editing this space

This book provides a layout and description of the options available to multimedia copyright owners for the protection of their works from unauthorized use. The utility and potential weakness of various antipiracy techniques and applications are discussed, including adult image filtering, encryption, watermarking, fingerprinting, and authentication among others. The book also provides discussion of various issues of interest to copyright owners regarding the parameters and limitations of applying Digital Rights Management techniques within intellectual property law.

In reference to my project, the plaintiff and defendant in the Viacom v. YouTube case represent two sides of an ongoing tug-of-war over legal rights to make use of copyrighted content. These two opposing sides are copyright owners and fair use claimants. The book addresses this topic.--"Although copyright literally means 'right to copy,' the term isnow used to cover a number of exclusive rights granted to the authors for the protection of their work...There are, however, limitations on these rights as established in several sections of the 1976 Copyright Act. One important limitation, the doctrine of 'fair use,' has been the subject of a major discussion oncontent protection" (6)

Furht, Borko, and Darko Kirovski. Multimedia Security Handbook (Internet and Communications). Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2005

This book presents a guide to the resource acquisition, legal, and financial necessities of producing an independent film.  Every aspect of the planning and execution of the business side of filmmaking is discussed, including hypothetical situations based on the personal experience of the entertainment lawyers who co-authorized the book.  The book introduces the roles of producer and lawyer, then outlines the film development process through deal making, financing, hiring, licensing and distribution.

As is pertains to my project, this book provides valuable insight into the warranted concern that filmmakers have had with the 21st century dispute over Internet distribution rights.  In the case of Viacom v. Youtube, the exclusive rights per the 1976 Copyright Act for copyright owners to reproduce their works became the basis for allegations against YouTube for a count of direct copyright infringement.  The authors of this book advise filmmakers to negotiate with distributors on the basis that they "cannon distribute on the Net until there is adequate 'border protection' to prevent access outside licensed territories" (132).

Erickson, Gunnar, Harris Tulchin, Mark Halloran, and J. Gunnar Erickson. The Independent Film Producer's Survival Guide: A Business and Legal Sourcebook . New York: Schirmer Trade Books, 2005

Intellectual property is taking on new forms in the digital media market. Consumers are exploring their creative license through the use of multimedia service providers in unprecidented ways. This surge of consumer digital media use is also bringing to a head new conflicts between intellectual property rights Creative Commons, and Digital Rights Management. This book explores this phenomenon and the various ways in which major digital media service providers are being effected by this rapidly changing market environment. Overviews of the business performance, legal goings on, and multimedia services of such industry icons as Google, Inc., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Sony BMG, Napster and more are discussed.

In reference to my project, the book looks at precident intellectual property cases and gives insights into how the concepts within the 1976 Copyright Act are applicable to the cases. The author also notes that Google has aside $200 million in escrow to deal with inevitable litigation, lists the various number of litigations involving YouTube, and notes that these cases will set important precedents for future review of copyright law as it pertains to Internet videos (253).

Rimmer, Matthew. Digital Copyright and the Consumer Revolution: Hands Off My Ipod. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 2007

This book provides a layout and description of the options available to multimedia copyright owners for the protection of their works from unauthorized use.  The utility and potential weakness of various antipiracy techniques and applications are discussed, including adult image filtering, encryption, watermarking, fingerprinting, and authentication among others.  The book also provides discussion of various issues of interest to copyright owners regarding the parameters and limitations of applying Digital Rights Management techniques within intellectual property law.

In reference to my project, the plaintiff and defendant in the Viacom v. YouTube case represent two sides of an ongoing tug-of-war over legal rights to make use of copyrighted content.  These two opposing sides are copyright owners and fair use claimants.  The book addresses this topic.--"Although copyright literally means 'right to copy,' the term isnow used to cover a number of exclusive rights granted to the authors for the protection of their work...There are, however, limitations on these rights as established in several sections of the 1976 Copyright Act.  One important limitation, the doctrine of 'fair use,' has been the subject of a major discussion oncontent protection" (6)

Furht, Borko, and Darko Kirovski. Multimedia Security Handbook (Internet and Communications). Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2005

This is a link to American Writer, the magazine of the National Writer's Union. The Fall 2005 issue, on which you should click, is entirely devoted to Copyright infringements and the role of the Nation Writers' Union in defending its members. The "cause celebre" of the Union is the recent settlement of a class action suit (Literary Works in Electronic Databases, MDL No 1379), in which 21 writers and three organizations, the NWU, the Authors Guild and the American Society of Journalists and Authors (ASJA) filed suit against 13 publishers of electronic databases and 36 periodical publishers for selling database rights they didn't own. Currently, pending a court hearing on September 27, 2006 in New York City, between $10 million and $18 million are proposed as settlement fees. Freelance writers are currently urged to search the official web site to see if their articles are among those listed and/or to see if their publishers are on the list. Then they are instructed to fill out a claim.
While the potential rewards are small, (an infringed article that was never registered with the US Copyright Office and that sold for between $50 and $999 would yield the author $25), the time involved is minimal and worth the "30 second effort."

Of course not all writers are pleased with the settlement offer. Irvin Muchnick, a freelance writer and former staff member of the National Writers Union, is the architect of a class action by a group of writers who asked a federal judge in April 2005 to vacate preliminary approval of the $10-$18 million setlement figure. His daily diatribes on his web site: freelancerights.muchnick.net reflect his main arguments that the size of the restitution is too small, the provisions for notifying writers are inadequate and release of future claims agains publishers is too vague and too broad.

Regardless of who "wins" the settlement dispute, the fact remains that writers will be compensated for articles that appeared on electronic data bases without their permission.

The bottom line is that the NWU "will not tolerate continuing infringements. We're prepared to continue to fight and fight harder."

This is a summary from a freelance writer's perspective of the situation following the Tasini ruling. Written in 2001, not too long after what was hailed as a "victory" for freelancers, the author reveals that the opposite may in fact be closer to the truth. As early as 1993, the date of the original Tasini suit, publishers began to issue "all-rights" contracts to freelancers in which they sign away any and all rights (including those yet to be discovered) to their work. Jim Morrison, president of the American Society of Journalists notes: "As a result of Tasini, publishers increasingly are attempting to pay writers the same--or even lower--rates for all rights than they traditionally paid for first print rights." In addition, rather than trying to contact freelancers whose articles they may have sold to Lexis Nexis, the New York times instead "purged" electronic data bases with which they had done business of all freelance contributions.
The article includes an interview with Charles Petit, an intellectual property and publishing lawyer, who points out an interesting stance of the Court with regard to copyright in general, noting:"The Court has clearly stated that information does NOT 'want to be free:
     Congress' adjustment of the author/publisher balance is a permissable expression of the 'economic philosophy behind [the Copyright clause],'i.e. the conviction that encouragement of individual effort [motivated] by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare.'"

The bottom line for writers, according to the Petit, is to arm themselves with information. "read your contract. Make sure you understand it, If there's an ambiguous term make the publisher define it in writing. None of this is news; unfortunately, most of it is all too seldom done."