I have been to The Recording Industry v. The People site several times it is a great site for following cases, but not till today had I noticed the wonderful quotes from recent cases. They are running along the left had side of the site, I must have zoned it out as navigation or ads. Ray Berkman, an NY lawyer, that runs the cite has a longer list on his firm blog. Here is one of the best ones:

“The concern of this Court is that in these lawsuits, potentially meritorious legal and factual defenses are not being litigated, and instead, the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants.”
-Hon. S. James Otero
District Judge
Central District of California
March 2, 2007
Elektra v. O’Brien
2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 1555

Thanks Ray.

The new GIRL TALK record Feed The Animals is out under a Creative Commons BY-NC License. The album is a great remix/sampling piece with several creative tracks.  The album is even released using a pay what you want model, /cheer another example of a patron model in action.  If you choose download the album for free GT ask why:

I may donate later
I can’t afford to pay
I don’t really like Girl Talk
I don’t believe in paying for music
I have already purchased this album
I don’t value music made from sampling
I am part of the press, radio, or music industry
Other reasons

I hope GT releases stats on download statics. I picked “I may donate later” because I had never heard GT’s music. I will be back to pay $10 later today.

I strongly recommend downloading a copy before someone shuts down this creative work with a copyright suit. The status of GT’s copyright in the work is very suspect in the US due to its standing as an unauthorized derivative work. Fair use could, although not likely, authorize it but that is a discussion for another post.

Note:  I, Brian Rowe, pledge to donate $20 and 10 hours of legal research/work to the GT legal defense effort if someone tries to kill this album.  A takedown would = censorship of a work that could never exist in a pure permissions culture.  The sheer volume of rights clearance needed for this work would employee a graduating class from Harvard Law for the next 5 years strait and would cost more then $100 Million. Assuming none of the works sampled are orphaned then you might get an authorized version by the time it has lost much of its cultural significance and reference.  When buying music we should be paying artist, not an army of lawyers.

Update: When you pay $13.00 GT send you a copy of the CD too!  Payment made.

Just one more great reason to go to the Nonprofit Technology Converence (NTC) 2009. Sarah and I both attend NTC 2008 in NOLA and had a great time. I ran a panel on Creative Commons and Fair Use which was well attended, although that could be because we gave away Blue Voodoo Beer to people who asked questions. May have to do one on Copyright 101 of Coders this year.

Here are the details on the conference:
The 2009 NTC will take place Sunday, April 26 through Tuesday, April 28 at the San Francisco Hilton.
* Rooms at the Hilton will be $199 at our group rate, which is pretty darn good for San Francisco.
* NTC Registration will cost the same as this year, starting at $349 for Members, $549 for non-members.

Registration for both the NTC and the Hilton opens on December 1st, 2008. Read more at NTEN’s NTC page.

This is a great IP firm ad. They even provide a a decent although limited definition of a Patent Troll:

“Patent Troll” is an individual or company whose sole business is acquiring patents for the purpose of forcing legitimate companies to take licenses or otherwise pay money – usually through threat of litigation. “Troll Busters” is the service mark of Howrey LLP.

Almost makes me want to work for a firm.  I wish more companies and nonprofits would set up ethical standards like this to live by.  It amazes me how many firms feed both sides of the conflict turning the law into an arms races where public interest is under funded.  In the long term mission statement and ethical pledges can go a long way towards building a business reputation and standing in the community.  Maybe we need a troll slaying crest that fellow troll vanquishers can rally around, a good troll slaying seal of approval.

Full Ad: Howrey Troll Busters ad (PDF)

The Associated Press’ recent takedown requests have caused a lot of fear around reusing AP’s content online. This post is designed to give people a few tips for reusing content that do not include accepting the AP’s ludicrous licensing terms.

Best practices for using your rights:
1. Rewrite headlines - Use some creativity in your reuse.  There is no need to copy the usually dry AP headlines directly.  Facts are not copyrightable; use the same facts to build a new headline.
2. Add value - Fair use is about more than just a copyright infringement defense.  If you are adding value with comments or notes your use is more likely to be deemed fair.
3. Only take what is necessary - If the AP publishes a 500 word article and you only need 100 words to make your point, only use 100 words.  Taking more then what is needed lowers your chances of fair use.
4. Transform the work - this is similar to adding value except that it often includes uses that the original author may not have intended. Transforming the use into a public good such as a search function or a public place for discussion takes the work beyond its original scope and may limit direct competition between your use and the original market for the use.
5. Be Critical - Fair use is the First amendment codified in the copyright act. Critical negative speech has much more protection then mere copying or positive commentary. If the AP is unlikely to authorize the use because of negative commentary, the use is more like to be protected.
6. Give credit - The AP will find your use of their work one way or another. Giving credit and linkbacks to the original source will make you look better to a jury. If you come off as hiding your use and plagiarizing it will look much worse.

