Should digital be different?

Filed under: General — Heather Ford @ 11:08 am

Professor Tana Pistorius and I may not see eye to eye on all things (our stance on Hellkom and the Laugh it off case, for example), but I thoroughly enjoyed her inaugural lecture at Unisa on Tuesday night. In her address entitled ‘Digital copyright, exceptions and technological measures: Should digital be different?’ Professor Pistorius spoke about the problems inherent in many of the tools that control our access to copyrighted content on the internet and digital platforms. The main problem is that technological protection measures (like Digital Rights Management) often don’t allow for the exceptions and limitations on copyright that enable us to excercise our fair use/dealing rights. Making copies of a book for personal research purposes, for example, or transporting texts into formats for the blind and differently-abled are actions that we take for granted in the analogue world, but make for huge problems when we want to do the same things on the Net.

Even if one had the technical expertise to circumvent those technologies in order to excercise our fair use/dealing rights, anti-circumvention laws often forbid us from doing so. According to Pistorius, our own Electronic Commerce and Transactions Act prevents unauthorised access to data in much the same way as the much-criticized United States Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Both prevent unauthorised access, ignoring legitimate claims that many people in our society have to access data freely.

But Pistorius said that the WIPO Copyright Treaty has directed countries to devise exceptions and limitations at the national level. Luxembourg, for example has forced publishers to gaurantee that exceptions to copyright controls are ensured in their code.

‘If, according to Lessig, code can be used to restrict access – it can also be used to ensure access,’ said Pistorius.

APC Creative Commons workshop at the Link Centre, 4 March: Schedule

Filed under: General — Heather Ford @ 8:55 am

The schedule for the Creative Commons South Africa workshop held at the Link Centre in Johannesburg is now available. It’s going to be an exciting Friday, so be sure to join us if you’re interested in getting involved!

APC ccSA WORKSHOP at the Link Centre, University of the Witwatersrand, Public and Development Management Campus, Parktown
09.30 Welcome – Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director of the Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
09.45 – 10.15 Creative Commons in South Africa – Heather Ford
10.15 – 10.30 ‘Why is Creative Commons important for South Africa?’ Professor Coenraad Visser
10.30 – 11.30 ‘The Draft South African Creative Commons Licence’ Andrew Rens
11.30 – 11.45 Tea break
11.45 – 12.30 Feedback
12.30 – 13.15 Lunch
13.15 – 14.15

Focus areas:
• Performers’ Protection
• Moral rights of authors
• Subsequent commercial republishing
• Music Rights agencies

14.15 – 15.00 Future directions for Creative Commons in Africa

The Incredible Hulk Faces His Greatest Enemy . . . A Video-Game Company!?!

Filed under: General — Heather Ford @ 11:05 am

Another great weblog entry from our ‘correspondent’ in the United States, Andrew Jankowich.

The Marvel comic book company, well-known for its characters like Spider-Man, the Hulk and the X-Men, has sued NCSoft Corp. and Cryptic Studios, Inc. the companies that designed and run the City of Heroes video game. You can read Marvel’s legal complaint here.

City of Heroes is a Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (MMORPG). MMORPGs are something like sophisticated online versions of Dungeons and Dragons where players can create their own characters and interact with other players online. Players help to create the course of the game and the game worlds persist and change even while a player isn’t participating. MMORPGs are therefore a good deal more sophisticated than traditional video games – so much so that games like this are sometimes referred to as ‘virtual worlds’.

The problem with City of Heroes, according to Marvel, is that when players are creating their characters the instructions and prompts lead them to create characters that infringe Marvel’s copyright. For example, in their complaint, Marvel alleges that using the software a player “can just as easily create an infringing clone of The Incredible Hulk by choosing the ‘Science’ origin, the ‘Tanker’ archetype, and the ‘huge,’ ‘muscular,’ ‘indestructible’ and ‘powerful’ characteristics. All that is left is to paint the character green, give him short pants that reflect his enormous change in size (a defining characteristic of The Incredible Hulk) and assign him a name.”

Some commentators have noted that Marvel is suing NCSoft for contributory infringement. In other words, Marvel claims it is the players who are doing the actual infringement. Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation thinks this shows that companies are trying to carve out control over people’s imaginations: “Why are everyday expressive activities in the real world – such as joining some neighborhood kids in the backyard for a bit of superhero role playing – suddenly exposed to the depredations of copyright and trademark lawyers when they move online?” (For the full text of von Lohmann’s essay go here).

