Ethics – Copyright Clearance Center Rights Licensing Expert Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:09:39 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Ethics – Copyright Clearance Center 32 32 Frankfurt Book Fair 2017: A Look Ahead Thu, 05 Oct 2017 08:00:40 +0000 CCC’s Director of International Relations has a few recommendations for can’t-miss events if you’re going to #FBM17.

The post Frankfurt Book Fair 2017: A Look Ahead appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

With Frankfurt Book Fair 2017 only a week away, CCC’s Michael Healy, Executive Director of International Relations, has a few recommendations for can’t-miss events that you should mark on your calendar if you’re going to the Fair:

  • Frankfurt Rights MeetingThis has been a “must attend” event for senior rights professionals for 30+ years. The program is always fascinating and the networking excellent. Looking forward especially to the sessions on Japan this year.
  • The MarketsThe Markets is always a great, concentrated opportunity to learn about what’s happening in particular key markets and some lesser-known ones. UK, India and Malaysia feature this year. The panel discussion on women in publishing, featuring CCC’s President and CEO Tracey Armstrong, looks like one not to be missed!
  • Knowledge Engineering: The new business value accelerator in the digital transformation journeyIf you’re a publisher interested in extending the value of your content, this session on knowledge engineering should be essential. Learn how data analysis can drive content discovery for your business with CCC’s CTO Babis Marmanis and Carl Robinson, senior publishing consultant at Ixxus.
  • Towards a copyright manifesto for international publishingCopyright is a hot topic right now and no longer just for lawyers and academics. This session features insights from those on the front line of the copyright wars, including me!
  • Open Access Master Class: University APCs: Publishers and institutional leadership require a solution for the inefficiency of Article Publication Charges (APCs). Join Maurits van der Graaf of Pleiade Management and Consultancy and Laura Cox of Ringgold in conversation with CCC’s Chris Kenneally, Business Development Director to find out what a business-minded application that serves all stakeholders could mean to the bottom line for you, and your partners too.
  • The Arts+: Frankfurt isn’t just about books these days, and The Arts+ is the place to find out what the future of the creative industries looks like. Great sessions on the interplay between tech and creativity are promised.

Exhibitors to visit:

  • IPR License: Hall 4.2, Stand E19
  • Guest of Honor 2017: France: Hall F.1 Stand A1
  • Copyright Clearance Center: Hall 4.2 Stand E18


We’ll see you at the Frankfurt Book Fair, 10-15 October 2017.

Join Us at the Hot Spots, Location: Hall 4.2 N99

Knowledge Engineering: The New Business-Value Accelerator in the Digital Transformation Journey Add to your calendar app: Wednesday, 11 October, 11:00–11:30

Open Access Master Class: University APCs  Add to your calendar app: Thursday, 12 October, 15:00–15:30

Visit Us at Hall 4.2, Stand E18

Book a Meeting with the team

Tweet with Us@copyrightclear#cccfrankfurt#fbm17

The post Frankfurt Book Fair 2017: A Look Ahead appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0
Is Attribution Enough? Thu, 31 Aug 2017 16:05:22 +0000 Common misconception: If I give attribution, then I can use that copyright owner’s photograph, article, chart or graph, and not get into copyright infringement trouble.

The post Is Attribution Enough? appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

If you give attribution when using someone else’s copyrighted content at work, can you avoid copyright infringement? Wells Fargo Sr. Company Counsel – IP Carrie Hefte says “no”. Hear Carrie explain what happens when an employee uses online images in a presentation without the photographer’s permission.

Video Transcript

Hi, I’m Carrie Hefte and I work at WellsFargo. I’ve been here a long time as one of the intellectual property attorneys, and so I’ve heard every crazy idea that an employee might have about copyright law. And here’s one of them: If I give attribution, in other words write down the copyright owner’s name, then I can use that copyright owner’s photograph, article, chart or graph, and not get into copyright infringement trouble. That’s not true, of course, and one of our employees found that out the hard way.

So, one of our employees, years ago, was going to be giving a public-facing seminar. She needed a couple of photographs to put into her PowerPoint presentation, so she went out on the Internet, grabbed two photos, and then put the photographer’s name under those two photos, thinking that would get her out of copyright infringement trouble. That doesn’t get you out of copyright infringement trouble, and, of course, someone in the audience ratted on her. Yes, believe it or not, someone in the audience ratted on her and contacted the photographer and said, “Hey, did you know this woman at WellsFargo is using your photographs?” The photographer didn’t know that, and the next thing I saw was a cease and desist letter. So, we of course negotiated a settlement and paid the photographer.

You may think that copyright owners don’t come after people who are infringing on their copyrights, but that’s very few of those instances go to a lawsuit. They settle, just like the situation I explained. So, you need to keep yourself out of trouble by not thinking that giving the copyright owner attribution will keep you out of copyright infringement trouble. Thank you.

The post Is Attribution Enough? appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0
What Is Real Art? The Debate Continues Fri, 23 Jun 2017 08:30:22 +0000 “Aerosol art” is at the center of a court case that could set a precedent for what qualifies as “real art” protected under the Visual Artists Rights Act.

