Websites -- the Response from Fox
Bernardine
Gil Trevizo <tre...@chaos.taylored.com> wrote:
>I just got off the phone with David Oakes, after a long conversation with
>him about their policy on unauthorized Millennium websites. For the sake
>of both sides in this, I promised him (and myself) that I would write an
>objective unbiased account of our discussion.
<snip>
And thank you for taking the time to do just that Gil.
I spoke up in favour of Fox's rights to protect their legally-owned
materials some time ago, especially as it involved mutated or
otherwise pornographic material. And my heart goes out to G.
Anderson at the thought of cut & pasted porn of her being
distributed around the net -- but then my heart goes out to her
every day when I see some of the personally-assaultive threads
that wind their miserable way into this ng.
Fox has an undeniable legal right to protect ownership of
their materials, but estopping fans from celebrating the
show is too much. The reason these shows receive as much
attention as they do is the high quality of thought and creativity
that the writers and producers donate. Go take a peek in the
Sliders ng some time ... it's like, "Hello???? Anybody hereeeeee?"
No. Chris Carter and the people he gathered have made a
great investment in this show and they have created something
more than a commercial product, they have created ART. And
that's why this newsgroup is as popular and well-staffed as it
is, and that's why so many fans are willing to take personal
stakeholds in this show.
Art, as we know, is only partly the creation of the artist, it
must be seen, observed and appreciated in order for it to
truly exist. And as art is wont to do, it builds on itself, it
inspires more and greater creation and expressions (Dark Skies
being an obvious exception.)
Fox should definitely put the clamps on any screen savers, T-Shirts
and key-rings, music cds and definitely butchered porn that are
created using pirated logos and pics. Fox should _encourage_
the growth and appreciation of fan-created monuments to this
great show. Not to secure fan loyalty, but because it is a
natural extension of the celebration of Carter's art. Fox should
put together a user-agreement with web-sites they approve of,
and allow page owners controlled usage of the logo.
It's a slippery slope they wish to teeter on the edge of --
technically 90% of what is said in this group probably violates
Fox's copyrights, and I'm sure that GA could have _at least_
a hundred libel/slander suits on the go right now, if she
wanted to.
- Bernardine
Alexandra Leigh Nigro
Bernardine wrote:
>
> Gil Trevizo <tre...@chaos.taylored.com> wrote:
>
> >I just got off the phone with David Oakes, after a long conversation with
> >him about their policy on unauthorized Millennium websites. For the sake
> >of both sides in this, I promised him (and myself) that I would write an
> >objective unbiased account of our discussion.
>
> <snip>
have you as the spokesperson for all of us.
> I spoke up in favour of Fox's rights to protect their legally-owned
> materials some time ago, especially as it involved mutated or
> otherwise pornographic material.
Pornographic, untrue, or libelous material has no place in the majority
of our websites. In that regard, I wish Fox, 1013, and Ms. Anderson (if
she wishes to use her valuable time to pursue such idiots) all the luck
in the world.
I certainly hope that some compromise can be established between those
who use the freedom of the net for exploitation and those who sincerely
wish to share in CC's marvelous "art", as Bernadine explained.
And like Gil said, the most natural extension of fan appreciation is the
wonderful Gossamer Project. It should have no part of the official
site. While I can understand the shaky areas of sound and video clips,
fan-fiction has been and will always be non-profit.
As fans, I hope we can all present an example of how official and
"underground" media culture can get along - without harming creative
rights and without censoring the free and responsible flow of
information.
Bravo Gil, and thanks for being our voice.
--
**Alexandra Nigro**
X-Men, Fan-Fiction, X-Files:
http://home.earthlink.net/~alchemist8/index.html
The Southern Comfort Home Page:
http://home.earthlink.net/~alchemist8/southerncom.html
wol...@together.net
Brian E. Kushner wrote:
>
> >I've been following this thread fairly closely, and I've read most of
> >the posts pertaining to this issue. I'm still a little confused.