One difference is money. Although City of Heroes is being sued for contributing to copyright infringement it is the fact that the game itself makes money (you pay US $39.99 for the software to get started and then a monthly subscription charge of US $11.95 – US $14.95 for as long as you play the game) that drew Marvel’s attention. City of Heroes isn’t just about ‘playing in the backyard’ – City of Heroes is charging monthly fees for the right to ‘pretend’ in their neighborhood. And Marvel, whose fortunes have swung wildly, is on something of a roll in turning their characters into movies – with Spiderman and the X-Men notable successes.

Von Lohmann suggests that this case has some pretty scary implications. “Those who want to appropriate characters and objects from their favorite movies, comics, games or television shows,” he says, ‘Will be limited to virtual worlds either operated or licensed by the corporations that own those cultural objects. If they want to mix and match characters and genres, they will be hunted down and deleted, either by the rights holders themselves or by MMO operators deputized by fear of secondary liability. In essence, the open-ended universe of MMOs would be reduced to a limited set of tightly controlled theme parks. All this, thanks to the censorial side of copyright and trademark law.”

But this isn’t too different from the current state of affairs where you can’t make and sell your own Spiderman vs. Batman movie. What this means is that the idea of a ‘metaverse’, a universal MMORPG, where anyone might participate in one giant environment rather than in separate games might never develop. It looks like a universe of separate MMORPGs rather than a metaverse is the likely result.

Copying in the comic book genre is not new. Marvel’s character, Mr. Fantastic of the Fantastic Four, for example, is a super-stretchy superhero just like DC Comic’s much older character, Plastic Man. And much like Elastigirl in the excellent recent superhero cartoon movie, The Incredibles. And of course the Hulk is a literary descendant of Dr. Jekyll’s destructive alter ego, Mr. Hyde. So the question of how similar superheroes can be might be a more complicated one than Marvel anticipates. Perhaps Marvel will back off when they recognize that the key to an original superhero can depend on only a few minor details.

Can Gone with the Wind Defeat Australia’s Copyright Laws?

Filed under: General — Heather Ford @ 10:35 am

Andrew writes to Creative Commons South Africa from America about a couple of weird and interesting copyright cases have popped up in recent weeks.

Gone with the Wind is best-known as a famous movie from Hollywood’s golden years. (It was released in the same year as classics like The Wizard of Oz, Stagecoach, and Wuthering Heights.) Gone with the Wind is the story of Scarlett O’Hara, a Southern plantation heiress and her struggles during the American Civil War. But Gone with the Wind first presented its somewhat rosy view of the pre-Civil War southern U.S. as a book. Written by Margaret Mitchell, her heirs, the Mitchell estate, take a pretty strict line with what the estate sees as a violation of Mitchell’s copyright. In 2001, the Mitchell estate challenged Alice Randall’s right to publish a parody of Gone with the Wind called ‘The Wind Done Gone‘, told from a slave’s point of view. They lost and the suit served primarily to publicize Randall’s book.

Now the Mitchell estate has a new problem: What to do when copyrights expire at different times in different countries? In Australia, Gone with the Wind’s copyright expired in 1999 while it won’t expire in the U.S. for decades. The expiration of the Aussie copyright allowed Project Gutenberg, a nonprofit internet publisher of public-domain works to have its Australian affiliate publish a public domain copy of the book on the internet. The problem for the Mitchell estate was that this public domain copy was also inevitably available to Internet users in other countries, including the U.S., where the book’s copyright is still valid. The result: although the Mitchell estate temporarily succeeded in getting Project Gutenberg Australia to take down their internet version of the book, the book is now back up and available. The problem with keeping the work unavailable is that it would deprive Australians of the opportunity to download public domain copies of the book from the internet as they are legally entitled to do. In effect, the country with the longest copyright protection period would be able to maintain that term on other countries’ internet sites as well, by claiming that global access would destroy their property.

Expect future disputes along these lines.

Some rights reserved: Copyright contracts that give content away?

Filed under: Press — Heather Ford @ 1:57 pm

Article by Andrew Rens and Heather Ford, published in De Rebus, December 2004 edition (’news’ section) about the Creative Commons South Africa licences.

A living, breathing, cc-ing Open Café in Potchefstroom!

