What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Official*** Paul's Boutique and The Copyright and Patent Clause of the Constitution (1 Viewer)

SaintsInDome2006 said:
1789, isn't that just beautiful.

I've always had a question about fair use. I'm kind of a believer in the communality of thoughts and art, but inventors seem like something different. Invent something and you should reap the benefits. But imagine if the written word, crafted sound or the drawn image could be seized for misappropriation, it would be the end of a good deal of journalism, art and new music as we know it. 
Click to expand...
Also, this is a great time to draw the distinction to draw the line between our utilitarian conception of the "progress of science" (copyright, believe it or not) and droit moral, which is the European concept of copyright. 

Utilitarian is that which promotes the progress of science under Anglo-American law. To promote the arts, as it were. 

Droit moral, and I'm using a definition cribbed from the Entertainment Law website, protects artistic integrity and prevents others from altering the work of artists, or taking the artist’s name off work, without the artist’s permission. Moral rights are retained by an author even if all of the other rights granted by the Copyright Act are assigned to another. Moral rights cannot be assigned to anyone else by the author.

Much like in the "original intent" thread, we have a hybrid of competing theories behind the Constitution, and they clash in American IP law.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven't checked into the "original intent" thread yet. Maybe I should. I think maybe your thread titles go over my head sometimes, no offense to you, and that's why I tend to ignore them. 

Gotta get back to working today. I'll check both this and that thread more thoroughly later on today. Thanks again.

Rody

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ruffrodys05 said:
I haven't checked into the "original intent" thread yet. Maybe i should. I think maybe your thread titles go over my head sometimes, no offense to you, and that's why I tend to ignore them. 

Gotta get back to working today. I'll check both this and that thread more thoroughly later on today. Thanks again.

Rody
Click to expand...
Hey Rody, it was tim's thread and subsequent posts that led me to "original intent." 

Tim's thread is great; you should check it out.  

 
Koya said:
Mind laying out the specifics here for us lay (more like lay-zee) folks? What did they do that did what, now?
Click to expand...
Basically it amounts to people suing (or threatening to sue) the Beastie Boys for sampling their songs without permission and without paying royalties.

I tend to have mixed feelings on the issue. I think The Verve got screwed, but then again I think David Whittaker got screwed.

 
I know zip about the law behind intellectual property. But from a music standpoint, I always thought it was the Dust Brothers who did all of the production and sampling on Paul’s Boutique.

And in terms of dense sound-collage type sampling, the Bomb Squad’s work on Public Enemy’s Nation of Millions and Fear of a Black Planet is at least on par with what the Dust Brothers did.

 
D_House said:
I know zip about the law behind intellectual property. But from a music standpoint, I always thought it was the Dust Brothers who did all of the production and sampling on Paul’s Boutique.

And in terms of dense sound-collage type sampling, the Bomb Squad’s work on Public Enemy’s Nation of Millions and Fear of a Black Planet is at least on par with what the Dust Brothers did.
Click to expand...
I mention the Dust Bothers every time this comes up. I believe (I hope) I did so in this very thread. Bomb Squad was awesome, too. I just figured this was more of the standard flag bearer for sampling.  

 
Koya said:
Beastie Boys note: The TV that was smashed in the video for Fight for Your Right to Party was my aunt's. I watched TV on it as a kid. (for reals, true story. my cousin produced the video)
Click to expand...
Awesome. I like that this is the internet, but i can actually believe you. 

 
parasaurolophus said:
Awesome. I like that this is the internet, but i can actually believe you. 
Click to expand...
I'm a pretty open book here, though understand there's a line to making oneself too easily "doxed" here - happy to provide some info that would likely only be known by the real thing or someone that has the research resources of say Muellers office to find out ;)

Funny aside - at the company he now runs where my (step) dad was Pres and CEO for a time after taking the reigns from my uncle, they had a foreman who then became one of the upper middle management folks interfacing with the labor force on the production floor... it was a sprawling building and foundry plus assembly so they had loudspeakers for an intercom where they would announce things or call out people to pick up a phone or whatnot.

its my summer job in high school then college... and what name gets called out more than any other? This gentleman... his name, as echoed countless times on the intercom (and I kid you not..)

Mike Hunt.

no joking at all. 30 years later I still chuckle typing about it. 

 
Dedfin said:
I know nothing about copyright law/intellectual property. I did read about a funny instance where John Fogerty was sued by some record company for making a song a bit too much like one of his old songs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogerty_v._Fantasy,_Inc.
Click to expand...
I hadn't heard of this. This is awesome, and a case study in why selling your compositions to publishing companies other than yourself is a nightmare.  

 
I'm not a lawyer but this is interesting.  I always struggled with how much does something have to change in order for it to no longer be considered copying, in a technical sense?  Lets say you have a sound recording that is encoded into a string of bits (01010001010111101010101010101010101001....), how many 1's or 0's do I have to change before it is no longer considered the same?  Does me changing those in a way that allows me to change them back at a later time constitute copying?  If I change the resolution of an original video from 4K to 720P is that copy right infringement?  In a movie is it the theme or story that is copy righted(sp?) or is it the actual photography, words, recording?

