morgandawn: (Default)
The original content in this blog is offered under the following Creative Commons License (check back for any changes or updates):

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
morgandawn: (Default)
 I came back from Vividcon* with lots of ideas. one is how to get our niche of fandom to post more vids on Youtube (for various personal and strategic reasons, which I may post about later). But I figured I should walk the walk first and started uploading my older vids (or at least those that might still hold up today).  

So ...Dear Diary, today I learned the difference between “Your video has copyrighted content and you cannot monetize/ads may appear” vs “Your video may have copyrighted content and may be blocked in some countries” and “Your video has copyrighted content and has been taken down and this is your X strike.” Only the latter has serious repercussions for fan vidders. I am not happy with the first, but if that is the price we “pay” to play for now, I can handle it. The second (blocked in some countries) proved to me more tricky, but I’ve added a note about proxy services that viewers might use: “You can try to use a proxy service such as https://www.proxfree.com/youtube-proxy.php but proceed at your own risk. If you are using Firefox, you can install ProxyTube, a free add on: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/proxtube/"

Are there any other YouTube proxy services I can mention?

*Vividcon is a fan run convention about fanvids held in Chicago each August. Both vidders and fans of vids are welcomed


edited to add the ProxyTube suggestion


morgandawn: (Default)
 I've seen this mentioned in numerous places but have not yet found the name of the case.

"Boldly Going Where No Copyright Claim Has Gone Before

One of the most notorious cases of copyright omission happened in connection with a little show called Star Trek— another NBC series, but this one a production of Desilu Studios. When originally telecast during the 1966-67 TV season, the entire first season’s voyages of the starship Enterprise aired without a single indication of copyright anywhere in the program.

It wasn’t until years later — and after Star Trek had metamorphosed from a short-lived cult TV show into a cultural phenomenon and highly prized commodity — that the copyright lapse even drew any attention. It was at the time of the advent of home video, when a number of small mom-and-pop outfits, believing that first year of Star Trekto be in the public domain, began selling copies of the episodes on videocassette.

Paramount, which had inherited the Star Trek franchise and produced the remaining two years of the series and all of its spin-offs after parent company Gulf + Western purchased Desilu in 1967, sought to regain exclusive rights to the first season by mounting a legal challenge to the little nickel-and-dime distributors that were circulating those first 26 episodes.

The upshot? Based on its existing copyrights on all subsequent Star Trek properties, Paramount won the right to retroactively copyright the entire first season of Star Trek, in the process, successfully suing all of those little companies — the ones that thought they were in the clear selling public domain shows — right out of business."
https://thegolddiggers.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/whose-show-is-it-anyway/

morgandawn: (Art Noveau Blue)

post-security: public
Posted in full at: http://ift.tt/1XVoZRY at November 06, 2015 at 06:00PM
 

Well not exactly. What Lucas first said was: “You are prohibited from creating any fanworks”. But if you do create, we own it. So there.”

More about the Star Wars Fan Homepages Protest can be found on Fanlore, the fan run wiki about media fandom.

An excerpt from the Protest:

“What’s the big deal?

On March 8, 2000, the Official Star Wars Website began hosting fans’ homepages, offering attractive features like 16 megabytes of web space, dynamic content, an official URL (fan.starwars.com), and a sweepstakes.  They cite a desire to encourage fan creativity.  But in their Terms of Service, which all users must agree to, they expressly forbid derivative creative works and take ownership of fans’ intellectual property, particularly “derivative works,” despite the fact that any Star Wars-related fan creativity is inherently a “derivative work.”….

The Terms of Service (section 8.4) states, “The creation of derivative works based on or derived from the Star Wars Properties, including, but not limited to, products, services, fonts, icons, link buttons, wallpaper, desktop themes, on-line postcards and greeting cards and unlicensed merchandise (whether sold, bartered or given away) is expressly prohibited. If despite these Terms of Service you do create any derivative works based on or derived from the Star Wars Properties, such derivative works shall be deemed and shall remain the property of Lucasfilm Ltd. in perpetuity (note: that means forever). 

It is my, and many other fans’, strong belief that offering fans homepages and then claiming anything posted on that web space as the intellectual property of Lucasfilm, Ltd. "in perpetuity” amounts to a tactic being used by Lucasfilm to fight their ongoing trademark and copyright war against fans by luring fans into their territory and taking over explicit legal ownership of anything they display there.  It is also my belief that this is a grave and devious disservice to fans.”


Tags:fandom history, fanlore, star wars, transformative works, copyright, yet another reason to own the goddamn servers, DWCrosspost

Tumblr post (this is likely a reblog, and may have more pictures over there)
morgandawn: (Art Noveau Blue)
heidi8:Fair use is … wholly authorized by the law. That’s what the 9th Circuit said today, in a ruling that will become a terrific tool to support sharing of transformative works (like fanfic, fanart, cosplay, fanfilms, filks, etc.). Back in 2001 and 2003, when I first started writing and speaking about fair use in connection with what we’re now calling “fan law”,  we did a lot of argiing by analogy. Caselaw hadn’t really caught up with how people were actually using the internet and definitely hadn’t caught up with the idea that fans of a show or book or film or band or piece of art or work of creativity would create a “follow-on work” and share it at no cost to anyone, on the internet. But lawyers argue by analogy - we go before a court and say “this is similar to that, and thus the laws for that should also apply to this”. That’s how it works (at least in the US) so it was reasonable  to say because of court rulings in The Wind Done Gone and the 2 Live Crew case re Pretty Woman, or a 1996 case in the 11th Circuit that said “fair use is not an infringement, that (noncommercially distributed) fanworks - as transformative works - were fair use and thus were not infringements of someone’s copyright. By and large, over the last fifteen years (and actually, through  the 90s too) the courts have agreed with this concept every time something that parallels an aspect of fanworks comes before an appellate court. Click the Fair Use tag here for examples. However, today the 9th Circuit issued its ruling in Lenz v. Universal, a case that dates back EIGHT YEARS to a pre-Google time at YouTube, when the tv networks were all freaking out about this new way that people could get content via the internet, and the music companies were continuing their perpetual angst about the idea that certain uses of songs could be, in any way noninfringing. While Lenz doesn’t really redefine large swaths of law, it makes a few points explicit and clear: Fair use is not just excused by the law, it is wholly authorized by the law.A copyright holder must consider the existence of fair use before sending a takedown notification.The DMCA requires consideration of fair use prior to sending a takedown notification…If a copyright holder ignores or neglects our unequivocal holding that it must consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, it is liable for damages.A copyright holder who pays lip service to the consideration of fair use by claiming it formed a good faith belief when there is evidence to the contrary is still subject to §512(f) liability.The court also quoted a brief from transformativeworks (OTW/AO3) where we set forth when computer programs might be of use in finding infringements where  “(1) the video track matches the video track of a copyrighted work submitted by a content owner; (2) the audio track matches the audio track of that same copyrighted work;and (3) nearly the entirety…is comprised of a single copyrighted work.” As you can see, that process wouldn’t be applicable for fanworks. The ruling doesn’t mean an end to automatic takedown notices; where a file of concern matches exactly to a single copyrighted work *and* nearly the entirety of the file of concern is comprised of that single copyrighted work, bots and automated notices would still be viable. But a video manifesting mashup culture or a story that’s a follow-on work or a meme that includes a copyrighted photo and text that comments on or criticizes something, or educational infographs should not be DMCA-ed by autobots, and any analysis by the copyright-holder of the fanfic, fanart, etc. they’re looking at must actually look to current law regarding whether something is a transformative work/fair use/otherwise noninfringing. Does this mean that creative fans will suddenly start experiencing fewer DMCA takedowns? Possibly, but also maybe not. But it does mean that if a creative fan gets a DMCA takedown/notification about fanworks (especially when there’s no commercial sale) the fan can and should push back on whether the sender has actually considered fair use; if it’s obvious that they haven’t, the creative fan may be able to seek damages. Perhaps that risk of damages will be a disincentive to copyright-holders, so they focus their attention, and DMCA notices, on works that are actual counterfeits - copies of entire movies, books or tv serieses, or high resolution copies of art. Copyright holders cannot shirk their duty to consider—in good faith and prior to sending a takedown notification—whether allegedly infringing material constitutes fair use, a use which the DMCA plainly contemplates as authorized by the law. And that’s a good thing. 

heidi8:Fair use is … wholly authorized by the law. That’s what the 9th Circuit said today, in a ruling that will become a terrific tool to support sharing of transformative works (like fanfic, fanart, cosplay, fanfilms, filks, etc.). Back in 2001 and 2003, when I first started writing and speaking about fair use in connection with what we’re now calling “fan law”,  we did a lot of argiing by analogy. Caselaw hadn’t really caught up with how people were actually using the internet and definitely hadn’t caught up with the idea that fans of a show or book or film or band or piece of art or work of creativity would create a “follow-on work” and share it at no cost to anyone, on the internet. But lawyers argue by analogy - we go before a court and say “this is similar to that, and thus the laws for that should also apply to this”. That’s how it works (at least in the US) so it was reasonable  to say because of court rulings in The Wind Done Gone and the 2 Live Crew case re Pretty Woman, or a 1996 case in the 11th Circuit that said “fair use is not an infringement, that (noncommercially distributed) fanworks - as transformative works - were fair use and thus were not infringements of someone’s copyright. By and large, over the last fifteen years (and actually, through  the 90s too) the courts have agreed with this concept every time something that parallels an aspect of fanworks comes before an appellate court. Click the Fair Use tag here for examples. However, today the 9th Circuit issued its ruling in Lenz v. Universal, a case that dates back EIGHT YEARS to a pre-Google time at YouTube, when the tv networks were all freaking out about this new way that people could get content via the internet, and the music companies were continuing their perpetual angst about the idea that certain uses of songs could be, in any way noninfringing. While Lenz doesn’t really redefine large swaths of law, it makes a few points explicit and clear: Fair use is not just excused by the law, it is wholly authorized by the law.A copyright holder must consider the existence of fair use before sending a takedown notification.The DMCA requires consideration of fair use prior to sending a takedown notification…If a copyright holder ignores or neglects our unequivocal holding that it must consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, it is liable for damages.A copyright holder who pays lip service to the consideration of fair use by claiming it formed a good faith belief when there is evidence to the contrary is still subject to §512(f) liability.The court also quoted a brief from transformativeworks (OTW/AO3) where we set forth when computer programs might be of use in finding infringements where  “(1) the video track matches the video track of a copyrighted work submitted by a content owner; (2) the audio track matches the audio track of that same copyrighted work;and (3) nearly the entirety…is comprised of a single copyrighted work.” As you can see, that process wouldn’t be applicable for fanworks. The ruling doesn’t mean an end to automatic takedown notices; where a file of concern matches exactly to a single copyrighted work *and* nearly the entirety of the file of concern is comprised of that single copyrighted work, bots and automated notices would still be viable. But a video manifesting mashup culture or a story that’s a follow-on work or a meme that includes a copyrighted photo and text that comments on or criticizes something, or educational infographs should not be DMCA-ed by autobots, and any analysis by the copyright-holder of the fanfic, fanart, etc. they’re looking at must actually look to current law regarding whether something is a transformative work/fair use/otherwise noninfringing. Does this mean that creative fans will suddenly start experiencing fewer DMCA takedowns? Possibly, but also maybe not. But it does mean that if a creative fan gets a DMCA takedown/notification about fanworks (especially when there’s no commercial sale) the fan can and should push back on whether the sender has actually considered fair use; if it’s obvious that they haven’t, the creative fan may be able to seek damages. Perhaps that risk of damages will be a disincentive to copyright-holders, so they focus their attention, and DMCA notices, on works that are actual counterfeits - copies of entire movies, books or tv serieses, or high resolution copies of art. Copyright holders cannot shirk their duty to consider—in good faith and prior to sending a takedown notification—whether allegedly infringing material constitutes fair use, a use which the DMCA plainly contemplates as authorized by the law. And that’s a good thing. 