The post What Is Real Art? The Debate Continues appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

If you ever took the 7 train through Queens before 2014, you probably rode right past 5Pointz. And depending on your artistic leanings, you might have been impressed by the splashes of color and paint, or you might have been upset by the graffiti plastered across a five-story, block-long industrial building. Ah, artistic interpretation!

5Pointz Aerosol Art Center was an outdoor exhibition space in New York City, founded by graffiti veteran Jonathan Cohen. For nearly two decades, it was a graffiti “museum” attracting visitors, artists, musicians, filmmakers, photographers and admirers of all sorts. Brands like Deutsche Bank and Heineken even collaborated with artists for specific advertising campaigns featuring 5Pointz work.

As gentrification swept the city and the housing market demand increased, owner Gerald Wolkoff, who initially gave permission to the artists to paint on his building, whitewashed the graffiti in 2013, upsetting the artists who had curated the mass collection of works. The building was torn down a year later to make way for condominiums.

While this institution of “aerosol art” no longer exists, it is at the center of a New York court case. The plaintiffs – 23 graffiti artists whose work was displayed at 5Pointz – claim their work deserved special protections under the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), and, as such, are seeking damages from Wolkoff and his company, G&M Realty.

Initially, in 2013, the plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the destruction of their murals. After the murals had been painted over, the artists argued they were not given the proper 90-day notice of removal. These motions were ultimately denied. However, when the artists refiled the case in 2015, claiming that VARA was on their side, a judge ruled there was enough evidence to warrant a trial because G&M Realty’s argument discrediting the graffiti as not of “recognizable stature” wasn’t strong enough. The widespread awareness of 5Pointz and the visitors it attracted, coupled with the use of the graffiti in the Heineken and Deutsche Bank advertising campaigns, might have swayed him.

At the center of the current case lie the issues of whether graffiti can be considered visual art of “recognized stature” and whether THIS graffiti is “meritorious” and “recognized” by art experts and the artistic community; if so, then it qualifies for protection under VARA. Depending on whom you ask, the answer varies widely.

However this case turns out – it will proceed to a jury trial, but has not yet been assigned a trial date – it will have implications moving forward that could set a precedent for what qualifies as “real art.” Congress debated this precise issue during the passing of VARA but without resolution; if the plaintiffs prove successful in their lawsuit, those who initially opposed VARA will likely again argue that the statute is too far-reaching and broad.

The post What Is Real Art? The Debate Continues appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0
Can Copyright Undermine Fake News? Fri, 17 Mar 2017 08:00:54 +0000 Platforms seek tech-driven solutions to combat fake news, but copyright enforcement may be the simplest solution.

The post Can Copyright Undermine Fake News? appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

There was a time when a news story was either classed as ‘news’ or ‘not news.’ If the story was current and significant, it was news, but if it was too lighthearted or lifestyle focused, it was not. These days, however, there is a third category: fake news.

From Pope Francis’ endorsement of Trump to the Pizzagate conspiracy, which led a gunman to enter a Washington pizzeria, fictional news stories  spread wildly across social media last year.

Top 3 fake political news stories on Facebook in 2016*

  • “Obama signs executive order banning the Pledge of Allegiance in Schools Nationwide” –
    2,177,000 shares, comments and reactions
  • “Pope Francis shocks world, endorses Donald Trump for President” – Ending The Feed
    961,000 shares, comments and reactions
  • Trump offering free one-way tickets to Africa & Mexico for those who wanna leave America –
    802,000 shares, comments and reactions

Such was the volume of misinformation in 2016 that trust in news reporting has deteriorated. According to figures from BuzzFeed News, hoaxes about US politics racked up 10.6 million shares, comments and reactions on Facebook last year. And fake news managed to steal the headlines to such an extent that Oxford Dictionaries selected ‘post-truth’ as its word of the year for 2016.

The public once enjoyed high-quality content paid for through advertising, subscriptions, and licensing, and protected by copyright.  Platforms, through intentional and unintentional design, political lobbying, and disregard of rights have undermined that traditional model.  I get the utopian vision of the early internet days.  At the time, there was an ethos that if the old business models were destroyed, we would reach a nirvana of citizen journalists and user generated content.  Platforms developed a new model based on clicks, but revenue models based on clicks are a difficult path for supporting a network of stringers, photographers, and reporters around the world.

As anyone in industry knows, enforcing copyright without the backing of platforms is not only expensive, it’s virtually impossible. Platforms have made combating copyright protection one of their key lobbying priorities, and have funded Astroturf organizations to hide their corporate interests.  Now as platforms seek fancy, tech-driven solutions to identifying and combating fake news — such as the use of artificial intelligence — they continue to avoid the simplest solution.

It should come as no surprise that it seems the only solution not being discussed by platforms is the support of copyright:  the legal regime that has enabled high-quality news for centuries.

Countless individuals across the globe are frustrated by the content they receive from their news and social feeds. They want news that will deepen their understanding of the world, make them feel enlightened and informed, and inspire them to share ideas of importance to them. If platform companies started to help creators defend their rights, and stopped lobbying against copyright, they would both provide users with something useful, and begin fixing the mess they created.


