Home » copyright (Page 12)
Category Archives: copyright
Do Free Online Books Make Money?
Does making a book freely available online hurt or enhance the sales of the hardcopy? Advocates suggest that if you read a bit of the book online you’re more likely to buy the hardcopy if you like it and finish reading it on paper. You’re also more likely to recommend it to friends who might buy it, too. Those against think that free only equals more free, and no one is going to buy a book if you get given the whole thing at no cost. Neil Gaiman and his publisher have been experimenting with this question, and Gaiman’s American Gods has been available for free online for a month (it disappears again in a few days). So, it’s definitely interesting to see who many people read the book, and how hardcopy sales appear to have been effected. So: the initial stats from Neil Gaiman’s blog:
It’s worth drawing people’s attention to the fact that the free online reading copy of American Gods is now in its last six days online (it ends 31 March 08). I learned this from an email from Harper Collins, which also told me the latest batch of statistics.
For American Gods:
68,000 unique visitors to the book pages of American Gods
3,000,000 book pages viewed in aggregate
And that the weekly book sales of American Gods have apparently gone up by 300%, rather than tumbling into the abyss. (Which is — the rise, not the tumble — what I thought would happen. Or at least, what I devoutly hoped would happen.)
The book is up at This URL, if you’re interested, or want to pass it along to a friend.
While this example isn’t exactly necessarily a template for new authors – Gaiman’s existing reputation as an author and his well-read blog both come into play in looking at the figures (not to mention that American Gods is an excellent read) – the overall figures are definitely encouraging and hopefully we’ll see more experiments like this one in the future (and, yes, I realise this isn’t the first such experiment – hello Cory Doctorow – but it’s still a noteworthy one).
Hillary Clinton and the perils of stock footage
We’ve been talking about all sorts of things to do with media production these past few weeks in my Digital Media unit, including some conversations about stock footage. So, it’s rather timely to see that, as has been widely blogged elsewhere, one of Hillary Clinton’s campaign advertisements has turned back on her due to the use of purchased stock footage. This is the advertisement in question, about the Red Phone ringing at 3am:
However, it turns out that the little girl supposedly afraid in her bed has grown up since that footage was shot, and Casey Knowles is no fan of Hillary Clinton as she explains in this rebuttal on YouTube:
Casey Knowles’ point that she “reject the politics of fear” is powerful given the message the stock footage of her younger self was being used to convey. It’s one of the perils of using stock footage that the people in that footage may very well have a life and opinion of their own. There’s nothing more effective that that last line: “I’m Casey Knowles and I approve this message. And not the other one. Something worth remembering both in politics and when sourcing stock footage from archives. [Via Barry]
Australia’s Peer-to-Peer TV Underbelly
While Australians have long been noted as some of the most voracious downloaders of television, using bittorrent-based peer-to-peer sources has generally been focused on accessing UK and US shows which don’t screen in Australia until some time (from weeks to years) after the original airdates. However, the recent case of the Australian production Underbelly is a little bit different.
Underbelly dramatises the infamous events in Melbourne, Victoria between 1995 and 2004 which encompassed a gangland war and a series of murders. However, at least one criminal trial from these events is still underway, and so just prior to the screening of the first episode of Underbelly, a court injunction prevented the Nine Network from screening the tv series in Melbourne, on the grounds it could prejudice any potential Victorian jury. So, on February 13, every other Australian state except Victoria could view the show, while Victorians could not. Also, as it’s pretty much impossible to limit websites on a state-by-state basis, the ban also prevents promotional material, trailers and episodes of Underbelly being hosted online. Thus, the official website currently sports a great many “This functionality is not available due to current legal restrictions” (screenshot) signs and not that much else.
Yet in the era of bittorent and peer-to-peer networks, that’s far from the end of the story. As soon as the ban was issued, media reports appeared highlighting the fact that Underbelly was sure to be available as a download in Victoria within hours of its screening in every other state. As the Herald Sun reported:
… the explosion of video on the internet, through websites and through file sharing, may allow Victorians to see the drama within hours of its broadcast interstate. A scan of one site today revealed several copies of the promotional clips from the series on the website, despite their removal from Nine’s site. “This is a great problem on the internet,” University of NSW Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre executive director David Vaile said. “Legal jurisdiction is typically limited by geography, and by its nature the internet doesn’t place much regard to geography.”
Mr Vaile believed the judge may have taken into consideration the possibility that copies of the drama would appear on the internet, but that it would have limited impact on potential jurors. “(The judge) may well have decided that something that is not the official publisher’s website will not have the same sort of impact,” he said. However watching illegal versions of the underworld drama will not be without risk. Mr Vaile said people caught uploading clips from Underbelly could face copyright and contempt of court charges.
