Copyright & Trademark in the Geek World, Part 1: Geeks have Coulton's Back
If you've been paying attention to geek-related news, you may have read about the following stories:
*"Glee" used a version of Jonathan Coulton's "Baby Got Back" without credit, payment, or other acknowledgment.
*Games Workshop had Amazon take down an indie book because the author used the term "Space Marine" in the title.
These stories provoked outrage among various groups of fans and other folks on the Internet: it's evident that *something* isn't right, or fair going on in each of these situations. I see the problems as related to a) the law, and b) how legal practices work, e.g., tends to favor those with money.
The Coulton event (2) primarily deals with copyright. The Games Workshop event primarily deals with trademark. These are related subjects, but they are quite different legally. Popular articles/accounts often confuse the two. I'll talk about each in turn.
Let's look at the copyright issue. Copyright is my area of study. My favorite copyright attorney once described copyright to me as "arcane" (2) and "labyrinthine." It can be confusing, understood by few and overly complicated. Over time, it's played a bigger and bigger role in people's everyday lives. Whereas in the 70s, I'm told, you would have to exert yourself to find a story about copyright in the news, today I go through several a day. So, here's a quick and dirty look at the situation:
COULTON & GLEE
Jonathan Coulton probably used what's referred to as a statutory compulsory mechanical license to cover Sir Mix-a-Lot's "Baby Got Back" a few years ago. Glee then copied that arrangement for an episode. What's that all mean?
So, copyright covers several uses of a work. Absent an exception (3), such uses are the exclusive right of the copyright holder (4). One of those rights is the creation of a derivative work, which to keep things simple we'll say a work based on an already existing work. However, once upon a time Congress cared about making sure that copyright holders couldn't completely lock down content. Cover songs have a special place in copyright law (5). Basically, the copyright holders of a song (6) cannot stop someone from making a cover song provided the person making the cover song uses the statutory compulsory mechanical license. Statutory = in the actual statute. Mechanical = making a "mechanical" reproduction of the song (the term is from sheet music days, but basically means making a copy). Compulsory = the copyright holder cannot deny this use if the law is followed. The person making the cover has to pay a compulsory rate to the song writer, the amount of which is determined by the Copyright Royalty Board every few years. The total amount is based on things like the number of copies sold, the number of people who hear the song, and so on.
So Jonathan Coulton called up the Harry Fox Agency (the group that usually handles the compulsory license) and got a license to make a cover of Baby Got Back.
So if you're not lost yet, now it gets complicated. =P
While the compulsory license does allow you to create a reinterpretation of the work, it does not allow you to change "the fundamental character" of a work with your reinterpreation (which can lead to legal fun), and more on point, the statute (17 USC 115(a)(2)) explicitly does not convey additional copyright protection to the new arrangement without consent of the copyright holder. So unless Coulton got permission from the copyright holder of Baby Got Back, then he doesn't have copyright protection for his arrangement.
So, Glee basically got the same or a similar license from the Harry Fox Agency, and since Coulton didn't have copyright protection in the arrangement, they could legally use the arrangement without legal hassle.
He might have some protection if they actually used his tracks, though, because unlike the arrangement, those specific recordings ARE probably protected by copyright. And that's probably what he's looking into.
The other thing to remember is this: in most situations, license trumps copyright law. If the specifics of Jonathan Coulton's license come into play at all, a lot of the legal issues can't be figured out by looking at the statute.
So… is what Glee did legal? Maybe, if they didn't use the exact recordings (which is in dispute). Is it fair and/or ethical? Heck no. This is one of those disconnects between law and fairness. Coulton should be getting credit for his arrangement without having to shame Fox.
1. …The Coulton Event is the name of my Paul & Storm cover band… *drumbeat*
2. Definitely arcane. The next time your party wizard starts going off about magic, pretend he's talking about copyright and RP accordingly.
