Starving Artist Litigation - I was contacted by a very nice lady tonight who had some questions about getting legal help for artists whose work is improperly appropriated by others without permission. Apparently there are some people out there who think that if someone puts artwork up on the Web somewhere then it's free to take and use. Of course, that's totally wrong.
It's illegal to use someone else's copyrighted work without their permission. Even if they hadn't registered their art it is still protected by copyright law. If they did register then they can get statutory damages, and attorney's fees. Of course, even if you have a valid legal claim litigation is expensive. Web maven and photographer Philip Greenspun has some practical advice on avoiding litigation. I like his approach to copyright infringers who steal his photos without permission. He created a hall of shame where he posts the names of the scoflaws. Then when people google the weasels' names there is a good chance that they will happen upon his hall of shame first. I like this idea, and I'd like to see more people do it.
10:08:44 PM
Verizon ordered to give up name of copyright pirate - Verizon had resisted the RIAA's request to reveal the name of one of its subscribers who the RIAA said was a prolific pirate, and who had made large quantities of songs available online. The authority that the RIAA invokes is courtesy of the DMCA. more from C/Net.
2:50:58 PM
I think that eventually more organizations are going to study the use of space & time and reconfigure how they allocate work. Joy London had a post yesterday about "proxemics and knowledge management" with links to architects who have redesigned law firm offices to account for how information will be processed (or already is in the innovative firms).
Current thinking is based on paper, which is physically located in one place. If you scan things (or create E-mail dictation tapes) then it doesn't really matter where people are does it? You can buy office space based on the lowest cost, and hire people to do the work no matter where they are. It makes sense, but that doesn't mean that organizations will change, or if they do, that they will change quickly. Organizations don't quickly adopt new methods of doing things just because it makes sense. They've got bigger fish to fry.
1:51:10 PM
Your digital identification please? - how we authenticate ourselves in everyday life is something that we don't think about much. And how that process might change in the digital world is something we think about even less. Maybe we should think about it more. Phil Windley is thinking about it, and so is David Weinberger. David's post links to Phil's so just go there first if you are interested.
1:14:15 PM
Photography is about seeing - I've said that before, but Camera Lucida's post today really brings it home. Most people see just a chair and don't take the photograph. She saw something more.
1:11:38 PM
The Dummies are coming, the dummies are coming! - Check out Megnut's post on Weblogs for Dummies. "Coming this April to a bookstore near you: Weblogs for Dummies. The best part? It's the same God-awful publisher behind my book..."
1:10:02 PM
Federal District Court in New Orleans will now allow laptop computers - I just got the official notice that, effective immediately, laptop computers will be allowed in the Eastern District of Louisiana courthouse. But cellphones are still verbotten. I think I mentioned that the Atlanta federal district court allows laptops and cellphones. The objection to cellphones supposedly has something to do with security.
11:59:15 AM
Moral Rights and Copyrights - There is a great Slate article on the lawsuit by Hollywood studios and directors Spielberg and Soderbergh against the 11 small companies that take movies that are filled with supposedly "offensive" scenes and clean them up. Not surprisingly, most of the companies are based in Utah. What's interesting is the dynamic that pits the copyright holder against a group in a way that implicates the First Amendment. After all, if morally pure people want to view morally pure versions of movies like Saving Private Ryan (which reminds me of the somewhat famous porn movie called Shaving Ryan's Privates) then why should Hollywood object?
Well, because they can. I'm sure Hollywood's desire to defeat "censorship" is a good fuel rod for this lawsuit. Under pure copyright law one could argue that the sanitized version is a derivative work and somehow cobble a legal objection that way. But there is also the issue of moral rights, which we have heretofore not recognized in the United States. Moral rights are big in France and give artists much more control over their work than copyright law does currently. Now, do you see why Hollywood is interested in pursuing this case? You know, dahling, you can never have enough money, or intellectual property rights...
11:56:40 AM
Low Wi-Fi signal? Well then turn it up to 'eleven - Gizmodo (which I highly recommend for tech news + has an RSS feed) reports: "Infamous gadget geek Phillip Torrone checks out the WSB24, one of those new Wi-Fi signal boosters from Linksys, and gives it the thumbs up." ReadAmazon
I've been meaning to mention that I just put one of those in my home, and it definitely boosts the signal. I haven't gone outside to see how far it goes, but within my two story house I now get strong coverage pretty much everywhere, even though the broadcast point is not centrally located. Mine cost about $99 at CompUsa. And here's an even better review of the device from Tim Higgins (link courtesy of Glenn Fleishman, the Wi-Fi guru). Looks like the street prices are more like $79.
10:26:15 AM
Consent to be filmed or taped during a deposition or other proceeding - here's the scenario: you are in a deposition that is being videotaped for perpetuation. But then you discover that the plaintiffs' attorney (in whose office the deposition is being conducted) is secretly videotaping the proceedings also through hidden cameras and microphones. Turns out all the conference rooms are "hot" with video and audio (think Casino).
How can this be? And what possible excuse could there be for this activity? Well, the plaintiffs lawyers say that the rooms were outfitted that way so that they could film jury deliberations in mock trials. That's probably true, although I hope that they inform the jurors or at least get waivers. Incidentally, here's an article on the filming of actual juror deliberations.
The scenario that I pose actually happened at this New Orleans law firm's offices. From what I hear there will be no ethics investigation. The plaintiffs' lawyers say that they were videotaping the proceedings to avoid having to pay the exorbitant charge by the videographer (which I understand was less than $100). Also, they say that they meant to inform the participants that they were being videotaped but just forgot. Apparently, no private discussions took place between lawyers that would breach a privilege. So apparently this sort of behavior is permissible in Louisiana.
Who knows about other states? So you might want to be careful about what you say and do in your opposing counsel's home turf. And the same goes for some courtrooms. In many courtrooms the microphones in the courtroom itself feed back into chambers (so that the law clerks can listen to the proceedings while doing other work). Stray comments by the attorneys in the courtroom when the judge isn't in the room aren't necessarily private.
