The British Broadcasting Company’s Karen O’Connor told me that the standard-setting BBC accepted Jayanti’s use as acceptable quotation and aired the program last month. Jayanti and other British producers had been emboldened to search for limitations and exceptions in British law by comparison with the U.S. example. The BBC’s decision sets a powerful precedent. Read the whole post>>

Considering many of the filmmakers I heard from at Sheffield Doc/Fest were producing for the BBC, this is indeed great news! The power of banding together to fight for the rights of filmmakers actually does work, so for those who are interested in getting active on this issue, there are some forward thinking folks to connect with after all. Another reason I’m sorry to miss IDFA.

U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, who previously presided over the original Napster litigation, issued a tentative decision in the case on Friday requiring that sales be halted pending a hearing Tuesday. Seattle-based RealNetworks complied, informing customers on its website that, “Due to recent legal action taken by the Hollywood movie studios against us, RealDVD is temporarily unavailable.”

After a three-hour hearing Tuesday, she kept her decision intact so she could have aditional time to learn for sure whether RealDVD circumvents encryption software in violation of the DMCA. RealNetworks claimed that it did not violate any content-scramble system license and that its software, while allowing users to store copies of movies on their hard drives, does not circumvent the content-scramble system on DVDs.

For a less legal explanation, David Kravets likens RealNetwork’s arguments on why they should be allowed to sell the software to a head shop’s claim that its bongs for sale are only for tobacco use in his article Wink Wink: RealNetworks Says Don’t Copy Rented DVDs.

I won’t speculate on the ramifications to consumers except to note that the more ground that is won by corporations on these issues, the fewer options we will have when we finally have an idea of how we want things to run. Other thoughts?

But the thing I’m most excited about is that Hope was able to get the issue of net neutrality into indieWIRE! Brian Newman, CEO of the Tribeca Film Institute, asked me to start writing this blog many moons ago as a way to share information about critical policy and technology issues that impact filmmakers. The idea being that without AIVF, which had long served as an advocacy arm for the film community, we had better at least be talking about the issues. But I’ve felt like I’m a party of one in talking about those issues here. I’ve received few comments or interest from the film community about an issue that is of vital importance: net neutrality.

All signs keep pointing to distribution via the web to be where all the lanes will converge, yet big media companies are quietly working to limit our access to the net, and thus, whatever we want to see. If they control the pipeline into your home, they have the capacity to control what you can watch, or at least make it very expensive. But, don’t take my word for it. Hope writes:

We have never had this sort opportunity before and the great tragedy is that just as we are learning what it means, forces are vying to take it away from us. The principal that all information, all creators, all audiences should be treated equally within the structure that is the Internet is popularly referred to as Net Neutrality. The Telecos, the Cable Companies, and their great ally, the Hollywood Motion Picture Studios and the MPAA are now trying to end that equality. And with it you will lose the opportunity to be TRULY FREE FILMMAKERS. But they are not going to succeed because we are going to band together and organize, we are going to save the Internet, and keep equal access for all. Read Ted Hope’s comments>>

Copyright owners, such as NBC Universal, Warner Bros., and Viacom, were put on notice Wednesday when U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel ruled that they must not order video be removed from Web sites indiscriminately. Before taking action against a clip, copyright owners, must form a “good-faith belief ” that a video is infringing, according to Corynne McSherry, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

And here is the news item from Electronic Frontier Foundation>>

From first hand experience, the estates of both Hendrix and the Doors are some of the trickiest folks to work with in regards to music licensing. Stratospheric licensing fees are almost the secondary problem behind the strict editorial control both estates demand. This enforced hagiography, of course, serves no one: history, filmmakers, or even fans. Read the post>>

The doc is being produced in Canada where there is a current battle over copyright going on. From Copyright for Canadians about the recently re-written copyright bill:

After months of hesitation, Industry Minister Jim Prentice has finally revealed his re-write of Canada’s rules of copyright, Bill C-61. As expected, the bill contains major concessions to the American entertainment industry. Prentice’s bill forbids Canadians from engaging in ordinary practices such as ripping DVDs onto video iPods, unlocking digital phones for use with a competitor’s services, and paves the road for US-style consumer lawsuits for file-sharing. Tell your MP to represent you in the forthcoming copyright debate, and stop Prentice from steamrolling a bill that’s worse than America’s DMCA through Parliament without listening to Canadian voices.