Subsequent reports noted that it took less than half an hour for Underbelly to hit bittorrent networks and a quick search on isohunt this morning revealed more than a dozen active bittorrent sources for the first two episodes of Underbelly still available almost a week later. Vaile’s comments do note a new potential avenue for prosecuting uploaders in this case, namely contempt of court, but as Alex Malik notes, it seems unlikely that option will be pursued:
While it is probably illegal for viewers to upload Underbelly to these [peer-to-peer] services, it is unlikely that the Nine Network and other rights owners will undertake any enforcement activity to stop them. They may be too busy enjoying the viral marketing buzz associated with internet TV show access. Or they may be thinking about DVD sales down the road. In short, this ban by the Supreme Court may result in Underbelly being one of the internet events of the year. And of course once the TV show hits the internet, it’s fame can then become international fame.
Strangely enough, the only mainstream article which suggests that Australian filesharers are in any way worried about potential court action is on the NineMSN website (co-owned by Microsoft and the Nine Network), while most other reports simply note that a lot of Victorians were accessing peer-to-peer networks in the past week!
Underbelly has certainly focused the spotlight on the wide use of peer-to-peer networks in Australia. The hype and attention that the banned show has received may very well work in the producers’ favour in the long run, ensuring that the people who do see the show in Victoria keep the buzz alive, even if the ban does last the entire 13 episodes. Such buzz should make any DVD sales which are eventually allowed a huge success.
Overall, though, the attempt to ban any sort of digital media on a state by state basis in Australia is clearly impossible, and the attempt to restrict this series in Australia may very well have led a number of Victorians to avail themselves of bittorrent files for the first time. It seems unlikely that once Pandora’s peer-to-peer networks are opened that Victorians will simply put this newfound resource back in the box.
Update (26 March 08): Despite an appeal by Channel 9, the ban on Underbelly screening in Victoria has been upheld. In at least once Victorian town, though, unusual weather conditions have allowed Victorians to watch an episode that was being broadcast in Tasmania!
CC+
One of the big announcements at the celebrations of Creative Commons’ fifth birthday was the release of the CC+ (CCPlus) licensing arrangement which combines existing CC licenses with ability to also explicitly point to additional licensing (for example, terms for commercial use on an NC CC license). From the CC blog:
CC+ is a protocol to enable a simple way for users to get rights beyond the rights granted by a CC license. For example, a Creative Commons license might offer noncommercial rights. With CC+, the license can also provide a link to enter into transactions beyond access to noncommercial rights — most obviously commercial rights, but also services of use such as warranty and ability to use without attribution, or even access to physical media.
“Imagine you have all of your photos on Flickr, offered to the world under the CC Attribution-NonCommercial license,” said Lawrence Lessig, CEO of Creative Commons. “CC+ will enable you to continue offering your work to the public for noncommercial use, but will also give you an easy way to sell commercial licensing rights to those who want to use your work for profit.”
While CC+ isn’t exactly new – it was always possible legally – the simplification of this arrangement is sure to see a lot more people explicating the terms under which they’d released material commercially and, hopefully, this encourage commercial producers to use material in this form.
In case you prefer you explanations to be more engaging, here’s a video explaining CC+:
If the video is a little hard to watch at this size, head to the full-size version on blip.tv or download a QuickTime movie version (56Mb). Alternatively, you can check the CC+ page or download the explanatory PDF.
One of the reasons I really like CC+ is that I can really see its value for media produced by students; CC licenses really encourage others to view and share, but having commercial uses spelt out means that if what students create is good enough, they could also see it making money for them!
Creative Commons New Zealand
A hearty congratulations to the Aotearoa New Zealand Creative Commons folk who announced yesterday that they’ve successfully ported the Creative Commons licenses to the Aotearoa New Zealand legal system!
Support the Creative Commons
The 2007 Creative Commons Fundraising Drive is under way, so if you’re concerned about ensuring that extreme copyright doesn’t kill creativity, please consider donating. For me, ensuring that copyright laws don’t lock away creative potential for the average person is incredibly important and I still think that Creative Commons is one of the great vanguards in the fight to ensure that there are better options than the two extremes of full copyright or the public domain. While both have their place, allowing the average person to make more specific choices about how their creative work(s) can or can’t be re-used is essential to creativity in the present and future, and the Creative Commons organisation, and their national versions such as the marvelous CC Australia, are doing a lot of the hard work to ensure these options exist! And just to prove I’m putting my money where my mouth is, I’ve been donating annually since 2005. I hope you’ll consider donating this year.