3. There are many exceptions. Don't think that copyrights are the be-all and end-all; these exceptions are important.
4. The copyright holder is not necessarily the author/creator. Keep that in mind.
5. And the Abyss.
6. And songs can have lots of copyright holders. The song writer, the lyric writer, the performer… it takes a village, people.
Filed in Copyright, Fans, Intellectual Property, News | Permalink | Comments (0) »
Fantasy Author Fanfiction
I just found this interesting… Steven Brust is an established fantasy author, and from what I've heard from those who have encountered him a genuinely nice person. I own a number of his books. His was one of the very first author Web sites I found on the Internet in the early days, and he even responded to an email I'd sent. ^_-
Joss Whedon created a really, really excellent sci-fi series called Firefly (as well as the full-length feature film that followed it, Serenity). Brust wrote a Firefly fan novel- because… well, he just had to. He licensed it under a Creative Commons license. The discussion on Boing Boing brings up all kinds of interesting questions about derivative works, acts of sharing, and acts of creation.
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/02/18/steven-brusts-unauth.html
Filed in Copyright, Fans | Permalink | Comments (0) »
Nebula Awards: Anime and Creative Commons represented
Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America have released the 2007 Nebula Awards (seen on BoingBoing and Scriveners Error). Again, lots of my interests have converged, especially being an SF/F fan all of my life.
First, Hayao Miyazaki, Cindy Davis Hewitt, and Donald H. Hewitt screenplay adaptation of Diana Wynne Jones' Howl's Moving Castle won best script. Miyazaki, of course, is the head of Studio Ghibli, and is one of Japan's most respected directors. Studio Ghibli and Miyazaki brought us movies such as Our Neighbor Totoro, Laputa: Castle in the Sky, Kiki's Delivery Service, Princess Mononoke, and Spirited Away as well as many others, all of which are worth watching. Howl's Moving Castle was a beautiful and enjoyable film. The script got a bit muddled in the end, and the themes diverged quite a bit from the teen book it's based on, but it was still an enjoyable movie. We bought the DVD as soon as it was released in the US.
James Patrick Kelly's Burn received the award for Best Novella. Burn was available as a Creative Commons License podcast, and Kelly freely made .doc, .rtf, .pdf, and .li (Microsoft Reader) copies of the work available from his website.
Filed in Anime, Copyright, Fans | Permalink | Comments (7) »
The Melancholy of Suzumiya Haruhi
The Melancholy of Suzumiya Haruhi (Spoilerific Wikipedia Entry) was one of my wife's and my favorite shows of this past year. It's unique in a lot of ways- from it's play on traditional anime themes to it's interesting use of chronology. Plus, it's hilarious.
The anime community has had a long tradition of making works available in countries outside of Japan before they're released in the form of fansubs, copies that are subtitled and distributed by fans. The practice of fansubbing has evolved a great deal since the creation and increase in use of the Internet. At any rate, it's one of the reasons anime is so popular in the U.S. now. Now, Japan has always had interesting practices regarding fan based works. I've mentioned some of them before in the Otakon thread. Basically, a lot of things go on that are technically copyright infringement- such as the creation and sale of derivative doujinshi (fan comics)- but for whatever reason, some companies don't enforce their copyrights. Even in the US, different companies have been known to appreciate fansubs. The fansubbing community has it's own ethical standards as well- once a work is licensed in the U.S., distribution generally stops.
Well, Bandai has done something interesting now that they've licensed Suzumiya Haruhi.
http://www.asosbrigade.com/
First, they make a fan-like video with actors and actresses in the manner mirroring the show itself. They also thank fans who get the fansubs and buy DVDs, and specifically don't thank people who get the fansubs and don't buy the licensed DVDs. ^_^ They also make "mistakes-" like forgetting to subtitle the first video. (The "fixed" video is now up.) Fun. They've also got a MySpace page for the show.
Filed in Anime, Copyright, Fans, Japan | Permalink | Comments (4) »