The College Art Association (CCA) completed its initial phase in January 2014 with the publication of Copyright, Permissions, and Fair Use among Visual Artists and the Academic and Museum Visual Arts Communities: An Issues Report. The final Code of Best Practices was published on February 9, 2015.
March 27, 2015, 1:00-2:00 PM (EDT): An Introduction to CAA’s Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for the Visual Arts
April 10, 2015, 1:00-2:00 PM (EDT): Fair Use in Scholarship
May 15, 2015, 1:00-2:00 PM (EDT): Fair Use in Teaching and Art Practice
May 29, 2015, 1:00-2:00 PM (EDT): Fair Use in Museums and Archives
June 5, 2015, 1:00-2:00 PM (EDT): Fair Use in the Visual Arts: A Review
To register - http://www.collegeart.org/fair-use/webinar-series
The Code addresses the following five questions:
From Bustillos, Maria (3/17/2015) The GNU Manifesto Turns Thirty. The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-gnu-manifesto-turns-thirty?cid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en
Richard Stallman, who published the GNU Manifesto in March of 1985, has been known to say, “with software, either the users control the program, or the program controls the users.”
Unix, one of the earliest computer-operating systems, was developed in the late nineteen-sixties, by A.T. & T. Bell Laboratories and various universities around the world. It was a highly collaborative process, in which researchers and students built and shared their code in an atmosphere of trust, collegiality, excitement and discovery fostered by an agreement that A.T. & T. representatives had signed, in 1956, with the Department of Justice, circumscribing the company’s commercial activities in exchange for an end to antitrust proceedings.
Society has developed other services to share a ride, lease space in your home, among others. The nature of work/life increases also the demand to trust one another. See the latest Edelman Trust Barometer - http://www.edelman.com/insights/intellectual-property/2015-edelman-trust-barometer
Stallman was uneasy over the increasing encroachment of proprietary software. He’d seen evidence of it in his own lab, which valued intellectual curiosity, esprit de corps, and fun over profit. In late 1983, he posted to two newsgroup discussion forums an idea to create an alternative to Unix.
Stallman, in the GNU Manifesto, published in the March, 1985, issue of Dr. Dobb’s Journal of Software Tools. The nearly forty-five-hundred-word text called for collaborators to help build a freely shareable Unix-like operating system, and set forth an innovative method to insure its legal protection.
The GNU Manifesto is a recursive acronym, spelling out “GNU’s Not Unix.”
If commercial entities were going to own the methods and technologies that controlled computers, then computer users would inevitably become beholden to those entities. This has come to pass, and in spades. Most computer users have become dependent on proprietary code provided by companies like Apple, Facebook, and Google, the use of which comes with conditions we may not condone or even know about, and can’t control; we have forfeited the freedom to adapt such code according to our needs, preferences, and personal ethics. Thus, the “free” in “free software” refers to freedom, not cost—a distinction that is key to understanding.
A home system running exclusively free software today might include, in addition to a GNU/Linux operating system, LibreOffice instead of Microsoft Office, GIMP rather than Photoshop, and the IceCat browser in place of Chrome or Internet Explorer. There is a free version of nearly every software program in common use; more than eight thousand are currently listed in the Free Software Foundation’s (http://www.fsf.org) program directory. While few such programs are as popular as their proprietary counterparts, interest in free software has increased alongside rising concerns about privacy, as well as about corporate and governmental control over media, culture, and commerce.
Perhaps the most significant innovation in the GNU Manifesto is a method of rights protection known as “copyleft,” which gave rise to GNU GPL software licenses, the first of which was issued in 1989. Under a GPL license, you are free to use, study, modify, and share a software program according to your own wishes, provided (and this is the important part) that any works you make from it are shared on the same terms; you can’t conceal any of it. The idea borrows from existing copyright law, but grants protection to users, rather than authors.
Copyleft licenses differ from other software licenses. Permissive licenses permit the future commercial exploitation of users, whose right to copy and share a software work can be restricted by those who make use of it later. (GPL licenses do allow developers to profit from their work; the publishing platform WordPress, for example, is licensed under GPL, and has a for-profit arm.)