heidi8:Fair use is … wholly authorized by the law. That’s what the 9th Circuit said today, in a ruling that will become a terrific tool to support sharing of transformative works (like fanfic, fanart, cosplay, fanfilms, filks, etc.). Back in 2001 and 2003, when I first started writing and speaking about fair use in connection with what we’re now calling “fan law”,  we did a lot of argiing by analogy. Caselaw hadn’t really caught up with how people were actually using the internet and definitely hadn’t caught up with the idea that fans of a show or book or film or band or piece of art or work of creativity would create a “follow-on work” and share it at no cost to anyone, on the internet. But lawyers argue by analogy - we go before a court and say “this is similar to that, and thus the laws for that should also apply to this”. That’s how it works (at least in the US) so it was reasonable  to say because of court rulings in The Wind Done Gone and the 2 Live Crew case re Pretty Woman, or a 1996 case in the 11th Circuit that said “fair use is not an infringement, that (noncommercially distributed) fanworks - as transformative works - were fair use and thus were not infringements of someone’s copyright. By and large, over the last fifteen years (and actually, through  the 90s too) the courts have agreed with this concept every time something that parallels an aspect of fanworks comes before an appellate court. Click the Fair Use tag here for examples. However, today the 9th Circuit issued its ruling in Lenz v. Universal, a case that dates back EIGHT YEARS to a pre-Google time at YouTube, when the tv networks were all freaking out about this new way that people could get content via the internet, and the music companies were continuing their perpetual angst about the idea that certain uses of songs could be, in any way noninfringing. While Lenz doesn’t really redefine large swaths of law, it makes a few points explicit and clear: Fair use is not just excused by the law, it is wholly authorized by the law.A copyright holder must consider the existence of fair use before sending a takedown notification.The DMCA requires consideration of fair use prior to sending a takedown notification…If a copyright holder ignores or neglects our unequivocal holding that it must consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, it is liable for damages.A copyright holder who pays lip service to the consideration of fair use by claiming it formed a good faith belief when there is evidence to the contrary is still subject to §512(f) liability.The court also quoted a brief from transformativeworks (OTW/AO3) where we set forth when computer programs might be of use in finding infringements where  “(1) the video track matches the video track of a copyrighted work submitted by a content owner; (2) the audio track matches the audio track of that same copyrighted work;and (3) nearly the entirety…is comprised of a single copyrighted work.” As you can see, that process wouldn’t be applicable for fanworks. The ruling doesn’t mean an end to automatic takedown notices; where a file of concern matches exactly to a single copyrighted work *and* nearly the entirety of the file of concern is comprised of that single copyrighted work, bots and automated notices would still be viable. But a video manifesting mashup culture or a story that’s a follow-on work or a meme that includes a copyrighted photo and text that comments on or criticizes something, or educational infographs should not be DMCA-ed by autobots, and any analysis by the copyright-holder of the fanfic, fanart, etc. they’re looking at must actually look to current law regarding whether something is a transformative work/fair use/otherwise noninfringing. Does this mean that creative fans will suddenly start experiencing fewer DMCA takedowns? Possibly, but also maybe not. But it does mean that if a creative fan gets a DMCA takedown/notification about fanworks (especially when there’s no commercial sale) the fan can and should push back on whether the sender has actually considered fair use; if it’s obvious that they haven’t, the creative fan may be able to seek damages. Perhaps that risk of damages will be a disincentive to copyright-holders, so they focus their attention, and DMCA notices, on works that are actual counterfeits - copies of entire movies, books or tv serieses, or high resolution copies of art. Copyright holders cannot shirk their duty to consider—in good faith and prior to sending a takedown notification—whether allegedly infringing material constitutes fair use, a use which the DMCA plainly contemplates as authorized by the law. And that’s a good thing. 


heidi8:Fair use is … wholly authorized by the law. That’s what the 9th Circuit said today, in a ruling that will become a terrific tool to support sharing of transformative works (like fanfic, fanart, cosplay, fanfilms, filks, etc.). Back in 2001 and 2003, when I first started writing and speaking about fair use in connection with what we’re now calling “fan law”,  we did a lot of argiing by analogy. Caselaw hadn’t really caught up with how people were actually using the internet and definitely hadn’t caught up with the idea that fans of a show or book or film or band or piece of art or work of creativity would create a “follow-on work” and share it at no cost to anyone, on the internet. But lawyers argue by analogy - we go before a court and say “this is similar to that, and thus the laws for that should also apply to this”. That’s how it works (at least in the US) so it was reasonable  to say because of court rulings in The Wind Done Gone and the 2 Live Crew case re Pretty Woman, or a 1996 case in the 11th Circuit that said “fair use is not an infringement, that (noncommercially distributed) fanworks - as transformative works - were fair use and thus were not infringements of someone’s copyright. By and large, over the last fifteen years (and actually, through  the 90s too) the courts have agreed with this concept every time something that parallels an aspect of fanworks comes before an appellate court. Click the Fair Use tag here for examples. However, today the 9th Circuit issued its ruling in Lenz v. Universal, a case that dates back EIGHT YEARS to a pre-Google time at YouTube, when the tv networks were all freaking out about this new way that people could get content via the internet, and the music companies were continuing their perpetual angst about the idea that certain uses of songs could be, in any way noninfringing. While Lenz doesn’t really redefine large swaths of law, it makes a few points explicit and clear: Fair use is not just excused by the law, it is wholly authorized by the law.A copyright holder must consider the existence of fair use before sending a takedown notification.The DMCA requires consideration of fair use prior to sending a takedown notification…If a copyright holder ignores or neglects our unequivocal holding that it must consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, it is liable for damages.A copyright holder who pays lip service to the consideration of fair use by claiming it formed a good faith belief when there is evidence to the contrary is still subject to §512(f) liability.The court also quoted a brief from transformativeworks (OTW/AO3) where we set forth when computer programs might be of use in finding infringements where  “(1) the video track matches the video track of a copyrighted work submitted by a content owner; (2) the audio track matches the audio track of that same copyrighted work;and (3) nearly the entirety…is comprised of a single copyrighted work.” As you can see, that process wouldn’t be applicable for fanworks. The ruling doesn’t mean an end to automatic takedown notices; where a file of concern matches exactly to a single copyrighted work *and* nearly the entirety of the file of concern is comprised of that single copyrighted work, bots and automated notices would still be viable. But a video manifesting mashup culture or a story that’s a follow-on work or a meme that includes a copyrighted photo and text that comments on or criticizes something, or educational infographs should not be DMCA-ed by autobots, and any analysis by the copyright-holder of the fanfic, fanart, etc. they’re looking at must actually look to current law regarding whether something is a transformative work/fair use/otherwise noninfringing. Does this mean that creative fans will suddenly start experiencing fewer DMCA takedowns? Possibly, but also maybe not. But it does mean that if a creative fan gets a DMCA takedown/notification about fanworks (especially when there’s no commercial sale) the fan can and should push back on whether the sender has actually considered fair use; if it’s obvious that they haven’t, the creative fan may be able to seek damages. Perhaps that risk of damages will be a disincentive to copyright-holders, so they focus their attention, and DMCA notices, on works that are actual counterfeits - copies of entire movies, books or tv serieses, or high resolution copies of art. Copyright holders cannot shirk their duty to consider—in good faith and prior to sending a takedown notification—whether allegedly infringing material constitutes fair use, a use which the DMCA plainly contemplates as authorized by the law. And that’s a good thing. 

heidi8:

Fair use is … wholly authorized by the law. That’s what the 9th Circuit said today, in a ruling that will become a terrific tool to support sharing of transformative works (like fanfic, fanart, cosplay, fanfilms, filks, etc.). 

Back in 2001 and 2003, when I first started writing and speaking about fair use in connection with what we’re now calling “fan law”,  we did a lot of argiing by analogy. Caselaw hadn’t really caught up with how people were actually using the internet and definitely hadn’t caught up with the idea that fans of a show or book or film or band or piece of art or work of creativity would create a “follow-on work” and share it at no cost to anyone, on the internet. 

But lawyers argue by analogy - we go before a court and say “this is similar to that, and thus the laws for that should also apply to this”. That’s how it works (at least in the US) so it was reasonable  to say because of court rulings in The Wind Done Gone and the 2 Live Crew case re Pretty Woman, or a 1996 case in the 11th Circuit that said “ fair use is not an infringement, that (noncommercially distributed) fanworks - as transformative works - were fair use and thus were not infringements of someone’s copyright. 

By and large, over the last fifteen years (and actually, through  the 90s too) the courts have agreed with this concept every time something that parallels an aspect of fanworks comes before an appellate court. Click the Fair Use tag here for examples. 

However, today the 9th Circuit issued its ruling in Lenz v. Universal, a case that dates back EIGHT YEARS to a pre-Google time at YouTube, when the tv networks were all freaking out about this new way that people could get content via the internet, and the music companies were continuing their perpetual angst about the idea that certain uses of songs could be, in any way noninfringing. 

While Lenz doesn’t really redefine large swaths of law, it makes a few points explicit and clear: 

  • Fair use is not just excused by the law, it is wholly authorized by the law.
  • A copyright holder must consider the existence of fair use before sending a takedown notification.
  • The DMCA requires consideration of fair use prior to sending a takedown notification…
  • If a copyright holder ignores or neglects our unequivocal holding that it must consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, it is liable for damages.
  • A copyright holder who pays lip service to the consideration of fair use by claiming it formed a good faith belief when there is evidence to the contrary is still subject to §512(f) liability.

The court also quoted a brief from transformativeworks (OTW/AO3) where we set forth when computer programs might be of use in finding infringements where  “(1) the video track matches the video track of a copyrighted work submitted by a content owner; (2) the audio track matches the audio track of that same copyrighted work;and (3) nearly the entirety…is comprised of a single copyrighted work.” As you can see, that process wouldn’t be applicable for fanworks. 

The ruling doesn’t mean an end to automatic takedown notices; where a file of concern matches exactly to a single copyrighted work *and* nearly the entirety of the file of concern is comprised of that single copyrighted work, bots and automated notices would still be viable. 

But a video manifesting mashup culture or a story that’s a follow-on work or a meme that includes a copyrighted photo and text that comments on or criticizes something, or educational infographs should not be DMCA-ed by autobots, and any analysis by the copyright-holder of the fanfic, fanart, etc. they’re looking at must actually look to current law regarding whether something is a transformative work/fair use/otherwise noninfringing. 

