One of my Anony-Mice from the previous post directed me to this headline in the Daily Beast: Muggles Ruin Harry Potter Dinner originally from The Guardian UK. It seems a restaurateur in London whose daughter is an "obsessive" fan wanted to host a fun Harry Potter themed dinner on Halloween.

She didn't count on the Zombie Lawyers coming out of the Crypt:

( Everything Under the Cut... )

We just had a good discussion the other day about JKR at Paris Fashion Week watching the extremely thin model go down the runway. Then I saw a picture from Ralph Lauren with a model so incredibly emaciated it was posted on a website called Photoshop Disasters which inspired the perceptive observation from a blogger on BoingBoing who wrote,

"Dude, her head's bigger than her pelvis."

Photoshopped Fillipa Hamilton, Olive Oyl, and a more "robust" and real Hamilton.
Actually, poor Olive would need to lose weight for the runway these days.

 

Great Video Coverage of this by Rachel Maddow
"She sort of looks like she was shrinky-dinked, doesn't she?
Look at the ratio of her torso to her head.
That is not a ratio that exists in nature, at least outside the insect world....
It looks like whoever was in charge...was inspired by a combination of Barbie and those
giant-headed Bratz dolls. Actually those dolls
look more normal and more human than the model."



The picture was circulating around the blogosphere when the House of Lauren decided to do a Rowling and send out a bunch of threatening letters, as documented by BoingBoing:

It's obvious by now that Ralph Lauren *hates* being mocked. They hate being mocked so much that they ordered their attack lawyers to send letters trying to fool ISPs into pulling an "infringing" advertisement featuring a ridiculously skinny model (in fact, our posting of the image was fair use, not infringement; Ralph Lauren's takedown notices are bogus and they should know better).

It's also obvious that the photo of Filippa Hamilton used in the Ralph Lauren advertisement was digitally manipulated. But we still have three questions: 1) who, exactly, gave Ms. Hamilton the Olive Oyl physique? 2) If the photo was manipulated after it appeared in the advertisement, why didn't Ralph Lauren's law firm make mention of that in their silly DMCA takedown notice? and 3) Where's the original advertisement?

Note: For all these blog links, read the comments ~ priceless!

( Read more - Threats, Takedown Notices, Excuses,Counterthreats, Mockery, Truth, Etc... )

First a definition for "Amicus Brief" from WiseGeek:

The tradition of accepting amicus briefs comes from a larger concept, the amicus curiae, or “friend of the court.” A friend of the court may be interested in a case for various reasons, although he or she is not directly involved. For example, a court might be preparing to try a case related to online file sharing, an issue of great concern to many people. An amicus brief might be filed to discuss the larger ramifications of potential case outcomes, since these ramifications might not be brought up by the prosecution or defense during the course of a trial.

In this case several groups have filed amicus briefs due to their concern about J. D. Salinger winning an injunction against a writer who wanted to publish a continuing story of Holden Caufield since Salinger himself has no intention of writing about the character any more. That case is moving to the Court of Appeals now, which is why groups are being compelled to get their ideas into the case to persuade the next Judge to rule differently.

The groups involved see this as a Freedom of Speech question. That reminds me of what Roger Rapoport said during the first week of the Lexicon case for which he was vilified and taunted, but he is in good company obviously.

Techdirt: This is America ~ Why are we Banning Books?

Stanford Law: Confusion Over Copyright Injunctions and Other Restraints of Speech

Briefs Filed ~ PDF format:

On Behalf of the American Library Association (ALA), the Association of Research Libraries, the Association of College and Research Libraries, The Organization of Transformative Works and the Write Right Fund. filed by Anthony Falzone of Stanford University Law School, Jennifer Urban of the University of California at Berkeley Law School, and Rebecca Tushnet of Georgtown Univerisity Law Center.

( Read an Excerpt ).

The New York Times, The Associated Press, Gannett Newspapers, and the Tribune Company

( Read an Excerpt )

New York Law School and Public Citizen Litigation Group

( Read an Excerpt )

I hope Luna'sCeiling had a great birthday yesterday!

A Bear and a Groundhog Causing Havoc in New Jersey

DNA Evidence on a Remote Island May Reveal the Truth About Earhart's Disappearance

According to one writer at the New York Times, viewers of HBP are questioning all the downing of liquid refreshment by underage teens in the movie:

Harry Potter and the Pint of Liquid Courage

Does Hogwarts have a drinking problem?

As Harry Potter fans crowd movie theaters to catch the latest installment in the blockbuster series, parents may be surprised by the starring role given to alcohol. In scene after scene, the young wizards and their adult professors are seen sipping, gulping and pouring various forms of alcohol to calm their nerves, fortify their courage or comfort their sorrows.