In 1994, Netscape released Navigator, a Web browser whose rapid adoption demonstrated the coming economic importance of the Internet. The pitch of the surrounding debates rose accordingly. In 1998, as the Web began to explode, Netscape, which was rapidly losing market share to Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser, decided to release the source code for Navigator, hoping thereby to capitalize on innovations drawn from the broader developer community. The newly formed Open Source Initiative held a conference in response to this move, calling on developers to “dump the moralizing and confrontational attitude that had been associated with ‘free software’ in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape.”
Open-source software, then, would allow users to look at the code and modify it, as with free software, but imposed no restrictions on the terms upon which it could subsequently be shared. In effect, the open-source movement amounted to a call for companies to gather, make private, and “monetize,” in future, the efforts of all available contributors—putatively in the name of progress and standardization. “The people who started using the term ‘open source’ wanted to suck up to business. They said so!” Stallman told me, adding that companies that tout open-source principles often “seduce our community to release free software without copyleft.”
The entrepreneur and venture capitalist Tim O’Reilly, who is today the most visible representative of the open-source movement, told me that he considers an open-source license to be freer than a GPL one, because it imposes no restrictions on those who seek to make use of code. “I think the BSD-style licenses are both more effective at creating more value in the world, and a better morality,” he said. “Richard’s sort of like an Old Testament prophet, with lots of ‘Thou shalt not,’ and BSD is a more Christian approach, saying, ‘Love your neighbor; make value for the world. Let the people do with it what they will!’ ”
Common goal is to further develop trust!
The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade pact reached an agreement on the terms for copyrights, which will be at least 70 years either after the release of films or music or the death of the author of the book.
While the law would not change much in the United States, which is pushing for the change, other nations, including Canada, would have to extend their copyright terms 20 years. This would, among other things, put the original James Bond books back under copyright in the country.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld a $540,000 judgment against the United States Postal Service over the issuance of a 2003 stamp featuring the National Korean War Memorial. The Postal Service was sued by sculptor Frank Gaylord, who created the sculpture “The Columns”, which features 19 soldiers walking, for the Korean War Memorial. The photo the Postal Service chose was taken by an amateur photographer, who was paid $1,5000 for his image. Originally the Federal Claims Court awarded Gaylord just $5,000 but that decision was remanded by the Federal Circuit, who ordered the court to determine a fair market value for a license.
The court eventually settled upon a $540,000 value, or approximately 10% of the revenue brought in by the stamp. The U.S. government appealed and now the appeals court at the Federal Circuit has upheld the amount, noting the The Columns is by far the most recognized memorial for the Korean War and was extremely valuable in the sale of the stamp.
Andrew Dalton of the Associated Press provides an interesting collection of copyright issues related to music in this short piece Blurred Lines has precedents from Beatles to Vanilla Ice
Museums are coming around to viewing their collections as not their collections. Artists have challenged the rights to copy, parody, review, critique by using their visual voices. Time (March 9, 2015) highlighted the work of Kehinde Wiley and revamped Old Masters works. From paintings selected by volunteered subjects dating from mid 1600's to mid 1800, elements were reproduced from an Old Master with modifications for current day subjects. The show, currently at the Brooklyn Museum til May, moves to Fort Worth, Seattle and Richmond. Museums are opening their collections to open access and encouraging to see what kind of new creative works will stem from this.
MIT designed the quiz to help students better understand the core concepts of copyright law’s “fair use” provision, the flexible — but notably ambiguous — exception under US copyright law. It makes it possible to use others’ copyrighted works without permission. The aim of the quiz is to put information about fair use in the hands of students and empower them to make informed decisions about using copyrighted works.
Copyright, Permissions, and Fair Use among Visual Artists and the Academic and Museum Visual Arts Communities: An Issues Report. see http://www.collegeart.org/fair-use. Provides a set of principles addressing best practices in the fair use of copyrighted materials based on a consensus of opinion developed through discussions with visual-arts professionals. It will be a vital resource for everyone working in the field, including artists, art historians, museum professionals, and editors.