We are not lawyers and this is not legal advice. Do not trust us with the wellbeing of your dogs, first born children, prized infringement-free websites, etc.

If the AP decides to enter into RIAA style abusive lawsuits with bloggers, the only advice I can give is to join EFF and fight back. Do not let the AP kill the internet! Use your first amendment rights to guarantee rights for future generations.

Another small step towards open access to the law was taken yesterday in Oregon. Oregon has given up its copyright claims in the statutes making them accessible to anyone to reuse and republish.
More from Justica:

Oregon’s Legislative Counsel Committee had a meeting this morning to discuss the copyright claim on the Oregon Revised Statutes. After taking legal counsel from Dexter Johnson, talking with Karl Olson, Carl Malamud, three Oregon citizens and myself, they unanimously voted to not to enforce any copyright claims on the Oregon Revised Statutes. This great!!!

Past Stories:
Oregon is claiming copyright on the law

TIm Hwang, Greg Grossmeire, Frank Tobia, Steren Giannini and I(Brian Rowe) are all blogging the Creative Commons Tech Summit. The blog address is http://techblog.creativecommons.org/

Here is the first post:

Photo by Steren Giannini, licensed CC-BY-3.0

In a new article Copyright and the World’s Most Popular Song, Robert Brauneis of George Washington University persuasively argues that “Happy Birthday to You” is no longer in copyright due to deficiencies in authorship claims, registration renewals and improper notice upon publication:

The claim that “Happy Birthday to You” is still under copyright has three principal weaknesses. Most significantly, there is a good argument that copyright in the song has never been renewed. Under applicable law, the original term of copyright in the song ended in 1963. If no renewal application was timely filed, the song would have entered the public domain at that time. The only renewals filed were for particular arrangements of the song – piano accompaniments and additional lyrics that are not in common use. It is unlikely that these renewals suffice to preserve copyright in the song itself.

Second, the first authorized publication of “Happy Birthday to You,” in 1935, bore a copyright notice that was almost certainly not in the name of the owner of copyright in the song. Under the law in force at the time, publication with notice under the wrong name resulted in forfeiture of copyright protection.

Third, the current putative owner of copyright in “Happy Birthday to You,” the Summy-Birchard Company (a wholly owned subsidiary of Warner/Chappell Music, Inc.), can only claim ownership if it can trace its title back to the author or authors of the song. Yet it appears that the only possible authors to whom it can trace title are Mildred and Patty Hill themselves, and there is scant evidence that either of them wrote the song.

The best part the article though is the practical perspective on one of the major problems with copyright - orphan works:

copyright law needs a doctrine like adverse possession to clear title and protect expectations generated when, as with this song, putative owners do not challenge distribution of unauthorized copies for more than 20 years.

The Committee for Indigent Representation and Civil Legal Equity (CIRCLE), made a presentation on the next steps to securing a right to counsel for civil cases that involve basic Human Rights, in the wake of the Supreme Court of Washington’s ruling on In re the marriage of King stating that the court does not have the authority to create a right to counsel under the Washington State Constitution. The last WSBA ATJ Board meeting I attended was in late October and there was a lot of hope that the King case could be a leading case for creating a limited right to counsel in civil suits where basic Human rights are at stake. Now that the case has resolved unfavorably, CIRCLE and the ATJ Board are looking at alternative ways to bring about these rights.

The three main alternatives discussed were:

1. Launch a pilot project to test the advantages and impact of the right to counsel as part of the State Plan
2. Create a Task Force to actively identify and undertake incremental steps to expand the civil right to counsel. This Task Force would focus on bringing in stake holders, e.g. judges, advocates, public defense leaders, researchers
3. Request to WSBA to form a Task Force to identify options and alternative solutions

Q: What exactly is CIRCLE?

A: CIRCLE is an active committed committee that has staff support from Northwest Justice Project (NJP). The members of the committee are from several different sectors of the legal system. Funding comes from NJP.

Q: Where would the implementation and money come from to make this right to counsel happen?

A: That is the big question and the area where solutions need to be found.

This presentation was made by Northwest Justice Project.