Does this mean that creative fans will suddenly start experiencing fewer DMCA takedowns? Possibly, but also maybe not. But it does mean that if a creative fan gets a DMCA takedown/notification about fanworks (especially when there’s no commercial sale) the fan can and should push back on whether the sender has actually considered fair use; if it’s obvious that they haven’t, the creative fan may be able to seek damages. 

Perhaps that risk of damages will be a disincentive to copyright-holders, so they focus their attention, and DMCA notices, on works that are actual counterfeits - copies of entire movies, books or tv serieses, or high resolution copies of art. 

Copyright holders cannot shirk their duty to consider—in good faith and prior to sending a takedown notification—whether allegedly infringing material constitutes fair use, a use which the DMCA plainly contemplates as authorized by the law.

And that’s a good thing. 

morgandawn: (Vid Free! As Free As The Wind Blows...)
What if all music was licensed under the Creative Commons (allowing non-commercial remix). What if a group of vidders fell in love with such an album and decided to make a 'vid album' - one vid for each song? What if the vidders chose fandoms ranging from The Hunger Games to Thor to Star Trek Deep Space 9 to Pacific Rim to Doctor Who and more.?

You don't have to wonder. In 2013 a group of 8 vidders decided to take Vienna Teng's album Aims - which has been released under the Creative Commons License - and make fanvids for the songs.

The result: The Aims Vid Album. Vids are both streaming and downloadable and some have subtitle options. Take a moment to watch and leave feedback.

When the album was released, Vienna Teng explained why she chose the Creative Commons license:
"The CD has a Creative Commons license instead of a standard copyright, which means the music can be shared to some extent. "We live in an age where people can easily copy things. People can create a mix, sing along and post that on YouTube, or pass it along to a friend, as long as there is respect for the original.Source.

The Daily Dot wrote an article about the vid album in 2014.
"Thanks to the international nature of the Aims project, the fanvid album has only aired once in its entirety, at the VidUKon
 convention this year. It was an emotional moment for all involved, the little community of collaborators coming together for the first time."Source.


And last, this was posted to Vienna Teng's Facebook after she read the Daily Dot article:
"Why Creative Commons is awesome, Exhibit A: a fanvid of every song on Aims. Thanks to all the collaborators & creators who made this—wish I could've been there at VidUKon to meet you all!" Source.
morgandawn: Fandom is my Fandom (Fandom is my Fandom)
 For tumblr post go here

Click on the images for full size version.
Image 1











Image 2
Image 3
Image 4

Image 1: If ebooks-Tree has links to your fanfic on AO3, this is the screen you will see. The number of stories is in the upper left corner.

Image 2: If ebooks-Tree does not have links to your fanfic on AO3, there will be no stories listed. There will be a fake download link in the center that will take you to a pay website that will ask you for your credit card to download the story. I do not know if you can download stories from this “fake” website link because they require a credit card to test.

Image 3: If the story is on ebooks-Tree you will find an individual page (This story is “A Visit From the Home Office” by [personal profile] esteefee). There are two links: the center link is to the pay website that will ask for a credit card to download your fic. The smaller link to the far left is a direct link to the story on A03. The mobi file in this second link is still stored on A03.

Image 4: The last page is what happens if you click on the “free” link to the left to the mobi file stored on A03. As of 4/13/2015, AO3 has disabled the direct links and this is the page the reader will see. They will not be able to download the A03 file. They will not be able to go to your AO3 page. However, the “fake” link remains - I do not know if you can still access the story from there as it requires a credit card to test.


edited: as of 4/14/2014, ebooks-Tree has found a way to bypass the AO3 block.


Updates

Apr. 13th, 2015 06:26 pm
morgandawn: (Default)
 Week 2 of limited net connectivity (3 days offline in row). new service ordered (comcast, shudder)  but won't be installed until this weekend.  we have to ration our phone data plan for [personal profile] xlorp 's work, so online access will be spotty,

in the meantime ebooks-tree: what to do, what's happening
>http://www.isfanficlegal.com/post/116301992754/update-below-weve-taken-measures-to-make-it

and you do not need to give credit card info to download the fic or books. If you must click on a link to see your fic, see these posts:
http://meeedeee.tumblr.com/post/116332556976/this-girl-is-this-whole-ebooks-tree-thing-is
http://this-girl-is.tumblr.com/post/116325984080/this-whole-ebooks-tree-thing-is-gross-i-have

also, the
dmca.com badges that people are using link to a pay site that charges you for dmca takedowns. While registering gets you one 'free" takedown, I would be dubious signing up for something that charges $10 for "self-service" DMCA removals.

reminder: this is the Internets. Scraping and linking and archiving and sharing and reblogging and uploading will never be "resolved" or "stopped". Follow the AO3's suggestions about locking your fic and do not be freaked if this happens again and again.  Also keep this in mind when objecting to fans who are sharing or linking to your fanworks for the love of fandom...there are bigger and more troubling forces out there that will seek to profit from fandom. Do not stabby stab one other when the sharks are circling.

and last.....

Here Is Some Context For Your  Fandom Freakout

eBooks piracy has been a challenge for many published and indie authors for a while. You are in (good?) company. A site similar to ebooks-tree is Tuebl

http://www.mtoddgallowglas.com/daily-rants/ebook-piracy-hard-numbers/ (2015)

http://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-news/ebook-publishers-may-soon-sue-isp-providers-over-pirate-ebooks (2014)

http://badredheadmedia.com/2014/07/09/5-tips-handling-dreaded-ebook-pirates-guest-macpetreshock/ (2014)

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/ebook-piracy-safer-than-purchase/ (2013)

morgandawn: (Zen fen lanning Green)
More here.  And from the latest LJ news announcement:

"ONTD Lawsuit

As you may have seen, LiveJournal was sued by Mavrix, a photography agency who was the copyright holder of several images which had been posted to Oh No They Didn't! (ONTD). We are glad to report that the district court ruled in LiveJournal's favor. For those interested in reading the decision, it is available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/240594730/Mavrix-v-Livejournal-Summary-Judgment-Order.

The point we want to address today, however, is that during this process moderators & maintainers of ONTD felt harassed & threatened, and Mavrix attempted to force us to reveal their identities. It was our opinion that community moderators should not be forced to reveal their identities or be subjected to harassment for content posted by other members of that community. We take your privacy seriously here, tirelessly fought all requests for this information, and were not required to release any information about any member of LiveJournal as part of this lawsuit."





morgandawn: (Vid Free! As Free As The Wind Blows...)
Vidders, your help is needed
Fan Video & Multimedia is once again working with our Legal Committee as well as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to petition for a DMCA exemption granting vidders, AMV makers, and other creators of noncommercial remix video the right to break copy protection on media files. In 2010, we won the right to rip DVDs; in 2012, we got that exemption renewed and expanded to include digital downloads (iTunes, Amazon Unbox, etc.). In 2015, we’ll be pushing to add Blu-Ray. Right now we’re in the data-gathering stage: asking fan video makers to talk with us about how they get Blu-Ray source and why Blu-Ray is important.

RivkaT adds:

The exemption will expire if not renewed! The big copyright industries fought really hard last time, and renewal is not a foregone conclusion, even though we’re still right. As always we need (1) examples of vids that make a critical commentary on the original source, particularly examples from the past 3 years, as well as (2) vids that need very high quality source, in technical terms, to do what they do. With Blu-Ray, we need (3) explanations of how getting Blu-Ray source can be done, so we can educate the Copyright Office, and (4) explanations for why Blu-Ray source is important.

If you can help with any of these, please let legal@transformativeworks.org know!
(thanks to [personal profile] giandujakiss for the heads up)

morgandawn: (Fanlore Our Story)

The year is 2014:

"On the eve of the brand new season of Doctor Who, yesterday the BBC and Federation Against Copyright Theft teamed up to close a long-standing fansite. Following an in-person visit, Doctor Who Media shut down immediately. Its domain name will soon be taken over by the BBC."  Source

The year was 1985 and this was written by an fan editor whose Miami Vice newsletter had been shut down by the studios:

“I was the editor of a small letterzine called ‘Vice Line,' which managed to publish 1 issue before being hit with fandom's greatest horror, the dreadedCease and Desist notice. Receiving it was particularly painful for me, as I had just spent 8 months moving heaven and earth to keep ‘Miami Vice’ from being cancelled, and while I didn’t expect the producers to throw roses at my feet, I didn’t expect this either. Within days of its debut, the zine was folded, subs refunded, and plans for future fannish endeavors thrown into limbo. The experience left me drained, disillusioned, and angry about the massive amount of waste of time, energy and spirit, of all the people who had worked so hard for so long. I vowed I would never again lift a finger to do shit for a television show (or anything else for that matter) as long as I lived. There were million other hobbies one could engage in, and this seemed like the perfect time to finish that 5000-piece jigsaw puzzle. It was during this period of fannish-detachment your letters started arriving; letters full of empathy, encouragement and hope, that served to make the void that was left by ‘Vice Line’s’ demise, seem that much larger. I cannot describe the feeling you get from being told that some little thing that you did affected so many people in such a way, they feel your sense of loss as if it were their own…….”

The editor then went on to publish Pop Stand Express, an adzine that allowed fans of smaller TV and movie fandoms to connect with each other.

Read more about the newsletter Vice Line on Fanlore here.

(links go to Fanlore, the fan run Wiki about media fandom)

morgandawn: (BSG Roslin wikidwitch)
..or rather how they helped save the investigation records when masked gunmen smashed their way into the offices of the Crimean Center for Investigative Journalism.

"“Whenever I’m asked why web archiving matters,” he continues, “I think of the Bob Dylan line from The Times They Are A-Changin’—‘The present now will later be past.’ Material is disappearing before our eyes at an unprecedented rate, and with it goes precious source material for the future historian who will be trying to shed light on the present. Capturing the past for posterity through web archiving matters just as much as preserving other aspects of our cultural heritage, whether it’s kitchen utensils, buildings, warships or collections of newspapers. Studies suggest that 40 percent of what’s on it at any given moment is deleted a year later, while another 40 percent has been altered, leaving just 20 percent of the original content.”

morgandawn: (Farscape Touch the Stars)
1. Donate to Planned Parenthood. You can also donate at the local level. And then consider donating to RAIIN, an organization that helps rape and abuse survivors.

2. Demand that your access to over the air programming be restored and that cloud computing be allowed to develop and grow and flourish. Imagine if the Supreme Court
had ruled that VCRs were infringing back in 1984...we wouldn't have much of the personal media technology we have today.

From
arstechnica:

"In an open letter on Tuesday, [Aero CEO] Kanojia asked
the public to help restore Aereo:
Contact your lawmakers and tell them how disappointing it is to you that the nation's highest court has issued a decision that could take away your right to use a cloud-based antenna to access live over-the-air broadcast television.

The spectrum that the broadcasters use to transmit over-the-air programming belongs to the American public and you should have a right to access that programming whether your antenna sits on the roof of your home, on top of your television, or in the cloud.

Ask your elected officials to take action to protect your right use an antenna to access live free-to-air broadcasts, including a modern antenna located in the cloud."