> >
> >Here's my question. I just paid $9.95 for the X-Files and consiracy
> >television Cinescape magazine. On the front cover, it says "This
> >publication is not sponsored, endorsed, licensed, sanctioned or
> >authorized by any studio or production company, including Twentieth
> >Century Fox Film Corporation". Inside are a mess of X-Files
> >pictures, an episode guide, interviews, reviews, advertisements and
> >all kinds of stuff. None of it attributed. (If I'm getting the full
> >meaning of the word) If all this was on a web page, what they're
> >saying is, this would be illegal? But the magazine isn't? Am I
> >missing something? If somebody could help me understand I'd
> >appreciate it.
> The magazine falls under freedom of the press!!!! You have to be a
> magazine or newspaper. For instance, if Time puts Gillian Anderson on
> the cover, she gets nothing, not even if it helps sell an extra
> million copies!!!!
>
> Brian
Freedom of the Press...What about freedom of the net?
ana...@pipeline.com
>Gil Trevizo <tre...@chaos.taylored.com> wrote:
>>I just got off the phone with David Oakes, after a long conversation with
>>him about their policy on unauthorized Millennium websites. For the sake
>>of both sides in this, I promised him (and myself) that I would write an
>>objective unbiased account of our discussion.
><snip>
pett...@fox.nstn.ca (Bernardine) wrote:
>And thank you for taking the time to do just that Gil.
>I spoke up in favour of Fox's rights to protect their legally-owned
>materials some time ago, especially as it involved mutated or
>otherwise pornographic material. And my heart goes out to G.
>Anderson at the thought of cut & pasted porn of her being
>distributed around the net -- but then my heart goes out to her
>every day when I see some of the personally-assaultive threads
>that wind their miserable way into this ng.
<snipped Bernadine's excellently written post>
Gil, it was an excellent page and I'm sure we'll all miss it, I know I
will.
I've been following this thread fairly closely, and I've read most of
the posts pertaining to this issue. I'm still a little confused.
Here's my question. I just paid $9.95 for the X-Files and consiracy
television Cinescape magazine. On the front cover, it says "This
publication is not sponsored, endorsed, licensed, sanctioned or
authorized by any studio or production company, including Twentieth
Century Fox Film Corporation". Inside are a mess of X-Files
pictures, an episode guide, interviews, reviews, advertisements and
all kinds of stuff. None of it attributed. (If I'm getting the full
meaning of the word) If all this was on a web page, what they're
saying is, this would be illegal? But the magazine isn't? Am I
missing something? If somebody could help me understand I'd
appreciate it.
I have no web page....I write no fan fiction, but I greatly appreciate
the hard work and effort of those who do.
**Anasazi**
**Don't unlock doors you're not prepared to walk through......X
Mishka2
In article <558g4m$n...@news.nstn.ca>, pett...@fox.nstn.ca (Bernardine)
writes:
>
>I spoke up in favour of Fox's rights to protect their legally-owned
>materials some time ago, especially as it involved mutated or
>otherwise pornographic material. And my heart goes out to G.
>Anderson at the thought of cut & pasted porn of her being
>distributed around the net -- but then my heart goes out to her
>every day when I see some of the personally-assaultive threads
>that wind their miserable way into this ng.
Yes, it's too bad that those people who post this type of stuff have made
the rest of us look bad. Some of the threads here and on other
NGs/websites truly embarrass me. But I think the vast majority of people
who post on X-Files on the Internet are above that, and have the best of
intentions for the shows, their creators, and the actors. Sometimes I
wish there was more of an effort by us to police our own, or for the
Internet providers to kick off people who post inappropriately. Maybe
we'd have a better reputation outside of our "little" group.