...In one scene, Harry, Ron and Hermione order butterbeers at the pub, and Hermione ends up with a frothy mustache. While it’s never been entirely clear whether butterbeer is alcoholic, it seems to have an effect on the normally uptight Hermione, who acts tipsy walking home as she throws her arms around the boys.

( Read more... )

I found an interview with author Nancy Solon Villaluz. Her book Does Harry Potter Tickle Sleeping Dragons? analyzes the books based on JKR's interviews, comparing them to author's life history and attempting to show how JKR's Christian faith influenced the story. I don't know why that is exactly newsworthy since the author hinted at that herself for years, and anyone can read JKR's interviews on Accio Quote without buying a book about them. But I was more interested in the fact that JKR's attorneys made Villaluz change the original title of her book. According to the article:

Villaluz's book, published in November, did not go unnoticed by Rowling's team of lawyers, she said. The book is available through Amazon.com and at Barnes & Noble.

"I got a cease and desist order from her attorneys," Villaluz said. "They objected to the original title, 'Harry Potter and the Sleeping Dragon.' Once we changed it, they said they approved, and the fact that they've had the book since November and I haven't been sued, would indicate that they're OK with the content." Messages left with the New York lawyer's office for comment weren't returned Thursday.

Isn't that exactly what they did to StarKidPotter and his Musical two weeks ago when they forced them to change the title? I think these attorneys specialize in jerking people around just because they can. Using a line from a book for a title is not against Fair Use and it never has been, but they want to be intimidating to anyone who dares write a book about Harry Potter.

There's a nice series of blog posts about Harry Potter and copyright from
Linda Austin of the St. Louis Examiner:

J. K. Rowling Copyright Suits Go Round and Round

Harry Potter The Lexicon Trial By Fire and Fair Use Implications

The second one is a follow-up after Roger Rapoport set the record straight that the Lexicon is indeed in print and you can buy it . What I liked about the second one is that she lists the books that were not singled out for lawsuits by JKR/WB including HAH, Harry Potter Should Have Died (about which I have more than a passing interest), and In Search of Harry Potter.

Next . . . for the Snape fans . . .  I don't usually link to the WB websites, but the Online shop has a really great T-Shirt that says "Property of the Half-Blood Prince" written in (allegedly) Snape's handwriting from the HBP potions book. And of course it is basic black!

WB Shop ~ Half-Blood Prince Merchandise

Or you can shop elsewhere ~ this page has even more Snape-related clothing items for sale with the Silver Doe, lettering that says "Snape is my Hero," and lots more:

Zazzle.com ~ Snape Gifts

Thanks to Serpentine for tossing me the next story:

Dinosaur named in honor of Harry Potter ~ Dracorex Hogwartsia

Check out the Telegraph UK Gallery of Crop Circles for 2009

And I'll end with a weird video of strange Toy Related Movies - pretty funny, but also too close to the truth!

You may have seen the videos floating around last week called "Harry Potter the Musical."
I saw them HERE. The two musical videos have been taken down now, but you can see the guy who played Harry in a short parody (people are laughing!)called Goin' Back as in "going back to Hogwarts. The soundtrack isn't that great, but it's pretty good. Look fast in case this disappears too.

But what was their evil purpose in creating these videos? They are just fans, and that's not an easy thing to be sometimes.

HP the Musical was written and produced in early 2009 by a bunch of college kids/recent grads through a non-profit student-run theatre company. It was a free show that ran for three nights (five performances) and will never be done again... but luckily we taped it so everyone can get a chance to enjoy its magical silliness. The songs were written by Darren Criss (who plays Harry Potter) and AJ Holmes (who plays piano in the band). The script was written by Matt Lang (who also directed the show), Nick Lang (who assistant directed and made the dragon puppet) and Brian Holden (who was busy working at a real job while the rest of us were making a goofy play).
HP the Musical was a completely non-for-profit unofficial parody show made by Potter-fans for Potter-fans. All of us involved love the books immensely (and strongly encourage everyone to read them if you haven't) and it is with the utmost admiration that we celebrate and poke fun at them with this musical inspired by our very favorite stories.

And now they are having to rename their Musical to avoid . . . *whispers* . . . legal issues. They are even asking fans to send in suggestions for a new name to the YouTube account of the creators StarKidPotter.

I wish someone could explain the difference between these videos and what the Wizard Rock kids do? Not to offend any fans ~ especially sorry to saiphgrl!!! ~ It just doesn't seem right to me that some fans can call themselves "Draco and the Malfoys" and "Harry and the Potters" but these guys can't call their funny video "Harry Potter the Musical." I don't get it.