Filed under: Featured Content — Heather Ford @ 1:06 pm

gilOpenCafe is a non-profit Internet café in Potchefstroom. The goal of OpenCafe is to develop an holistic approach to open source. Not only do OpenCafé staff develop and support open source software applications to sustain their venture, they also train teachers, students, artists in the community to use freely available, high quality content like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive. Says Anna Dani, who founded the OpenCafe with Eugene Coetzee, ‘We have launched the OpenCafe project to introduce people to the open source concept as a whole. We don’t focus solely on software – our aim is to create a successful model of a truly open (source) community that encourages people to share information and skills in various ways.’

gil
OpenCafe is a great supporter of Creative Commons South Africa. Part of their extensive training program involves teaching visitors how to publish their work online and under the appropriate licence. Their online “commons” page welcomes users with a friendly invite to the Café:

‘This is the online version of the “commons” – come & visit our cafe – and see for yourself in real life how our commons look – come & spend an afternoon with us – make yourself coffee/tea, read magazines, watch multimedia resources, or just sit on the stoep and watch everyone else using the open source resources we already have here!’

OpenCafe’s ArtMarketOnline project provides a platform for local artists and creators to showcase their work on a free, personalized webpage. There is also some great information about licencing for the artists, as well as a calendar of art events in the Potchefstroom area, and a free classifieds page.

The OpenCafe exudes an amazing sense of community in their business model and in their communications – so take Anna’s advice and go and see for yourself!

Invitation to APC workshop on ccSA: 4 March

Filed under: Announcements — Heather Ford @ 5:13 pm

The APC, in collaboration with the Link Centre, is running a workshop to talk about the South African cc licence (first draft by Andrew Rens, our legal lead, here), in preparation for our launch at the end of May. It would be great if we could all put our minds together on this one, so make sure you come to the LINK Centre for our one-day pow-wow on making South Africa the first country in Africa to adapt the licences.

When: 4 March, 2005: 9.30am – 3pm

Where: LINK Centre, Mwalimu House, University of the Witwatersrand, Public and
Development Management Campus, 2 St David’s Place, Parktown (click on ‘contact’ on the link website here for a map)

Who: Intellectual Property lawyers, broadcasters, the media and policy experts in South Africa.

RSVP to ford.h at pdm.wits.ac.za

Legal code: scope of licence

Filed under: Legal licences — andrew @ 8:33 am

THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE (”CCPL” OR “LICENSE”). THE WORK IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT, PERFOMERS PROTECTIONAND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS PROHIBITED.

In South Africa performances are protected by separate legislation, the Performers’ Protection Act 11 of 1967. This Act was amended by the Performers’ Protection Amendment Act, 2002 largely to harmonise it with World Trade Organisation commitments.

The Performers Protection Act does not refer to ‘works’ or’ copies’ but to ‘fixations’. Since it creates a separate category of rights it is suggested that it should be specifically referred to it in the licence. Although it could be argued that the phrase “other applicable law” includes Performers Protection might be too narrowly construed.

Legal Code: Heading and Disclaimer

Filed under: General, Legal licences — andrew @ 5:54 am

The Draft South African Legal Code is headed:

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Draft ZA 2.0

Although a South African 1.0 licence has not been released, the legal code for the first licence is based on the 2.0 version of the Universal Licenceand its Legal Code . To show that we have followed the 2.0 version of the universal licence we suggest using 2.0 as the designation for the licence.

The legal code contains a disclaimer of liability.

CREATIVE COMMONS CORPORATION IS NOT A LAW FIRM AND DOES NOT PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES. DISTRIBUTION OF THIS LICENSE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. CREATIVE COMMONS PROVIDES THIS INFORMATION ON AN “AS-IS” BASIS. CREATIVE COMMONS MAKES NO WARRANTIES REGARDING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, AND DISCLAIMS LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ITS USE.

The phrase “as is” is not generally used in South African law so it is suggested that the phrase “CREATIVE COMMONS PROVIDES THIS INFORMATION ON AN “AS-IS” BASIS” that appears in the universal legal licence be omitted from the South African legal code.

Do the words “CREATIVE COMMONS” suffeciently identify Creative Commons South Africa?

Open Source Drafting

Filed under: General, Legal licences — andrew @ 5:14 am

Lawyers especially common law lawyers have a great respect for precedent and not only do courts follow precedent but lawyers have traditionally used precedents in drafting legal documents. These tend to get handed down from one lawyer to another, being modified all the while, and tested in courts from time to time.

Thus most legal documents are the result of the combined effort and experience of many lawyers. So in a sense, lawyers have always been engaged in open source drafting. This plog or project log just makes the whole process more explicit. Please help to make South African Creative Commons licence reflect the combined ingenuity and experience of South African copyright lawyers and our creative community.

The Open Law Project at Harvard’s Berkman Centre for Internet and Society is engaged in a similar process of collaborative drafting but for purposes of litigation.

I’ll be publishing the various portions of the Draft South African Creative Commons Licence on this log, so that we can take each piece apart and see how works. Since I expect many commentators will be lawyers we’ll probably argue about it a bit.

Older Posts »