who polices the Web to spot and stop incidents of intellectual property abuse?

----http://www.technewsworld.com/story/64298.html

what exactly is legal and what is not ?

----http://www.technewsworld.com/story/64238.html

The Pirate Bay ha reagito così, tacciando l'Italia di fascismo.

TPB indicizza dei piccoli file di metadati i quali, tramite degli appositi programmi liberamente scaricabili, permettono agli utenti di copiare fra di loro file molto più grandi, alcuni dei quali, per avventura, sono coperti da copyright.  Sul sito di TPB ci sono solo i metadati. I file che gli utenti copiano, sono forniti dagli utenti stessi.

TPB, in altre parole, è simile a una grande biblioteca specializzata che  contiene solo dati bibliografici e testi dedicati all'arte della tipografia.  Che, però, non contiene affatto i libri che vengono effettivamente copiati - i quali, a loro volta, non sono tutti necessariamente sotto copyright. Sbarrare il portone di questa biblioteca, quindi, significa rendere difficile non solo la riproduzione abusiva di materiale soggetto a diritto d'autore, ma anche la riproduzione legittima di cose come le distribuzioni Linux, o di oggetti politicamente  controversi come questi.

E' censura? Per i sostenitori della proprietà intellettuale chiudere l'accesso a un discorso non ha nulla di diverso dal proteggere con un cancello il proprio giardino. Come ci sono padroni di oggetti fisici, così ci sono padroni dei discorsi. Questi padroni sono, inizialmente, gli autori, e, subito dopo, gli editori - che sono coloro i quali, tipicamente, si adoperano per difendere la loro "proprietà", proprio come i buoni padri di famiglia si preoccupano di chiudere i cancelli.

Chi conosce la storia del diritto d'autore, però, sa che il suo antenato era una cosa chiamata privilegio. Nella prima modernità il re aveva la prerogativa di concedere graziosamente a uno stampatore il titolo esclusivo di riprodurre un testo, riuscendo così controllare quello che si stampava con l'interessato appoggio  dell'editore a cui il monopolio veniva conferito. Era censura? Dato che la mano pesante del potere politico è evidente,  a molti non sarà difficile rispondere di sì. IIn questo regime, il padrone dei discorsi - colui che decideva chi e come potesse parlare al pubblico ampio della carta stampata -  era il re.

Con l'affievolirsi del potere monarchico, si passò dal privilegio al copyright. Il diritto di render pubblico un testo veniva posto, originariamente, nelle mani dell'autore, ma, per poter essere effettivamente esercitato, doveva essere ceduto all'editore. Nell'età della stampa era raro e difficile che l'autore avesse i mezzi per pubblicarsi da sé, Il vero padrone del discorso era dunque l'editore. E' l'editore che ha ereditato dal re il potere di decidere che cosa pubblicare e che cosa no, il potere di radunare un pubblico e di stabilire che cosa fargli sapere e che cosa no. Questo potere è protetto da un monopolio legalmente garantito che nasce come temporaneo, ma che viene via via prolungato nel tempo ben oltre l'aspettativa di vita delle persone fisiche. E' censura? Se consideriamo il pedigree di questo istituto, viene voglia di rispondere di sì.

Nell'età della stampa la "censura" editoriale era in parte giustificata dei costi e dai limiti della tipografia, per i quali non era semplicemente possibile stampare tutto, e  mitigata dal fatto che ci fossero più editori in concorrenza fra loro. Kant, che aveva capito il rischio, ebbe cura di giustificare il diritto dell'editore solo come tramite per permettere all'autore di raggiungere il suo pubblico, negandogli esplicitamente  la facoltà di acquisire un testo allo scopo di non pubblicarlo, e riconoscendo a tutti gli altri il diritto di copiare ad uso personale e di rielaborare variamente i testi senza chiedere il permesso a nessuno. The Pirate Bay, che non distribuisce testi ma permette di riprodurli, e i suoi utenti, che condividono file per uso personale, sarebbero stati difesi dal filosofo di Koenigsberg.

Possiamo parlare di censura se gli editori formano un cartello, o se un editore potente concentra nelle sue mani anche il potere politico, oltre che il monopolio economico? Se il cartello degli editori, di fronte a una nuova tecnologia di riproduzione che rischia di renderli inutili, si adopera per renderla illegale?