It has been tried and success has been achieved in utilizing fair use for the kind of project that Cohen mentions, but it is only after years of work and high profile filmmakers and lawyers taking a stand using the Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use. It will be interesting to see if the Canadians now also will have to delve into this area.

The FCC decision was not unanimous. 2 out of the 5 commissioners dissented from the recommendations. The dissenting voices believe that the rules set forward are worded vaguely and under the current policy, Comcast might be acting lawfully. Of course, the waters get murky around BitTorrent specifically. The likelihood that folks are sharing copyrighted material is high, and the files are large, so if Comcast wants to discourage unlawful file sharing, BitTorrent is probably a good place to start.

All of the major nonprofits that are concerned with the net neutrality issue are lauding the FCC decision as a big step toward maintaining an open internet, where we have access to everything the net has to offer vs. having our experience guided by the deals and products our service providers want to push to us. I’m personally only cautiously optimistic, as the policy wording does read as vague. That was probably so as to not over-regulate, and as Reed’s article point out, this decision could be Chairman Kevin Martin’s way of drawing a line in the sand. 

Read more from Public Knowledge

Read more from Free Press

Read more from Save the Internet

Commissioner Katherine Oliver of the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting (MOFTB) today announced the adoption of rules governing the issuance of permits in connection with filming activity in New York City. The rules, which were published today in the City Record and will go into effect thirty days after publication on August 13, will require a permit if filmmakers use vehicles or equipment, or, in certain situations, assert exclusive use of City property. Permits will not be required for casual photographers, tourists, credentialed members of the media, or other members of the public who do not use vehicles or equipment or assert exclusive use of City property. The adopted rules outline the practices of the MOFTB, codifying the procedures that have existed since the office was established in 1966. A copy of the rules and an accompanying “Q&A” document explaining them are available below. Read the whole enchilada>>

Like the Documentary Filmmakers’ Fair Use document, this one has areas of general fair use. Some overlap those in the documentary area, but others are particular to the remix/mash-up culture. Here is an overview that is in no way a substitute for sitting your arse down and actually reading this short, insightful and beautifully written document. If you want to utilize fair use, you need to understand what it is and how it is applied. The general areas of fair use covered are:

1. Commenting on or critiquing copyrighted material
2. Using copyrighted material for illustration or example
3. Capturing copyrighted material accidentally or incidentally
4. Reproducing, reposting, or quoting in order to memorialize, preserve, or rescue an experience, an event, or a cultural phenomenon
5. Copying, reposting, and recirculating a work or part of a work for purposes of launching a discussion
6. Quoting in order to recombine elements to make a new work that depends for its meaning on (often unlikely) relationships between the elements

Read Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video>>

John Lennon’s sons and widow, Yoko Ono, on Monday lost a battle to block the use of the song “Imagine” in the documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence allowed.” Via Reuters

Thanks to Ray Privett for the tip that the decision was in!

The proposed change is unfair because since 1978, the law has told creators that there was nothing they needed to do to protect their copyright. Many have relied on that promise. Likewise, the change is unfair to foreign copyright holders, who have little notice of arcane changes in Copyright Office procedures, and who will now find their copyrights vulnerable to willful infringement by Americans. Read the entire piece>>

He knocks the current proposed legislation in favor of a plan of repealing the copyright protection that has increased so dramatically in the past few decades. Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge takes exception with Lessig’s plan.

Larry proposes as an alternative something that Public Knowledge wholeheartedly supports in concept: a 14-year copyright term, followed by a requirement that the copyright holder register the work and pay $1 to receive the full protection of copyright law. We like this idea because it could help to solve the damage to creativity and the public domain associated with longer copyright terms.

In practice however, this proposal has two major problems. First, it actually doesn’t solve the orphan works problem. Under Larry’s plan, works created between 1978 and today would be exempted at first. That’s a lot of orphans, and specifically a lot of web orphans. Even if that exemption were to expire, the 14-year initial copyright window would still give rise to orphan works, since many works cease being exploited after only a couple of years.

The second problem is more fundamental - and that is that right now, the proposal is completely politically infeasible. Regardless of the fact that nothing in Larry’s plan shortens the full term of copyright, the 14-year copyright plus renewal plan will be viewed as an effort to roll back term extensions. And as much as I would like that to happen, it won’t happen in this Congress, or in the next several Congresses to come. Read the entire post>>