Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

[Stalins Organ]

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?

[Affentitten]

"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.)

[JonS]

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html

[Tero]

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.

[Affentitten]

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.

[Affentitten]

I should also add that I have had problems in the UK using images of buildings because the architect owned the copyright!

[benpark]

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.

[Affentitten]

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.

[Stalins Organ]

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?

[Affentitten]

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.

[Stalins Organ]

Oh..of course....

We had a recent case here where Sir Edmund Hillary's kids took the Auckland Museum to court to get access to their father's documents despite his deed of gift stating explitly that they had hte right to do so (in all other respects the rights were gifted to the Museum)

[Tero]

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).

[Affentitten]

What was the air combat game a few years ago where they couldn't use the Hellcat or something because Northrop-Grumman were asking for royalties?

[Michael Emrys]

Wasn't that one of the Ubi sims?

Michael

[Wilhammer]

Wasn't that one of the Ubi sims?

Michael

They also tried this with plastic model companies.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/10/pentagon-vs-hob/

[Michael Emrys]

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

[Stalins Organ]

It is entirely predictable tho, given the direction that "intellectual property" law has been heading.

[Tero]

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 )

[costard]

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.

[Wicky]

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.

[costard]

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.

[Stalins Organ]

During the 2000 Olympics the word "hamburger" was copyright protected.

do you have a source for that??

[Dave H]

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.

[costard]

It could well be that my memory is defective, but I also recall a fair bit of media commentary at the time about the application and consequences, in which case my defective brain has gone to quite a bit of effort in creating this fanatsy.

I'll look into it further. Cheers.

[costard]

OK, this link is a short examination of the relevant legislation. We want to have a better look at Clause 8 to see if "hamburger" is covered. Whether we can get hold of that clause is something else.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/BD/1995-96/96bd89.htm