3. Recharge your fandom love with this Star Trek vid: "
Long Live (Star Trek)". As I watched it, I am reminded of the many Star Trek fans that I have tracked down and spoken with this past year for the Sandy Hereld Memorial Digitized Media Fanzine Collection. These women from the 1970s-80s-90s have said: "Star Trek played such a big role in my life back then. It is wonderful it is being remembered." What I sometimes say back to them is this: "It is you who we are remembering."
morgandawn: (Fair Use)
If you want to reduce your cable bill, you first have to decide where you like to watch TV: at the TV or on your computer.

If you like your TV, then you have the option of cutting cable or going back to basic cable. I will blog only about the method that I know and have used.

This method requires a wireless router in your home, a computer and decent DSL or broadband(3-4MBS for DSL). For most streaming methods, your computer will need to be on to watch video on the TV. And if you are not comfortable with doing an occasional reboot and restart if something hangs or freezes, then stick to cable.

Step 1: Buy a ROKU (around $50-100 depending on the model you pick)

Step 2: Buy Playon (a software program that runs on your computer).  Playon offers a free trial. You can then go month to month and once you are really certain it works for you, buy a lifetime subscription for $60. If you want to use their PlayLater feature to function as a DVR and record shows to your computer to watch later they charge a flat fee of $40/year. We have our own DVR so we went for the lifetime subscription

Step 3: decide if Netflix and/or Amazon Prime are worthwhile add-ons. Netflix is good for TV shows (they carry episodes up through the previous year). The only reason we have Amazon Prime is for the expedited shipping - on occasion we can find a few movies we want to watch. Netflix is around $10 a month. Amazon Prime will end up being roughly the same.

Step 4: Make a list of your favorite shows and see who carries them. Through Playon you can watch anything that Hulu offers for free. Hulu offers most of their shows within 24hrs of airing. Third party add-ons to Playon allow you to watch most any other TV show (yes even HBO and Showtime) for free - we use them sparingly as we still have our HBO and Showtime - mainly when our DVR fails to record a show and the damn On Demand service the cable company offers freezes or stops working (so much for not having to reboot on cable platforms). Local TV stations/news may also available via some Playon addons - you'll need to look through the Playon Scripts listings. Both Playon and Roku offer forums where you can ask questions.

What does it cost in the end
? A one time fee for the Roku ($50-100). A one time fee of $60 for Playon (lifetime) or a $3/month fee if you buy the DVR capability). Netflix and/or Amazon Prime for an additional $10 each (personally I'd not get Amazon Prime unless you have a need for the expedited shipping). For the first year, buying the most expensive ROKU and getting the monthly Playon, the cost is $12 month. If you add Netflix or Amazon Prime, an additional $10 each. Theoretically you could get access to most US (and UK) TV shows for around $22-32/month. After the first year....the cost can drop to as low as $10-13 a month.

And now you know why the cable companies fought so hard against Aereo and why the US Supreme Court case which Aereo lost today harms the consumer and technology innovation. Content providers and cable companies want to shut down Internet competition until they can figure out a way to overcharge us for their crappy (you know it will be crappy) Internet streaming service - that we will have to buy piecemeal at a premium from each network separately. Or, if they have their way, force us to pay for each episode, with no ability to store it and watch it later. Don't forget those "special" fees for watching on your smart-phone.

"Legal or not, Aereo was about to deliver something consumers wanted, something the collective will of the indigenous television industry still seems incapable of providing on a ubiquitous level. Broadcast TV. Everywhere." from a newsletter for cable network executives.

morgandawn: (BSG Roslin wikidwitch)
"But both Fifty Shades and After prompt questions, within fan communities and without, about what it means to write fan fiction now that the practice has been thrust into the public eye, and now that a select few are raking in enormous profits from the practice.

What is the purpose of fan fiction? There is no single correct answer. It can be a way to critically engage with the source material – a rewriting of a plotline, a reexamination of a scene from another angle, a what-if twist that alters the entire thing. It can be a way of fulfilling a fantasy – say, when you write that your favorite singer has fallen in love with an ordinary girl. It can be pure, sugar-spun fun; it can be more challenging, emotionally or intellectually, than the works that inspired it. It can be an enormous dialogue, inter-fandom and intra-fandom, sharing tropes and themes and methods of experimentation. It can be a way to just spend more time, in whatever way you prefer, with characters or a world that you find compelling. It can be a space that exists wholly outside the pressures of commercial writing – a story can have a million followers, or just one, and it doesn’t make a difference. But then, if a story has a million followers, is it hitting that commercially-publishable note – and can you fault the publishers, or the writers, from cashing in?"

---"The truth behind that six-figure deal for Harry Styles fan fiction" in the New Statesman, dated June 24, 2014.

This reminds me of Congressional hearings in the early 1900s over audio recordings (aka records). Most music was created and performed in the home or in community settings by and for members of the community. The fear was that audio recordings would kill the community and creativity of local musicians by commercializing the practice and rendering the home grown versions as both unnecessary and unwanted competition.:

"These
talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy...in front of every house in the summer evenings, you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or old songs. Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal cord left. The vocal cord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape." (Lawrence Lessig cited this as part of his argument against stricter copyright laws).

Fan Fiction has always been a grass root creation and the introduction of the Internet made it even more "grass rooty"  (accessible to a wider range of fans). If fan fiction becomes monetized, then our culture will be in direct competition with commercial fan fiction. But therein lies fandom's strength - because until commercial fan fiction embraces the knotting, the tentacle, the incest, the MPREG, the gender fluid, and the many other forms of fantasy yearning to be free, it can never compete with the unfettered, freaky, amazing and wonderful human imagination.

So bring on the competition and let's see who blinks first.*

(*But let's also support the OTW, the EFF and any other entity that fights for fair use and non-commercial transformative use, because I suspect corporate interests are stacking the legal deck to avoid real competition.)



morgandawn: (Fair Use)
article here

"The highly popular online video service Vimeo
announced Wednesday that it's introducing a new system called “Copyright Match” to automatically remove copyright-infringing videos from the site."

Edited to add comment from below:

"This article about this change from No Film School isn't as sensationalist as that Ars Technica article, which is disappointing on Ars Technica's part.

http://nofilmschool.com/2014/05/upload-vimeo-copyright-match-audible-magic/

In short: Right now, the change isn't affecting already uploaded videos. It'll affect videos being uploaded to the site as of recent. So if you uploaded something prior to today, Vimeo isn't going to make you change or delete anything with copyrighted images and/or music yet. But if you try to upload a video today with copyrighted images and/or music, there's a strong possibility it might get flagged, and it might be an uphill battle to get it deemed "fair use" so it can stay on the site.

I don't trust Vimeo to host my old fan vids any longer before they come for them. From now on, until/unless Tumblr's policy changes, I'll host my videos on Tumblr instead."

edited to add a note about vidders.net. I have not used or tested them extensively so cannot comment about the quality or reliability. You can can check out vidders.net yourself  - they offer up to 5 vids for free. For more than 5 vids they offer a subscription model.

From their FAQ

  1) Is this a free site or is this a paid site? 

 

 It is both. Viewers who enjoy watching vids can join for free and watch all the vids they want and get updates of new vids related to their favorite fandoms or vidder or even musical artist. Vidders can join and upload up to 5 videos for free and try out the site. If a vidder would like to upload more we are asking they contribute $20/year /$2/month to help offset the storage cost & support the running of the site. We think is a very reasonable for what this site offers and will be offering in the future.  

 

  Also, if you are a viewer you can support the site by sponsoring a Vidder whose work you'd like to support who may not be able to afford a membership  

 

 New - If you have Paypal we will credit you $10 for every member you invite who subscribes. Invite 2 people who subscribe and your membership is paid for - invite more and you are making money!  

 

    

 

    

 

    

.

  
morgandawn: Fandom is my Fandom (Fandom is my Fandom)

The Organization for Transformative Works was founded six years ago, because fans realized that owning the means of circulating and distributing fanworks—the servers, the interface, the code, the terms of service—would be essential to the long-term health of fan creativity, and so we created the nonprofit, donor-supported Archive of Our Own. Today, when I talk about the importance of fan writing, I don’t just mean fiction and nonfiction: I mean contracts and code. In the old days, fans self-published their fiction (and put it under copyright, asserting their ownership in their words), they distributed their own VHS cassettes and digital downloads, and they coded and built their own websites and created their own terms of service. Today, enormous commercial entities—YouTube, Amazon, LiveJournal, Wattpad, Tumblr—own much of this infrastructure.

This is a very mixed bag. On the one hand, these companies’ products and interfaces have made it infinitely easier for the average fan to connect with other fans and distribute fanworks. Now you only need a username and a password to get started, where before you needed access to server space, a knowledge of HTML, how to use FTP, and so on. However, there are also various dangers, including not only capricious or exploitative terms of service but simple market failure. None of the companies I just listed has anything like the track record of the average fandom or fannish institution; consider how much younger they are than Sherlock Holmes, Doctor Who, or even Supernatural fandom. In the best case, these companies may fail and become a disruptive force in relatively stable and long-term communities; in the worst case, they may exploit and betray their users.

In the past few years, the nature of the arguments I have been having as a fandom advocate has changed: In the past, I found myself arguing for the legitimacy of our works; now, I find myself arguing against their exploitation. The commercial ownership of the infrastructure means that money has now complicated fandom’s gift culture, and, like it or not, we now have to think about who should benefit. Here, too, there is a spectrum: Some grassroots creators don’t want to engage with the commercial world on any terms (and they should have the right not to); others feel that if someone is profiting from their works, it should be them, and it should be a fair compensation. If the relationship between fans and the commercial world is being renegotiated, we’re going to have to apply some of our creative energies to writing contracts as well as fanfiction, rather than let unfavorable or disrespectful terms of authorship be handed down to us by corporate owners.

— 

Francesca Coppa, in Participations: Dialogues on the Participatory Promise of Contemporary Culture and Politics

morgandawn: (Vid Free! As Free As The Wind Blows...)
"I think that fans might want to consider that the nature of the Internet is change - and we need to to keep that firmly in our minds. If Youtube has become more hostile to vidding content, then we need to move ourselves elsewhere - whether to another low profile streaming site or back to our webs.

I would not point the finger at fans who choose to stream their vids and say they are ruining vidding for us - (a) it is counterproductive and (b) it is inaccurate. The RIAA/Studios are the ones 'ruining it' - not just for vidders but for legions of the their fans. They have been battling the democratization and globalization of media for the last decade by refusing to adjust their business models. Seeing vidding as part of that battle may help bring some perspective of how deep and wide the gulf is between fans and the content creators. It is not as if MGM/Viacom/Sony have been 'awakened' by the acts of a few vidders. This is part of a larger strategic battle between Titans.

