http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/10/28/copy-permission-and-copyfraud/ news, views and info on self-help law and pro se litigation Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:11:37 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/10/28/copy-permission-and-copyfraud/comment-page-1/#comment-789 shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » two cents and more for a Monday morning Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:25:24 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/10/28/copy-permission-and-copyfraud/#comment-789 [...] If the House Republican Study Committee spent a few minutes studying shlep  (e.g., see ”copy permission and copyfraud” and “fair use and copyright“), it wouldn’t have falsely accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of “pirating” 16 clips of House floor debate that had appeared on C-Span, when she included them on her weblog The Gavel.   See today’s New York Times, “Which Videos Are Protected? Lawmakers Get a Lesson,” Feb. 26, 2007.  Although NYT says that member of Congress are “learning the complexities of copyright law, much the way the casual YouTube user has learned,” the relevant point here is really not all that complex: “works” made by the federal government (such as shots taken by House cameras on the floor) are in the public domain.  On the other hand, C-Span asserts its copyright over materials shot by its own cameras at other congressional functions.  If the Study Committee needs a bit of fast cribbing, it might try either the podcast or transcript of Nolo.com’s piece “Blogs, Websites and Podcasts: When Do You Need Permission?”   [...] [...] If the House Republican Study Committee spent a few minutes studying shlep  (e.g., see ”copy permission and copyfraud” and “fair use and copyright“), it wouldn’t have falsely accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of “pirating” 16 clips of House floor debate that had appeared on C-Span, when she included them on her weblog The Gavel.   See today’s New York Times, “Which Videos Are Protected? Lawmakers Get a Lesson,” Feb. 26, 2007.  Although NYT says that member of Congress are “learning the complexities of copyright law, much the way the casual YouTube user has learned,” the relevant point here is really not all that complex: “works” made by the federal government (such as shots taken by House cameras on the floor) are in the public domain.  On the other hand, C-Span asserts its copyright over materials shot by its own cameras at other congressional functions.  If the Study Committee needs a bit of fast cribbing, it might try either the podcast or transcript of Nolo.com’s piece “Blogs, Websites and Podcasts: When Do You Need Permission?”   [...]

]]> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/10/28/copy-permission-and-copyfraud/comment-page-1/#comment-498 shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » our self-help link collections from 2006 Sat, 06 Jan 2007 19:55:34 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/10/28/copy-permission-and-copyfraud/#comment-498 [...] copy permission and copyfraud  [...] [...] copy permission and copyfraud  [...]

]]>