-- Mishka
*** Save the Fan Websites -- FREE SPEECH IS OUT THERE! ***
Ursula
> >
> >Here's my question. I just paid $9.95 for the X-Files and consiracy
> >television Cinescape magazine. On the front cover, it says "This
> >publication is not sponsored, endorsed, licensed, sanctioned or
> >authorized by any studio or production company, including Twentieth
> >Century Fox Film Corporation". Inside are a mess of X-Files
> >pictures, an episode guide, interviews, reviews, advertisements and
> >all kinds of stuff. None of it attributed. (If I'm getting the full
> >meaning of the word) If all this was on a web page, what they're
> >saying is, this would be illegal? But the magazine isn't? Am I
> >missing something? If somebody could help me understand I'd
> >appreciate it.
>
> The magazine falls under freedom of the press!!!! You have to be a
> magazine or newspaper. For instance, if Time puts Gillian Anderson on
> the cover, she gets nothing, not even if it helps sell an extra
> million copies!!!!
>
> Brian
Why only a magazine or newspaper? Does this include TV shows like ET? If
it does, a web page could just as easily be seen as electronic
publishing (I would go so far to say IMO it IS electronic publishing).
Could we have discovered a loophole? If the local paper has a right to
publish any picture it chooses, why can't we? Where's the difference,
other than the media itself? (and the fact that newpapers and magazines
are SOLD for profit, and websites are free for anyone to look at).
Could people with an XF page form a kind of "magazine ring", and create
a logo, or register as a publication? Then are we immune from Fox
harrassment? Or are we already immune under the same freedom of the
press laws?
Any legal minds, or people with their own pages care to comment?
Ursula
Bernardine
hol...@internetland.net wrote:
Alright, someone who knows something about this ...
<taking AMY's hand and sitting her down for a minute ...>
>Brian, I can't believe you just said that.
>Freedom of the press, my ass. That does not guarantee any publication the
>right to borrow or reproduce images previoulsy published elsewhere, that
>are not in the public domain.
Absolutely true.
>Chances are, a magazine like that one uses mainly pub shots that come
>gratis from the network or the production company, and it is nothing any
>college newspaper or other magazine couldn't come up with.
OK. When Fox does a PR mailing do they give consent to only
those on their mailing list to use the stuff? So that, if a college
media outlet who was not on the list gleaned the stuff from a local
newspaper and published it -- are they violating?
<snip>
>Magazines and newspapers are subject to the same copyright laws as anyone
>else. They are restricted to the terms of "Fair Use" -- i.e. did you know
>that reprinting two lines of a song constitutes fair use, but any more and
>you have to get permission from the artist/artists estate/etc?
I know you can make one photocopy of a book page and no
colour copies ;) And they're sticky on money too ...
Amy, can you give me more info, email it if you want. I'd like to
know what's stopping Gil from calling himself an E-Zine, and
operating as an entertainment media outlet? How would his
priviledges differ in terms of publication (to the net obviously?).
Thanks,
Bernardine
hol...@internetland.net
No -- sorry. Brian has "Freedom of the Press" and "Copyright law"
completely mixed up.
Hello! Papers can't even use the term "Velcro" without infringing on a
trademark -- borrowing photos would be beyond the pale. You can't use
"Kleenex" -- it must be "tissue." A paper/magazine must attribute -- and
ask for permission in most cases -- to use a graphic. Otherwise, they are
infringing on another party's right to make a profit from their own work.
There is more to the issue of copyright than where something is printed.
While I agree that FOX is shooting itself in the foot by alienating some
very passionate fans, this has nothing to do with "freedom of the press."
Freedom of the press usually covers such issues as potentially libelous
statements, the right to disseminate an opinion, and the possible
publication of sensitive national security documents.
(Further reading: "Communications Law"
Anyone with more that 2 law classes under their belts want to back me
up/tear me down on this?
AMY
BTW, you have to use "hook and eye adhesive" instead of Velcro (tm).
> > The magazine falls under freedom of the press!!!! You have to be a
> > magazine or newspaper. For instance, if Time puts Gillian Anderson on
> > the cover, she gets nothing, not even if it helps sell an extra
> > million copies!!!!
> >
> > Brian
>
(snipola)
Alan Hurshman
Ursula <ursul...@geocities.com> wrote in article
<327A4A...@geocities.com>...
snipp....