But I think they got the legal message loud and clear. Stay with this next video all the way to the end because I promise you will enjoy it! The song at the end starts about 3:14 minutes. It is priceless!!!



( Read the Lyrics Under the Cut )

There are some weird and wonderful new images from Tim Burton's new Alice in Wonderland in USA Today.

Sadly there isn't a picture of Alan Rickman as the Caterpillar yet, but still these pics are bizarro and very Burtonish.
They also have a gallery of artwork HERE

MTV Movies Blog has a Retrospective of Alice Movies that is quite enjoyable. This movie is not due out till March 2010.






Snitchseeker has a nice Video Interview With Matt Lewis from a Dutch TV show. He says that hanging onto Trevor the Toad in the first movies was not easy: "You'd have to hold it close to your chest, a bit like a rabbit, but he'd just jump out and they are so strong, and you didn't want to squeeze too tight..." Also from Snitchseeker, there are a couple of clips of the Phelps Twins on the Blue Peter show, and there's a cute clip of the Weasley Joke Shop from HBP.

Total Film has a slideshow of 12 Things They Cut From the Harry Potter Movies.
I was glad to see they included two that we wrote about in the Mugglenet Book - Peeves the Poltergeist and Ron Playing Quidditch. But I was shocked they didn't include the one thing that drives me up the wall - the omission of Lily from Snape's Worst Memory in OotP. That is unforgivable as far as I'm concerned.

Groklaw blog asks the question: Could King Lear have been written under U.S. Copyright Law?

Attorney Julie Hilden takes sides (as she sometimes did during the Lexicon case) on Findlaw, and can't resist mentioning the Lexicon book in regards to The Salinger Lawsuit. She also fails to mention that the Lexicon actually got into print. Why aren't these people reading my blog? *LOL* Well, perhaps she just doesn't want to admit that her own predictions were wrong, so just in case Mr. Colting's book is deemed a parody by the court, Ms. Hilden believes she's found an out-of-court way to punish a rogue author:

"It's worth remembering, finally, that there is another way to protect Salinger: Boycott Colting. Colting may have a right to publish, but he has no right to be read. And while copyright suits always have an uneasy relationship to the First Amendment, well-informed boycotts (that is, ones that truly understand the works their members are boycotting) are perfectly consistent with it – and are themselves an expression of a First-Amendment-protected view."

Yeah, right, because a rich author and his attorneys cannot possibly punish this man enough for his crime. Deja vu? No wonder Rowling comes to mind.

Michael Wolff on Newser.com has an essay about litigious authors, mentioning J. D. Salinger and J. K. Rowling as two of the most prominent:

From I Am Holden Caufield

The best client you could have if you are an intellectual property lawyer is JD Salinger. The second best is JK Rowling. This is because they are both extremely litigious, guarantee great publicity, and because their aura of great virtue, together with the belovedness of their creations, helps them win.

...Salinger and Rowling are examples of the current anomaly in which intellectual property becomes ever more protected in traditional media, and ever more impossible to protect in digital media.

I am writing this in the air so I cannot check if jdsalinger.com or holdencaufiled.com have been taken, but, if they aren’t, I will try to remember to grab them soon after I land. Alternatively, I will try for iamholdencaulfield.com—that could work, nicely. (At some point, we have all dreamed of being Holden Caulfield.)

But on iamholdencaulfield.com I can invite visitors to the site to write their own versions of what might have happened to Holden in the intervening years (perhaps I will link to the British version of the Swedish author’s book). This is fan fiction of the kind that piggybacks off many best-sellers and pop-culture characters with obsessive followers—and Catcher in the Rye, at 22 million copies and counting, has always had its obsessives. It’s probable that such explicit Holden sites and Holden fan fiction already exist—so much for my new pastime. Certainly Harry Potter is as finely documented on the web as Harry and friends could ever be in the reference book that Rowling has blocked from publication.

(Someone should write to him and let him know the Lexicon is in print!)

Rowling and Salinger and their lawyers do not pursue such possible web infringements because it is too penny-ante and time-consuming, and victories on the web tend to do nothing to discourage other infringements on the web. If Salinger and Rowling have deep pockets, they are not deep enough to sue the entire Internet.

The result is that, more and more, two worlds of intellectual property exist. One becomes increasingly a pretend world, or a world of principle but not of meaning. Lawyers and courts and obsessive creators (who inspire obsessive fans) and their heirs can have their way with books and expensive video productions, while a new sort of popular culture, unrestrained and unbothered, is being created...

Links to alot of stuff...




