Creative Commons

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Creative Commons

Postby Moderator » Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:19 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Yea, they didn't get tax abatements for stringing the cables. You also forgot about the tax cuts in general.

Barber, Barber, Barber,...



Actually, they didn't get tax abatements for that.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Creative Commons

Postby Moderator » Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:20 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Barber, why do you defend libraries?


Huh?

If it's Non-sequitor Day I didn't have it marked on my calendar.

Reference please?

(Pun intended)
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: Creative Commons

Postby Lori Koonce » Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:29 pm

Frank

What the hell is wrong with defending libraries? You are the one that is always bitching about information wanting to be free, and that is the ONLY place where it is!

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: Creative Commons

Postby cynic » Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:30 pm

Barber wrote:
FrankChurch wrote:The best way to kill free speech is to induce immortal copyrights.

Not a thread jack, the lord told me that.


You are thread jacking, but -- elsewhere -- please explain how protecting the right to ownership of one's own speech kills it.

how 'bout here?
follow your bliss,mike

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Creative Commons

Postby Moderator » Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:57 pm

cynic wrote:
Barber wrote:
FrankChurch wrote:The best way to kill free speech is to induce immortal copyrights.

Not a thread jack, the lord told me that.


You are thread jacking, but -- elsewhere -- please explain how protecting the right to ownership of one's own speech kills it.

how 'bout here?


Okay, here.

Please explain how protecting the right to ownership of one's own speech kills it.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: Creative Commons

Postby cynic » Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:54 pm

i was wondering about that myself :roll:
follow your bliss,mike

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: Creative Commons

Postby Lori Koonce » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:45 am

So, Frank. If I don't own my speech who dose?

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Creative Commons

Postby Moderator » Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:18 pm

I wanted to add some notes to the little fiasco which was the Copyright Issue I alluded to on the Pavilion, since it cuts directly to the heart of the debate regarding the Creative Commons, etc.

Airlock Alpha (http://www.airlockalpha.com) is a website I frequent. Usually once every day or two. I have had some minor communications with Michael Hinman, the owner/primary writer, over the last few years.

Yesterday Hinman posted an article regarding the reports which -- incorrectly -- stated that Harlan and the producers of In Time had reached an agreement on credit. The original article was posted on Yahoo News, and got picked up by a few genre sites including AAlpha. Again, it was blatantly false, and Hinman was understandably cheesed off at having run an inaccurate piece. He posted a not-unreasonable comment on the events -- though he makes an effort to paint Harlan as a contributor to the error because Harlan did not correct the folks who came to this site to congratulate him on the "win". Harlan, as he had said he would do, remained mum on the topic. But that's another story for another time.

When I found Hinman's follow-up article online, I was surprised to find that he'd used one of my pictures of Harlan -- the "Got Ellison" auction shot of Harlan holding the typewriter and a goofy grin on his face. I hadn't heard from Hinman, hadn't even known they were using the shot. Worse, it was simply posted without attribution. Okay, I thought, they don't know who owns it so I sent Hinman a personal message on Facebook letting him know the picture was mine. I mentioned that I wasn't asking for it to e taken down, nor was I even seeking compensation. I wanted attribution. A reasonable request. I also sent him the wording of how the copyright should read.

Hinman sent back a bit of a snarky message to the effect that the shot was in Fair Use, but if I would "prove" that I owned the rights he would "consider" the credit. And written the way THEY wanted it to read, not MY wording. After a couple more passages, in which I was lectured about Fair Use, then told he didn't have time to explain the Legalities involved, I let him know that I'm not exactly uneducated and frankly didn't appreciate his approach -- and that, if he liked, I would be happy to discuss this from a more Legal standpoint.

(Fair Use doesn't apply, since the photo is neither newsworthy in and of itself, nor is it even related to the article -- two standards for Fair Use. His standing was predicated that he had downloaded the shot from a news source and therefore wasn't required to cite copyright holder. Wrong, but that was his position.)

We went a couple more rounds, ultimately with his stating that if I could prove copyright, by showing a website in which the shot was published with a copyright notice, he would give the credit. David Silver quite grandly offered to send Hinman a note stating that he had first use rights, from me, and that the copyright had remained with me after that use.

