Julianna Yau’s blog

Russell McOrmond points to Harry Hillman Chartrand’s article Revolt of the Copyrights, which has broken down copyright to a similar structure of what I have through this exercise. It’s a good overview of what currently exists, and I’ll be incorporating that view in my deconstruction, which I’m trying to do from more of a conceptual perspective.

Related posts

• You know what they say about assuming… (0)
• Writing to government about a copyright inquiry (2)
• Week (or so) in review: Copyright (1)
• Visual artists on copyright reform (0)
• TVO’s The Agenda on Copyright (6)

I finally found some time to read Russell McOrmond’s review of Canadian Copyright: A Citizen’s Guide. He has spoken highly of the book, and it is now on my reading list (two or three books from Wired Shut, which is the one I’m very slowly working through…not because of readability but the limited reading time I have).

Some of Russell’s comments are a bit concerning, with the misunderstanding of Creative Commons being the most concerning for me. I know many people who kind of know that there’s this thing called Creative Commons and that it has something to do with alternative copyright licensing, but few have a good understanding of how it works. I’ve been distressed by people who present it as something which makes that type of license possible rather than the fact that Creative Commons licences make using that type of license much more accessible. I’ve also been distressed by a lawyer explaining that it has a code which allows the license to follow the work, in terms of something similar to a digital rights management technique rather than a licensing provision. I’m sure it’s all a result of a broken-telephone transmission of information, but it doesn’t excuse people from not going to the source to check their facts.

Although I have used the term “copyleft” in the past, after some discussions with Russell I am better understanding the complications which can arise from using the term. Russell’s comments on the term in his review of Canadian Copyright: A Citizen’s Guide are quite concise, and our discussions leave me puzzling over a more suitable term.

In reading the comments on “harmonization”, it became clear to me that the problem is creators want to be (and should be) treated equally in the Copyright Act. Unfortunately, it seems that well-meaning but ill-informed persons end up using harmonization to achieve equality. I have been guilty of that breakdown in logic in the past, but have been slowly moving away from that perspective. In my continual thoughts on the fact that not all creative works are the same, it is becoming more apparent that equal treatment needs specialized attention rather than harmonization (which could potentially do more harm than it was intended to).

Related posts

• Week (or so) in review: Copyright (1)
• My comments on the CCC platform (0)
• Jessica Litman - Rethinking Copyright (0)
• Elizabeth Judge: Presumed Intentions (0)
• An Experiment In Deconstructing Copyright – Part 5 - Copyright Act (2)