Articles about Copyright

Instagram sure knows how to feed the frenzy. Shortly after the photo-sharing social network revised the rights policy, interpreted by many people as a sign of major changes regarding handling of user content and ownership, the company issued a response to the numerous complaints, blaming legal speak for the misunderstanding.

"Many users are confused and upset", so Instagram's co-founder, Kevin Systrom, took it upon himself, on behalf of the Facebook-owned social network, to inform concerned Instagrammers that everyone got it wrong. Systrom states: "Legal documents are easy to misinterpret", which basically implies that the problem is with reading the rights policy in the appropriate manner and not with the rights policy in itself. That's not overly reassuring, however, considering that what is basically a major change in philosophy can be so easily subject to interpretation.

Continue reading →

If you're planning to Instagram lots of photos this holiday, think again. They might be in next year's commercial marketing -- your embarrassing candid plastered on billboards everywhere -- and you have no real say about it. Big companies use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 to keep you from sharing stuff. Instragram takes away such recourse for you, overnight announcing one of the biggest rights policy changes of the contextual cloud computing era. The photo-sharing site claims the right to sell your content, offering you absolutely no compensation for the privilege.

The change is snakey sneaky: "Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service", but "Instagram Content is protected by copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret and other laws, and, as between you and Instagram, Instagram owns and retains all rights in the Instagram Content and the Service". You give up your rights to ownership simply by using the service, which gives you nothing.

Continue reading →

Let’s everybody beat up on YouTube for not pulling that offensive anti-Muslim video that is infuriating people around the world. No, wait. As disturbing as this story is let’s instead take a moment to try and figure what’s really happening and why YouTube and its parent Google are behaving this way.

It’s easy to blame Google’s algorithmic obsession for this mess, but I don’t think that’s at work here at all. Yes, Google is very good (which means very bad in this case) at blaming one algorithm or another for pissing-off users. Google customer support is, in a word, terrible for this very reason, and it often seems like they don’t even care. But this case is different, because it has less to do with algorithms than it has to do with intellectual property laws.

Continue reading →

It had to happen eventually. Representatives of the media and entertainment industries have been complaining for years about Google linking to sites that offer copyrighted content, accusing the Internet giant of not doing nearly enough to prevent access to infringing material. The company’s stock response has always been that it only indexes the web, and the results that appear when someone types a query into Google simply reflects the sites that people go to, and other sites link to. It’s a fair argument, although one somewhat undermined by last year’s algorithm update that targeted content farms, and showed the company’s willingness to tweak what sites appear where in its index.

Google does of course remove pages when it receives copyright removal notices to do so. In fact, in an effort to demonstrate just how actively, Google recently expanded its Transparency Report to show how many URLs it removes, from where, and at whose request. The figures are staggering. In the last month alone, Google removed over 4.3 million URLs from its index.

Continue reading →

Justice Winkelmann of the New Zealand High Court just gave Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom a huge win. In today's session, Judge Winkelmann ruled that the police search warrants used to seize property -including hard drives and computer equipment- from Kim Dotcom's New Zealand mansion were illegal. According to the ruling, the warrants did not properly describe the offenses to which they were related.

Since day one, Kim Dotcom's legal defense has called into question the very nature of the case. Because copies of Dotcom's drives were turned over to the American FBI before New Zealand digital forensics teams could check them, Winkelmann ruled the data to be unlawfully obtained.

Continue reading →

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison may have felt like king of the world Wednesday night as he announced his company's move to the cloud, but today he's likely licking his wounds: Oracle's case against Google over Android's use of Java is essentially dead.

Judge William Alsup ruled Thursday that Oracle could not assert copyright claims on Google for 37 different Java APIs used within Android. Alsup ruled that only the code within, and not the way they are used, are subject to copyright claims.

Continue reading →

Perhaps the question should be: Who doesn't? Google search is a powerful tool for finding content of any kind, including copyrighted material posted without permission. Today Google sets the record straight, by releasing the URLs copyright holders request removed from search: 1,246,713 over the last month. These came from more than 1,000 copyright holders directed at about 24,000 domains.

Apparently more details about other copyright areas will come later. For now, search is priority, with Google planning to update requests daily. The report available on Wednesday offers data through yesterday.

Continue reading →

The fight between Oracle and Google over Android's use of Java took a turn in Google's favor, filings from the District Court for the Norther District of California showed on Wednesday. The jury in the patent phase of the case unanimously voted that Oracle did not prove Android had infringed on Oracle's Java patents.

This decision settles only part of the lawsuit, which Groklaw remarked has been the "longest civil trial" they have ever covered. However, it is a big part. Oracle was calling for an injunction on Android plus damages in its suit, and now that the jury has found no patent infringement, the threat of injunction is nullified.

Continue reading →

Sometime ago, I pledged to wait on reading the Harry Potter series until it came out as ebooks. I was ready and willing for October's planned debut on Google Books, but that was cancelled last minute. What happened instead mindboggles. In late March, author JK Rowling opened the Pottermore Shop to sell the ebooks directly -- in formats for most any device and with no onerous digital rights management. Let me emphasize that last bit: no DRM.

I've meant to opine since buying the Harry Potter ebooks as a set -- and affordably priced at that -- when Pottermore Shop opened 25 days ago. The universal distribution approach, fair pricing and DRM-freeness set apart the most successful fiction series in history from most every other popular literature available today in digital formats. Rowling's ebooks mark a watershed moment in digital publishing that could eventually lead to the end of onerous DRM. Remember, music started that way, but mostly is DRM-free today.

Continue reading →

There's a strange concept in marketing that no publicity is really bad. If people talk about you, it broadly raises brand awareness. People eventually forget the bad news but not the brand. Who remembers last year's furor over Apple's onerous publisher subscription terms? That's the eventual outcome from Apple's iBooks Author end-user license agreement, which has shocked many. Simply stated: If you publish ebooks using iBooks Author, no other publisher but Apple can profit. Distribution anywhere else must be for free. The Internet is outraged, even Apple apologists.

For all the negative outpouring -- and there is plenty -- Apple's EULA isn't as outrageous as critics claim -- it's more and less. The licensing agreement enforces Apple proprietary e-publishing file formats. On the less side, Apple's approach isn't far removed from what print publishers do today, and US copyright law likely supersedes Apple's EULA (but not necessarily any separate agreement).

Continue reading →