Siamo in una situazione in cui dei privati, essendo in grado di influenzare il potere politico, o di impadronirsene direttamente,  si attribuiscono il diritto di decidere che cosa pubblicare e che cosa no. I re sono stati sconfitti. Ci si vuole fare credere che il fatto che al loro posto ci siano dei padroni ci rende tutti più liberi. Ma la  libertà degli editori, in questo momento, è nemica della libertà del pubblico e di quella degli autori - la libertà di tutti gli altri. La censura dei re, perlomeno, era più onesta.

]]> http://radiergummi.wordpress.com/?p=493 Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:45:34 +0000 flattersatz http://radiergummi.wordpress.com/?p=493

Durch Zufall bin ich heute beim Durchstöbern des Literaturcafés (---> Blog`n`Roll) auf die Besprechung eines Buches zum Urheberrecht gestoßen. Urheberrecht, ein trockenes Thema, das nichtsdestoweniger interessant werden kann, wie der bekannte Bockwurst-Fall deutlich zeigt. Ich selbst habe vor geraumer Zeit, um blödsinnige Risiken zu vermeiden, eine Vielzahl von Bildern, die ich auf diversen Seiten hatte, gelöscht oder versteckt.

Nun kann ich beileibe nicht behaupten, ich hätte dieses Buch in toto durchgelesen, muss man wahrscheinlich auch nicht. Aber da es als pdf-file zur Verfügung gestellt wird, habe ich mir ein paar Seiten durchgelesen und bin von der Art und Weise, wie die Fragestellungen hier aufgearbeitet werden, angetan. Ohne juristischen Kauderwelsch wird mit vielen Beispielen das Wesentliche herausgearbeitet.

OK, mehr muss ich dazu hier nicht sagen, die (oben verlinkte) Buchvorstellung ist ausführlich genug und wegen der zum Ende des Werkes hin unaufhaltsam steigenden Spannung wird es sich eh keiner besorgen....

Bezugsquelle:

Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (auch als pdf)

Tin Eye is still in the works, they make clear that they are searching a small portion of the web, but they will grow. If you are an artist and are concerned about your artwork being stolen, just run a search, you'll be impressed.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Ayer, mientras hablaba con Melissa, me comentó que hay una nueva herramienta que es de mucha utilidad para los artistas, un buscador de imágenes. El servicio es provisto por TinEye y está aún en versión beta, y por ahora es gratis. Lo bueno de este servicio es que puede ayudarnos a los artistas a encontrar nuestras obras robadas, ya que podemos subir imágenes o proveer un vínculo a una imagen y Tin Eye conduce una búsqueda para encontrar esa imagen, aún si ha sido modificada.
El otro uso es que puede ser de utilidad para la gente que quiere usar arte encontrado, para buscar las imágenes, ayudando con la controversial búsqueda razonable que se menciona en la Propuesta de Obras Huérfanas (que causó gran revuelo a principio de año en los Estados Unidos). Hasta ahora no había forma de realizar esta búsqueda razonable.

Tin Eye está todavía en construcción, son muy claros acerca de abarcar una pequeña porción de la red, pero van a crecer. Si sos un artista y estás preocupado por ver si alguien ha robado tu arte, hacé una búsqueda, vas a sorprenderte.

E oggi si scatenano le reazione di Anica, Siae e del Comitato contro la pirateria.
Nell'intervista, che seguiva quella del giorno prima, sempre a RAISAT EXTRA, del Presidente della Siae Giorgio Assumma: Valsecchi ha aggiunto: 'Si fanno troppi convegni sulla pirateria, il paese ha altri problemi. La fiction 'I liceali', da noi prodotta, e' stata trasmessa prima da Mediaset Premium, vista, scaricata, trasmessa poi dalla tv generalista e nonostante tutto cio', una volta fatti i dvd, ne abbiamo venduti tantissimi.
La pirateria e' un problema molto marginale, basterebbe pagare forse lo 0,50.

Ben vengano i ragazzi che scaricano. La cultura va divulgata, e' un bene che vi si possa accedere facilmente'.

http://www.articolo21.info/notizia.php?id=7335

Qualcuno avrà ancora la faccia di parlare?

The McCain-Palin campaign is having a hard time getting its groove on.

