Search

Proposed Secondary Liability Regimes for Trademark Infringement Online: Commentary JANE GINSBURG: This is our last panel, and the object is to bring a number of experts, including practitioners and academics, from the United States and from abroad, to react to the two proposals that we just heard. Each of the panelists will give initial comments, and then we are going to go around the table again so that our panelists can react to one another’s comments.

A discussion of the conditions that should be applied to libraries and archives in their digitizing, maintaining and making available copyrighted works.

One of the things that film studios are hearing with increasing frequency is the suggestion that compulsory licenses are a solution to piracy. Those of us at film studios have a lot of concerns about that. The argument we are hearing is basically: “You can’t beat it, so you join it—legalize piracy and then tax it.”, The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, Vol. 34 No. 4 (2011)

Question and answer session.

Question and answer session.

Copyright Clearance Center (“CCC”) has been actively engaged in a variety of collective licensing models in the text publishing industry since it opened its doors on the effective date of the Copyright Act of 1976. The practical difficulties of collective licensing and collective management are legion; CCC has experience with many of them and has managed to avoid many others. This Paper is intended to address only a few in order to provide some context for today’s conference. No article PDF is available., The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, Vol. 34 No. 4 (2011)

Copyright law poses a significant challenge to any effort to create a comprehensive digital database of published books. Approximately eighty percent of these millions of titles are still under copyright. The tremendous amount of time, transaction costs and uncertainty relating to clearing the rights to so many works is overwhelming., The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, Vol. 34 No. 4 (2011)

Discussions of the collective management of copyright tend to celebrate their subject. Much of the work collected in this volume focuses upon the significant economic value created by collective management organizations (“CMOs”), as well as the practical difficulties presented by any realistic effort to unlock that value. I have been assigned a different role to play. My task is to explain one downside of CMOs, namely the risk they pose to competition, and hence the limitations that antitrust law places upon their activities. These limits are familiar to many symposium participants. After all, two of the leading CMOs in the United States, ASCAP and BMI, have operated under an antitrust consent decree for the past sixty years. No article PDF is available., The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, Vol. 34 No. 4 (2011)

The purpose of this essay is to examine collective licensing operations, with particular emphasis on some of the consequences for privacy, private use and fair use. I examine these issues in the context of a specific idea that might draw, at least in part, on a collective management approach: an emergent proposal to create a Digital Public Library of America (“DPLA”), which I think is an important undertaking., The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, Vol. 34 No. 4 (2011)

The title for this address, suggested by Jane Ginsburg and June Besek, prompted me to take a fresh look at the rules of landscape composition. I found six major ones. The first five rules are as follows: (a) group your subjects of importance within a center of interest; (b) avoid straight lines; (c) allow the viewer to interact and become a participant; (d) make good use of contrast; and (e) add some drama and avoid kissing the edges. I can promise you two of those five, namely that we will interact later, and that I will not be kissing any edges this morning. Unfortunately, I cannot promise drama. As to the center of interest and avoidance of straight lines, let us see what we can do. The last rule is to put striking features in the foreground set against a solid background. That I think I can deliver. Let us start with the background. I will use a realist technique for this part of my talk., The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, Vol. 34 No. 4 (2011)

"My topic is International Implications, a topic that would not exist but for the Internet. When access to archival materials was on a physical basis, patrons came to the archive and consulted the material on site; the material did not leave the archive, much less get sent overseas. Even digitized materials, if consulted on site, do not present the problems that arise if the archives puts this material on a website, which is accessible around the world, that ubiquity being the default condition of the Internet."

"We wanted to conclude the day by focusing on how you move forward and make a decision when the legal answer is unclear, as it often is. We’ve touched on this throughout the day; I know that [he] talked about it a little bit on his panel and everybody alluded to it at various points. How do you make a decision? How can you move forward on some level if you’re not absolutely certain of where you stand as a legal matter?"

"I am going to talk about the Digital Dark Age—and I love that concept—for reasons I’ll say in a minute. And I also want to thank the Kernochan Center and the Rockefeller Archives Center for the invitation to be here today. For reasons that will be apparent in my talk, I’ve been chomping at the bit to talk to lawyers about some of the problems we’re having in our current work. It’s been interesting to reflect on the sessions earlier in the focus on intellectual property and copyright. I think that sort of pertains to stuff we already have, and my focus is looking to the future, anticipating collections that we’re going to get. In this context, I think it’s important to distinguish between archives and special collections, because the context of what I’m talking about is our integral work with the archives of our own institution. As Bill was saying at the beginning, institutional archives have a sort of organic relationship to their records, and we’re entering into that kind of organic relationship. It’s a different kind of relationship that we have with our own materials versus what we might have with a historical collection that we go out and get and bring in. So we’re finding that it’s really more—in dealing with this—a cultural problem than a technical problem, for reasons that I’ll mention."

"Now, why single out different kinds of formats or different kinds of media and separate them out from the text-based materials that we’ve typically talked about? And there are a variety of answers. These diverse media present diverse challenges, and they also come in many different variations. I mean, just on the example of audiovisual works, they could range from a simple home movie to a feature release film, or on the example of sound recordings they could be something as simple as an interview, as straightforward as an interview, or it could be ethnological field studies, or it could be, well, Girl Talk and mashups and a variety of other kinds of works."

"Good morning. My name is Maria Pallante and I work at the Copyright Office in Washington, D.C. If you are not familiar with the Copyright Office, we administer the copyright law, we are housed in the Library of Congress and, as far as we know, we are in the legislative branch. I would like to thank Columbia Law School, the Kernochan Center and the Rockefeller Archive for inviting me to participate. I am always impressed by the symposia that Columbia puts together because, in my experience, it is one of the few places where we get to see lawyers, professors, students and nonlawyer archivists all come together, which is great for everybody."

This is the transcript from a symposium on copyright exceptions for libraries and section 108 reform done in cooperation with the U.S. Copyright Office.