Recommendation 2: Enable educational provisions to cover distance learning and interactive whiteboards

Recommendation 12: Create an exception to copyright for caricature, parody or pastiche.

There are several aspects of this review that I’ll be commenting on over the coming weeks and months (here and at opencontentlawyer), but I want to concentrate on the last recommendation:

Recommendation 12: Create an exception to copyright for caricature, parody or pastiche.

Lord Triesman, as a well-known political figure, joked that the UK doesn’t suffer any shortage of caricature and pastiche. This sentiment echoes the language of the current review:

Parody, in particular, continues to flourish under the current system. If this is the case, does anything need to change?

The current review of a proposed parody exception goes on to discuss the issue at greater depth. However at the general level, the question for many I believe is whether an exception is necessary given that parody (which includes caricature and pastiche within the context of the review) is prevalent within the UK.

It is however important to put the current state of parody in the context of how copyright gets enforced.

As Westminster, the European Union, and the UK IPO implement various ways to increase IP enforcement and encourage parties to resort to filing a court action, this can clearly put parody in jeopardy. The costs of bringing an action, the difficulties involved, the threat of having to pay the other side’s legal fees, and the threat of establishing disfavourable case law by bringing an action all act as a disincentive to litigate and thus give parodists freer reign in the UK. Contrast this with the United States, where statutory damages — pre-established damages awards for copyright infringement — can make claims much easier to bring and thus have a greater impact on parody. Making it easier to bring an action can have consequences — including making it harder for parodists and thus crushing worthy expression here in the UK.

I would submit to the review that they should keep in mind the balance between enforcement and free expression when considering whether to introduce a parody exception formally into the UK. Making a broad exception to copyright for parody will ensure that this culture flourishes and that the rights to free expression are preserved.

About the Gowers Review

The Gowers Review was commissioned by the Treasury in 2005 to review intellectual property in the UK. Andrew Gowers, former editor of the FT, led the review which was published in December of 2006. This review made a number of recommendations, some of which have already been implemented. The current review by the UK IPO examines implementing some of the proposed exceptions to copyright.

http://opendatacommons.org

As speed geeking is, well, geeky, we should consult the ultimate web geek source Wikipedia for a definition:

A large room is selected as the speed geeking venue. All the presenters are arranged in a large circle along the edge of the room. The remaining members of the audience stand at the center of the room. Ideally there are about 6-7 audience members for each presenter. One person acts as the facilitator.

The facilitator rings a bell to start proceedings. Once proceedings start, the audience splits up into groups and each group goes to one of the presenters. Presenters have a short duration, usually 5 minutes, to give their presentation and answer questions. At the end of the five minutes, the facilitator rings a bell. At this point, each group moves over to the presenter to their right and the timer starts once more. The session ends when every group has attended all the presentations.

One of the presentations that I would like to see — either at a speed geek for open access to law or for another event — is someone describing Open Journal Systems. OJS is an open source software platform for journals created and maintained by the Public Knowledge Project.

It isn’t just a website for your journal:

OJS Features

1. OJS is installed locally and locally controlled.
2. Editors configure requirements, sections, review process, etc.
3. Online submission and management of all content.
4. Subscription module with delayed open access options.
5. Comprehensive indexing of content part of global system.
6. Reading Tools for content, based on field and editors’ choice.
7. Email notification and commenting ability for readers.
8. Complete context-sensitive online Help support.

This is the kind of think that can greatly improve open access to law in the UK. There are many open access law journals that use home grown software and spend time reinventing the wheel. This kind of effort can be saved and spent where it matters — high quality content available under an open access policy.

I’d also like to see speed geek booths on:

• Open content licensing — making sure that the journal doesn’t maintain restrictive copyright policies.
• User reps — people from outwith the legal profession and the academe that want access to law articles.
• Open access — someone to discuss the benefits of open access policies.
• Roll your own open access — someone discussing self archiving and sites like SSRN.
• Successful open access journals — success stories from current open access UK law journals.

I’m sure that you can think of some others. Interested? Leave a comment or contact me.

The JISC IPR Consultancy was started in October 2005 to provide expert advice to JISC in the area of intellectual property rights. IPR Consultants Naomi Korn and Charles Oppenheim talked to Sara Hassen, JISC Communications Manager, in a Skype interview about the interesting challenges we will face related to IPR in the education sector associated with the use of Web 2.0 & Social Software, and issues we need to consider and address.

[Link]

R. Tushnet, “Domain and Forum: Public Space, Public Freedom”, 30 Colum. J.L. & Arts 597 (2007). [Link]

-and-

R. Tushnet, “Payment in Credit: Copyright law and subcultural creativity”, 70-SPG Law & Contemp. Probs. 135 (2007). [Link]

Also, I’ve been informed by SCRIPT-ed tech guru, blogger, and confessed gamer Andres Guadamuz that the Otaku paper is the second most downloaded / accessed article in SCRIPT-ed, with my good friend Nicolas Jondet’s paper on France, DADVSI, and DRM being the first (available here).

Paper cite and link:

Of Otaku and Fansubs: A Critical Look at Anime Online in Light of Current Issues in Copyright Law

A look at several widely available “waiver and release” forms reveals a concern over the risks inherent in the tattoo process—releases for allergic reactions, scarring, color variations, misspellings, and the like—in an effort to reduce medical and other claims from dissatisfied customers. Several releases do include language allowing artists to use photographs of the tattoo, aimed most likely at eliminating “invasion of privacy” claims. Courts could read these photograph releases as assigning limited license to the artist or tattoo parlor in the event that the client brings in original artwork or otherwise has a copyright interest in the final tattoo.

Artists could, of course, potentially face liability for copyright infringement for tattooing copyrighted materials without permission. A client could even face secondary (contributory) liability simply for picking out a copyrighted design and directing an artist to tattoo the image on her body. Tattoo parlor owners could face secondary (vicarious) liability for the work of their artists, regardless of employee or independent contractor classification, based on their financial interest in the artist’s activities.

Not addressing copyright can be expensive, as the law not only provides for actual damages and profits (which might be slight in most cases), but also for statutory damages ranging $200 to $150,000 per infringement and awards of attorney fees (in the United States). For any works of joint authorship between the client and the tattoo artist, artists could be held liable for an accounting of profits for use of the image. Reed apparently asks for this in his complaint against Rasheed Wallace, and one could easily imagine the opposite happening for a successful tattoo design brought in by a client that was turned into commercial flash.

Flash – tattoo flash are the readymade designs for a tattoo. I think that the copyright issues here are relatively straightforward. There has even been copyright cases over tattoo flash or temporary tattoos — Gonzales v. Kid Zone, Ltd., 2001 WL 930791 (N.D.Ill. 15 August 2001); Owens v. Ink Wizard Tattoos, 533 S.E.2d 722 (Georgia 2000); and S.T.R. Industries, Inc. v. Palmer Industries, Inc., 1999 WL 258455 (N.D.Ill. 9 April 1999).

Full story from the Mirror.

Someone mentioned after the conference that a gentleman was asked by Disney to remove some Disney-related ink after visiting the theme park. I haven’t found a link to the story yet, but the Disney Tattoo Guy has tons of Disney related ink. His site is at http://www.disneytattooguy.com/