For politicians, every public event features a soundtrack of popular music, selected by the campaign staff as anthemic of the message du jour. Bill Clinton used Fleetwood Mac’s Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow until we all ripped our Stevie Nicks posters from walls in violent fits of overload. Hillary Clinton held an internet-based, you-select-my-theme-song contest which, after more than 200,000 electronic votes, somehow chose Canadian schlock diva Celine Dion’s You and I. PUMA must stand for Positively Unlistenable Musical Aesthetics.

But seemingly each time McCain and Palin put the needle to vinyl, they receive a cease-and-desist demand from the recording artists.

Things got ugly, recently, when Senator McCain decided to pander to voters during the vacation driving season by suggesting that offshore drilling is the solution to the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and to ridicule Barack Obama suggestion that energy conservation represented the sustainable approach to energy independence. The television spot produced in support of this gambit featured Jackson Browne’s Running on Empty, which pissed-off Mr. Browne, a lifelong democrat, well-know environmental activist, and apparent non-moron when it comes to energy policy. According to news reports, Mr. Browne sued Senator McCain and his campaign for copyright violation and right of publicity infringement. It was a slight bummer -- not to mention legal setback, until the pleadings were amended -- that the offending ad was produced the Ohio Republican Party, rather than by the McCain campaign directly.

Since then, Van Halen have complained about the use of Right Now at the Republican National Convention, Heart have sought to enjoin Sarah (Barracuda) Palin from making grand entrances to its rocker, Barracuda, and Orleans (fronted by democratic congressman John Hall) have forbidden Senator McCain’s further use of Still the One.

When the McCain camp tried to go hip by uploading a campaign video to the web for viral distribution the piece was removed by YouTube after Warner Music Group flagged the unauthorized use of Can’t Take My Eyes Off of You by Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons.

John Mellencamp forced Senator McCain to stop using Our Country and Pink Houses at his rallies, and even ABBA told him to lay off Take a Chance on Me.

At some point, you’d think they’d ask permission. It’s not just a good idea, it’s the law.

It must be mortifying for a political campaign to face repeated, public rebukes from icons of popular culture. And you would think that a law-maker who aspired to be POTUS would show at least cursory respect for the legal rights of others. No dice on both counts.

Whether Senator McCain’s unauthorized uses of popular music represents a violation of federal copyright law is, perhaps, an open question. The Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C § 106, et seq., gives the author of a copyrighted work, among other privileges, the exclusive right to transmit or broadcast the work. Others who wish to use the work must obtain prior permission. There are exceptions to these strictures, however, under the principle known as “fair use.” The issue for the court, to oversimplify only slightly, will be whether use of the music as non-commercial, political speech outweighs the commercial aspects of the misappropriation. Is there really any difference between selling cars or toothpaste and selling a candidate? Is the non-permitted use of copyrighted music at a campaign event any more legitimate than the use of, say, balloons and confetti stolen from a party supply vendor?

At least one lower court case leans Senator McCain’s way. In a political ad, a candidate used fifteen seconds of his opponent’s campaign jingle. The court ruled it was fair use because only a small fraction of the song was used and the purpose of using it was to further political debate. Keep Thomson Governor Comm. v. Citizens for Gallen Comm., 457 F. Supp. 957 (D. N.H. 1978). The song in that case, however, was an unambiguous signifier of the political opponent and was used as a direct identification of the opponent’s campaign. It was not employed to help develop collateral ideas promoted by the candidate, as in Mr. Browne's case against the Republicans. This was likely a major factor in the fair use determination.

The trademark issues seem even less likely to go McCain’s way. American trademark jurisprudence is designed to protect consumers from being mislead about the origins of goods and services. The same probably holds true for politicians, though it hardly requires weapons-grade cynicism to cast aspersion either on their good, or their services. The Lanham Trademark Act, 42 U.S.C. § 43(a), forbids false implied endorsement in the following terms:

Any person who, in connection with any goods or services… uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device…or any false or misleading description …or representation of fact, which is likely to cause confusion … or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the… sponsorship, or approval of his/her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he/she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

This -- along with breech of the performer’s “right of publicity” (that is: to the right to own and exploit one's own fame) -- is the crux of Mr. Browne’s case; and he is fairly well supported by precedent. In 1992, gravel-throated singer/songwriter Tom Waits brought a false-endorsement claim against snack-food giant Frito-Lay, arguing that a copycat singer, imitating his unique vocal stylings, gave a misleading perception that he endorsed its products. Waits v. Frito Lay, 978 F. 2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1992). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal held that, despite the inauthenticity of the voice used in the commercials, the confusingly Waits-like characteristics implied his celebrity endorsement. The Jackson Browne music, used in its original recording, present an even simpler case.