Inspired by last year’s CC Swag Flickr Competition, here’s my 2007 CC Vision:
And I noticed year’s swag for donators includes postcards made from the winners of last year’s CC Swag Photo competition; I wonder what sort of things will be in next year’s? 🙂
Virgin Mobile and Creative Commons Sued by US Teen
A couple of months ago I wrote about Virgin Mobile’s controversial use of CC-Licensed images from Flickr in one of their advertising campaigns. Things have now taken an odd twist, with on of the teenagers features in the photos suing not just Virgin but Creative Commons as well! As the Sydney Morning Herald reported:
A Texas family has sued Australia’s Virgin Mobile phone company, claiming it caused their teenage daughter grief and humiliation by plastering her photo on billboards and website advertisements without consent. […] The picture of 16-year-old Chang flashing a peace sign was taken in April by Alison’s youth counsellor, who posted it that day on his Flickr page, according to Alison’s brother, Damon. In the ad, Virgin Mobile printed one of its campaign slogans, “Dump your pen friend,” over Alison’s picture. The ad also says “Free text virgin to virgin” at the bottom. […]
The lawsuit, filed in Dallas late yesterday, names Virgin Mobile USA LLC, its Australian counterpart, and Creative Commons Corp, a Massachusetts nonprofit that licenses sharing of Flickr photos, as defendants. […]
People who post photos on Flickr are asked how they want to license their attribution. The youth counsellor chose a sharing licence from Creative Commons that allows others to reuse work such as photos without violating copyright laws, if they credit the photographer and say where the photo was taken. His Flickr page appears at the bottom of the ad.
Worth reading on this matter are:-
[X] Lawrence Lessig’s post “On the Texas suit against Virgin and Creative Commons” (always thorough, Lessig also links to the actual complaint);
[X] The Slashdot Thread on the lawsuit;
[X] and Joi Ito’s post, in which he notes this complaint is a “very good example of the complexities of copyright and other rights and the necessity of educating the public and ourselves about what copyright exactly is.”
Personally, I find it hard to credit the complaint against Creative Commons. I think as an organisation, CC have done more to educate people about copyright than almost any other organisation. While I admit using certain CC licenses leaves the lay-person ignorant about the complexities of model releases and the different international standards (ie you need people in the photos to grant permission for their image or likeness to be used), the fault lies more with copyright law per se than with Creative Commons. Of course, given this development, it would seem prudent time for a more detailed guide about using CC licenses on Flickr (and other photos) to be developed.
Piracy is … Cool?
On the CC-Community list Jessica Coates has posted links from the recent Sydney Law Review where, among other cool things, they created some parody advertisements based on the patronizing ‘Piracy is Wrong’ ads which play in Australian cinemas and are at the front of many legitimately-purchased Australian DVDs. Each one is funny, but I think the first is best!
Downloading Depreciates Copyright Somewhat…
You Wouldn’t Invade Poland …Piracy is cool… [Via The House of Commons]
Happenings from and about Creative Commons in Australia
On the back of a lot of really interesting work and events last year, Creative Commons Australia have released their “Unlocking the Potential Through Creative Commons” report which examines the role (and potential roles) of Creative Commons licensing in Australia. It’s an easy read and has lots of examples, so very useful for artists, media producers, educators and many others who are thinking about the Creative Commons as the right copyright for their work!
Also in Australia, the CC Au blog looks at a recent controversy which has arisen due to Virgin Mobile in Australia using Flickr images licensed under Creative Commons terms. It appears Virgin may have ignored a CC ‘non-commercial’ clause in at least one case, but also on the table is the moral question of getting the permission of people who actually appear in the photos, especially since some of the advertisements put out by Virgin Mobile are clearly mocking in the people in the pictures. That said, clearly this is a very mainstream use of CC-licensed work and that’s definitely welcome. It’s also noteworthy that at least some of the photographers are delighted to see their work appearing as part of this campaign. For some of the more vitriolic comments which highlight the grey areas between intent and use, see the comments of these two Flickr images. It’s also worth checking out the online arm of Virgin’s campaign using these images (which, I have to say, is actually quite a clever use of some of these pictures!)
More broadly, last month Mary Taylor Huber from the US Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching gave a series of guest talks here in Perth (you can hear Mary’s lecture here) and focused on what she calls building the ‘teaching commons’ which is, essentially, shared ideas and resources about teaching and learning across the globe. In our conversation after her public lecture, we were talking about the Creative Commons as the mechanism by which the actual resources of a teaching commons could be shared. Following that idea, I was absolutely delighted to see Creative Commons central announce that their CC Learn – “the education division of Creative Commons” – has gone live, with this fantastic mission statement:
* With legal barriers, we advocate for licensing of educational materials under interoperable terms, such as those provided by Creative Commons licenses, that allow unhampered modification, remixing, and redistribution. We also educate teachers, learners, and policy makers about copyright and fair-use issues pertaining to education.
* With technical barriers, we promote interoperability standards and tools to facilitate remixing and reuse.