In other words - we must be clever.... like ducks! And find ways *to work together* as a group to keep vidding going. there are several approaches being undertaken on this front - and none of us know which one will work best."
Youtube Not Safe Any More
morgandawn: (Fair Use)
“I also think it's another step in fandom forgetting its place and status in the world. It has the same basic problem as the Star Wars fan-novelist selling her book on Amazon. Because, unfortunately, I think the proper role for fandom to take in any copyright or intellectual property issue is one of meekness and deference. We should credit our sources, and shut the hell up, because we are on very, very shaky ground. We really do exist in a continual state of maybe-getting-sued tomorrow. I cringe any time I see anything that starts to rock the boat. Because it's not worth rocking.”
http://vidding.livejournal.com/674770.html

morgandawn: (Fair Use)
Getty is now offering its images without watermarks for free - in exchange for an embed with link + credit. This is something that fan artists on Deviantart have been doing for a while (it is an easy to enable the embed option for DA users). Tumblr artists have been relying on the reblog button to allow people to share their fan art, something that was technically impossible a few years ago. Prior to embedding/reblogging tools, fans were expected to link back to the original website where the art appeared. There was no inkling that fans would one day be OK with reblogging and embedding. Like DA, tumblr is another  case where the software platform built by a corporation is changing what  fandom believes are acceptable sharing practices.  I now think it is smarter for fandom (and the MPAA and RIAA) to push for ways to make sharing and reposting fanworks work for them  rather than using laws and “etiquette”  to prevent, limit or control people’s sharing behavior.  Because people - fans and non-fans alike - will repost, reblog, copy and paste, reuse, share and find a way to use your content anyway.  The new fandom motto should be: "Fandom: 1000 times smarter than the MPAA.  Sharing and reposting fanworks *is* OK. But if you repost, pay it back with credit + link." The motto would certainly be easier to understand and follow and would be robust enough to adapt to future technology platforms. And we would spend more of our time sharing and enjoying and less time arguing over the ever evolving ‘right’ way to share.

Of interest to fan vidders and fans of fanvids: will digital movies be around in 100 years? The article points out that: "According to researchers at the Library of Congress, less than half of the feature films made in the United States before 1950 and less than 20 percent from the 1920s are still around. The early films that did survive did so largely through the efforts of private and institutional collectors."  I can report that something similar is happening in the fandom world as well - the online vid/story/art work that you love will be gone sooner than you think and unless someone is archiving the story for themselves, it will most likely not survive the next 10 years. If  you are a fan with the archivist gene, please keep doing what you are doing, squirrel your favorites away and try not to listen (over much) to those  those who protest archiving (private or public). Archiving without permission is not un-fannish - it is a normal human response to entropy and in many cases, it is the only reason we still have any culture to enjoy 100 or 1000 years later.

For the broader historical fandom context check out Fanlore:
Sharing Fan Art
Sharing Deleted Fanworks

morgandawn: (Fair Use)
First up, as Rebecca Tushnet reports, Australia has recommended adopting a fair use exception to their copyright laws. She points out that "one reason to adopt fair use is that it provides greater protection for "musical compositions, new films, art works and fan fiction."

Next: digitization efforts by libraries and museums are gaining greater acceptance worldwide. In the same Australian report several sections focus on the need for libraries and collections to (a) be allowed to scan copyrighted materials,  and (b) to allow less restricted access to those materials (ex: no digital hobbling, forced anti-copying technology or onsite only access with limited days and hours). And last, they argue for the right to preserve material that was "born digitally" (work that was only distributed in electronic format. Think along the lines of the Internet Archive/Wayback Machine): "Aside from ‘legacy’ works—such as old manuscripts and films—libraries and archives must also preserve materials that are ‘born digital’ in the face of ‘technological obsolescence’. Best practice preservation principles in relation to digital material require numerous copies to be made in multiple formats."

This is in line with the positions being adopted by US institutions. Not only do these institutions argue that fair use allows them to scan material for preservation and research purposes, but they also do not need to  conduct a due diligence search for  "orphaned works" (works where the copyright owner has vanished or cannot be determined.

"Because of these significant changes in the copyright landscape over the past seven years, we are convinced that libraries no longer need legislative reform in order to  make appropriate uses of orphan works. However, we understand that other communities may not feel comfortable relying on fair use and may find merit in an approach based on limiting remedies if the user performed a reasonably diligent search for the copyright owner prior to the use....."

They go on to note that the less commercial an item is, the stronger the fair use argument:"....the fair use case for such uses will be even stronger where items to be digitized consist largely of works, such as personal photographs, correspondence, or ephemera,*  whose owners are not exploiting the material commercially and likely could not be located to seek permission for new uses.”  (Library Copyright Alliance, 2013)

*Ephemera interestingly can include both paper items as well as video.  Fanvids would probably fall with the definition of video ephemera.

morgandawn: (Fair Use)
The very concept of a business around the copyright monopoly revolves around the ability to prevent people from telling each other interesting things.” — Scary Devil Monastery
— From:  Why The Copyright Industry Is Doomed, In One Single Sentence
morgandawn: (Fair Use)
"Fan fiction" is what we used to call culture before culture was commercialized and stolen by regulatory capture." ~ DU on metafilter (August 2012).



morgandawn: (Fair Use)
I have loved you for many years...ever since I first heard about the Norwegian Blue Parrots who were pining for your fjords.....

Today, I have fallen again in love with your crazy plan to scan and make available to every Norwegian the entirety of your National Library. Yes, it will take 30 years. Yes, it will make every other country squirm when they realize they are (once again) being left behind on open source and free information access. And yes, there will be unhappy copyright owners fluttering feebly at your borders.

But if I could, I'd draw you you a valentine full of blue parrots and fjords and hearts.

Here, have some lovely Norwegian classical music.



morgandawn: (Fair Use)

The brief also urges the Court to clarify that the sender of a takedown notice is required make reasonable determinations about the law.  In other words, if a copyright holder is going to claim someone violates copyright law, it should first have some idea of what qualifies as a violation. Too often, we have seen copyright owners send takedown notices informed by only the vaguest notion of what actually qualifies as infringement. As we explain:

A law that grants a private actor the power to do what even a court cannot—cause the prior restraint of speech based on a purely ex parte review—alters not only the traditional contours of copyright protection but of our fundamental free speech doctrines. Such a law can only be tolerated, if at all, if the exercise of that power is tied to an obligation to understand what the law is, and to make reasonable assertions based on that understanding.

More here

morgandawn: (Default)
[The panel] was a bunch of writers who had mostly gotten their start in 1970s K/S and had mostly transitioned to being profic writers. When they were sharing fandom stories from back in the day, the panel was great. When they were talking about their approach to fanfic and its relationship to canon, TPTB, profic, and tie-ins, they were so far on the other side of a cultural and to some degree generational divide from me that it wasn't even worth the time and effort to argue with them. They believed that the reason they could write Trekfic was because Paramount let them/turned a blind eye, and they believed that when Paramount started recruiting fic writers to write tie-in novels, that amounted to Paramount finally paying attention to the fandom. I don't think they could have possibly understood the relationship I have with TPTB in my fandoms, that I don't care whether or not they want me to be writing the fic, that I often write fic that would be read as deliberately confrontational toward TPTB, except that I don't give a shit whether they read it because I'm writing in conversation with other fans, not in conversation with the creators. They can't comprehend how I approach contemporary copyright law as a thing to ignore when one is not politically inspired and to campaign against when one is."

More here.
morgandawn: (Fair Use)
If the ruling is upheld on appeal, it will represent a significant triumph for Google. More important, it would expand fair use rights, benefiting many other technology companies. Many innovative media technologies involve aggregating or indexing copyrighted content. Today's ruling is the clearest statement yet that such projects fall on the right side of the fair use line.

More here
morgandawn: (Fair Use)
I blogged about the origins of copyright law here (one of the reasons it was created to prevent political dissent in the UK).

This year the NSA used trademark law to remove a parody t-shirt from Zazzle  that criticized the NSA's surveillance of citizens. You can still buy the shirt from CafePress (for now). Mugs, IPhone cases and bumper stickers are also available. Here is how the funds will be used.

The slogan: "The only part of the government that actually listens."

Read articles here and here. And there is an informative video with an ironic twist at 4minutes  (see below)
The NSA T-Shirt The NSA Liberty Maniacs



Direct link to the video is here
morgandawn: (Fair Use)

I was recently chatting with friends about copying/scanning fanzines with fanzine publisher permission. One of the issues that came up was the statement printed inside many fanzines  that the "rights revert back to the author." A few took this to mean that if a fanzine publisher wanted to keep their zine in print or do additional print runs or give permission for their zine to be scanned, they could not do so without obtaining the permission of each contributor. According to this view, once the rights reverted back to the author, the  publisher’s publication rights ended. This line of reasoning meant that fanzine publishers today, such as the publisher of Spockanalia, the first Star Trek newsletter, could not – and should not - be printing and selling copies of their zines some 40 years later.

In order to make sense of this oddly circular discussion, it is important  to keep in mind that the majority of fanzines printed over the past 40+ years did not have negotiated  "rights" or even a universal understanding as to what rights were being given to the publisher. You wrote a story and submitted it in exchange for a contributor’s copy. As a zine publisher, you published and sold as many copies as you could afford to sell.  A few fanzine publishers took care to go into more detail with their contributors, but for the most part “‘trib copy” and “print as many as you can” was  pretty much it.

Multiple print runs were not the norm in the early print fanzine  era  - mainly because few publishers could afford the upfront costs to fund a second print run. Often the zine publishers would advertise for "pre-orders" (or subscriptions) in order to raise enough funds to do a second print run. But typically fanzine publishers did not have to seek permission from their contributors to do additional print runs. Their right to publish the zine continued as long as they could keep publishing. Zines would go in (and out) of print, and then back into print.  In the book world, savvy writers negotiated limits to the publisher’s publication rights,  ending after X years. Other pro authors negotiated rights for only as long as a book was “in print” and ran into problems when the arrival of eBooks suddenly meant that nothing went ‘out of print.’

In the fanzine world the in print/out of print rules changed when xeroxing and desktop publishing became cheaper in the late 1980s.  Suddenly zines never went out of print and many older zines from the 1970s were put back into print. This caused some fans to become upset as there was a booming market in selling and trading used out of print zines.  Having zines back in print undercut that used fanzine market. Other fans  - who were copying their out of print  zines to share with other fans – were also unhappy because they were now being labeled as ‘pirates’ and ‘thieves’ for doing the same thing they had been doing for years.   You can read more about this here.

In the Star Wars letterzine , Southern Enclave, readers and fanzine publishers began debating the practice of copying out of print zines. They called it, amusingly, the Clone Wars. Excerpts from that discussion can be found on Fanlore here.

One snippet in the Southern Enclave discussion caught my eye and may help explain how in fandom - according to fannish custom and not IP law - writer's rights and fanzine publisher’s rights mesh with one another. According to this description, the fanzine publisher has the rights to the zine as a compilation and, after publication, the author/artist retains the rights to do what they will with their individual creation. The writer can submit it to another zine or give it away.  Or, as the publisher suggests, the writer can give permission for their story to be copied. The publisher on the other hand, controls what happens to the zine as a whole.

"The rights of the individual author/artist [is not equal to] the rights of the zine publisher -- because the whole [is not equal to the] sum of its parts. After a zine is published, the rights to each story and piece of art revert to its creator--who can permit as much Xeroxing as they like! I can't stress this too strongly: It's YOUR story, or YOUR piece of art; please feel free to share it with all the fans you like! But -- but! - the zine as a unit, with its layout, editing, and arrangement belongs to the publisher. “ 

In later years, when the Internet burst onto the scene, fanzine publishers and writers added a new ‘limit’ to zine publication: as a contributor, you would agree to keep the story offline for at least one year to allow the zine publisher time to sell their zines.

