Slashdot Mirror
Court Ruling Limits Copyright Claims
Spamicles writes "A federal appellate panel in Atlanta has reversed its circuit's 6-year-old opinion in a major copyright case, declaring the ruling's mandate on behalf of freelance photographers to be "moot." Until now, publishers could be forced to share with freelancers whenever they reproduce and sell those freelancers' previously published works in merchandise designed for computer access. The new ruling says that reproduction on a CD or other media is not a new use of formerly published issues. The full court decision (pdf) is available online, and Law.com has an analysis of the ruling's repercussions."
this may sound off topic at first, but I think I have a relevant observation - please bear with me.
I was in a parking lot at a local shopping center the other day. I saw a person come speeding out of a lane and almost hit another car. There was screeching brakes, blaring horns and unfriendly exchanges between drivers, but there was no collision.
This got me thinking: have I ever seen a collision in a parking lot? Of course they happen, but neither my wife nor I could recall having ever seen one. I would propose that collisions are more common (statistically) on the road.
One could assume that because parking lots are slow-driving zones that drivers have more time to react to situations. I would propose, however, that it is the lack of explicit (imo overwhelming) signage and laws which allow (force) people to take responsibility for themselves. People need to negotiate between each other without the ability to hide behind a stop sign or a no-u-turn sign.
My point is that I think laws are good to a point: after that point laws will become burdens to the very safety they were created to protect.
I applaud any action which intends to help the current nutty copyright situation, however I think adding more laws ("signs") would only cause more collisions, ultimately.
In this case a ruling is overturned (if I'm not totally off, it was essentially done-away-with) which would seem to result in less law. As per my above observation, I think this is good.
Read my Very Short "Stories"
In the case of CDs of previously performed concerts, the musician was never paid for distribution of the material. You can argue that he was paid for the live performance, but live performace of a work and distributing that work in recorded format seem totally different. This is much closer to a record company distributing a bands work on a CD, and later on a memory stick. This would argue that the same contract applies, because it is the same work.
I have read many comments where people are characterizing this as a battle between the big evil corporations and the individual. Not only is that not the case here, but in this fight it is the individual photographers who are most closely aligned with the RIAA/MPAA copyright goals.
National Geographic and the NYT are arguing that once they have purchased the rights to produce/distribute content, then it doesnt matter if this content is displayed on a piece of paper, a computer screen or a rock. They are making our argument, that just because they switch the physical medium upon which they transmit the content they should not be forced to purchase an additional license to that content. The freelance artists here would like to see separate royalties for each medium, and to have the content locked up as tightly as possible. I see strong parallels here to fair use.
Now the the freelancer's argument is that by changing the medium one has created a new and seperate product deserving of additional royalties. This seems entirely unreasonable to me. National Geographic didn't take the photographs and create a new book or movie, they reproduced 1 to 1 the magazine issues on a CD. The medium is no more relevant then going from tape to cd to dvd with audio.
Should filmmakers get additional royalties because a TV station switched to HD broadcasting?
The National Geographic and NYT are fighting for greater freedom of information. Who's side are you on?