cprompt wrote:
You seem familiar with copyright law. I have considered making Wikipedia a little prettier by finding suitable pictures for some articles. If I find a photograph of, say, a koala, and I want to add it to [[Koala]], is that permissable (if I can attribute the photo)?
My familiarity with copyright law is limited to having a general idea of how the law affects my work as someone who writes primarily for media outside the GNU Public License (GPL). I'm not an attorney, and I don't claim special expertise. If anyone here challenges anything I have written about copyright and fair use, I'll defer to their judgment.
That said, I think there's a difference between a photograph as opposed to text. To begin with, reproducing a photo amounts to reproducing the entire work, not just an excerpt. In the field of music, I believe there are strict rules against reproducing even brief excerpts of someone else's work without express permission. There's been a fair amount of legal wrangling over the practice of "sampling" by Hip Hop artists.
When it comes to trademarks or brands, there are other issues. Disney is very aggressive against anyone who uses the image of Mickey Mouse without their permission, and McDonald's has taken people to court for allegedly infringing their proprietary ownership of the letters "Mc." In one case, they sued a guy in California for calling his organic fast-food restaurant "McDharma's."
Personally, I think some of these restrictions are ridiculous. In fact, I've been toying with the idea of starting an online open source fiction novel, using the Wiki rules that allow anyone to contribute and edit. It would be a murder mystery, set at Disney World and titled "Steal This Mouse." The plot would revolve around a series of murders that appear to be linked to some coverup within the company. The protagonist would be a Disney PR consultant who is torn by the conflict of having to defend the company's reputation while simultaneously trying to help the cops catch the killer. The novel would use Disney-branded characters and symbols and would also comment on the company's obsession with controlling its brands. In addition to discussing issues of censorship and intellectual property, "Steal This Mouse" would itself constitute an act of civil disobedience, daring the company to crack down in the real world and mocking any attempts to do so.
I haven't done it yet, though...just an idea... ;)
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
Personally, I think some of these restrictions are ridiculous. In fact, I've been toying with the idea of starting an online open source fiction novel, using the Wiki rules that allow anyone to contribute and edit. It would be a murder mystery, set at Disney World and titled "Steal This Mouse." The plot would revolve around a series of murders that appear to be linked to some coverup within the company. The protagonist would be a Disney PR consultant who is torn by the conflict of having to defend the company's reputation while simultaneously trying to help the cops catch the killer. The novel would use Disney-branded characters and symbols and would also comment on the company's obsession with controlling its brands. In addition to discussing issues of censorship and intellectual property, "Steal This Mouse" would itself constitute an act of civil disobedience, daring the company to crack down in the real world and mocking any attempts to do so.
I haven't done it yet, though...just an idea... ;)
Great idea! I believe that this is where the "nature of the work" factor in determining fair use comes into play. This has to do with the transformational nature of the derivative work, and how much is changed from the original. Satire has certainly been accepted as fair use, and people in the public eye (including Mickey) are open to satire far more than individuals whose lives are exclusively private. I do think that making it a "murder" mystery may be a little too restrictive on the plot. Something a little more obscure, where the nature of the "crime" itself is a mystery, might be more appropriate to circumstances where creative activity is restricted in the name of creative activity.
"Steal this Mouse" is not an act of civil disobedience, and that's precisely why it's so subversive -- in the same way as Abbie Hoffman's "Steal This Book" There was also the story of the Dadaist artist in the 1930s who created a sculpture that included a ceramic figure, a hammer and a sign saying "break me". He sold the sculpture for big bucks to a major cultural institution, who then put it on display. When a visitor picked up the hammer and broke the ceramic figure he was criminally charged for his act, but defended himself successfully in court because he was only following instructions.
"The Mouse's" reputation would more be far more damaged would be more readily damaged if its actions were seen as un-American. Common murder does not qualify for this award.
Eclecticology