Note that the “rights’ discussion, does not perfectly parallel contractual or copyright laws. And it shouldn’t – first because there were usually no contracts or negotiated rights in fanzine production. And second, because the application of copyright to the fandom world carries with it its own perils. But, to quote one fan, the interplay between our fannish culture and laws creates enough “wiggle room” to be able to say that: 

Part of the reason why fandom hasn't always cared about the legality of fandom is because we feel a sort of community ownership over the source in question. When a TV show or movie airs, when we read a book, when a rock or sports team plays, those things they create become part of pop culture, and as members of society, we have some ownership over the culture we live in, which these things are a part of. We feel that gives us the right to comment upon them, to obsess over them, to create around them…….fandom is just a subculture of overall culture and I honestly feel a similar sense of ownership over the fanworks that we create as I do for the pieces of pop culture out there. The fanworks we make become part of the fannish conversation, and they grow beyond the words/pixels/waveforms/etc. on the screen.”

My takeaway from this research is that the roles and responsibilities of zine publishers vs. contributors vs. fanzine buyers/readers has been part of an ever shifting debate that has adapted to new technologies and new methods of fanworks distribution. There never has been a monolithic, universal or agreed upon understanding on this topic - and given the way fandom operates, its global scale and the fact that media fandom as we know it is entering its 5th decade, there may never be one. And that is the way it should be.

morgandawn: (Fair Use)

TLDR version: donate to help keep WebCite going. Oh, and citation services/URL archive services are fair use.

The long version: I heard about a new citation service/URL archiving service, perma.cc and was excited…until I read the fine print. Still, I think  the service will set an important precedent that can only encourage more URL archiving services 

Background: The US Supreme  often links to online content. For any legal opinion or article that relies on online content, linkrot is a major problem. A Harvard study has found that over 50% of the links used in US Supreme Court opinions are gone (the number is higher for journal articles – 70%).  To combat this, the US Supreme Court is printing out a hard copy of every web page that they cite and depositing this  hard copy  into their paper archives. But for the many people who rely on  open online access to court opinions (and that’s a lot of people, both in the US and internationally), once the original website goes down, it is gone. This means that if you’re a nonprofit trying to write an amicus brief you have to  hire someone to go to the US Supreme Court to actually look at the stored version.  That costs money, time and energy. 

The Good and The Bad
The good news is that a group of law school libraries are developing a “screenshot” service that will, eventually, allow them to permanently store a digital copy of a cited page so readers can access the cited material.  The problem is that it is designed to only address published material – unless a cite is used in a published legal opinion or journal and the journal editor manually reviews and confirms the citation, it will vanish.   How this service (which has not yet been launched) will impact other groups dependent on permanent  links  is not clear. For example, Wikipedia is the largest online open source encyclopedia. It too suffers from linkrotBut it most likely will not be helped by a service that  requires that citations be “published in a journal” and reviewed and approved by the “journal editor”  before it is permanently stored. And of course, there are many other types of open source journals (medical, scientific, historical) that might not qualify for  this type of “verified” status because they don’t fit the traditional “publish for pay” model or are not affiliated with a university. 

WayBack Machine Limits
The WayBack Machine does not solve the linkrot problem because it crawls randomly which means you have no way of knowing if the page you are citing will end up there.  Or even worse, once there, if someone buys the domain name and “parks” it, they can contact the WayBack Machine to retroactively remove all the archived content as the new domain owners.   In fact, there is only one service that has, for the past decade, allowed writers who are citing online material to create a static snapshot of a page: WebCite. And they've been doing this reliably and for free.  Not surprisingly, one of their largest users is, in fact, Wikipedia.   

WebCite’s Support Of Wikipedia
The service, WebCite, now needs help updating their service. They must move to the cloud in order to manage their increasingly large data flow.  They estimate that they need to raise $25,000 to hire a developer to make this migration happen. Once there, they hope to continue offering the service for free (although they are exploring offering additional services for subscribers to create permanent funding sources for the service). 

Personally, I love the idea of an institutionally run, permanent citation service like perma.cc – the more the merrier. Data thrives on redundancy and we cannot have too many online archives.  If only perma.cc would also allow Wikipedia citations to be stored permanently...... While I understand why the law schools funding this effort would want to cater to professionally published and recognized journals (their “bread and butter”),  I am disappointed that open source  research, education and teaching continues to be overlooked and under-supported. 

I can only hope that services like WebCite will continue to operate.  Because Wikipedia is the second best democratic and open source knowledge tool that has ever existed (after the invention of the printing press). It  just needs to continue to have access to the infrastructure (like WebCite) to support it. 

About That Important Precedent That I Mentioned
Another good thing to come from the perma.cc service: it has looked into the legality of URL citation services and.....well, let’s just assume that 9 out of 10 law schools that are backing this service agree  that it is fair use.  And just in case anyone questions whether it is “legal” to create a snapshot of a web page for citation purposes – well, if you want to march up to the US Supreme Court and tell them they are doing it wrong, feel free. But I suspect that these type of archived pages will be considered fair use (in the US)  whether you are a “for pay article,” or  “a free article” used in either a  “published” or “open source” service/journal (such a Wikipedia).  The key will be, as always, the intended purpose of the “use.” Archiving by educational, research and nonprofit entities is a traditionally supported and appropriate use.  Perma.cc’s About page points to this 2007 law article discussing the legal issues surrounding citation snapshot services:

“However, fair use instances remain unquestioned when the work is used for educational nonprofit archival purposes and when the archival has no economic impact upon the work’s marketability. The goal of the URL archives fits squarely in this latter situation – it is both educational and nonprofit…. the digital archive stores only works that can be freely accessible on the web because their authors had posted them on the web with the intent that they be freely accessed.  Because the archived works are freely posted on the Internet by their authors, with no expectation of compensation, but with the understanding that they will be accessed freely by users by using such free search engines as Google, the Supreme Court’s admonition that this factor is the most important and decisive could not be more fully satisfied. To that extent, the defense of fair use [for this type of service] “seems preordained.” 

PS. For a dose of humor, Slate says that "perhaps the best way way to illustrate the problem is with the rather (intentonally) hilarious "404 error" message that resides at a hyperlinked address found in a 2011 Supreme Court opinion penned by Justice Samuel Alito Jr." You can see it here.

morgandawn: (Fair Use)
This applies to both commercial and fannish works. The more control that is exerted over our culture and our fanworks, the more they are likely to disappear.

Or to paraphrase  Cory Doctorow: "That which does not get copied becomes extinct."

Excerpts:
"A book published during the presidency of Chester A. Arthur has a greater chance of being in print today than one published during the time of Reagan.

Last year I wrote about some very interesting research being done by Paul J. Heald at the University of Illinois, based on software that crawled Amazon for a random selection of books. At the time, his results were only preliminary, but they were nevertheless startling: There were as many books available from the 1910s as there were from the 2000s. The number of books from the 1850s was double the number available from the 1950s. Why? Copyright protections (which cover titles published in 1923 and after) had squashed the market for books from the middle of the 20th century, keeping those titles off shelves and out of the hands of the reading public.....

.....This is not a gently sloping downward curve! Publishers seem unwilling to sell their books on Amazon for more than a few years after their initial publication. The data suggest that publishing business models make books disappear fairly shortly after their publication and long before they are scheduled to fall into the public domain. Copyright law then deters their reappearance as long as they are owned."


Read the article here.
morgandawn: (Fair Use)
Originally posted by [personal profile] otw_staff at Legal Needs Your Help!
Banner by Diane of two people talking with word balloons that contain the OTW logo and 'OTW Announcement'


The OTW's Legal Advocacy project engages in legal cases and responds to fan requests that involve matters of U.S. copyright and fans' rights to engage in fan practices such as creating fanworks.

But now our Legal Committee needs your help. We are helping with some (confidential, for now) court filings and would like to use the following information to help the drafters shape the arguments. We might possibly include fans' stories of facing legal difficulties, but would only do that with express permission from the fan.

What we need is the following:

(1) DMCA take-downs. We'd like to hear from fans who have received DMCA takedown requests for their transformative fanworks and have had to decide whether to counter-notify that their fanworks are fair use and therefore don't violate copyright law. We'd like to hear what they decided to do, why they made that decision, and what the outcome was for them.

AND

(2) Fans who’ve been told that their transformative fanworks violate someone’s rights of publicity, or who have considered rights of publicity in deciding whether or not to make a fanwork. We're particularly interested in published accounts about the relationship between fandom and rights of publicity.

In both cases, all communications will remain entirely confidential. We won't tell anyone's story or use anyone's name (or pseudonym) without their express permission. But we want to make contact with people who have faced these situations -- their stories will help us make legal arguments that, we hope, will prevent future challenges and take-downs of fans and fanworks.

If you have experienced either of these two things, or encountered news items about either of them, please contact Legal. If you know of someone who has experienced a DMCA takedown request, please direct them to this post. We need to hear from people by October 11. Thanks for your help!
morgandawn: Fandom is my Fandom (Fandom is my Fandom)
"I've yet to figure out the justification for some of these moral shades of grey that pop up in fandom. It is okay to steal from the producers. It is okay to plagiarize from professionals. It is OH MY OM! WRONG! to plagiarize from your fellow fan and wrong to write derivative fiction based on their original characters. It is okay to profit from fandom for product. It is not okay to profit from service. It is wrong to archive a person's fiction without permission but it is perfectly okay for Google and The Internet Archive to archive it, long after they have removed it themselves. It is wrong for a fan fiction archive to claim copyright on your fan fiction but web service providers like MSN, Geocities, Tripod, if they were to claim copyright to everything posted, it is okay. It is okay to threaten other fen with lawsuits but TPTB should realize their greatness and not threaten them."

From a 2005 discussion about RPS fandom.


morgandawn: (Fair Use)
The Copyright Monopoly Was Created As A Censorship Instrument – And Is Still Used As One

"When the printing press hit Europe, royalty and clergy panicked. All of a sudden, they had lost the gatekeeper position of determining what culture and knowledge was available to the masses, and by extension, lost control of the political discourse of their time.

At the time, different regimes reacted differently to the threat. France reacted by banning book shops altogether and banning the use of the printing press under penalty of death. The ban was utterly ineffective. (Yes, you read that right: the penalty for unauthorized copying has been escalated as far as the death penalty, still without effect.)....

[snip]

In this environment, [Queen Mary I of England] sought a further means to suppress free speech and political dissent. Seeing how France’s death penalty against the printing press had failed miserably, she instead opted for an unholy alliance between capital and the crown. Mary I handed out a printing monopoly on May 4, 1557 to the London Company of Stationers. In return for a lucrative monopoly of printing everything in England, the company would agree to not print anything the Crown’s censors deemed politically insubordinate.

The scheme worked to suppress dissent and free thought, and censorship was successfully introduced. The monopoly was called copyright, the word from an internal registry with the London Company of Stationers. Thus, the unholy alliance of the copyright monopoly was forged in the blood of political dissent."
morgandawn: (Default Me Icon)
I've blogged about link rot and how it impacts fandom, history and wikipedia (the main one, not Fanlore). But I've been reading articles discussing how the shift to online "life" is impacting the ability of courts and legislatures to conduct business.

