This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 License.
I’ve never been a big fan of the Copyright Clearance Center. This isn’t helping…
I then asked CCC to clarify why an article from CCC was five times the cost of the very same article direct from the publisher. I received a quick response from CCC that said “Unfortunately, the prices that appear in our system are subject to change at the publishers’ discretion. CCC only processes the fees that the publisher provides us.”
I discovered that the publisher—who allegedly sets the price of the permission fee—also was usedIngenta document delivery, as an additional online permissions service. Just as the librarian said, Ingenta only charged $113 (which is still a big number for a five page article). I contacted the journal editor and asked about the difference and he responded immediately via email, “You are right that article is available for $113 from Ingenta. Just download from the Ingenta website.”
The difference in price can only be explained as a huge markup by CCC. Surely processing a 5-page article request cannot cost CCC an additional $400. Think about it. CCC is giving the rights holder $113 and taking the other $390.50. Deep pockets, right?
Read the full article @ District Dispatch.
I just received this from Pinterst. Ignoring the fact that I don’t recall ever pinning a blank 200×200 jpg (as why would I,) but even so, this is a bit ridiculous…
We’re getting in touch to let you know we received a copyright complaint and have removed one (or more) of your Pins. The complaint wasn’t directed against you or your Pin; it was directed against another user’s Pin of the same content from:
While many copyright owners are happy to have their content on Pinterest, we recognize that some do not want their content to appear on Pinterest, or did not receive attribution for the content. When a copyright owner sends us a complete notice per the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), it’s our policy to remove the Pin(s).
Again, this complaint was not directed at you, or anything you did: we just thought you’d like to know why we removed your Pin.
Happy Pinning and thanks again for using Pinterest.
The Pinterest Team
Pinterest DMCA #ID 802124167
Seems I’m not alone: https://wordpress.org/support/topic/copyright-problem
Stephanie Lenz was in her kitchen in rural Pennsylvania, filming her two young children having fun after dinner. As Prince’s song “Let’s Go Crazy” played, her toddler — clad in red pajamas — bounced up and down to the rhythm.
On Monday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Lenz may hold Universal Music Corp. liable for ordering YouTube to take down the video if she can show the company failed to first consider whether the footage amounted to “fair use.” An exception in the copyright law, the fair-use principle allows people to use others’ creative works in criticism, teaching and other limited circumstances.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal judge has ruled that the music publishing company that has been collecting royalties for the song “Happy Birthday To You” does not hold a valid copyright to the popular tune that is sung worldwide.
The Associated Press has more.
And that last statement, that the Copyright Office feels these best practices are “often are arrived at absent consultation with authors and other copyright owners.” Hey Copyright Office – the orphan works don’t have any “authors and other copyright owners” – that’s the whole point. They are orphans. Why the heck would we consult with them? They don’t own the rights, and if they did, it wouldn’t be an orphan work!
Wait, what! I thought this had been settled years ago. Guess not…
The case is now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, where tomorrow morning EFF Legal Director Corynne McSherry will argue that the purpose of the DMCA wasn’t just to give copyright holders an easy and quick way to issue takedowns of content without any consequence.
“[How Music Got Free] has the clear writing and brisk reportorial acumen of a Michael Lewis book.”—Dwight Garner, The New York Times
What happens when an entire generation commits the same crime?
How Music Got Free is a riveting story of obsession, music, crime, and money, featuring visionaries and criminals, moguls and tech-savvy teenagers. It’s about the greatest pirate in history, the most powerful executive in the music business, a revolutionary invention and an illegal website four times the size of the iTunes Music Store.
Journalist Stephen Witt traces the secret history of digital music piracy, from the German audio engineers who invented the mp3, to a North Carolina compact-disc manufacturing plant where factory worker Dell Glover leaked nearly two thousand albums over the course of a decade, to the high-rises of midtown Manhattan where music executive Doug Morris cornered the global market on rap, and, finally, into the darkest recesses of the Internet.
Through these interwoven narratives, Witt has written a thrilling book that depicts the moment in history when ordinary life became forever entwined with the world online — when, suddenly, all the music ever recorded was available for free. In the page-turning tradition of writers like Michael Lewis and Lawrence Wright, Witt’s deeply-reported first book introduces the unforgettable characters—inventors, executives, factory workers, and smugglers—who revolutionized an entire artform, and reveals for the first time the secret underworld of media pirates that transformed our digital lives.
An irresistible never-before-told story of greed, cunning, genius, and deceit, How Music Got Free isn’t just a story of the music industry—it’s a must-read history of the Internet itself.
His most recent example involves the video for a tune called “Kingdom of the Persians,” from his soundtrack for the Seven Kingdoms video game.
According to Lynne, Universal at some point licensed the music to use in the background of an audiobook, which is all fine and good.
Unfortunately, it looks like UMG took the step of putting that audiobook recording into the YouTube Content-ID system. When the copyright bots matched up Lynne’s recording to the background music of the audiobook (because the two are identical), he received an automated copyright notice saying that ads would be placed on his video and that Universal would get the money.
Lynne says he can understand the confusion arising from the automated system. However, when he filed a written dispute with YouTube about the claim, he was ultimately told that UMG had determined they were the rightful holders of the copyright and that the ads will stay.
Read the full story @ Comsumerist.com.