The music taken by the McCain campaign – as in campaigns before – was selected not only for its catchy and semi-relevant lyrics or bouncy tune, but because it is popular and recognizable. Everyone knows whose songs they are. In a time when politicians make periodic hajj to Hollywood in search of celebrity endorsements, it is impossible to believe that none would think that use of the song was the result of an endorsement of the candidate by the artist.

It is stunning to think that the McCain–Palin campaign would continue to stoop to music piracy, particularly after the repeated embarrassments. Then again, this is the same campaign that comes up with each new theme and slogan by simply stealing them from its adversary. Senator Obama seems to trust the voting public to be able to discern the dishonesty of Senator McCain’s mimicry. The recording artists are putting their faith in the courts.

To Lessig, the internet represents an amazing tool for independent content creation and dissemination, freed from the costs (and loss of creative control) associated with dealing with giant media companies to get one's work published. Add to this the critique from groups like Adbusters and it's easy to see that a synthesis of Klein and Lessig's work would have to include a concern that the work generated on the internet could be co-opted by large corporations. There was a recent case in the US regarding Virgin using a photo from Flickr (licensed under a Creative Commons "Attribution" license) without abiding by the terms under which it was licensed. Clearly, big business stands to save a lot of money by searching for content on the internet rather than paying a photographer to take a commissioned shot.

Tay Zonday, author of the famous (on the internet) song "Chocolate Rain" is now a shill for Dr Pepper, as can be seen in the following video:

Now, Zonday is certainly allowed to collaborate with Dr Pepper in an ad campaign using his song, it's one of his many rights as an artist. What makes me uncomfortable is the co-optation of an internet phenomenon to sell a product. I don't doubt that Dr Pepper's ad gurus would have heard of the video clip and its fame and they have seen the potential to tap in to this common cultural experience to sell soft drink. The internet, being what it is, has spawned countless covers, parodies, satires and other reinterpretations of Zonday's work. Should Zonday sign the rights to his original "Chocolate Rain" over to a corporation, what would happen to those internet users who have contrinbuted to Chocolate Rain's fame through their reinterpretation?

Anyone with a modern computer and some form of video camera or webcam can make a video and upload it to YouTube or Google Video. As Tay Zonday has shown us, anyone on the internet can make some serious money by creating a fad or meme. Commercial co-option of this unbridled, community-based, low cost culture threatens to put that very culture at risk.

We've already seen cases like Napster, Kazaa, Audiogalaxy and BitTorrent where a bunch of people on the internet have come up with an idea to capture the technological potential of the internet to shift data more efficiently. Recently, mash-ups have come under the scrutiny of media companies seeking to protect their copyrights as more skilled computer users remix elements of different songs into something new which can sound radically different to all the source materials. Rather than embracing this new shift in the way society deals with intellectual property, the media interests have sought to enshrine protection of their business model in copyright law. US and Australian law make no attempt to understand the changes happening to our culture as a result of the internet. Copyright and intellectual property law needs a massive overhaul, possibly even a rewrite, or else the internet's creativity will be stifled and the content that is generated will end up making media companies even richer.

Given that the entertainment industry is mostly democrats, I think this is a subtle call to college students and computer geeks that in a McCain presidency, we can download all the music and movies we want with impunity.  If hollywood and nashville are gonna support Obama, then McCain is going to tear down copyright laws.

I must admit, it's tempting...

Escuchando: Beni Beni - Niyaz

 My name is Nicole Ocean. Yes, you read that right! My last name is indeed Ocean.

 Thanks for taking the time to learn more about me and all that I have to offer. I have created a new website that is geared towards selling best-selling eBooks. I'd like to invite you to come take a look for yourself, browse around the site and check out my secure shopping cart.