"More and more documents and opinions are in digital form and include hyperlinks to cited cases and other documents. And there is something on the Internet known as “link rot,” in which the source has been moved from the old address or removed entirely. “Is link rot destroying stare decisis as we know it?” asks Magnuson, wondering what happens if you can’t find the information a court relied on. “It is scary, scary stuff.”
Is a paperless, people-less court in our near future?
"Something Rotten in the State of Legal Citation: The Life Span of a United States Supreme Court Citation Containing an Internet Link (1996-2010)".

The impact spreads to other areas: open source medical journals, human rights campaigns, genealogy research, and general reporting. And with the move to twitter and tumblr feeds the problem is growing worse,

"What’s more, we’ve moved into a world of streams, where flow is more important than stock, and where the half-life of any given piece of content has never been shorter; that’s not a world which particularly values preserving that content for perpetuity. And of course it has never been easier to simply delete vast amounts of content at a stroke". Reuters, "The Spread of Link Rot."

The problem is one that many feel needs to be addressed. This is from the founder of pinboard, the bookmarking service:
"Link rot in my own bookmarks is what first inspired me to create Pinboard, a personal archive disguised as a social bookmarking site. As I've shilled before, Pinboard is the only website that will store full page content for the kind of champagne-swilling fat cats willing to pay us a $25/year fee. But while link rot motivated me to build the site, until recently I did not have enough user data to actually quantify the problem. I was particularly curious to see whether link rot would be linear with time, or if links would turn out to have a half-life, like plutonium. Here's what I found... Links appear to die at a steady rate (they don't have a half life), and you can expect to lose about a quarter of them every seven years" Pinboard, "Remembrance of Links Past."

And on that note, WebCite, Wikipedia's main citation and linkrot prevention tool is still raising funds in order to continue operating.They set up a Facebook page here. And even more amusingly, they created their own fundraising trailer. Be kind - they're coders and geeks and not vidders nor are they PR or fundraising savants. But they've been providing this service to the world  - for free -- for over 10 years and it is a service we desperately need to continue.  You can donate here.



They recently laid out their plan: ""Our primary aim at the moment is to make the system more scalable by moving it from a hosted server environment to a cloud-based service (Amazon). This needs to be done this year as we have reached certain limits on our current environment. Moving it to a cloud-based architecture will remove any such performance and storage limits. Secondly, we have to come up with a model that allows us to finance the operations in an ongoing basis. We plan to develop a few WebCite PLUS features (such as the ability to create a user account and view/download all snapshots you have taken). For these additional PLUS features we plan to charge PLUS users, to make the operations sustainable over the long-term. In this model, the basic functionality will remain free of charge."


morgandawn: (Fair Use)
How Copyright Makes Books and Music Disappear (and How Secondary Liability Rules Help Resurrect Old Songs) (http://www.boingboing.net/2013/07/05/how-long-copyright-terms-make.html)

with links to this paper

"An analysis of the data demonstrates that the DMCA safe harbor system as applied to YouTube helps maintain some level of access to old songs by allowing those possessing copies (primarily infringers) to communicate relatively costlessly with copyright owners to satisfy the market of potential listeners."

morgandawn: (Fair Use)
"We have a name for things that don't copy. We call them extinct." Cory Doctorow
morgandawn: (Fair Use)
A friend pulled together quotes she found interesting in the comments to Scalzi's discussion of Amazon's Kindle Worlds.

"Kind of hard to let one’s lizard brain roam free when you’re worried about producers and publishers looking over your shoulder."
***
"With all due respect, sir, being monetarily compensated for fanfic isn’t a “better deal.” Gift culture has is own rewards—development of friendships, positive feedback, infectious ideas—and most of us delight in subverting the social standard and corporate norm. Making a deal at all would be selling our souls to the very devils we’re out to get."
***
"And it’s because of this fact–that the majority of fic is the won’t-ever-make-it-to-canon variety–that I think this venture will ultimately fail. Yes, some fic writers may decide that writing canon-approved tie-in stories for the equivalent of a few bucks and a pat on the back is a swell deal. Meanwhile, the rest of us are going to sit over here writing kinky OT3s and ancient-Rome AUs and 26 pages of backstory on Soldier #3.

In short: most of us aren’t doing this because we want to copy what the original creators are doing, or piss on their territory. We’re just interacting with something we love in a way that involves us on a deeper level than just sitting, slack-jawed while a single story plays out."
***
"The idea of reading only fanfic with non-canon ‘ships, Alternative Universes, fusions, crossovers, etc. because “if I want the show, I’d watch the show, not read fic” is actually a fairly new one in media fandom. I’ve always figured it’s due to the internet accelerating the average lifespan of the creation and consumption of fanworks. Instead of getting ‘zines at cons like Revelcon or MediaWest once a year, or through the post, now we log into LJ or Tumblr or AO3 the second an episode ends, and find post-ep codas and missing scenes and fix-it fic, etc. from a MUCH larger pool of fans than before.

We’re also much more forgiving of stories being made “canon-fodder” during the writing process, because the source keeps chugging merrily along while novellas and novels and series of novels get written and edited and posted."
***
"I read fanfic, and I read professional writing, and I’ve written fanfic, and I’ve also written things that I thought might one day be something I could get published. And one thing I noticed was that, while fanfic and fiction have a lot in common, there are differences between them that simply don’t translate well. There are things I’ve written easily in fanfic that I wouldn’t write if I was trying to get published. There’s a whole…tone to the fanfic genre as a whole that doesn’t necessarily sync well to professional writing, and it’s not just about erotica, although erotica is one area where it’s most pronounced (I tend to skip sex scenes in books, but I’ll willingly read them in fanfic, and I do think that that’s to do with the difference in tone.)

The thing that makes them different, I think, is intimacy. Fanfic is largely written by women, and I think maybe that’s helped set the tone for a lot of it — but there’s this kind of willingness to explore the characters, to see them vulnerable, and to quote Ursula Vernon, “fan fiction, particularly the freaky and occasionally slashy stuff, has made an agreement with itself to suspend shame”. And I know for sure that when I read published novels…yes, you can get into the characters head, yes, you can see them broken-down, but there’s some things that I don’t like to read there because it feels embarrassing, like I’ve seen too much of a stranger’s private life. And I can’t explain exactly why that dichotomy exists, but…fandom is built on the intimate and the vulnerable and frequently the whimsical. And there’s this sense that that kind of thing simply wouldn’t work well if you try to drag it out into publication, because it isn’t very…well-armoured, for lack of a better word. Fanfic is something that has to be sought-out, as opposed to being on display."

all from http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/05/22/amazons-kindle-worlds-instant-thoughts/
morgandawn: (Default)
"It's not really surprising, then, that fan fiction is being repossessed and reprocessed by the capitalism that spawned it. If "fan fic" was the name of a genre and a community, it can now be the name of a marketing campaign and a marketing demographic. You could even say that Amazon is turning the term "fan fiction" into fan fiction itself, lifting it from its original context and giving it a new purpose and a new narrative, related to the original but not beholden to it. Dreams come out of the corporation and go back to the corporation, fungibly circulating. Your brain is just another medium of exchange"

more here "Do Fans Really Own Fan Fiction?"

The artwork at the top is not credited. Is that T'Guess?
morgandawn: (Default)
Interesting post from one of the authors commissioned by Kindle Worlds to write fan fiction. This is feeling more like  licensed tie-in novels than fan fiction. The main difference is that they are now willing to look at unsolicited stories from non-published or known writers in order to pick ones to publish.

"Jim asked: “I mean, did you look at the list of available properties and say, “Hey, I’ll write a ‘Pretty Little Liars’ story?” “- THIS. There was a list. This was a world I felt I could tackle and have fun with while maintaining my own voice.

I’m a T&M author. The editor leading this project approached my editor and asked for a list of authors who met a certain criteria. This was a project that needed to be kept under wraps until all the Ts were crossed. That’s why they approached authors known and trusted within the company.

The terms listed do not reveal the contract. I can only speak for myself, but I suspect most contracts will look similar to mine.

My submission was reviewed by the editor in charge of the project who sent me the guidelines, and reserved the right to accept/reject after I submitted. Thankfully, the story was accepted. I’m told my byline will also appear on the cover."

and

"As one of the fifty authors commissioned for this launch program, I can tell you, I’m more than pleased with the contract and the pay structure. These are ‘commissioned’ works + royalties. I wrote in the Pretty Little Liars world. The licensing came from Warner Brothers/Alloy via the television show – not Shepard’s publisher. As for the copyright – an example is if I should create a character within this world, I am free to use that character elsewhere in my own work."

and

"Just like when you submit to fiction mags, the stories go through an editorial process. The author writes it on spec. The editor accepts or rejects the work."

more here.

(PS. not certain the link to T&M magazine is correct. If you have a correct link let me know).
morgandawn: (Fair Use)
News: kindle/amazon license deal allowing you to sell your fan fiction.

edited to add:
Kindle Worlds entry on Fanlore
Timeline of Fandom and Profit on Fanlore (for historical context)

5-25-2013: my link collecting has dramatically slowed to a trickle. Just an FYI.
_____________________________________________________________
*Best comment so far: "So after reading about ... Amazon's new pay-for-fanfiction scheme, I read around on other reaction posts, reread the fanlib entry at fanlore, and mulled a bit. What am I going to do? Answer: Go give some money to the OTW."

*Second best comment: "Does this mean fanfic could now qualify for SFWA (Science Fiction Writers Association) membership? "

*Third best comment: "GOOD LUCK, AMAZON, AND STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM AO3."

*Another comment: "Soon there will be two groups of fans: "The Live Write Free and Die Read Hard!"  crowd and  the "Girls Humanoid Writers Just Wanna Have Fun Money!" camp. With secret trysts between the two as they exchange forbidden fanfic under the sheets."

*Fandom nudists unite!: "As long as we have open range where we can run naked and free writing our slash and our het and our threesomes fic, we have nothing to fear.   But god help them if they try to take our knotting fic away."

*And then there is this gem:

“Blair,” Jeff whispered, his lips almost touching her earlobe, “I have something I need to tell you.”

“Jeff, please,” Blair danced away. She laughed coyly, mercilessly. They’d both had too much to drink.

“It’s important you listen to me, Blair.” Jeff ran his hands over his gleaming scalp. He was sweating.

“Fine, talk, ” she said, looking away. “But don’t bore me, Jeff. I’m warning you. There are plenty of other rich boys in tight pants at this party, and some of them can dance.”

The air was heavy in this velvet-curtained room on Park Avenue. Her necklace glinted in the lights from cars passing far below.

“Blair, I’ve started a new program to make money off of fan fiction,” he pleaded. “I’m letting authors sell stories on a platform I’m calling Kindle Worlds. We’ve licensed three so-called ‘worlds’ from one company, to start. So now authors can submit fan fiction using the plots, setting, and characters of Gossip Girl, Pretty Little Liars, or The Vampire Diaries.”