The post Can Copyright Undermine Fake News? appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0
Ignore Copyright Issues at Your Peril Tue, 07 Feb 2017 08:00:51 +0000 Copyright is more than a matter for lawyers or academics. It's the subject of continuing, divisive debate within publishing.

The post Ignore Copyright Issues at Your Peril appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

Not only is copyright central to publishing success, but it is also a notoriously tricky subject. Get it right and everyone’s happy; get it wrong and there will be consequences. Copyright is more than just a matter for legal teams or academics. It is the subject of a continuing and divisive debate within the publishing world. Copyright offers the publishing industry an element of protection, and publishers are keen to avert anything that could damage those protections.

So why does copyright remain such an elusive topic across the industry? The answer lies with the idea that copyright risks are not an immediate problem, are too hard to predict, or are something that affects other industries. Admittedly, copyright is just one issue on a long list of challenges for publishers today, but that doesn’t mean the industry can ignore it.

While publishers may not be able to control legal changes to copyright, they can and must stay vigilant and involved.

The risk is that if publishers become too complacent, they will become more vulnerable and less equipped to face an increasingly unpredictable landscape. When one is dealing with issues of copyright, conditions can change in the blink of an eye: a hostile judicial decision could suddenly be published, or unfavorable new legislation could be passed. Unfortunately, even if these changes in the law are challenged later, there can be a sense of too little too late. The damage has been done, and there’s no going back.

Here are three examples from around the world of situations where copyright has worked against publishers and other rightsholders.

#1: Insufficient legislation

When Canada’s Copyright Modernization Act was passed in 2012, the country’s publishing industry (not to mention its cultural heritage) received a serious blow. The root of the problem was that the legislation didn’t sufficiently reflect the traditional “balance” of copyright interests (weighing the rights and needs of BOTH users AND copyright holders and maintaining the balance between them) and gave too short shrift to the interests of copyright holders. As a result, the new law tilted heavily in favor of academic (and maybe other) users by providing greater limitations on copyright and the revenue of Canadian educational publishers and their authors dropped sharply. Among the casualties was Emond Publishing, which ended its high-school publishing program. Its president summed up the situation as follows: “This is what falling off a cliff in the publishing business looks like.”

#2: Potential IP changes

The Australian government asked the Productivity Commission to investigate the country’s IP infrastructure and recommend how to “improve the overall wellbeing of Australian society.” When faced with the prospect of potentially damaging proposals, the publishing community united to mount a high-profile counter campaign.

#3: Licensing revenues stripped from publishers

In a supranational union such as the EU, judicial decisions can have an impact far beyond any one country’s borders. That impact can stretch to all 28 of the EU’s member states, and will almost certainly have some kind of effect in each one of those member states in which the same situation exists as the one before the court.

An example of this came in the case between Hewlett-Packard and Reprobel, a Belgian copyright collective licensing organization. In October 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that Reprobel was no longer permitted to split money from levy schemes (which are like involuntary licensing systems imposed by the government) between publishers and authors. The court held that under the language of the continent-wide European copyright directive, publishers cannot be considered rightsholders entitled to any compensation under such schemes.

Of course, the effect of this holding applies not only to Reprobel’s distribution of levy money but also to similar systems that are administered by several other collecting societies within the EU. The decision came as a huge shock to many publishers and their trade associations, upending 40 years of practice, disrupting the basis of collective licensing in many European countries, and potentially damaging publishers’ licensing revenues.

The wider impact of the CJEU ruling was felt in April this year, when the German Federal Supreme Court found VG WORT, a local collecting society, to have acted unlawfully in the distribution of money from the German levy scheme to publishers.

Because only limited opportunity exists within the legal system to change these decisions from these highest courts in their respective jurisdictions, publishers are being forced to look for other ways to restore something of the preexisting status quo. One obvious alternative is to seek from the relevant legislatures changes in existing statutes, but that would involve a huge amount of work. Publishers in some countries are taking the beginning steps in this direction, but there is no single, clear path to a resolution that will please all.

The upshot is that collecting societies affected by these rulings have withheld further payments to publishers and other collecting societies. It has also been suggested that societies will have to recover past payments to publishers. If this were to happen, the financial repercussions could be immense.

Place copyright center stage

Clearly any further changes to copyright law or any new legal rulings can have the kind of major impact on publishers that these two recent court decisions (and the Canadian copyright law changes) have had. While publishers may not be able to control these changes, they can and must stay vigilant and involved. Remaining engaged with what is happening right now – for example, the scheduled government review of the Canadian copyright law changes in 2017 – allows publishers to understand how these changes could affect their businesses and to take steps, both alone and in concert with others, to influence how these changes can be effected (if positive), ameliorated (if negative), or otherwise addressed.

Publishers need to stay up to date with changing copyright trends, just as they would any other market trend. It might be tempting to think “it won’t happen to me”; but if it does and you’re not prepared, you could find it’s too late.

The post Ignore Copyright Issues at Your Peril appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0