The Bluestocking Guide has a new literary forum for discussing books!!! If you get a chance, mosey over there, grab a latte, and register.

Introducing: Cafe Blue

One of my best friends in the HP world (and just the world) got some kudos yesterday from a blogger who called one of her essays on HPN "Exceptional," and of course I think it is well-deserved praise. This was one of the first essays after DH to point out that JKR's opinionated statements about her books are not the last word.

Reprint of Subtle Science's Essay: JKR as Critic ~ The Man is Nothing.

My friend Serpentine sent me this link about Banned Books and why people objected to them. There are interesting tidbits about each book, such as the fact that Catch-22 has never been banned for it's anti-war message, but for the use of the word "whore."

Book Ramblings: 25 Classic Books that have been banned

Speaking of Classic Books, did you hear about J. D. Salinger, the reclusive author who wrote Catcher in the Rye? He is throwing a lawsuit at someone who wrote an unauthorized sequal called 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye. This time Holden Caufield breaks out of a nursing home and goes wandering, if you can believe that. *eyeroll* Salinger still holds the copyright, and the original is not in the public domain.

J. D. Salinger Sues to Block Sequal

And there's a new book coming out by Canadian Joe Clark:

The Cranky Copyright Book

Now why is Joe so "Cranky"? He feels the real truth about copyright has not been written, and people are being left out of the discussion in favor of a few voices. I think he could actually give DavidEnglish a run for his money in bashing Lawrence Lessig from the Stanford Fair Use project.

What if everything you knew about copyright was wrong?
Well, it isn’t. And I’m not here to tell you it is. But I do want to break you out of the spell you’ve been under since Larry Lessig became your secular god.
There really is a way to look at copyright that is not a form of apologia for dying “content” industries, like the music business and Hollywood studios. This new way also has very little to do with “free culture,” Creative Commons, and the teachings of gurus like Lessig and Michael Geist.
Where do either of those extremes leave the individual creator? The lone writer, the lone musician, the lone photographer, the lone designer? So far, the answer has been “forgotten and shunned.”

Whoa ~ ticked off much, Mr. Clark? Your title seems very appropriate, though. There's more crankiness HERE because people are already saying that Joe Clark doesn't have the credentials to write a book about copyright in the first place. But Clark is involved in a class action suit in Canada as a freelance journalist going up against some corporate news organizations that is supposed to be settled on June 16 - you can read about it HERE. Stay tuned - we'll see if the book lives up to the hype.

My friend   bohemianspirit   showed me a developing story over on the Zenhabits blog.
 
It seems that the blogger, Leo Babauta, had used the phrase "Feel the fear but do it anyway" as the title of a post, and was then served with a Cease and Desist email from the attorneys of a writer who has that phrase trademarked as the title of a book. Unbelievable. He had never heard of her book, nor was he quoting her, but she wanted him to put a trademark symbol beside the words and a disclaimer that she was granting him "permission" under the title.
 
Zenhabits: Feel the Fear and Do It Anyway or The Privatizaion of the English Language

bohemianspirit and I left comments over there. There are alot of comments, pro and con, but mostly in favor of the blogger.


UPDATE: Lots and Lots of bloggers are picking up this story. Techdirt even gave me credit for sending them the story - wow! I didn't expect that.

Techdirt: Using Trademark To 'Privatize The English Language' from the did-you-(R)-that? dept

Jeanne sent in news of yet another overly aggressive trademark claim, this time on a blogger who just so happened to use the phrase "feel the fear and do it anyway" in a blog post.

. . . trademark law is only supposed to apply to use in commerce, and it seems like a stretch to claim the blog post is use in commerce (though, since the blog has ads, the lawyers might disagree). However, the fact that the use of the phrase seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the book again raises questions about how this could possibly be considered confusing or dilutive of the mark. Either way, Barbauta makes a point we've been trying to make here for a long, long time...

More Bloggers Chime In:
Raptitude: Get Up Stand Up
Feel the Fear and Do It Anyway: The Allure of Taking Someone Down
Tararua Library: Feel the Fear and the Lawyers
 
And some great information here:
Andrew Flusche, Attorney: Trademark Dispute Against My Favorite Author

Andrew writes: ...Susan Jeffers holds a federal trademark registration for “FEEL THE FEAR…AND DO IT ANYWAY.” She actually owns several registration for that precise trademark, for different goods and services.

The main trademark registration at question here is probably registration # 3338961 for these specified services: Education services, namely conducting seminars, workshops and training programs both in person and online, and the production of video and television programs in the field of psychology, spirituality, personal development and self improvement.

But the real question is: How did Leo use the trademark? He wrote a blog post that used the phrase “feel the fear and do it anyway” deep within the content.