*Final(?) word on the no-porn and no crossover policy: "LMFAO TUMBLR FANFICS WILL NEVER BE ACCEPTED THERE HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"
____________________________________________________________________________
Articles arranged starting with my reading list, moving ever outwards. Most recently added links at the bottom. And  the rest remains random like Brownian particles with asymmetric collisions.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/finally-make-money-from-your-gossip-girl-pretty-li,98106/

http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/05/amazon-sets-up-system-to-trade-on-controversial-fan-fiction/

http://kirana.dreamwidth.org/487578.html

http://astolat.tumblr.com/post/51076669454

http://astolat.tumblr.com/post/51083882191

http://rivkat.dreamwidth.org/389313.html

http://astolat.tumblr.com/post/51112156328

http://hesychasm.dreamwidth.org/261679.html

http://elf.dreamwidth.org/689015.html

http://heidi.dreamwidth.org/1274268.html

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/05/22/amazons-kindle-worlds-instant-thoughts/

http://cymbalism.dreamwidth.org/134946.html

http://dragonfly.dreamwidth.org/471662.html

http://havocthecat.dreamwidth.org/1396994.html

http://unjapanologist.dreamwidth.org/70490.html

http://www.jimchines.com/?p=7825

http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2013/05/22/all-your-fanfiction-belong-to-us-what-the-fuck-is-kindle-worlds/

http://www.themarysue.com/amazon-fanfic-kindle-words/

http://flourish.dreamwidth.org/540706.html

http://fanhackers.tumblr.com/post/51077366521/amazon-announces-publishing-platform-for-licensed

http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/22/amazon-introduces-kindle-worlds-for-selling-fanfiction/

http://ithiliana.dreamwidth.org/1725212.html

http://phoenixchilde.dreamwidth.org/681399.html

http://www.dailydot.com/business/kindle-words-amazon-fanfiction-problems/

http://sunnymoraine.com/2013/05/22/what-fresh-hell-is-this-amazon/

http://selenay.dreamwidth.org/494420.html

http://dafna.dreamwidth.org/219904.html

http://seperis.dreamwidth.org/974558.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2013/05/22/amazon-rewrites-the-rules-of-fan-fiction/

http://www.forbeck.com/2013/05/22/kindle-worlds-worlds-burning/

http://www.afterellen.com/2013/05/kindle-worlds-would-pay-you-your-emaya-and-paily-fan-fiction

http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/78021851.html

http://missl0nelyhearts.tumblr.com/post/51098870975/second-and-final-thoughts-regarding-kindle-worlds

http://mazarin221b.tumblr.com/post/51076682866/announcing-kindle-worlds

http://fail-fandomanon.livejournal.com/57105.html?thread=267005457#t267005457

http://inkstone.dreamwidth.org/245352.html

http://www.gwendabond.com/bondgirl/2013/05/packaging-it-up.html

http://www.malindalo.com/2013/05/amazon-tries-to-monetize-fan-fiction-i-freak-out/

http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/2013/05/22/amazon-brings-disintermediation-to-the-tie-in-industry/

http://james-nicoll.livejournal.com/4368894.html

http://sakana17.dreamwidth.org/99177.html

http://liviapenn.dreamwidth.org/530961.html

http://lettersfromtitan.com/2013/05/22/amazon-worlds-not-bigger-on-the-inside/

http://tptigger.dreamwidth.org/645679.html

http://shameless2shoes.dreamwidth.org/4516.html

http://inkstone.dreamwidth.org/245352.html

http://beren-writes.livejournal.com/870494.html

http://lorax.dreamwidth.org/59750.html

http://www.mhpbooks.com/amazon-to-monetize-fan-fiction-he-moaned/

http://fitz-y.dreamwidth.org/74375.html

http://jeeps.dreamwidth.org/33169.html

http://cymbalism.tumblr.com/post/51079758034

http://chainedtoacomet.tumblr.com/post/51083435662/seeing-a-lot-of-backlash-on-twitter-about-this

http://readingwithavengeance.tumblr.com/post/51073868920/kindle-worlds

http://gisellelx.tumblr.com/post/51122695232/my-preliminary-thoughts-on-kindle-worlds

http://dawnfelagund.tumblr.com/post/51115778242/the-heretic-loremaster-getting-paid-for-your-fanfic

http://teslatricity.tumblr.com/post/51077535023/on-the-other-hand-the-thought-of-amazon-having-to

http://falsettofetish.tumblr.com/post/51089728821/at-this-point-my-reaction-to-the-whole

http://wingsofwriting.tumblr.com/post/51113785882/the-more-i-think-about-the-kindle-worlds-things

http://lemonpaperfingers.tumblr.com/post/51147551184/if-kindle-worlds-actually-gets-the-rights-well

http://jbridger1313.tumblr.com/post/51151730078/why-i-wona-t-be-submitting-to-kindle-worlds-feral

http://coasterchild.tumblr.com/post/51161256172/so-ive-seen-that-kindle-worlds-thing-cropping-up

http://fetchalgernon.tumblr.com/post/51102175671/writerly-thoughts-the-stigma-of-fanfiction

http://glassmohawk.tumblr.com/post/51078667238/seriously-though-the-kindle-worlds-is-a-step-in

http://kymethra.tumblr.com/post/51072649533/just-out-of-interest-as-a-matter-of-record

http://oh-what-providence.tumblr.com/post/51118843778/to-all-the-people-who-think-that-kindle-words-is-some

http://saathi1013.tumblr.com/post/51111214437/cats-dogs-living-together-a-response-to-the-kindle

http://www.forbes.com/sites/suwcharmananderson/2013/05/22/amazon-legitimises-fanfic-publishers-are-left-behind-again/

http://fyeahcopyright.tumblr.com/post/51070772955/its-kindle-worlds-were-just-living-in-it

http://desidere.tumblr.com/post/51085987542/okay-heres-my-problem-with-amazon-trying-to-monetize

http://cleolinda.livejournal.com/1046407.html

http://cloudunbound.tumblr.com/post/51145280921/will-your-library-collect-fan-fiction-published-by

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/fan-fiction-different-universe-kindle-worlds

http://ithiliana.dreamwidth.org/1725212.html

http://beccaelizabeth.dreamwidth.org/2605797.html

http://seperis.dreamwidth.org/974824.html

http://icarus.dreamwidth.org/1068819.html

http://elf.dreamwidth.org/689247.html


http://esteefee.dreamwidth.org/141347.html

www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/05/do-fans-really-own-fan-fiction/276236/

morgandawn: (Fair Use)
I blogged about it.
The OTW journal tangentially touched on it.
Even The Deutsche Welle noticed it (and had to point out that the French were doing it better)

Less than 1% if Britain's cultural heritage was being preserved - less than what was saved by the monks during the Dark Ages.

But this weekend, the British Library announced that it had cleared legal and technical hurdles and are finally about to begin preserving British websites. It will take them 6 months to capture and archive websites with a .uk domain and from there they will do an annual crawl.

The reason for the delay? For decades Britain operated on an "opt in" basis which required them to obtain permission before archiving public websites. This  reduced their preservation efforts to a meagerly thin trickle. The Wayback Machine (aka Internet Archive) follows the Oakland Archive protocols and uses an "opt out" process which allows them to capture first and remove upon request. In the decades it took the British Library to fight their way through the layers of legal bureaucracy, the WayBack machine captured 10,000,000,000,000,000 bytes (that's 10 petabytes folks) of data.

And on that note, WebCite, Wikipedia's main citation and linkrot prevention tool is still raising funds in order to continue operating.They set up a Facebook page here. And even more amusingly, they created their own fundraising trailer. Be kind - they're coders and geeks and not vidders nor are they PR or fundraising savants. But they've been providing this service to the world  - for free -- for over 10 years and it is a service we desperately need to continue.  You can donate here.





morgandawn: (Default)
"Barely a week passes without yet another website being taken down because somebody objected to its existence. This would have been conceptually unthinkable two decades ago, but the copyright monopoly has encroached on civil liberties to a degree many haven’t realized."

More here
(the article is about the DMCA Safe Harbors, but in the fight against copyright abuse, fair use can play a key role).
morgandawn: (Fair Use)
What would have happened to Shakespeare if current copyright law was in effect those many hundreds of years ago?  Well this cartoon helps you travel down that road.

Also, the OTW linked to an interview about how the lack of fair use principles in the UK are causing audio and video history  recordings to vanish.

morgandawn: (Fair Use)
For those of you just joining us, filking is a long standing science fiction/fantasy activity where fans write their own sci-fi/fantasy themed lyrics and set them to either popular music or original music. Media fandom filking (TV/movies) is part of this larger filking community.

As far as I know there have been few large scale efforts to (a) document the history of the filking community (along the lines of Fanlore) and (b) even more importantly, to preserve the decaying and obsolete audio cassette tapes. Many have looked at the legal and technical hurdles and given up or have been driven underground. Edited to add: But oh brave filkers, if only someone would partner with a university like UCLA, your filk recordings might yet be saved.

On the subject of preserving decaying material and obsolete formats, libraries and universities have the right under the Preservation exception to the US Copyright code to digitize "at risk" materials. There are many requirements they have to meet, one of them that they must physically own the artifact (tape, book) etc before digitizing. Given how few filk cassettes were produced, acquiring a copy of the tape may be impossible, even while an audio backup may exist.

The other aspect of the digitizing efforts is what to do with 'orphan works' - works where neither the creator, publisher nor their heirs can be found. Currently there is no orphan works exception to the US copyright code, but recent court decisions and ongoing digitization projects have indicated that mass digitization by universities and libraries can, under certain circumstances fall under the existing "fair use" exception. Even more interesting is that the Library Congress is once again soliciting commentary on how to craft an orphan works exceptions to the US Copyright code. (They tried to have a discussion in 2008, but they did not get far given the anti-fair use sentiment that existed back then).

Which leads me to this blog article. You can read the full piece here:

"On Monday, January 14, 2013, the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) (whose members are the American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries and Association of College and Research Libraries) filed comments (pdf) with the U.S. Copyright Office in response to their October 22, 2012, Notice of Inquiry about the current state of play with orphan works and mass digitization....In its comments, LCA explains that “significant changes in the copyright landscape over the past seven years convince us that libraries no longer need legislative reform in order to make appropriate uses of orphan works.” Specifically, two key developments make it possible for libraries to engage in mass digitization and other projects that involve orphan works:
  • Court decisions have further solidified libraries’ rights under fair use; and
  • Libraries have successfully engaged in a range of projects involving orphan works and mass digitization.
While other communities may prefer greater certainty concerning what steps they would need to take to fall within a safe harbor, libraries can rely on their existing rights, including fair use."

Translation: we've been doing it for years and the courts are supporting us, so we'll take our chances with the lawyers and not the Congressional Crazies.

morgandawn: (Fair Use)
On Jan 1, many works of art and fiction entered the public domain. You can read about it here (thanks to Bast for the link)

In the US, any work published before 1989 without the proper copyright notice may have already fallen in the public domain. The notice required (1) The word "copyright" or the letter c inside a circle (this type of (c) did not count), (2) the date and (3) the identity of the owner. Of course there are many fiddly exceptions and caveats (like "was it printed after 1979 and republished within 5 years with the correct notice?").  Also, works published outside the US without a copyright notice had their rights restored in 1989.

It you want to blow your mind about how hard it is to assess the copyright status of pre-1989 works, check out this flow chart:

http://chart.copyrightdata.com



Profile

morgandawn: (Default)
morgandawn

March 2017

S M T W T F S
   1 23 4
5678 91011
12 13141516 1718
19 20212223 2425
262728293031 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags