Julianna Yau’s blog

Surely everyone has seen William Patry’s final blog post. While many (e.g. Russell McOrmond, Howard Knopf, Ars Technica, Georgia Harper) are lamenting the end, Michael Geist is being very optimistic about the state of copyright in Canada.

Geist contacted me on Facebook (because the CAPTCHA on my blog wasn’t working for him) to clarify that he is not directly involved with the work done by the Vancouver branch of Fair Copyright for Canada or the BC Civil LIberties Association. There, too, he was positive about the work being done by the Fair Copyright for Canada groups (in response to my admittedly bitter characterization of the groups as mobs), and I was all but completely pessimistic and jadded.

Perhaps, as I told Geist, the work being done by the Fair Copyright for Canada groups is more legitimate than the “we deserve free stuff” attitude of many of the early wall-posters on the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group. But having removed myself from watching it progress, I wonder how much the lobbying is fair mostly for consumers rather than fair for all. As someone (I don’t remember who) already pointed out, finding a completely impartial party on the issue of copyright is nearly impossible.

This blog is less than a year old, my contribution to the copyright conversation is vastly less than Patry’s, and I’ve already reached the point where I have to seriously consider whether to continue in the direction this blog has been headed. While this is a good a time as any for me to air out my thoughts, this has been on my mind for a couple of months now.

My inital interest in copyright was purely academic, and I felt responsible for joining the political activity because few other creators were a part of it—and now I know why. The demands of keeping up with the Jonses (and the Giests, and the McOrmonds, and the Knopfs, and the Trosows) are almost impossible to fulfill when someone has a full-time job, a part-time job and a handful of volunteer commitments—as is the case for most creators (including myself).

I have never been built for being in the thick of political drama (in fact, that’s even one of the few genres of film which is unable to even secure my attention), and the past few months have confirmed that for me. It’s a good thing I never want celebrity (I’ll settle for fortune without the fame ;)), because I’m much more suited for a life behind the scenes. So I’m going to back off the politics before my fiestiness gets me into trouble, and settle back into the academic study of copyright I prefer and for which I’m better suited. I’m not sure what that means for this blog, but I’ll still be around.

Related posts

• When is it no longer the property of the creator? (0)
• Week (or so) in review: Copyright (1)
• Waiting For Copyright Legislation… (0)
• TVO’s The Agenda on Copyright (6)
• TVO On Copyright, Now Online (0)

William Patry writes about an interesting situation where a UK ad agency has produced an ad which is strikingly similar to a video produced by University of Illinois professor Daniel Simons (includes links to both videos). Patry also points to the Bike Biz article, which includes a statement from professor Simons.

What I find interesting about this situation is that it raises questions of the line between an idea and its realization. What is fair for both the original creator and a creator who builds from that work? And, perhaps more to-the-point, what part of the idea is unique to the realization?

Related posts

• When is it no longer the property of the creator? (0)
• The Question of Ownership (0)
• State of Copyright and My State of Mind (0)
• Spidey Suit & Copryight (0)
• On Joiners (0)

After quite a bit of work, I managed to get almost everything for my websites back to normal. The main thing which took longer than expected (and continues to be unresolved) is being able to use the Metaweblog API to get my Ma.gnolia bookmarks posted to this blog. I have since discovered that ModSecurity 2 does not play nice with Metaweblog API. This means, although I love Ma.gnolia’s blog posting feature, I will probably not be using it until there is a way for the Metaweblog API to work with ModSecurity active for everything except my xmlpc file.

My bookmarks continue to be available here, and individual feeds are available for the tags.

Here are the links I’ve wanted to post since my server upgrades:

• John Degen on the CMEC proposal
• Lawrence at Northworthy challenges the concept of “fair” copyright
• The Office of the Privacy Commissioner discusses potential privacy issues with the new enhanced driver’s licences (EDLs) available to eligible B.C. residents.
• William Patry argues that a photograph of an object is the depiction of the object rather than a derivative work.
• An article on the “art bug”. This seemed very familiar to me, and I had to check the date several times to ensure it was current. Why was it so familiar? This was something which was discussed at the Visual Arts Summit! Sadly, the article is now behind the pay wall…but is still free to read at your local library.
• More studies on art & culture. This one is from Kelly Hill, a presenter from the Visual Arts Summit
• Art News Blog: Urban Art Auction. The second half of the story covers an exciting collaboration between Banksy and DJ Danger Mouse.
• Counterfeit Chic: But New York Doesn’t ♥ Gucci
• The Art Law Blog notices a recent ruling in the Kurtz case (the one with the bio materials used in art).
• And Maurice Agis is charged with manslaughter because of a malfunction with his inflatable sculpture.

Related posts

• The Responsibility of Preserving Public Art (0)
• Oil Drilling near The Spiral Jetty (0)
• My letter against the proposed drilling near The Spiral Jetty (0)
• A review of Google’s Reader (0)
• Why SOME creative people are putting their work free on the Net (1)

William Patry covers an interesting case in which a postal worker has pleaded guilty to copyright infringement, of all things, because he sold CDs and DVDs which BMG didn’t want to pay to have returned to them.

It reminds me of how books which aren’t sold have their covers returned to the publisher…which is why they carry the disclaimer: “If this book is sold to you without a cover, it is being illegally sold.” But what happens if the book cover is sent back, the book thrown into the recycling bin by the bookseller, then the book is salvaged by an entrepreneurial individual who resells it? It is obviously illegal for the original bookseller to both return the cover of the book and sell the actual book, but if it becomes one man’s trash and another’s treasure, is the latter breaking the law?

Let’s take this out of the heated context of copyright and look at it in terms of reselling goods.

If I discard a piece of lumber (for argument’s sake, let’s say I place it in a bin marked “unwanted crap”) and someone comes along and takes that discarded lumber and resells it, are they breaking any laws? Not that I know of. Should they be? I don’t think so.

Let’s say I sell lumber for a living, and decide to throw some lumber into a bin marked “unwanted crap”. If someone comes along, takes that discarded lumber and resells it, suddenly the situation becomes trickier. Because, in this imaginary world, I earn my income from the selling of lumber, I suddenly feel that I have lost potential income because the lumber which was once mine (but which I had discarded) has been sold by someone else. However, as a logical person, I would come to the conclusion that I have no right to the money made by that person because it was my choice to dispose that lumber into a bin marked “unwanted crap”. It was a bad business decision on my part, and the salvager was a much superior entrepreneur than I.

But, then, what happens when I’m not selling merely lumber, but poems etched in the lumber? The content of the poems are mine (assuming I’m not silly enough to infringe upon someone else’s copyright), but that copy of it no longer is mine when I have disposed of the lumber. Although I would still retain the moral rights to the poems on the lumber, I would not reasonably expect to still own the physical pieces of lumber. But what happens when that lumber is not sold merely as lumber, but as lumber with those particular poems etched into the lumber? Personally,  I don’t think it’s reasonable to claim that someone doesn’t have the right to resell the lumber if I have discharged them from my inventory.

So, in summary, I think that BMG made a bad business decision and is trying to compensate by waving the Copyright Act at someone who is smarter than them.

Related posts

• Turnitin protected by Fair Use (0)
• TIAC - Copyright Law, Technology and Cultural Management (0)
• State of Copyright and My State of Mind (0)
• Playing catch-up (0)
• Pay Close Attention Now… (0)