Archive for March 22nd, 2006
Crawford Connects the Digitization Dots
In the March edition of E-Content, Walt Crawford discusses the open access possibilities and economies of scale that could result from a loose collaboration between Google’s Book Search project, the Open Content Alliance, and the Creative Commons license scheme.
What do you get when you combine a four-year-old licensing system and two possibly complementary projects to digitize substantial quantities of print information? With luck, a substantial ecommons: millions of digital items that can be used directly and as the basis for derivative works without infringing copyright. These projects should also result in full-text indexing for millions more items that won’t be freely available online but can be acquired through libraries and booksellers.
Crawford, who is a senior analyst at RLG and the namesake author of Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large, continues
Pulling these threads together, OCA encourages use of Creative Commons licenses whenever that makes sense. That makes it more likely that a good deal of copyright material will be available under appropriate license, since Creative Commons licenses offer carefully drawn ways to “give away” some copyright control without losing copyright. Google isn’t part of this combination yet, but it wouldn’t take much to make the public domain works part of the greater whole.
Conceptually, Crawford’s observations make sense. But I think Crawford’s view of the potential inherent in such a combination is unlikely to happen. Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft are competing publicly-held corporations that ultimately are looking to exploit the next great market. To be fair, I’m sure each of these companies has some altruistic motive for being involved in their respective projects, but their ultimate goal is to be in the game if and when the content market shifts significantly enough for them to be major players in it. And once they find the game, each wants to write its rules.
In my view, the involvement of Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft the digitization game amounts to a scouting session wherein each company will determine just how involved they will get in the content market beyond search. The possibilities — research database, bookseller, music seller, or even publisher — are endless. It’s not about the commons; it’s about the cash.
Walt Crawford. Building the Econtent Commons. EContent. March 2006.
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.
Mother Jones Cites Compendium of “IP Overkill”
The current edition of Mother Jones magazine includes an alternately sad and hilarious list of tidbits and factoids about intellectual property. Depending on your legal or commercial leanings, one could view this list as an example of how well the proprietary IP system works, or how much it has failed.
Included on the list are:
- Last year Mister Softee spent $170,000 to track down and sue 45 competitors for copying its blue-and-white trucks and playing its copyrighted jingle.
- Ninety-one pending trademarks bear Donald Trump’s name, including “Donald J. Trump the Fragrance” and “Trump’s Golden Lager.” He failed to trademark the phrase “You’re fired.”
- Huey Newton’s widow is trademarking the phrase “Burn, Baby, Burn” for use as a BBQ sauce slogan.
- Martin Luther King Jr.’s estate charges academic authors $50 for each sentence of the “I Have a Dream” speech that they reprint.
Interestingly, the list omits actor Damon Wayans’ attempts to trademark a racial slur to use on clothing, books, and general merchandise.
Clara Jeffery. Intellectual Property Run Amok. Mother Jones. March/April 2006.
See also:
Rogers Cadenhead. Actor Tries to Trademark ‘N’ Word. Wired News. Feb. 23, 2006.
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.
Google’s Records Requested In Another Case
In a lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission, a federal judge has ordered that Google divulge the entire contents of a Gmail account, including deleted e-mail messages. The subpoena, which is unrelated to the Department of Justice’s own subpoena to Google for search terms and excerpts from its search database, is the second time in a month that the search giant has had a court demand records from its vast database.
As BusinessWeek Online‘s David Holzman noted in an article we linked to last week, one of Google’s biggest future legal and business challenges will be the ability to keep its database content private and out of the hands of competitors and third parties, including government and law enforcement agencies. Part of the competitive advantage Google enjoys is buoyed by public trust. This trust will erode quickly if Google cannot find a way to keep its data private.
Declan McCullagh. Police Blotter: Judge Orders Gmail Disclosure. News.com. March 17, 2006.
See also:
CopyCense. Google Faces Increased Legal Challenges. March 16, 2006.
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.
Michael Geist Analyzes “Clip Culture”
Michael Geist, law professor at the University of Ottawa, has penned an interesting column on the rise of “clip culture.” As I understand it, “clip culture” is a term that describes the rise and pervasiveness of image and video sharing. Presumably, Flickr and YouTube are two of the Web sites that best manifest the rise in “clip culture.”
Writes Geist
Most of the videos on Youtube and other video sharing services are not full-length features. Instead, taking their cue from the movie studios and sports networks, the overwhelming majority of videos are shorter clips running anywhere from a few seconds to a couple of minutes.
The clips themselves fall into three broad categories. Homegrown or “amateur” clips constitute a significant percentage of the collection as the mushrooming of user-generated content moves from blog postings to innovative multimedia featuring audio and video. Montage videos, which represent the next-generation of protest and fan sites, constitute the second category. A Youtube search for President George Bush yields hundreds of videos, many of which bring together multiple clips to make powerful political statements. Meanwhile, a similar search for NHL rookie sensation Alexander Ovechkin produces dozens of compilations of highlight reel goals.
The third category — clips of network television shows — has generated the most controversy. Video sharing sites contain thousands of clips that previously aired on television. In some instances, the clips appear with the approval of the broadcaster either because the clip is available for a fee (some Google Video clips are available for purchase) or because the broadcaster has embraced the benefits of free publicity and cost-free distribution.
Geist acknowledges the thorny legal implications inherent in the third category, which CopyCense has covered elsewhere. But instead of challenging the legality of the third category of clip culture, Geist sagely calls for a reexamination and reaffirmation of the fair use doctrine.
Michael Geist. The Rise of the Clip Culture. March 19, 2006.
See also:
CopyCense. Comparing YouTube & Napster. March 16, 2006.
CopyCense. YouTube’s Questionable Copyright Business Model. Feb. 7, 2006.
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.
COPYCENSE 