"Why You're Not Seeing Video Of Cory Lidle Playing Baseball" This story is about CBS news and others faced with the question of whether it is a fair use to show images of Cory Lidle (a baseball player who recently died in an airplane crash) without "without the express written consent of Major League Baseball. " A nice example of news (and big news) media unsure...
Fair Use and Free Speech explains the Documentary Filmmaker's Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use. It shows when and how it is legal to use copyrighted material within a documentary film. It’s a powerful tool for media criticism and freedom of _expression. For more information visit centerforsocialmedia.org.
Here is another - a bit longer, but explains the "Best Practices" from the Center for Social Media.
I'm just at the end of teaching fair use in my IP survey. I'm gathering some video, and thought I would post this one. It is interesting that images of civil rights are transposed into a copyright context. Very interesting...and powerful.
Jessica Litman is coming to Seattle University School of Law this week, and speaking about "Personal Use" in copyright. The paper is amazing. (It's available at Jessica's website at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdlitman/)
She really uses personal examples really well in the paper, and got me to thinking about autobiography and legal writing. I very much subscribe to the idea that autobiographical examples (whether fictional or not) are a great tool for connecting the material to the student/reader/audience. But doing it successfully is not always easy. Litman's writing does this with such grace. And I've been thinking why is this -- her language is straightforward, her examples are not complicated...but that is not it -- I think they are examples we can identify with--is that the real goal - if so, then autobiographical examples must be targeted to the audience. I have always thought of them as trying to explain something the audience may not necesssarily connect, and therefore might need a bridge. Litman's muse is examples of things we all do -- getting dressed (not her example, but mine), which further enlightens the relevant law (or problems with the law).
Just a few thoughts on writing and struggles to connect in a meaningful and memorable way.
Just a quick update, and will soon blog for real....
My non-resident fellowship at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School was renewed for a third year, which is very nice. I think I will focus this year on Second Life as a lab for teaching Property in the 1L setting. I'm still trying to work out the details, but my thoughts are to bring my 1L course into Second Life and explore questions property in viritual space. Is there adverse possession in virtual property? What about trover? Are there open spaces? Easements? Again, still in the planning stages, but I think it might be a way to review modern concepts of property, kind of Locke's concept of "America"...
And at some point, I'm going to be appearing on David Levine's radio show, so that should be fun.
The WIPIP 2006 conference in Pittsburgh was great. Very nice people, and extremely useful comments...
And I'm excited to be participating in Peter Yu's "What If" conference at Michigan State in the Spring, which asks what would have happened "if" things (whatever that may be) had been different. I'm not sure if we are supposed to keep our "what ifs" secret (he wouldn't let us know what the other "what ifs" are yet). So, I will wait to post my "what if".
And, of course, the law review articles. The podcasting piece at the Journal of Internet Law should be out any day, and the unpublished works and the public domain piece at Cardozo Arts & Ent LJ should be out in November. The third piece I've been working on has been accepted, but now I am waiting to hear back from some other journals. So, we will see.
And of course, the AALS is coming soon. Oh, goodness. So, the reports will continue. I will hopefully start blogging more regularly soon again.
Really interesting article by KEVIN J.H. DETTMAR in the August 4, 2006 edition on the role of permissions costs in forming the canon currently. He discusses both the costs of permissions (that eat into profits) and also categorizes four kinds of permissions, particularly in 20th Century anthologies, where, of course, all of the permissions problems occur.
The "A" list - materials that have to be included like Woolf, Joyce, etc.
A second category are works by authors (he uses Auden) where one could chose between a number of works, that one specific work has not come to represent the author. In the case of Auden, the permission charge was $20 a line, which influenced how much of his work was included in the Anthology.
I resent being forced to make absurd calculations, such as five lines of Auden equals one page of Salman Rushdie. Although Auden is one of the 20th century's most gifted English-language poets, he is represented in the Longman by a mere handful of poems, most of which are somewhat familiar choices...
The third category are interesting writers that an editor may want to include as part of an anthology. He uses Plath as an example, where in the Second Edition, her work was included, but because permissions cost nearly $3500, her work was not included in the Third Edition.
His fourth category is a misc category. He includes being denied permission to include a poem. This fourth category are often examples of denial for inclusion for one reason or another.
The piece is very illumnating, as it shows that anthologies, just as we saw with documentary films, and other areas of culture, are being very strongly shaped by the price of inclusion. We live in strange times indeed, when our canon -- the works on which our children build their notion of culture depend on how steep the permission cost is, and how important worth the it is to pay the cost of inclusion. On a more positive note, perhaps we will move away from the canon and embrace more interesting choices--different choices, and for that we will be a better culture. Who needs to read Woolf anyway? Let's read something new! Can one imagine an anthology on British lit without the big names, that we create a new road? Wierd, but interesting. Perhaps it will make us reevaluate (again) how those canonized name came to hold the place they do in the first place. And maybe if we did not put such great importance on specific writers, perhaps the literary executors might not hold such power. Just some thoughts...
I'll be presenting a paper at the IP Scholars conference at Berkeley this year. I'll be giving a three year accessment on the legal status of unpublished works in the public domain. (suprise). I will post soon the paper from the conference, but it should also be available on their website. Also, I should soon have a PowerPoint presentation as well, which I will post.