 The website is: www.bestsellingebook.com

I also offer eBook authoring, consulting and training. You can find out more by going to: www.nicolesdreamsebooks.com and www.nicoleocean.com

Lastly, it is my goal to use this blog within Wordpress to help educate others and share my knowledge about the amazing world of all things related to eBooks. I will cover topics such as: how to write your own eBook, how to copyright protect your eBook, the importance of securing and protecting your eBook from theft and piracy and much more! Plus, I've written a brand new eBook on these very topics, entitled "Author and Sell Your Own Best-selling eBook: Learn the Secret Formula I used to Make Over $50,000 in eBook Sales." (Plus, I've accomplished this feat in less than 2 years!)

You can find out more about this eBook by going to: www.bestsellingebook.com and www.nicoleocean.com

Please remember to come back to my blog in the future so learn more than you ever imagined about eBooks.

Thanks and I look forward to helping you achieve all that you've ever dreams of with learning more about all things related to eBooks!

Warmly, Nicole Ocean

Email me today at: sales@nicoleocean.com

nicolesdreams eBooks (www.nicoleocean.com)

nicolesdreams eBooks Consulting (www.nicolesdreamsebooks.com)

Bestsellingebook.com (www.bestsellingebook.com)

Call me today at: (360) 223-2482

Because there are only 60 days left before the election.

Because she works with her hands and nose.

Because thanks to the RNC, there are no more balloons.

• McCain's big speech? Not so hot.
• The speech used Walter Reed ... Middle School as a prop.
• They've lost Heart. And it's another example of chronic behavior. I guess "rule of law" doesn't include copyright laws.
• The RNC stepped over taboos and went back to the 9/11 well. And Olbermann calls them on it.
• OK, she didn't sell the plane on eBay, but she put it on eBay. Story settled? Let's move on. OH WAIT! Here comes McCain with a nosegrower.
• At the RNC, there were more mentions of the Tyrannosaurus than Afghanistan. And you thought they weren't into science...
• And finally, John McCain's "Houses Problem" is getting a little long in the tooth, but this is still hilarious.

Thought of the day, courtesy of commenter Devilstower at Daily Kos: "John McCain's Theme for the Evening: I will reach across the aisle and work in a bipartisan manner with anyone who will help me enact every single item on the radical conservative wish list."

The 80's are basically ridiculous.  That being said, who doesn't love them?  For those of you who have musical preferences that kept you astray, Heart was a rocker duo of shrieky destruction and wicked guitar riffs.  Clearly, they are still a guilty pleasure of mine. 

Recently, they have come out publicly accusing the McCain machine of using their song Barracuda during the RNC.  Obviously, some people are outraged.  Screaming to protect the song from abuse by evil property-thieving Rupublicans!  Unfortunately, as usual, this rhetoric is being spouted from an ignorant view of fact and law.  I'm going to lay out a few realities of intellectual property.

1: Generally, the artist who performed, or even wrote the song, doesn't own the rights to the song.  The rights are typically owned by the record label who produced the single or the album.

2: It's entirely possible that the McCain campaign has a contract that allows them use of any music under a certain label, or even a series of labels.  This is something done by advertising firms and marketing departments that allow them to utilize a giant library of intellectual property with impunity.  I'm guessing this is expensive.

Basically, no one on the internet has any right to complain on behalf of Heart.  The likely reality is that they don't own the song, but don't want to be associated with the McCain campaign.  They's publicly criticize the McCain campaign to distance themselves, but you likely won't see the lawsuit people are screaming for.  They will likely receive whatever piddly royalties they are entitled to when their song is aired.

Perhaps the funniest part is that they claim the song is written about "the man" aka the music industry.  We all know of the music industries steadfast and valiant crusade to uphold the always fair copyright laws.  Ironically, it appears that they have likely been "screwed" by the convoluted system that also made them a living AND vaulted them to "living legend" status. 

I'm not a fan of the music industry, and I'm certainly not happy about how copyright law works.  It is ironic and comical that those criticisms have come back to bite them long after their names faded from the backs of high-school notebooks.

