Jump to content

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement


Recommended Posts

Has anyone got any indepth understanding of this?

There have been some articles around condeming it as draconian, and a sever restriction on sovereignty (eg this computer world article) - apparenly it seeks to create a single copyright definition and condition across all the participant countries (note copyright - not counterfeiting as in the title)

but it seems to be really secretive - there was an anti- campaigner on radio here recetly who reckoned that about 15 people worldwide had seen it outside teh negotiating teams...the likes of Bill Gates, head of GM, google, etc., and only dribs & drabs are getting leaked to the public

"The plan" is to "impose" the US's definitions of copyright across the board, including long periods of retention after death and fairly drastic definitions of "intellectual property".

as I understand it one of the contentions of the anti-brigade is that "intellectual property" is not what copyright was about, and copyright and counterfeit are completely different things anyway - eg in these parts you can own legally bought & manufactured items in some categories that you purchase overseas, but which the local distributor regards as "counterfeit" because they didn't distribute them!

I find it pretty confusing.....which is perhaps unsurprising given the secrecy.

anyone got any better info on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The plan" is to "impose" the US's definitions of copyright across the board, including long periods of retention after death and fairly drastic definitions of "intellectual property".

It's already been happening in a de facto way for a long time. The issue of post-death rights is the area I am most familiar with. Most countries used to do death +50 years, but the USA, through various agreements has strong-armed everyone into the 70 year rule, largely thanks to the lobbying of Disney. (Mickey and Donald would have been out of copyright in 2016.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The copyright issue has gone so far that museums (even here in Finland) are now prohibiting taking pictures of artefacts in their collection because they (apparently) own the copyright to the items and by proxy to any pictures taken of them. I do not know how extensive the term protective value of "fair use" is in this respect but it will be interesting to see how things develop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The copyright issue has gone so far that museums (even here in Finland) are now prohibiting taking pictures of artefacts in their collection because they (apparently) own the copyright to the items and by proxy to any pictures taken of them. I do not know how extensive the term protective value of "fair use" is in this respect but it will be interesting to see how things develop.

One of my big beefs with the Australian War Memorial is that they 'own' the copyright of things they have been donated by ordinary people. They then sell that copyright as a money making exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It matters what you are doing with the images. If you are intending them for advertising or a commercial purpose, the law in the US is with the copyright holder or individual being depicted.

If it is for artistic or personal use, you have the right to make the picture. This changes if you are on private property. Given the disturbing shift of private stewardship of public institutions (like public parks), this can be contentious even though the right is with the picture maker. If you are making an image of a building from public land, you have every right to do so.

I have no idea how museums are claiming copyright to donated everyday items and militaria. I think they are relying on their ability to make the rules due to the private property clause above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the scenario was like this:

I work for company TLA. We were project managers/engineers etc for a public or commercial building. We want to use pictures of that building for commercial purposes in our own marketing material, along the lines of “Here are some major projects we have been responsible for.” Architect throws a wobbly because he owns the copyright to depiction of that building. He’s been fairly paid to design the building. How does that then give him rights to restrict photographs of it?

Anyway, speaking as someone who writes for their living, I do have an interest in copyright. And I honestly can’t blame corporations like Disney for trying their hardest to protect their creations. It’s a bit murkier though when Disney tend to do their damndest to screw over copyright holders (eg. Peter Pan, Winnie the Pooh) whilst they’re out strip-mining the world’s culture for their next product line.

AS for the Australian War Memorial, they owned the copyright to donated items because donors sign a contract to waive their rights. I found it fairly cynical because for a lot of vets, having their stuff accepted into the AWM was portrayed as a big honour. But then if their own great grandchildren want to access the stuff, they have to pay. In checking up on this last night I noted that the AWM have removed the web page that outlined all these contracts and clauses for donation. They now have a much more benign “Contact us” email page and that’s all.

It’s even more dodgy when the AWM is selling the rights to stuff that I know is not theirs. Like American WW2 footage that is Federal /DOD copyright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

did the donors of material donated to the AWM own the "copyright" to images of hte material in the first place?

How does having an issued gas mask give you copyright over its image? Do you have copyright over a micky mouse if you have a mickey mouse comic book from the 1950's?

I'm talking more about diaries, personal photos etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

did the donors of material donated to the AWM own the "copyright" to images of hte material in the first place?

How does having an issued gas mask give you copyright over its image? Do you have copyright over a micky mouse if you have a mickey mouse comic book from the 1950's?

Does the museum have copyright to those items when they publicly advertise their exhibit ? Case in point the Tiger I in Bovington. Who owns the copyright to that particular vehicle ?

In the scale model industry things have gotten ridiculous. Tamiya is producing a "3ton 4x2 Cargo Truck" aka Opel Blitz. AFAIK they have foregone the use of the actual name and grill ornament so as not to have to pay exorbitant compensation to Opel (ie GM).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To repeat what was said when this first went around, this is nuts. Are historians now obliged to pay a licensing fee if they mention the name of a plane or a tank in their texts? Greed, like any other appetite, when pushed to extremes becomes self-destructive. Unfortunately though, in our society greed got enshrined in our national pantheon a few decades back and is now held to be above question. What we are now seeing is one of the less important negative byproducts of that attitude.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everytime you have to include a ® © or ™ in the text it means somebody can charge you for it.

I wonder when generic terms like hoover or allen wrench will become a thing of the past. (Mind you, this last bit is to my knowlegde only an English language thing, we Finns still use butter even if the stuff in the box is margarine :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the 2000 Olympics the word "hamburger" was copyright protected. The conclusion is that any non-original or copyright breaching expression in any media can result in the shutting down of an avenue of communication. It doesn't matter whether the reason for doing so makes sense, or is even legally justifiable, the point is that there is a mechanism for controlling the dissemination of information.

It'll be interesting to see if social sites like this will survive: if BFC has to risk a fine or losing their business for giving us this opportunity to express ourselves, I can see that the forums will disappear altogether.

We should be able to claim cultural significance for the MBT 'though, so that'll keep going. Happy thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were the alternative slang words 'burger", "hacksteack" and "slider" also copyrighted as well? If not then folk naturally have a means with language to bypass and keep one step ahead of censorship.

try for fun Translations a three-act play by Irish playwright Brian Friel

During the 2000 Olympics the word "hamburger" was copyright protected. The conclusion is that any non-original or copyright breaching expression in any media can result in the shutting down of an avenue of communication. It doesn't matter whether the reason for doing so makes sense, or is even legally justifiable, the point is that there is a mechanism for controlling the dissemination of information.

It'll be interesting to see if social sites like this will survive: if BFC has to risk a fine or losing their business for giving us this opportunity to express ourselves, I can see that the forums will disappear altogether.

We should be able to claim cultural significance for the MBT 'though, so that'll keep going. Happy thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were the alternative slang words 'burger", "hacksteack" and "slider" also copyrighted as well? If not then folk naturally have a means with language to bypass and keep one step ahead of censorship.

try for fun Translations a three-act play by Irish playwright Brian Friel

Ach, common sense rears its ugly head once again. I thought we'd shot that thing long ago.

Thanks for the link Wicky - I'll keep an eye out for the play over here; looks like it'd be worth seeing. Crikey, I might even read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do you have a source for that??

It must be true, I read it a couple of posts down the list. Everything that's written on the internet has to be true, isn't that right?

Oddly enough when I Googled 2000 Olympics hamburger copyright this thread seems to be the only source of this information. Apparently the entire world media missed the story. You'd think someone would have noticed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...