I know so little about this, but am sure I break many of the laws.

 
abbottjamesr said:
I'm not a lawyer but this is interesting.  I always struggled with how much does something have to change in order for it to no longer be considered copying, in a technical sense?  Lets say you have a sound recording that is encoded into a string of bits (01010001010111101010101010101010101001....), how many 1's or 0's do I have to change before it is no longer considered the same?  Does me changing those in a way that allows me to change them back at a later time constitute copying?  If I change the resolution of an original video from 4K to 720P is that copy right infringement?  In a movie is it the theme or story that is copy righted(sp?) or is it the actual photography, words, recording?

I know so little about this, but am sure I break many of the laws.
Click to expand...
These are great questions, and I hope the lawyers among us chime in. I am not a lawyer though I follow this stuff.  

First question: I think was answered in this case: A snippet of sound from a sound recording needs clearance. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-Smith_Music_Publishing_Co._v._Apollo_Co. and the subsequent Congressional response for an explanation of purely mechanical reproductions of sound.  

Second question: Oh my God. That seems to be the famous video game case about changing them back, which is this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Electronics,_Inc._v._Kaufman

Third question: Is it transformative use? Chances are, it isn't. That's the Fair Use exception you see used so often on YouTube (used incorrectly, IMO) that describes the transformative nature of the work from the original.  

Fourth question: It's not the theme, as there are limited themes, but any characteristics of the story, characters, etc. are copyrightable.  

This is a great resource for American Copyright Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_copyright_case_law

 
rockaction said:
These are great questions, and I hope the lawyers among us chime in. I am not a lawyer though I follow this stuff.  

First question: I think was answered in this case: A snippet of sound from a sound recording needs clearance. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-Smith_Music_Publishing_Co._v._Apollo_Co. and the subsequent Congressional response for an explanation of purely mechanical reproductions of sound.  

Second question: Oh my God. That seems to be the famous video game case about changing them back, which is this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Electronics,_Inc._v._Kaufman

Third question: Is it transformative use? Chances are, it isn't. That's the Fair Use exception you see used so often on YouTube (used incorrectly, IMO) that describes the transformative nature of the work from the original.  

Fourth question: It's not the theme, as there are limited themes, but any characteristics of the story, characters, etc. are copyrightable.  

This is a great resource for American Copyright Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_copyright_case_law
Click to expand...
Thanks for the resources. Looking forwarding digging in to them. 

 
abbottjamesr said:
I'm not a lawyer but this is interesting.  I always struggled with how much does something have to change in order for it to no longer be considered copying, in a technical sense?  Lets say you have a sound recording that is encoded into a string of bits (01010001010111101010101010101010101001....), how many 1's or 0's do I have to change before it is no longer considered the same?  Does me changing those in a way that allows me to change them back at a later time constitute copying?  If I change the resolution of an original video from 4K to 720P is that copy right infringement?  In a movie is it the theme or story that is copy righted(sp?) or is it the actual photography, words, recording?

I know so little about this, but am sure I break many of the laws.
Click to expand...
There are several factors in the fair use test, but I think the one that best distills the doctrine into an accessible analysis is whether the new work would impair the ability of the original author to exploit his or her own work.  So, for example, improving the resolution of somebody else's video pretty much screws over the original creator's ability to sell his or her video.  It is similar to changing the font size of a book.  

 
Copyright and art and entertainment lawyer and law professor here. The idea that something can be changed enough to stop being infringing is a myth, in that the copyright law grants the exclusive right to create derivative works to the copyright owner. But it is a very prevalent myth, particularly in the graphic design industry. When I teach BFA/MFA art students instead of law students, I always teach that exclusive right and then ask the students what percentage they have to change a work to avoid liability. The answers range from 1% to 99.2 % and everything in between, and then I remind them that it is a trick question because the right to make a derivative work is exclusively owned by the copyright owner. So the answer is only 0% or 100%. It is a monopoly granted to the copyright owner by our law. 

Of course, that legal absolutism doesnt take into account how art is actually learned or created, and the incredibly subjective fair use standards are the way around it. 

 
Todd Andrews said:
Copyright and art and entertainment lawyer and law professor here. The idea that something can be changed enough to stop being infringing is a myth, in that the copyright law grants the exclusive right to create derivative works to the copyright owner. But it is a very prevalent myth, particularly in the graphic design industry. When I teach BFA/MFA art students instead of law students, I always teach that exclusive right and then ask the students what percentage they have to change a work to avoid liability. The answers range from 1% to 99.2 % and everything in between, and then I remind them that it is a trick question because the right to make a derivative work is exclusively owned by the copyright owner. So the answer is only 0% or 100%. It is a monopoly granted to the copyright owner by our law. 