Here’s the key: Leo didn’t use the phrase as a trademark. Susan Jeffers doesn’t own the exclusive right to “feel the fear…and do it anyway.” She just owns the right to use that phrase as a trademark on certain goods and services.

I also  came across the Ask Harriete blog written by an artist with a series of enlightening posts about copyright. She talks about an artist who liked to work with candy wrappers that were also trademarked. However, when you see the pictures it's obvious that the artwork is not meant to replace the candy or to resell the wrappers as candy wrappers. And that's the thing. Fair Use allows for creativity, even if the materials are trademarked or copyrighted.  The work cannot replace the original, but has to transform it.  It's really not rocket science, even though people seem to find this hard to understand.

Cease and Desist Letters designed to Scare Artists

Understanding Fair Use and Copyright Laws

Finally, more in the long saga of Shepard Fairey and the AP:

Stanford Fair Use Project: AP Issues Statement, Misses Point Entirely

Who has Showtime?          


According to This Story Tracey Ullman is going to do a parody of JKR on her show State of the Union this Sunday night:

This week the chief target of Ms. Ullman's derision is J.K. Rowling, seen visiting the U.S. to terrorize people and organizations who are alleged to have breached her Harry Potter copyright. Among her targets for lawsuits: a burly homeless man charged for impersonating Hagrid.



I love her basic black, white, and gray. Has Ullman also picked up on JKR's similarities to Snape? I love it that's she's British - this isn't just bashing from we lawless Americans.

There's new case law in the realm of the Fair Use Doctrine.

ZDNet: TurnItIn's archiving of student papers is fair use, court says

Some Virginia high school students were upset that copies of school papers were being archived online by the website TurnItIn.com owned by the company iParadigms. The idea is that if the papers are archived there, then teachers can check for plagiarism by comparing new papers to old. This would deter a student from copying their older brother's essay or selling a paper for money to another student.

The objection to the practice is that it wasn't a "transformative use" of the material, and that it might rule out the students being able to get their papers published in the future if the work was submitted to another school/college or journal for publication.

A District Court ruled against the students, and last week an Appeals Court upheld the ruling. This is clearly different from the Lexicon case in that the students had to click an agreement when they uploaded their papers that they wouldn't bring suit against iParadigm. Obviously, JKR/WB had no such agreement with RDR books. And TurnitIn was never going to publish any of the student papers, but just kept them locked in an archive accesible only by password.

But what is interesting to me about this is the language in the Opinion from the Appeals Court about the First Factor because this debunks the whole "Pie Chart of Doom" idea that every word should counted against the Lexicon or it wasn't transformative "enough."  The whole enchilada, or tamale pie so to speak, can be used if needs be according to this new ruling. Now I wish this would be applied to YouTube!

Page 13 of Opinion on the First Factor: Transformation

"Plaintiffs also argue that iParadigms’ use of their works
cannot be transformative because the archiving process does
not add anything to the work — Turnitin merely stores the
work unaltered and in its entirety. This argument is clearly
misguided. The use of a copyrighted work need not alter or
augment the work to be transformative in nature. Rather, it
can be transformative in function or purpose without altering
or actually adding to the original work. See, e.g., Perfect 10,
Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007)
(concluding that Google’s use of copyrighted images in
12 A.V. v. IPARADIGMS, LLC
thumbnail search index was "highly transformative" even
though the images themselves were not altered, in that the use
served a different function than the images served).
iParadigms’ use of plaintiffs’ works had an entirely different
function and purpose than the original works; the fact that
there was no substantive alteration to the works does not preclude
the use from being transformative in nature."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK, I just found more stuff about AP that is mind-boggling.

I found this at  Bigsole Blogspot. It seems now that AP doesn't even want their own affiliates to embed their YouTube news videos, and sent out a cease and desist to a country music radio station here in Tennessee - WTNQ-FM who was posting their content on a website.
The man you see in this video is Christian Grantham a Nashville television producer. His own post about this topic is HERE. 

Erick Schonfeld on Techcrunch writes:

You cannot make this stuff up. Forget for a moment that WTNQ is itself an A.P. affiliate and that the A.P. shouldn’t be harassing its own members. Apparently, nobody told the A.P. executive that the august news organization even has a YouTube channel which the A.P. itself controls, and that someone at the A.P. decided that it is probably a good idea to turn on the video embedding function on so that its videos can spread virally across the Web, along with the ads in the videos.

More in Huffington Post:

News Executives Losing Fight Against Law and Technology
Arianna Huffington: The Debate Over Online News - It's the Consumer, Stupid

AP Apologizes to Tennessee Radio Station!

