terms of Service – Copyright  Photographer Content: Photographers retain their full rights to Content they upload to this Website, including photographs, videos and digital products, biographies, and business information created by Photographers and Zenfolio shall not acquire any rights of the Photographers by virtue of the uploads.  Other Content: Except for Photographer Content described above, Visitors grant to Zenfolio a royalty-free, perpetual license to use all rights, including copyright, in content that they upload to the Website, such as comments about this Website or about content uploaded by Photographers, or comments submitted as guest entries. Zenfolio reserves the right to amend, redact and/or delete comments for any reason.  http://www.zenfolio.com/zf/terms.aspx
  • 40. John D. Lund,March,10, 2012 Fashionistas Is there an alternative to copyright?  Johanna Blakley  Should Archivists be advocates?  It is political  Dark Knight Canadian mashup