Of course, that legal absolutism doesnt take into account how art is actually learned or created, and the incredibly subjective fair use standards are the way around it. 
Click to expand...
Question I had meant to ask here before...

Is there any differentiation whether the derivative work is created and/used for commercial purposes?

I could certainly see a logical, if not legal, argument that the "social purpose" of art could rise above the right of the original creator if to be used to "advance the form" or do what art is intended to do, "inspire" and "send a message/commentary" that could then provoke thought and possibly I still change. 

Curious is there is any such legal distinction as to the purpose of creating and methods of promoting the derivative work. 

 
Koya said:
Question I had meant to ask here before...

Is there any differentiation whether the derivative work is created and/used for commercial purposes?

I could certainly see a logical, if not legal, argument that the "social purpose" of art could rise above the right of the original creator if to be used to "advance the form" or do what art is intended to do, "inspire" and "send a message/commentary" that could then provoke thought and possibly I still change. 

Curious is there is any such legal distinction as to the purpose of creating and methods of promoting the derivative work. 
Click to expand...
Those types of questions are addressed in the fair use analysis, if there is one. The purpose of the work, commercial use/purpose versus non-commercial, etc., are part of the elements of a fair use defense to infringement and it is very fact intensive analysis. 

 
Todd Andrews said:
Those types of questions are addressed in the fair use analysis, if there is one. The purpose of the work, commercial use/purpose versus non-commercial, etc., are part of the elements of a fair use defense to infringement and it is very fact intensive analysis. 
Click to expand...
So, um... there is some legal distinction if a derivative is used for commercial gain vs "art for art's sake"

 
Koya said:
So, um... there is some legal distinction if a derivative is used for commercial gain vs "art for art's sake"
Click to expand...
It can be an issue in the fair use analysis. Specifically, whether the allegedly infringing use of the pre-existing copyrighted work is commercial or not, and the nature of that purpose. Some artistic allegedly infringing uses can be "transformative" and change the nature of the work so much that it is a fair use. 

 
Paul Phillips (the poker player) wrote a very thoughtful essay arguing for abolishing intellectual property rights, but I can’t for the life of me find his webpage right now. It might require using the wayback machine, but I don’t remember the URL.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Paul Phillips (the poker player) wrote a very thoughtful essay arguing for abolishing intellectual property rights, but I can’t for the life of me find his webpage right now. It might require using the wayback machine, but I don’t remember the URL.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Just did a quick Google search and couldn't find anything.  He sounds like an interesting guy from what I can glean. I'd imagine the article dates back over a decade or so.

 
People always point to Nirvana and grunge as Gen X signifiers, but I'm very confident that if you walked up to the average guy in his mid-40s and said, with no context whatsoever, "I got arrested at the Mardis Gras for jumping on a float," he would know that the only socially acceptable response is "My man MCA's got a beard like a billy goat."  I'm sure there are things out there that are more generationally-specific than the Beastie Boys, but they've got to be way up on that list.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
People always point to Nirvana and grunge as Gen X signifiers, but I'm very confident that if you walked up to the average guy in his mid-40s and said, with no context whatsoever, "I got arrested at the Mardis Gras for jumping on a float," he would know that the only socially acceptable response is "My man MCA's got a beard like a billy goat."  I'm sure there are things out there that are more generationally-specific than the Beastie Boys, but they've got to be way up on that list.
Click to expand...
Word. They certainly remind me of baggy shorts, retro Goodwill ringer tees, wallet chains, you name it. And they got sued a whole lot for copyright infringement even before the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, putting them square in the middle of a generational component of constitutional law and information.  That's right around the time of Napster and then its less-successful but more litigated successor, Grokster, famous for the S. Ct. case that defined copyright and music for a bit. 

 
In squistion's defense, I did expect a working knowledge of the pastiche the Dust Brothers created with previously recorded and published works. 

 
rockaction said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Paul Phillips (the poker player) wrote a very thoughtful essay arguing for abolishing intellectual property rights, but I can’t for the life of me find his webpage right now. It might require using the wayback machine, but I don’t remember the URL.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Just did a quick Google search and couldn't find anything.  He sounds like an interesting guy from what I can glean. I'd imagine the article dates back over a decade or so.
Click to expand...
Lost forever, it seems.

I remembered his old blog (https://extempore.livejournal.com/) and his old website (http://www.improving.org/paulp/), but they are gone. I believe the essay was on his website, and the wayback machine didn't capture it. Too bad, because I remember it as the most thoughtful and nuanced argument I'd come across for doing away with all IP protection.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LawFitz
COVID UPDATE: What is the truth?
5 6 7
Replies
307
Views
9K
LawFitz
LawFitz
HellToupee
Ted Kennedy , the liberal lion, attempted to conspire and collude with the Kremlin to defeat Ronald Reagan
2
Replies
61
Views
2K
rockaction
rockaction
[icon]
"Anatomy of the Deep State" - Unsettling look at American Poli
Replies
1
Views
793
Slapdash
S

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top