Thursday afternoon, the Associated Press’ radio station representative called Mr. Strovel to apologize saying that they regretted that their initial email sounded like a literal cease-and-desist. Frank said that he was mortified that the news had spread to big-name blogs and media pundits. He stated that “I wasn’t looking for a fight. I was just incredulous at their ‘logic’ of posting their videos on YouTube with embed codes and then slapping people on the wrist for doing just that.”

The AP released a statement on the matter: “There was a misunderstanding of YouTube usage when the Tennessee radio station was contacted by the Associated Press regarding the AP’s more extensive online video services. No cease and desist letter was drafted or sent by AP to the station at any time. The AP was trying to offer the station a superior service for their needs.”

Mr. Strovel said that AP’s legal department found that they were wrong, and that WTNQ-FM can embed their YouTube videos on their website. Mr. Strovel says “I’m hoping it will blow over now but I do want to have it out there that it was resolved and nobody’s suing anybody (never were) and we and the AP are good.”

Thanks to lunas_ceilingfor the latest on the Associated Press and their attack on bloggers who dare quote from their news articles.

Of course I've written about this several times, including about the AP's lawsuit against Shepard Fairey the Obama Artist. You may also remember in particular the story about Techcrunch Blogger Michael Arrington's fight with the AP when they threatened to charge him by the word for any quotes he used. AP totally backed down from that fight after a huge uproar and boycotting by many bloggers.

Techcrunch Legally Challenges the AP - June 21, 2008

Now for the latest:   AP to Take On Web Piracy and Cut Rates

In a crackdown on Web piracy, the AP board of directors said they were launching a "newspaper industry initiative to protect news content from misappropriation online."

"We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories," AP chairman Dean Singleton said.

The AP statement said the news agency would work with Internet portals and other partners who legally license content "and would pursue legal and legislative actions against those who don't."

AP president Tom Curley said the news agency will develop "a rights management and tracking system" for text content and "new search pages that point users to the latest and most authoritative sources of breaking news."

The AP did not mention any particular websites in its copyright initiative but many US newspapers have openly criticised aggregators such as Google News, which links to their content without sharing advertising revenue.

So here again, we have a big conglomerate calling Fair Use a "misguided legal theory." Sure, OK - have it your way, AP. Meanwhile bloggers are not going to quote any of your stories or link to any newspapers that publish your stories because AP is nearly obsolete so these threats are like desperation. Major newspapers are going under every day in the U.S., which is lost revenue for AP.

As Ars Technica Blog points out:

It's not hard to see why AP is concerned now. According to its annual report (PDF), the combination of subscriber attrition and the lower fees they've had to adopt to keep that dwindling, cash-strapped client base on board "will result in a revenue decline not seen by the company since the Great Depression."

The Internet compounds the problem. The RIAA and MPAA can at least try—however ineffectively—to use copyright law to stanch unauthorized copying of their works. But what AP is selling isn't really the scintillating prose of its writers: it's fast access to the facts of breaking news. Now, though, a writer for any one of a million websites can read an AP story on the site of a subscribing news organization, write up their own paraphrase of the story, and have it posted—and drawing eyeballs from AP subscribers—within an hour of the original's going live.

This is what we are talking about here - a franchise attacking their own fans.

Hey NBC Attorneys ~ Copyright is not a Weapon!

Techdirt Blog: NBC Universal Shuts Down Battlestar Galactica Fan Charity Event In Toronto 

 

( Read more... )

UPDATE:  Thanks to weerdonewho sent me the link to Battlestar Toronto Blogspot with more information about this story:

Torontoist: By Their Command

 ( Read more... )

P2PNet: Universal NBC Battlestar Galactica Disgrace

 "One would expect nothing less than from a company which believes suing its customers and treating them like dirt makes good business sense."

The Fox Theater where this movie was going to be shown is stepping up and allowing ticket holders for the cancelled movie to make donations food to the Daily Bread Food Bank instead of getting a refund on their tickets.

From Andy at the Fox: Simply the write the word "Donate" on the back of your ticket, sign it and return to the location it was purchased.. For each ticket signed in this way, we will donate $7 to the Daily Bread Food Bank. Canned goods can still be dropped off at the Fox and we'll make sure they get there as well.

UPDATE 2 :  Thanks to aredwitchwho sent me the following link about another group that was organizing the same type of Battlestar Galactica Party, only they didn't ask permission. Also notice that they were meeting at a Sports Bar instead of a theater - that may be the main difference.  Plus they were charging just five dollars for food and not for watching the two big screen TVs. Still - there's not much difference between a big screen TV and a movie screen these days.