* With social barriers, we encourage teachers and learners to re-use educational materials available on the Web, and to build on each other’s contributions.
Obviously CC Learn is in its early stages, but the mission is definitely a very important one and I can’t wait to see CC Learn grow!
Update (8.50am, 28 Jul 07): I’ve been reading more about the Virgin Mobile use of Flickr CC images and these posts are worth reading: “Uh, I thought YOU got the release . . .” by Carolyn E. Wright, looking at the need for model release forms for commercial use of people in photos; a post from Ian Wilson who was quite happy to see his image used by Virgin Mobile; Agency Spy’s “Flickr Is Going To Cost Virgin Mobile Millions Of Dollars“; and a longer conversation on Flickr “Virgin Mobile advertising campaign using Flickr photos“.
“We’re sorry, but the clip you selected isn’t available from your location:” Watching Battlestar Galactica in Australia and the Tyranny of Digital Distance
I just submitted an abstract for the Media International Australia special issue ‘Beyond Broadcasting: TV for the Twenty-first Century’. Here it is:
“We’re sorry, but the clip you selected isn’t available from your location:” Watching Battlestar Galactica in Australia and the Tyranny of Digital Distance
[Figure 1. Screen-capture from http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/, 11 September 2006]
In the late 1960s, conservative Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey coined the term “the tyranny of distance” to describe how the geographic gap between Australia and the centres of the Western world (US, UK) played a fundamental role is shaping the Australian psyche and character (Geoffrey Blainey, The Tyranny of Distance, Sun Books: Melbourne, 1966). Thirty something years later and the world is far more widely considered a global village; the world wide web, email and a million other applications have made real-time information-heavy communication and commerce the norm. However, while information transfers have made ‘distance’ much less of a concern in a number of ways, many policies, practices and systems of commerce still operate as though they are centred on goods moving at the speed of physical shipping, not allowing for information moving at the speed of light down a copper or optical wire. In an era when ‘the tyranny of distance’ means so much less in many contexts, this paper will argue that in the multimedia markets of contemporary society there is, rather, a prevailing tyranny of digital distance which marks out those areas of communication and commerce in which the potential and, indeed, expectation of synchronous global culture (at least for English-speaking countries) leads to constant state of confusion and annoyance – on both personal and legal levels – when those expectations are not met.
The North American-produced television series Battlestar Galactica, re-imagined for the twenty-first century (from an original 1970s series), has consistently been at the cutting edge of television and cross-media. Executive producer Ronald D. Moore and the Battlestar team utilise not just blogs and production-side video-blogs, but also create episodic commentary podcasts, make deleted scenes available online, and have even put two full episodes online for free for viewing. Likewise, Battlestar was one of the first shows available via Apple’s online iTunes Store. Given the amount of extra online content, and the show’s science fiction genre, Battlestar has a large and very active fan community who consume both the television show itself and the officially produced extra material, as well as actively creating and discussing their own derivative ‘fannish’ works ranging from blog commentaries to fan-created videos. Thus, when the show’s producers launched a series of 3 to 4 minutes ‘webisodes’ to re-build interest in the show prior to the launch of its third season, fans across the (wired) globe were understandably excited. However, when citizens of Australia, the UK, Canada or any other country outside the US tried to view these webisodes, they were met with a notice saying: “We’re sorry, but the clip you selected isn’t available from your location.” The owners of Battlestar (NBC) elected to restrict these webisodes to residents of the US only. This decision upset fans across the global Battlestar audience, with US fans quickly circumventing the restrictions and passing copies of the webisodes to their international fellows. In this paper, I will contend that this moment typifies the tyranny of digital distance, exemplifying the legal, ethical and practical issues raised when a globally-promoted television series ‘centres’ on a single national audience. I outline the difficulties of ‘watching’ Battlestar from Australia, and argue for distribution modes which are more in keeping with the technological (and fan-led) potential of digital distribution.
As you might imagine, this paper will draw together my previous thinking about the tyranny of digital distance which you can read about here and here. I’m also finishing off another Battlestar-related paper that stopped being written for a year, but is now being finished off for a new collection. It’s going to be a busy month, but I’m hopeful both of these will be well polished before Emily and I get married on June 9th (presuming this abstract is accepted). Wish me luck!
Update (8 May 2007): The abstract has been accepted! Thankfully, though, full papers aren’t needed until August 1st so I’ll be writing this after Emily and I return from our honeymoon (in Venice!!) :).
Update 2 (21 September 2007): The full version of this paper has been accepted after peer review, and will appear in Media International Australia issue 126, which is scheduled to be released in February 2008.
Update 3 (26 March, 2008): You final version of this paper has appeared, and you can read it following the link from this post.
Tama Leaver dot Net by Tama Leaver is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.