Copyright 2.0 Exhibit
Biddle recently debuted a new exhibit for Spring and Summer 2007, "Copyright 2.0," which is currently on display in the reference area of the library.
BiddleblogIntellectual Property Law ArchivesApril 4, 2007Copyright 2.0 ExhibitBiddle recently debuted a new exhibit for Spring and Summer 2007, "Copyright 2.0," which is currently on display in the reference area of the library. April 5, 2007More on CopyrightAs a previous post about a new exhibit at Biddle suggested, copyright is an area of the law in which Biddle librarians and the larger Penn Law community share a special interest. April 23, 2007Intellectual Property Symposium at DrexelLast Friday, when most of you were probably studying for or taking exams, Drexel University Libraries sponsored a symposium on Intellectual Property Rights. Ed Greenlee, Bill Draper, Pat Callahan, and I were in attendance. Continue reading "Intellectual Property Symposium at Drexel" » August 16, 2007Traditional Knowledge Versus Intellectual PropertyA recent program on Public Television featured an interesting story about the conflict between intellectual property rights and traditional knowledge. Continue reading "Traditional Knowledge Versus Intellectual Property" » September 24, 2007One BeatThis video discusses the history of the "Amen break," widely considered a foundational beat of hip hop and electronica, and how it serves as a metaphor for debates surrounding copyright of music not strictly available in the public domain. It's a long video, so if you're curious, the copyright analysis starts around the 10 minute mark. (More after the jump.) November 20, 2007Get Your Case Law, Free of ChargeIn 2008, you're likely see a lot more case law available free of charge on the web. (More after the jump.) January 17, 2008Copyright Debate on the New York Times SiteWelcome back! There's a nice debate online this week between a Columbia Law School professor and an entertainment industry executive regarding copyright and privacy. (More after the jump.) Continue reading "Copyright Debate on the New York Times Site" » April 11, 2008Section 108 Study Group's Recommendations ReleasedLast week, the Copyright Office's Section 108 Study Group released a report that suggests changes in current copyright law for the benefit of librarians and their patrons. (More after the jump.) Continue reading "Section 108 Study Group's Recommendations Released" » October 21, 2008How we celebrated Open Access Day Did you know that October 14 was Open Access Day? No? That's ok, because Ed Greenlee and I didn't either until we were asked by Shawn Martin, Head of Scholarly Communication at Van Pelt library, to commemorate the event by giving a talk to the librarians on examples of Open Access in legal research and scholarship. While the presentation was geared towards our library colleagues, we provided links to some important legal research tools that are available free of charge on the Internet. They include:Cornell University's Legal Information Institute. The Legal Information Institute is a web portal to a large number of free web sites containing primary legal materials: case opinions, statutes, and administrative materials. THOMAS. The THOMAS site is maintained by the Federal Government and offers a wide range of legislative materials, from various versions of bills, to selected hearing transcripts and legislative history summaries along with hot links to key documents. The Directory of Open Access Law Journals. This site provides a list of institutions participating in the Open Access Law Program.As our presentation demonstrated, there are a great many resources for legal research out there that aren't named Westlaw or Lexis-Nexis. And they are doing some innovative things in the way that legal information is presented online. None of this would be possible without the Open Access movement's committment to unfettered access to, and use of, information resources. March 27, 200919th Century Copyright Notices and LegaleseI recently helped a student use an item in our Rare Books Collection to verify a citation that a professor had recorded for a forthcoming law review article. One of the references she wanted to check was the original publication date of the volume. When we looked on the back side of the title page, we discovered the following statement:
(You can click on the image to make it larger.) Needless to say, my researcher was a little confused--this lengthy narrative looks almost nothing like the modern convention for declaring copyright: that ubiquitous symbol, ©. It may be hard to believe, but the copyright symbol was not formally adopted until 1979, when copyright laws were overhauled. Before then, owners of works had to petition the Copyright Office to copyright their works. What looks to modern eyes like an arcane, roundabout way of stating something very simple was actually a necessary explanation that the author of a work had been granted copyright by the Copyright Office. An old professor of mine in college once quipped that Charles Darwin was a great thinker but "he needed an editor." 19th Century prose has often been described as florid and verbose. Copyright notices of that era are no exception, suggesting that even something this routine could take on a dramatic flair.