Battlestar Galactica Frakkin' Finale Party


And here's a very unusual story about a Brooklyn filmmaker who is giving away her product - an "enchanting" animated film - for free, and only making money from the merchandising! Why? Because she hates the copyright runaround. 

You can now watch the documentary "We are Wizards" online in it's entirety on HULU. Fascinating stuff. Can't wait to read the comments on this one! There is some bad language and the F-bomb.

If you haven't heard alot of Wizard Wrock band lyrics, this is a good introduction.  I admit to knowing almost nothing about the phenomenon.

Couple of highlights about copyright - this guy Brad Neely who only knows the story from the movies and wrote his own words to fit with it. I detest his voice - ack! - but the idea is pretty funny. Read more about him HERE. His views on WB are so hilarious - he talks about some guy smoking a cigarette who calls the other "sleeper cells" to warn them when someone is breaking copyright. *LOL* We have our own X-File Cigarette Smoking Man, apparently! I hate to tell him, but WB has no sense of humor about this, so we are laughing as we pass the fan graveyard.

About a third of the way through is the story of a girl who stood up to WB when their attorneys tried to pull her Harry Potter website off-line. She orchestrated a world-wide boycott of the movies and dvds called "Potterwar." Can't say that I remember participating, but it's pretty interesting. Considering what happened to the Lexicon, I don't think she really changed WB's view on copyright.

( Watch the Video under the Cut )
More HP News:

There was a hubbub over the weekend about a British Tabloid saying there had been another preview of HBP and people hated it. Turns out, it was just a rehash of last fall's fatal preview when they showed HBP and people hated it. So no worries, right? Notice they didn't deny that the comments were uniformly negative. WB only debunked the idea that they would be stupid enough to repeat the negative commenting process. *LOL* Smart move, WB!

OK - who can explain this? A new picture has emerged on AcesShowbiz and originally on Scar Potter of two girls called "The Carrow Twins" - Flora and Hestia - and it's supposed to be from the Slug Club scene in HBP. One theory I've seen around is that this is really Crabbe and Goyle in disguise, but why name them after the Carrows, who were brother and sister? Implied incest? What the h-e-double-toothpicks is wrong with WB?

A crowd of 100 or more people gathered to hear our friend Steve Vander Ark speak Sunday at the Tucson Book Festival.

I guess they didn't get the gloomy memo going around about how Fandom is dying out and how the Lexicon isn't going to sell. *snort*

Think again - it's good for everyone in Fandom to see people of all ages gathered together to discuss Harry Potter. That's a positive, even by WB's picky standards. These are the same fans who buy DVDs and movie tickets, ya know?

Lisa Bunker reported on her Facebook that they signed and sold more than 30 copies! She also posted this great picture of the crowded room. Congrats to the Lexicon Authors!

I'm ultra-busy this weekend, but thought I'd pop in to post some stuff concerning JKR's copyright attorney Dale Cendali.





Yes, that's a picture of Dale Cendali changed into a Shepard Fairey Obama picture. Someone had to do it! Of course she is representing the Associated Press against Shepard Fairey - see my previous posts for more.

But here's the scoop - she is also leaving O'Melveny and Meyers, the firm that represented JKR/WB in the Lexicon trial:
Above the Law Blog: Musical Chairs: Dale Cendali from O'Melveny to Kirkland

Bluestocking has posted her own "insider" view of Cendali and Anthony Falzone meeting again so soon in a copyright case:
Bluestocking: Life is Stranger than Fiction ~ So Happy Together

A little more here:
Copyrights and Campaigns Blog: Fairey v AP ~ Harry Potter Redux?

Note the comment there from Roger Rapoport, who has also done an interview with Book Business Magazine

Finally, the HP Lexicon Tour continues, so catch Steve Vander Ark at the University of Arizona on Sunday, March 15 for the Tucson Festival of Books, at 2:30 PM in the Student Union - Catalina Room.

Co-Author Lisa Bunker will also be there for a signing! More Here

So Cute!

A couple of notes about Fair Use.

Anthony Falzone is giving a speech at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. Of course most of you know who he is from the Lexicon case, and now the Obama Poster case. 

From Duke University Libraries Blog

Falzone will talk about these cases and the importance of fair use for scholars and universities in a talk at Duke on MARCH 2, 2009 in the Schiciano Auditorium (Fitzpatrick CIEMAS engineering building) at 5 pm. He will emphasis that fair use is vital in higher education not only to prevent copyright from stifling scholarship but also to support free speech and academic freedom.

His lecture is entitled “From James Joyce To Harry Potter And John Lennon: The Impact Of Fair Use On Scholarship And Free Expression.” A reception will follow.

