>the laziest blog on earth...contact me: mudwerks AT gmail DOT com
ALL MY SONGS!...
AVAILABLE NOW on bandcamp!
I had kind of thought that after we posted our response to Teri Buhl, who got upset about our original article about her whacko claims that her publicly posted tweets could not be quoted, that the story would hopefully fade away. However, this morning, Jim Romenesko, who allowed Buhl to “respond” to us via his blog, has published another story noting that the thanks he received from Buhl is that she is threatening to sue him. Lovely. Oh yeah, and in her communication with Romenesko, she apparently told him she’s planning to sue us at Techdirt, too (which, by the way, is the first we’ve heard of this):
Today, Buhl is threatening to sue me for using the photo from her Twitter page. She says she owns the image and never gave me or others permission to publish it. She adds that she’s going to file a small claims suit against Mark Bennett and Techdirt for keeping the photo on their sites after being told to take it down.
“I don’t want add you the same list [sic],” she writes. “I’m asking Poynter and Knight to do the same thing today before I file.”
My response to her: “Really, Teri?”
She replied:
yes really Jim – I am going to push it. It’s a matter a principle I am sick of other publications lifting other jurnos ideas, photos, words etc… and printing them on their publications with out permission or proper credit with links etcc. I think it’s an issue that should have been challenged a long time ago. I took the photo I own it etc…
Of course, in our last post on the subject, we suggested that Buhl acquaint herself with fair use rules. It would appear that she has chosen not to do that. We did not “lift” her “ideas, photos, words.” We reported on her actions and statements.
It also appears that she has not familiarized herself with the nature of copyright law, and the fact that small claims courts have no jurisdiction over copyright issues. Not that I should be doing the legal work the lawyer she claims to have contacted failed to do, but 28 USC 1338notes:
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks. No State court shall have jurisdiction over any claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, orcopyrights.
This is kind of basic stuff…
(via Texas voter ID law struck down - The Washington Post)
it’s a start…
![(via Silent magician Teller files copyright suit over “stolen” shadow trick)
Teller performing “Shadows”
Teller, the silent half of the well-known magic duo Penn and Teller, has sued a rival magician for copying one of his most famous illusions. The case promises to test the boundaries of copyright law as it applies to magic tricks.
In “Shadows,” a spotlight casts a shadow of a rose onto a white screen. When Teller “cuts” the shadow on the screen with a knife, the corresponding parts of the flower fall to the floor.
A Dutch magician with the stage name Gerard Bakardy (real name: Gerard Dogge) saw Teller perform the trick in Las Vegas and developed his own version. Bakardy sells a kit—including a fake rose, instructions, and a DVD—for about $3,000. To promote the kits, he posted a video of his performance to YouTube and prepared a magazine ad. (With the video down, the link points to screenshots from the video filed by Teller in his lawsuit.)
Teller had Bakardy’s video removed with a DMCA takedown notice, then called Bakardy to demand that the magician stop using his routine. Teller offered to buy Bakardy out, but they were unable to agree on a price. So Teller sued Bakardy last week in a Nevada federal court.
Can you copyright a trick?
A fundamental principle of copyright law is that copyright covers the expression of ideas but not the ideas themselves. This puts the essential elements of the trick—the concept of rose petals falling when the shadow is “cut” and the technical details of how this effect is accomplished—outside the bounds of copyright protection.
So what’s left? According to New York Law School professor James Grimmelmann, copyright law protects pantomimes and choreographic works. So Teller may be able to claim the “Shadows” routine is protected under these categories. Teller describes “Shadows” as a “dramatic work.”
Teller’s case may hinge on exactly how similar Bakardy’s routine is to Teller’s. in a 1983 copyright registration,Teller describes the sequence of actions that make up his performance. Ars Technica was not able to find a copy of Bakardy’s video, so we weren’t able to determine how similar Bakardy’s routine is to the one described in Teller’s copyright registration.
Still, Grimmelmann argues that “Teller has an uphill fight on his hands.” In a 2007 paper that became an instant classic, Jacob Loshin showed how magic thrives without significant protection from either copyright or patent law. Instead of relying on formal legal mechanisms, magicians derive benefit from their inventions through informal social norms that encourage magicians to give due credit to the original inventor of a particular trick.
Further reading
Teller’s complaint (ia601207.us.archive.org)
[this will be a fascinating case…]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2ne75yxP81qz5q5oo1_500.png)
(via Silent magician Teller files copyright suit over “stolen” shadow trick)
Teller performing “Shadows”
Teller, the silent half of the well-known magic duo Penn and Teller, has sued a rival magician for copying one of his most famous illusions. The case promises to test the boundaries of copyright law as it applies to magic tricks.
In “Shadows,” a spotlight casts a shadow of a rose onto a white screen. When Teller “cuts” the shadow on the screen with a knife, the corresponding parts of the flower fall to the floor.
A Dutch magician with the stage name Gerard Bakardy (real name: Gerard Dogge) saw Teller perform the trick in Las Vegas and developed his own version. Bakardy sells a kit—including a fake rose, instructions, and a DVD—for about $3,000. To promote the kits, he posted a video of his performance to YouTube and prepared a magazine ad. (With the video down, the link points to screenshots from the video filed by Teller in his lawsuit.)
Teller had Bakardy’s video removed with a DMCA takedown notice, then called Bakardy to demand that the magician stop using his routine. Teller offered to buy Bakardy out, but they were unable to agree on a price. So Teller sued Bakardy last week in a Nevada federal court.