October 27, 2010Common As Air
Does this sound counterintuitive to you? It does to Lewis Hyde, the author of Common as Air: Revolution, Art, and Ownership (Farrar, Straus and Giroux). Hyde is a MacArthur Fellow and Faculty Associate at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society who has written about the creative commons for over thirty years. He also co-signed an amicus brief in Eldred v. Ashcroft. Hyde’s book presents an argument against the use of intellectual property law to privatize public knowledge. As part of his argument, Hyde uses examples from history in addition to the writings of historians and philosophers. In his discussion of American history, for example, he discusses how Madison convinced Jefferson that a strictly limited copyright would help to advance science and technical knowledge. Hyde concludes that the Founding Fathers would disapprove of the long-term copyright term extensions of today, since the aristocracy kept itself in power by means of similar systems. Hyde’s book also discusses the histories of musical creations as they relate to the cultural commons. For example, Hyde describes the origin of a song by Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin,” to underscore the importance of creative appropriation. Hyde writes that two or more earlier songs inspired “The Times They Are A-Changin’,” and that appropriation of pre-existing material is a necessary practice for artists such as Dylan. In addition, Hyde describes the way in which Pete Seeger and others secured a copyright on the song “We Shall Overcome,” as an example of the notion that rights include duties to the community, a notion that Hyde terms “copy duty.” Hyde is not opposed to intellectual property protection, rather, he believes that such protection should be limited in order to foster creativity and invention. Submitted by Steven Singer and Edwin Greenlee January 25, 2012First-Sale Doctrine
By Jeff Grillo, Associate Director for Technical Services
Now here is a tougher question. Are you familiar with the first-sale doctrine? This doctrine is sometimes referred to as the "right of first sale." Copyright law protects the rights of individuals and businesses that want to sell books that they have already purchased. In other words, there is no copyright infringement when a person or business resells a book that they previously purchased. At that point, the first-sale doctrine kicks in. November 16, 2011Golan v. Holder -- Hollywood & the Public DomainBy Genevieve Tung, Biddle Law Library Intern  A new U.S. Supreme Court term often promises high drama, but it is especially likely when Hollywood industry players are among the parties and amici. Such is the case of Golan v. Holder, which was argued before the Court on October 5, 2011. Golan has raised questions about the intersection of copyright and First Amendment law as well as wide-ranging policy issues about the nature of the public domain. The Golan petitioners are a group of "orchestra conductors, educators, performers, film archivists, and motion picture distributors" who use public-domain works for their livelihoods. They are challenging a 1994 law that effectively removed a large number of foreign works from the public domain in the U.S. by "restoring" copyright terms that applied to the works in their countries of origin. Congress changed the law within the context of international negotiations on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Continue reading "Golan v. Holder -- Hollywood & the Public Domain" » January 18, 2012Fan Fiction and Intellectual Property
Review by Mark Popielarski, Biddle Intern. By: Aaron Schwabach (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2011). Who doesn’t have a favorite book, television series, or movie? Creative works such as Harry Potter, Star Wars and Twilight possess legions of ardent fans. Many of these fans like to explore “what if” scenarios about their favorite characters, major plot points, or what happened after the work’s conclusion. Fan fiction—or “fanfic”—are works created by a property’s most passionate fans which are then spread throughout the community. While fanfic has existed for decades, the internet’s impact has led to the genre’s exponential growth and greater accessibility. As is the case for many areas of intellectual property, the internet proved a game-changer in the relationship between copyright holders and the most loyal and passionate members of their fan base. Aaron Schwabach, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law and admitted reader of fanfic, authored this book to provide greater clarity concerning the legal issues raised by fan fiction, the current boundaries of copyright, and how it impacts copyright holders and fanfic authors. Professor Schwabach proceeds to delineate areas of U.S. copyright law which are settled and where its application remains unclear. He explores how misunderstanding and murkiness in copyright as it stands today can create unnecessary tension between authors and their fans. Schwabach examines what part—and to what extent— the underlying work is protected, whether fan fiction infringes or can be considered a legitimate use, how the author’s financial and literary interests can conflict with fan authors, and the relationship between fan fiction authors and other fans. I admit that I don’t read fan fiction. However, when I saw this book on the Biddle Library’s Recent Acquisitions page, the title grabbed my attention. Aside from the fascinating legal discussion, the underlying subject material proves highly entertaining. I learned that devoted fans can have a truly creative interpretation of their favorite series. Additionally, the intersection between the internet and intellectual property has been—and will continue to be—a hot legal topic. Fanfic’s entertainment value combined with the timeliness of internet copyright issues makes the book a fun and informative read. |
About This BlogThe biddleblog is a blog written by the librarians of the Biddle Law Library. It shares the latest news and events at Biddle, legal research tips, and other law-related information with the students, faculty, and staff of Penn Law. For more information about what a blog is, click here. To see an updated list of Penn Law and other law-related blogs, click here. SearchRecent Posts
 [What is this?] Categories
Archives
|
|
Fan Fiction and Copyright: Outsider Works and Intellectual Property Protection