This event is open to the whole Duke community, but it is especially relevant for scholars and teachers who rely on fair use to create their own scholarship or to distribute scholarly works to students and colleagues, as well as to those interested in the role of free speech in the academy.

...Falzone’s lecture will be repeated at UNC Chapel Hill on March 3 at 5:30 pm in the Wilson Library. These events are jointly sponsored by UNC University Library, Duke University Libraries, UNC’s Center for Media Law and Policy, and Triangle Research Libraries Network.

As soon as there is a transcript of the speech, I will definitely post it here.

Second, there is another brouhaha going on in which a writer named Jason Mittel who had problems with ABC Disney over screen captures of some TV shows. The book is called Television and American Culture. The writer admits that he and the editor made a conscious decision to test Fair Use with the pictures:

Fair Use Held Hostage by ABC-Disney

( Read more... )


So what are the lessons to be learned here? Many media companies want to assert their copyright privileges beyond legal limits - not for petty cash, but for petty power. They aim to establish the precedent that they are in control, regardless of their legal standing. I’d guess the last thing ABC-Disney would want is to sue me or OUP over the frame grabs, as a loss in court would firmly establish the limits of their claims (and an unlikely win would yield little in revenue anyway). What they really want is bully power, the ability to make outsiders assume that rights holders also hold all the power. Unfortunately because the book was already in press, we had to yield - if we were able to, both my editor and I wanted to swap out the cover Lost image to avoid having to pay for the frame grabs that we had the right to use, thereby implying that fair use did not apply.

Mr. Mittel brings up an interesting factoid - he believes that screencaptures inside a book are Fair Use, but that those on a book cover are not.
ABC-Disney demanded payment for a picture from the TV show "Lost," and they also demanded payment for pictures inside the book which were probably Fair Use anyway. Oxford University Press had to pay up or lose revenue from a book that had already been printed. It's blackmail, but the alternative is to go to court where the law is murky and the verdict can go either way. Geez - will this ever end?

Attorneys with the Stanford Fair Use Project were in court today to file a lawsuit against the Associated Press in a preemptive strike because AP was threatening to sue artist Shepard Fairey tomorrow. Once again this is over the use of an AP photograph in the famous Obama pic.

First he pleaded "Not Guilty" to the vandalism charges in Boston:
Boston Herald: Shepard Fairey pleads not guilty to Hub vandalism

Then he appeared in New York District Court:

California Artist Sues AP

Lawyers for Fairey acknowledged that the artist used the photograph. But they said he transformed the literal depiction into a "stunning, abstracted and idealized visual image that creates powerful new meaning and conveys a radically different message."

AP spokesman Paul Colford said the company would have no immediate comment until its lawyers reviewed the lawsuit. The AP had said in a statement last week that it was in discussions with Fairey's attorney and hoped for an amicable solution.

The AP has not taken legal action against Fairley. But the lawsuit noted that the AP had threatened twice to sue Fairey, possibly as early as Tuesday, and that it considered all works that incorporate the imagery of the "Obama Hope" poster to be infringements of its copyrights.

Huff Post: Jonathan Melber: The AP has no case against Shepard Fairey

Take, for example, an influential 2006 decision vindicating Jeff Koons. A fashion photographer named Andrea Blanch sued Koons for using a picture of hers in one of his paintings without paying her. Koons had scanned her photograph, which she had taken for a Gucci ad, and cut and pasted it into a digital composition he then painted. The federal appeals court said that Koons didn't need to pay Blanch to do what he did, because of how thoroughly Koons had transformed the photograph.

Markos himself on Daily Kos: AP still having a hard time with "fair use" concept

How the AP can argue that use of this picture hasn't been transformed by Fairey to offer "new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings" is beyond comprehension. Perhaps they are feeling the pinch of newspapers abandoning their product -- they've been dropped by Dow Jones, Tribune, NY Daily News, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Spokane Spokesman-Review, while newspapers in New York and Ohio have banded together to create competing networks to rid themselves of the AP blight.

Throw in the newspapers that are simply going out of business, and apparently the AP's new business model is to legally intimidate artists basing their artwork at least partly on AP images. Like going after small bloggers for blockquoting material from their news stories, It's morally bankrupt, legally questionable (at best), and a direct assault on the very notion of intellectual property fair use. The day the AP finally shutters its doors can't come soon enough.

People commenting on Lawrence Lessig's blog call it Plagiarism! (How predictable is that?) I will add links as I find them - this is an interesting case about transformative works and Fair Use. I'm sure the legal bloggers are going to knock themselves out on this, plus the art bloggers.