Now, I want to emphasize that I didn't need to even go that far. I could have, very easily, instructed Hinman to take the shot down, and sued for a paltry sum, but it never got that far. And what Hinman never bothered to find out was who my counsel was during our disagreement -- David, of course, is a recognized photographic authority, and Christine Valada, a well-known photographer and attorney. So I was confident it wasn't an issue or misunderstanding on my side.

But had Hinman done the correct thing and responded with an apology and agreement to cite the credit if I could show a website confirming the copyright, it would have achieved the same thing without all the argument, kept me from posting in a number of places regarding the incident, getting David and Christine involved, and generally causing friction between myself and the site. And if I had only had Creative Commons available to me as a resolution, nothing would have been done. Creative Commons lacks the teeth which Copyright granted me, and Hinman's claim of Fair Use would probably have stuck. (Again: He claimed that the photo is public property if he's using it for a news item. As noted above that's not Fair Use. The photo was taken for marketing purposes, not news, and has no relation to the story about the inaccurate news article.)

So, not to relight the debate, but this as a prime example of why I feel Copyright Protection is absolutely paramount to a healthy artistic market.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Creative Commons

Postby Ezra Lb. » Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:42 pm

An interesting tale of the ongoing internet wars. Thanks for that, Barber.

No clue on Mr Hinman's part that his appropriation of your photo shares the quality of the lifting of HE's ideas for use in someone else's project.
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata
Contact:

Re: Creative Commons

Postby Steve Evil » Sat Nov 12, 2011 7:21 am

FrankChurch wrote:Barber, why do you defend libraries?


When I'm flat broke, libraries are the only place I can go that don't charge an admission fee, or where I don't have to buy anything. It's a warm place to park my carcass for a few hours, and nourish the mind if not the body. I'd fight tooth and nail for that.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Creative Commons

Postby Moderator » Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:41 am

A-ha!

Looking at Frank's question a few weeks down the line I believe he was trying make an association between the Internet and a public library. The analogy doesn't hold up, however, since the library pays for works, and it's still illegal to copy what you've checked out. If a website pays for a story -- REALMS OF FANTASY buys How Interesting, a Tiny Man, for instance -- and elects to put it up for free on their website, they are giving people permission to read it on their website, not copy and distribute it for free through email.

But yes, the theft is pretty much the same whether it's ripping CDs you've checked out of the library and handing them out, or grabbing it from a bit torrent site. Whether you photocopy a book you stole from a bookstore, or post a PDF on line. Whether you remove a photograph from a wall in the library, or post a picture without paying, permission or attribution.

But I really do love libraries.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Creative Commons

Postby FrankChurch » Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:16 am

Letting a friend borrow a book is the same thing Barber. You are like a right to lifer who supports the Death Penalty. lol

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Creative Commons

Postby Moderator » Sat Nov 12, 2011 2:16 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Letting a friend borrow a book is the same thing Barber. You are like a right to lifer who supports the Death Penalty. lol


The analogy doesn't hold. I pay for the book and lend it to a friend, after which they return it. This is my right for my own piece of property for which I paid.

If I am the person who borrowed the book and I make a scan of it and send free it to my friends, THEN the analogy would hold. And I would be both an ass, and committing a crime at the same time.

In the first case, I am the library. In the second I am the borrower.

Vast difference. But nice try.

(In what you're defending, not only is it the illegal scan we're discussing, but you never even checked the book out, having slipped it into your raincoat and walked out without paying.)
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: Creative Commons

Postby Lori Koonce » Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:22 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Letting a friend borrow a book is the same thing Barber. You are like a right to lifer who supports the Death Penalty. lol


Frank

Say I loan Barber a book. Even if he types it out and turns it into a bit torrent, I am not personally responsible for the copy right infringement that has occurred.

I understand that with your current line of thinking why you'd say so, but if that be the case, why do we still have libraries? I mean that's BIG time example of book loaning. You'd think that some author somewhere and somewhen would have picked up on this by now don't ya?

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Creative Commons

Postby FrankChurch » Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:36 pm

Speech is different, I'm sorry. Ideas are not property or property in the traditional sense.

Liberalize the copyright laws. We should all agree on this.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests