For the half-year to 31 December 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Rebecca Gulbul, Lucas Michels and Marie-Andrée Weiss.

Regular round-ups of the previous week's blogposts are kindly compiled by Alberto Bellan.

Wednesday, 11 June 2008

Canadian copyright reform: the world waits ...

The IPKat's friend Paul Jones advises him that, according to a newspaper story, Canada’s long-awaited amendments to the Copyright Act will be made public tomorrow (or today, depending on your time zone). There has been considerable debate as to the extent to which the amendments will mirror the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provisions in US copyright law.

Right: there's no need to chop down trees, now that you can infringe copyright digitally and shrink your carbon footprint at the same time

Canadian copyright so far --the official story here

STOP PRESS: Lorraine Fleck (Sim Lowman Ashton & McKay) has kindly sent us this link to the bill itself.

12 comments:

Paul Jakma said...

Speaking of copyrights, I'll ask the question yet again (having failed to receive any answer to several email enquiries, or to comments made via this blog more recently):

Does the IPKat acquire explicit permission from rights owners of the 3rd party images it uses on most blog entries to redistribute those images? (Particularly those images where the rights owner can clearly be seen to have a commercial interest in their images, or where a simple enquiry can easily establish the owner requires attribution for any use)?

If the IPKat does not, can the IPKat give their rationale? (The images typically are not displayed for purpose of criticism, or any other purpose that would clearly fall under fair dealing (e.g. the audience for this blog is more than just academic, AFAICT)).

I remain befuddled by how a "IP" blog, written by those learned in the field and apparent advocates of strong IP rights, is unable to answer such a simple question and so sow doubt as to whether the authors consider those laws to apply to their own activity.

regards,

Paul Jakma.

Kevin said...

Do you have the rights to the picture in your post?

Anonymous said...

Paul

I suspect the reluctance to answer your question is due to the unauthorised use of pictures being completely indefensible (legally at least, if not morally).

Anonymous said...

Paul J,
I think you will find that all the images which the Kat includes are contained in google's image database, e.g. the "Lumberjack_Song.jpg" image is at "fotos.sapo.pt". Does a link to an internet web site correspond to copying the image?

Anonymous said...

The fact that the photos are delivered via a link to Google's image database cannot be the answer. This is merely how all web pages display images - the host directs the users browser to a database where the image can be retrieved from (i.e. copied) for displaying to the user. Whether that database is private to the host or public as for Google is irrelevant.

Besides, many people vehemently insist that Google regularly infringe copyright belonging to third parties by storing copies on their servers and distributing it (most notably, Youtube - which is owned by Google - springs to mind).

David said...

As has been said here several times before, if a copyright owner objects to the IPKat using an image of theirs without permission or payment, the image will be withdrawn. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...

Paul Jakma said...

David,

In such a case, infringement would still have occurred. Are you truly advocating that it is no matter for the IPKat to do that?

Further, as I said, at least a few images are obviously from commercial sources. There is one of a bear in Alaska and the page it is one clearly indicates the owner requires re-use to be licensed. Another image, of a US highway sign, the owner requires attribution (he responds to email - I didnt point him at this site though). Another image is from forbes.com, and very likely is from a stock photography bank (ie commercial), if it is now owned by Forbes. Another animated GIF is from the website of a professional animator.

I only searched for about 6 or 7 images. And the above are the 4 whose origin on the web I found back. I only spent about 15 minutes (plus 1 day to wait for that one rights owner to reply to an email).

This is a blog that has used the term "freetards" (and not in a disapproving sense).

I am waiting for the IPKat to write about the importance of strong fair-dealing rights, to complement those entries where it seems to advocate strong IPR rights.

--paulj

David said...

And what would be your point exactly?

Paul Jakma said...

David,

The point seems fairly obvious, but I'll try again:

There's an incongruety between being for strong IPR and/or calling certain people "freetards" on the one hand, and then ripping off images from the web to use on your blog on the other. Can you explain it, as it applies to the use of images on this blog, or do the authors consider themselves to be exempt from the law they are experts in?

I'd like to get an explanation on that. E.g. is that you are freetards too?

Kevin said...

I would think the point was obvious.

You're doing things that likely infringe on copyright and yet you advocate for strongly enforced IP laws.

I think copyright in an age when everyone can be a publisher and a creator is a complex issue. More complex than your blog implies.

And I think you should be careful with your assumptions. I'll let Paul provide details, but he depends on copyright to protect the content he creates and maintains. I'm pretty sure he can safely cast stones.

David said...

The IPKat does not need to justify himself to you, either for his actions or any apparent contradictions between his views and any actions he might take. In any case, imaginary cats are exempt from infringing copyright.

Anonymous said...

"The IPKat does not need to justify himself to you, either for his actions or any apparent contradictions between his views and any actions he might take."

I think that might be the most arrogant response to a genuine question I have ever read. It certainly does nothing to endear the reader to your point of view.

As far as this reader can tell, your argument in favour of unauthorised use of images extends no further than "well, we really want to". A bit weak really isn't it?

JT

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':