Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Worried about privacy? You should be.
New post on government regulations requiring employers to collect and report employee and dependent personal information to a federal agency: "My News Muse" here.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Take note, fellow freelancers!
...Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review photographer Jerry Greenberg's appeal (okay, the legalese is "denied the appeal") in his 11-year-long case against National Geographic for including 60 photos of his work in "The Complete National Geographic," a 30-disc CD-ROM compilation.
Read the full story on this latest blow to freelancers here, and more about the history here and here>.
The Supreme Court denied Greenberg's petition for a writ of certiorari on Monday, which lets stand the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision from July holding that the National Geographic Society – and by extension, other publishers – have the right to reproduce their magazines' archive in digital format without paying any additional royalties to freelance photographers.Mickey H. Osterreicher, legal counsel for The National Press Photographer's Association, assessed the situation for freelancers:
"In these terrible economic times it will now allow publishers to create and sell electronic archives of their previously published works without infringing on the copyrights of the contributors to those works. This creates a terrible burden on the ability of photographers to earn a living.”This appears to weaken the 2001 ruling in New York Times Co., Inc. v. Tasini, a case decided in favor of the authors over electronic rights.
“It will now be imperative for photographers, authors, artists, and creators to be aware of this
decision as they negotiate for the use of their work and make sure that any contract that they agree to clearly delineate those rights and limitations."
Read the full story on this latest blow to freelancers here, and more about the history here and here>.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
AP double standard
Trouble started last week when Rogers Cadenhead, proprietor of the Drudge Retort (not to be confused with the more well-known Drudge Report), posted on Friday that the AP had sent him not one, but seven take-down notices for article citations on AP news stories.
Yet the AP was caught Monday lifting entire sections for a story published June 16th but which first appeared on the blog Patterico's Pontifications. I checked the article and noticed the AP reporter gave credit to the blog, but the question remains: how much of a story can be used and still be considered "Fair Use"? And of course, the glaring irony also stands--the AP's heavy-handed stance against bloggers quoting from AP articles while the AP lifts larger sections from, well, bloggers.
The Los Angeles Times confirmed on Monday that the AP, in an attempt to quell the backlash from the blogosphere on this ironic twist in violation of copyright standards, said it will "sit down with representatives of a bloggers group Thursday to devise guidelines allowing Internet commentators to use excerpts from AP stories and broadcasts."
The New York Times put it this way: "The A.P.’s effort to impose . . . guidelines on the free-wheeling blogosphere, where extensive quoting and even copying of entire news articles is common, may offer a prominent definition of the important but vague doctrine of “fair use . . . .”
My mother always said to be careful when pointing the finger at someone--three fingers point back at you.
Yet the AP was caught Monday lifting entire sections for a story published June 16th but which first appeared on the blog Patterico's Pontifications. I checked the article and noticed the AP reporter gave credit to the blog, but the question remains: how much of a story can be used and still be considered "Fair Use"? And of course, the glaring irony also stands--the AP's heavy-handed stance against bloggers quoting from AP articles while the AP lifts larger sections from, well, bloggers.
The Los Angeles Times confirmed on Monday that the AP, in an attempt to quell the backlash from the blogosphere on this ironic twist in violation of copyright standards, said it will "sit down with representatives of a bloggers group Thursday to devise guidelines allowing Internet commentators to use excerpts from AP stories and broadcasts."
The New York Times put it this way: "The A.P.’s effort to impose . . . guidelines on the free-wheeling blogosphere, where extensive quoting and even copying of entire news articles is common, may offer a prominent definition of the important but vague doctrine of “fair use . . . .”
My mother always said to be careful when pointing the finger at someone--three fingers point back at you.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Tolkien Trust sues New Line
Fans of Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" series will have to wait for Peter Jackson to direct "The Hobbit." Tolkien's estate was supposed to be paid 7.5 percent of gross receipts as specified in the movie contract with New Line. However, the plaintiffs claim they have only received an upfront payment of $62,500 for the three movies before production began--but nothing more since, although New Line and Time Warner, Inc. has raked in nearly $6 billion combined worldwide in profits. Selfish studios.
Why do writers get paid so little for their original work?
Winston Groom, author of "Forrest Gump," didn't receive a dime after he signed a contract for a share of the profits for the movie but his share was based on "net profits," rather than "gross points." Due to Hollywood accounting, he received nothing while his story turned into the third-highest-grossing film of all time.
Other films which became blockbusters yet paid writers next to nothing include Rain Man, Batman, JFK, and My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
This is just one reason writers went on strike earlier this past year led by the Writers Guild of America. Other issues included DVD sales and online viewings, new technologies or modes of delivery that writers had not anticipated for revenue streaming. The strike started November 5, 2007, and concluded on February 12, 2008.
Read your contracts carefully. "Net" means "nothing."
Why do writers get paid so little for their original work?
Winston Groom, author of "Forrest Gump," didn't receive a dime after he signed a contract for a share of the profits for the movie but his share was based on "net profits," rather than "gross points." Due to Hollywood accounting, he received nothing while his story turned into the third-highest-grossing film of all time.
Other films which became blockbusters yet paid writers next to nothing include Rain Man, Batman, JFK, and My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
This is just one reason writers went on strike earlier this past year led by the Writers Guild of America. Other issues included DVD sales and online viewings, new technologies or modes of delivery that writers had not anticipated for revenue streaming. The strike started November 5, 2007, and concluded on February 12, 2008.
Read your contracts carefully. "Net" means "nothing."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)