La sequenza più logica sarebbe: l’opera circola gratis, il gradimento si trasforma in passaparola, ne traggono beneficio la celebrità e la reputazione dell’autore, quindi aumenta il suo spazio di manovra all’interno dell’industria culturale e non solo. E’ un circolo virtuoso.
[en] The most logical sequence would be: the work circulates for free, his approval spread as word of mouth, it will benefit the fame and reputation of the author, and then increase its influence within the cultural industry and beyond. It's a virtuous circle.

link: Copyleft Festival - www.copyleftfestival.net - 11/14 september 2008 - Arezzo

"The Republican campaign did not ask for permission to use the song, nor would they have been granted that permission," it read. "We have asked the Republican campaign publicly not to use our music. We hope our wishes will be honored."

The Daily Kos and TMZ also questioned the use of the song immediately after Palin's speech.

Apparently, the similarity between the songs title and Palin's nickname ("Sarah Barracuda") was too good to resist, and the McCain campaign ignored the wishes voiced by Heart's management and played the song again last night. Predictably, this did not go over well with Heart co-founder Nancy Wilson, who personally responded with both a phone call and exclusive statement to Entertainment Weekly:

"I think it's completely unfair to be so misrepresented," she said in a phone call to EW.com after the speech. "I feel completely f---ed over." She and sister Ann Wilson then e-mailed the following exclusive statement:

"Sarah Palin's views and values in NO WAY represent us as American women. We ask that our song 'Barracuda' no longer be used to promote her image. The song 'Barracuda' was written in the late 70s as a scathing rant against the soulless, corporate nature of the music business, particularly for women. (The 'barracuda' represented the business.) While Heart did not and would not authorize the use of their song at the RNC, there's irony in Republican strategists' choice to make use of it there."

It will be interesting to see how this develops, including whether Heart will file suit, as Jackson Browne recently did, or whether the campaign will latch on to the song and continue its use in more of a theme manner. I mentioned yesterday, citing an Indianapolis Business Journal article, that some entertainment lawyers feel that the use of a song to the extent it becomes a theme greatly increases the chances that the general public would impute the use of the song as an endorsement by its artist. At the same time, there is also a strong First Amendment defense, since the songs use has generally been political in nature. Still, it may be possible Heart could gain a temporary injunction relatively soon, which could at least stop the further use of the song.

Here's the video from last night, with "Barracuda" beginning around 1:35:

"Barricuda" is the nickname of Sarah Palin from her days as a point guard on the high school basketball team.  It is also the title of the very famous song by Heart. 

Analysis:  This now appears to be a pattern in the McCain camp or Republican Party of not getting copyright permissions to use copyrighted works of others.  Jackson Browne has already sued the Republicans for using his song without permission in a McCain video.  Earlier in the primary, FOX News sent a letter to stop McCain from using FOX footage in its campaign videos.  And, just this week, the McCain camp used copyrighted footage of CSPAN or some other network to create a badly cropped video of Sarah Palin's speech, which I'm assuming was done in order to cover up the CSPAN logo. 

I'm all for liberal fair use in the context of presidential campaigns, which are no doubt important for this country, but it does seem ironic to see presidential candidates flagrantly disregard copyrights, particularly with musical works (which receive a greater scope of protection than coverage of news events).

En efecto, el Jurado determinó que Carter Bryan había desarrollado los primeros bocetos o diseños de las modernas muñecas, que posteriormente se llamarían “Bratz”, mientras trabajaba para Mattel como diseñador de trajes para la “Barbie”. Debido a esta relación laboral entre diseñador y empresa en el momento de la concepción de dichos diseños, éstos se consideran lo que en el sistema anglosajón se conoce como “work made for hire” (obra por encargo).

A diferencia de lo que ocurre en España, mediante esta figura de “work for hire” una empresa o persona jurídica puede ser considerada autor de cualquier obra realizada por alguno de sus empleados dentro de las funciones por las que ha sido contratado o incluso autor de toda obra que haya sido expresamente encargada a una persona independiente a la empresa siempre y cuando se cumplan ciertas condiciones.

En España por el contrario, las cosas no suceden de esa forma. En primer lugar, sí es cierto que existe en virtud del artículo 51 de la Ley de Propiedad intelectual vigente, una presunción de cesión en exclusiva al empleador de los derechos de explotación sobre una obra creada por uno de sus empleados. Pero también es verdad que es una situación que se rige por lo pactado y por lo tanto podría haberse acordado lo contrario en el contrato laboral entre ambos.