Can you copyright a trick?
A fundamental principle of copyright law is that copyright covers the expression of ideas but not the ideas themselves. This puts the essential elements of the trick—the concept of rose petals falling when the shadow is “cut” and the technical details of how this effect is accomplished—outside the bounds of copyright protection.
So what’s left? According to New York Law School professor James Grimmelmann, copyright law protects pantomimes and choreographic works. So Teller may be able to claim the “Shadows” routine is protected under these categories. Teller describes “Shadows” as a “dramatic work.”
Teller’s case may hinge on exactly how similar Bakardy’s routine is to Teller’s. in a 1983 copyright registration,Teller describes the sequence of actions that make up his performance. Ars Technica was not able to find a copy of Bakardy’s video, so we weren’t able to determine how similar Bakardy’s routine is to the one described in Teller’s copyright registration.
Still, Grimmelmann argues that “Teller has an uphill fight on his hands.” In a 2007 paper that became an instant classic, Jacob Loshin showed how magic thrives without significant protection from either copyright or patent law. Instead of relying on formal legal mechanisms, magicians derive benefit from their inventions through informal social norms that encourage magicians to give due credit to the original inventor of a particular trick.
With all the talk of the EU’s decision to retroactively extend copyright from 50 to 70 years, despite no evidence that this is needed or useful, very little attention was paid to the massive harm this causes. Multiple studies showed that such an extension wouldn’t provide much, if any, money to musicians, but most of the money would actually be diverted from artists to major record labels. And it gets even worse. Copycense points us to some reports about howcopyright extension is guaranteeing that plenty of classical music won’t be heard:
Last week, the EU ratified a new law extending copyright in music recordings to 70 years. That, argued Bob Stanley, was a bad thing for most musicians, and for music itself: much would now remain locked in the vaults of the big record companies. Stanley had been looking at the world of rock and pop, but PristineAudio, who runs a label specialising in out-of-copyright recordings, explained the ruling had far-reaching implications for classical music as well. “One major release of ours earlier this year illustrates well something this new act most certainly will kill off. A historic concert given in 1960 by British conductor Leopold Stokowski with the Philadelphia Orchestra … fell into the public domain in Europe [in 2011], and we were able to transcribe the conductor’s own copies of the master tapes, prepared for him by the radio station, and release in the highest quality a concert that has long been of great interest to collectors.That’s not the “irony” of copyright. It’s the design of copyright, which has always been about granting monopolies to a few players, while limiting the market. It’s a protectionist plan designed to protect a few industry leaders, rather than do what it says on the face of the box: promoting progress by increasing cultural output.
“The irony of copyright law as it stands is that historic orchestral broadcasts are often almost impossible to reissue by anyone, until they pass into the public domain. The standard contract with an orchestra would allow for an initial broadcast and then a single repeat transmission. Thereafter, a new contract would need to be drawn up with the musicians for any further use of that recording. Trying today to track down the performers (or their estates) for a symphony orchestra that existed in 1960 is well-nigh impossible.”
WHOOPS: Georgia’s legal promise to crucify any illegal immigrants it could get its hands on did, in fact, have the intended effect of scaring away the state’s undocumented workers. So, lo and behold, there are no workers left to harvest all of the state’s crops. Is America ready for forced labor again? Maybe this will solve the obesity epidemic? Georgia farmers are currently 11,000 workers short, and a failure to fill the ranks will cripple the state agricultural industry. Haha, there will be no food, this will solve the obesity problem, too! The state has been trying to encourage some of the state’s unemployed probationers to join From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: In response, Deal proposes that farmers try to hire the 2,000 unemployed criminal probationers estimated to live in southwest Georgia. Somehow, I suspect that would not be a partnership made in heaven for either party. As an editorial in the Valdosta Daily Times notes, “Maybe this should have been prepared for, with farmers’ input. Maybe the state should have discussed the ramifications with those directly affected. Maybe the immigration issue is not as easy as ’send them home,’ but is a far more complex one in that maybe Georgia needs them, relies on them, and cannot successfully support the state’s No. 1 economic engine without them.” Woah woah woah hey let’s not get all “this is a complicated issue” here. Space aliens are stealing jobs, remember? STEALING. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]chain gangs harvest crews before ALL the crops rot in the fields, but probationers have not so far worked as quickly or as hard as the space aliens do with their magical powers.
You may recall that Apple has been trying to convince the world that there can be only one “app store,” first by suggesting it really means Apple Store and then by suing Amazon for its own app store. Amazon has now responded to the lawsuit by using Steve Jobs own words against him:
In 2008 Apple launched its app store, which allows a consumer to view and instantly download apps for their Apple devices such as the iPhone, iPad, and iPod. In press releases, Apple has claimed that its app store is “the largest application store in the world.” In October 2010, Apple’s CEO Steve Jobs called Apple’s app store “the easiest-to-use, largest app store in the world, preloaded on every iPhone.”
That certainly sounds like Apple and Jobs admitting that the term is generic. To further support its own position, Amazon notes to some linguists as well:
The American Dialect Society, a leading group of U.S. linguists, recently voted “app” as the “Word of the Year” for 2010, noting that although the word “has been around for ages,” it “really exploded in the last 12 months” with the “arrival of ‘app stores’ for a wide spectrum of operating systems for phones and computers.” Indeed, the words “app store” are commonly used among many businesses competing in the app store market.
It certainly looks like Apple may have a difficult job convincing anyone that app store is not generic.
