COPYCENSE

“Late last year, I criticized Michael Gorman, president of the American Library Association, for comments he made to The Wall Street Journal about Google Book Search. Gorman comments, printed in a November 1 article, characterized Google’s digitization initiative as “a potential disaster” because the project “reduce[s] scholarly texts to paragraphs” and “flaunt[s] [his] intellectual property rights” as an author.

“My criticism of Gorman had less to do with what he said than his apparent naïveté about how his comments would influence the raging debate about libraries’ role in a digital (and digitized) global information landscape. What Gorman affirms his reputation as a Luddite who is out of touch with today’s information environment, and as such, Gorman speaking as Gorman is irrelevant to the larger debate. On the other hand, Gorman speaking as the president of North America’s largest library representative organization – the de facto voice of “the library community” – potentially has huge legal, political, and economic consequences for the entire information science profession.

“I remain shocked and amazed at Gorman’s penchant for speaking without apparent knowledge or context. But at least Gorman has said something. In contrast, I find it disappointing that our nations’ largest library representative organizations (LROs) have remained eerily silent on digitization copyright issues at a time when they desperately need to be vocal.”

K. Matthew Dames. “Associations’ Silence on Book Search Is Not Golden.” Online. March/April 2006.

See also:

K. Matthew Dames. ALA’s Gorman Strikes Out Again. CopyCense. Nov. 4, 2005.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC. CopyCense™ and CommuniK.™ are trademarks of Seso Digital LLC.

“Late last year, I criticized Michael Gorman, president of the American Library Association, for comments he made to The Wall Street Journal about Google Book Search. Gorman comments, printed in a November 1 article, characterized Google’s digitization initiative as “a potential disaster” because the project “reduce[s] scholarly texts to paragraphs” and “flaunt[s] [his] intellectual property rights” as an author.

“My criticism of Gorman had less to do with what he said than his apparent naïveté about how his comments would influence the raging debate about libraries’ role in a digital (and digitized) global information landscape. What Gorman affirms his reputation as a Luddite who is out of touch with today’s information environment, and as such, Gorman speaking as Gorman is irrelevant to the larger debate. On the other hand, Gorman speaking as the president of North America’s largest library representative organization – the de facto voice of “the library community” – potentially has huge legal, political, and economic consequences for the entire information science profession.

“I remain shocked and amazed at Gorman’s penchant for speaking without apparent knowledge or context. But at least Gorman has said something. In contrast, I find it disappointing that our nations’ largest library representative organizations (LROs) have remained eerily silent on digitization copyright issues at a time when they desperately need to be vocal.”

K. Matthew Dames. “Associations’ Silence on Book Search Is Not Golden.” Online. March/April 2006.

See also:

K. Matthew Dames. ALA’s Gorman Strikes Out Again. CopyCense. Nov. 4, 2005.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC. CopyCense™ and CommuniK.™ are trademarks of Seso Digital LLC.

“Britain’s High Court was plunged into the arcane world of Templars, Merovingians and characters such as Pepin the Fat as lawyers argued Tuesday over the genesis of the mega-selling thriller The Da Vinci Code.

“A lawyer for the novel’s publisher said ideas about the life and legacy of Jesus Christ that two writers claim were stolen for Dan Brown’s blockbuster are so general that they are not protected by copyright, and that many key themes of their book are not in The Da Vinci Code.”

Jill Lawless. Lawyer in Da Vinci Code Case in Britain Says Ideas Too General for Copyright. Canada.com. Feb. 28, 2006.

See also:

Guardian Unlimited. DaVinci Code Author Begins Copyright Battle. Feb. 27, 2006.

Updates:

Tim Wu. Holy Grail Wars. Slate. March 13, 2006.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

“The Copyright Criminals Remix Contest, which is sponsored by the nonprofit copyright licensing organization Creative Commons, is all about promoting remixing culture and encouraging artists like Miller to make their work legally and affordably available for other musicians to manipulate.

“DJ Spooky and other musicians gave interviews for a documentary called “Copyright Criminals” by Atlanta artist Ben Franzen and Kembrew McLeod, an assistant professor of communications studies at the University of Iowa. For their film about the rise of sampling and remix culture, the two talked to musicians, artists, lawyers, scholars, music industry executives and others.

“McLeod and Franzen eventually made a 10-minute trailer of their film available online, and just days later, someone posted a rap song about the film on the Creative Commons community remixing project site, CCMixter. Inspired by the unsolicited rap, the two men decided to organize a contest and began to encourage pubic submissions of new songs made from elements of the interviews shown in the film trailer.”

Daniel Terdiman. “Copyright Criminals” Look to Remix the Noise — Legally. News.com. Feb. 27, 2006.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.