De todas formas, aunque nada se hubiese pactado en el contrato entre las partes y se diera la presunción de cesión en exclusiva de la que hablábamos, a la empresa o empleador no se le consideraría autor de la obra sino titular derivativo de los derechos de explotación sobre esa obra, conservando el trabajador asalariado o autor, los derechos morales sobre la misma, aunque eso sí, en cierta manera modulados (pero eso es otra historia).

El quid de la cuestión estaría en determinar si, en el caso de una persona contratada como diseñador de vestidos de muñecas, lo que parece ser era el cometido de Carter en Mattel, la presunción de cesión alcanza a otras creaciones de propiedad intelectual distintas a aquella específica tarea para la que fue contratado. Mientras en EEUU el concepto del “work for hire” alcanzaría a todas las creaciones, en España podría ser un tanto discutible, especialmente habida cuenta del carácter favorable al trabajador de la jurisdicción social. Por lo tanto, sería altamente recomendable no confiarse a la cesión por presunción legal e incluir una cláusula en este sentido en el contrato de trabajo.

Así que, visto lo visto, aquí en España a lo mejor Mattel no hubiese tenido la misma suerte y el señor Bryan podía haber hecho lo que hubiese querido con sus diseños. Sin embargo, todo este asunto ha tenido lugar en California (U.S.A.) y por eso mismo, según dicen algunos, “Era una Batalla de Muñecas y Barbie ha ganado”.

<Nancy scans the crowd, sees many hands go up.>

How many of you read anything other than this handy pictograph chart Creative Commons provides?

<Scanning the crowd, only a few hands remain in the air.>

So, how long are you licensing your works for under the very popular Creative Commons' Attribution NonCommercial Sharealike 3.0 Unported license, as well as in most of the other CC 3.0 licenses?

<silence from the crowd>

Nobody?  Well, would it surprise you to learn that once you license a work through the CC 3.0 license you have given someone the right to use the work perpetually (i.e. forever).

<crickets>

Or how about that you give someone the right to adapt (i.e. make a derivative work) your work forever.

<still nothing>

Sure, the license is technically for non-commercial purposes, but really that is a technicality.  The contract provides that a licensee may not use the works "in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation."  Who sets out to make a documentary for commercial advantage or private monetary compensation?  Or choreographs a ballet for the money?  Writes poetry?  Maintains a blog?

In all seriousness, those who use Creative Commons branded licenses should take great care to really understand the impact, both short term and long term, that using the license might have on their career or their works.  More importantly, even though Creative Commons refers to the full document as "Lawyer Readable Legal Code," like any other contract you should read and understand it before signing it.

Especially since like most contracts, there is a strong likelihood that if you end up litigating a Creative Commons brand license in the United States it will be enforced.   Recently, a federal court of appeals upheld the "Artistic License," a form of open source license, that the developer of a software for model trains had used to distribute the program.  (Jacobsen v. Katzer)

In Jacobsen v. Katzer, a collective of computer programers who happen to be model train enthusiasts had created an application that they licensed through the Java Model Railroad Interface ("JMRI") under the Artistic License.  Katzer allegedly incorporated elements of the JMRI program into its competing software application without complying with the terms of the Artistic License.  In addition to claiming copyright infringement due to the breach of the license, Jacobsen and JMRI sought to invalidate a patent Katzer had obtained on elements of the underlying software.  Initially the lower court held that the issue in Jacobsen v. Katzer was one of breach of contract, not infringement of copyright.

However, on appeal the court held that where the use of a copyright protected work falls outside the terms of a license infringement has occurred.  Applying standard contract theory, the Judge held that the license grant in the Artistic License was limited in scope, that the terms of the license served as conditions to the grant and that those conditions are "vital to enable the copyright holder to retain the ability to benefit from the work of downstream users."

Significantly, however, is that Jacobsen v. Kertzer joins a long line of cases where courts enforce contracts.  Technically the court has declared that the Artistic License is an enforceable agreement.  Breaching it as it relates to the underlying copyright results in copyright infringement because the use is outside of the grant of the license.

But if the license grant is as broad as those included in many of the Creative Commons branded agreements, it might be hard to find a use that falls outside the grant to support a copyright infringement claim.   So when you opt for the convenience of a Creative Commons branded license agreement it is important to take the time to read and comprehend what the contract really means, both for the present and the future.