If
> it does, a web page could just as easily be seen as electronic
> publishing (I would go so far to say IMO it IS electronic publishing).
> publish any picture it chooses, why can't we? Where's the difference,
> other than the media itself? (and the fact that newpapers and magazines
> are SOLD for profit, and websites are free for anyone to look at).
This is not a loophole. If you personally take
a picture of GA or DD you can post it on your
web site. If you took the picture you own the
copyright and if you do not modify it you can
publish it anywhere you want. What you cannot
do is take a picture taken by someone else
and post it without their permission. Newspapers
and magazines do not publish any picture they
choose. They either directly or indirectly get
permission for every picture they print.
--
Alan Hurshman
Halifax, Nova Scotia
David C. Jones
In article <hollow-ya0231800...@news.internetland.net>,
hol...@internetland.net wrote:
> No -- sorry. Brian has "Freedom of the Press" and "Copyright law"
> completely mixed up.
You are right on the money. Someone could take GA's picture and put it on
a website, you could even say that she was an actress who starred on the X
Files. You could even "report" on individual episodes and discuss them;
however, you could not use pictures/audio/video taken from the show and
put it up because the rights to that material belongs to Fox.
David C. Jones
hol...@internetland.net
> Alright, someone who knows something about this ...
> <taking AMY's hand and sitting her down for a minute ...>
>
> >Brian, I can't believe you just said that.
> >Freedom of the press, my ass. That does not guarantee any publication the
> >right to borrow or reproduce images previoulsy published elsewhere, that
> >are not in the public domain.
>
> Absolutely true.
>
> >Chances are, a magazine like that one uses mainly pub shots that come
> >gratis from the network or the production company, and it is nothing any
> >college newspaper or other magazine couldn't come up with.
>
> OK. When Fox does a PR mailing do they give consent to only
> those on their mailing list to use the stuff? So that, if a college
> media outlet who was not on the list gleaned the stuff from a local
> newspaper and published it -- are they violating?
>
I am not, sigh, a compendium of legal knowledge. But my best guess is that
pub shots are in the pub(lic) domain. However, one must be careful about
such things as:
Using all or part of a movie ad, etc, as a graphic for a newspaper piece.
Using snipped stills from a Quicktime Movie. Check the provenance on these
things before going wholesale on them.
The shots I am talking about are sent out to many mags, newspapers, etc.
This is why oyu may see the same shots in many magazines. For reviewing
purposes, one can usually use cover art from a book, record, etc. For
movies and television, a publication typically has to take what it can get.
> >Magazines and newspapers are subject to the same copyright laws as anyone
> >else. They are restricted to the terms of "Fair Use" -- i.e. did you know
> >that reprinting two lines of a song constitutes fair use, but any more and
> >you have to get permission from the artist/artists estate/etc?
>
> I know you can make one photocopy of a book page and no
> colour copies ;) And they're sticky on money too ...
This comes under fair use. It has something to do with intent (for
instance : teaching) and dissemination. But there are times when you may
go into your local kinkos to have them copy something (like a textbook)
and they may refuse you. However, I do not know if they would not allow
you to use their machines to copy for yourself.
>
> Amy, can you give me more info, email it if you want. I'd like to
> know what's stopping Gil from calling himself an E-Zine, and
> operating as an entertainment media outlet? How would his
> priviledges differ in terms of publication (to the net obviously?).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bernardine
I believe that he could have put up pub stills such as might be found by
calling up FOX and asking for some for a publication. BUt he might have to
prove license or something.
"New media" is going to be a very grey and interesting area of law.
I don't know everything here, not even a lot, but I knew Brian was wrong.
A stint as an intern at a literary review (The Missouri Review), a
communications law class (J304 at Mizzou) and a few chats with a published
novelist (Carol Anshaw) are all I have to share with you.. But there are
others you can ask about this kind of thing.
Copyright law is a very touchy area.
AMY
Eric S. Smith: Left-Field Marshal
>I am not, sigh, a compendium of legal knowledge. But my best guess is that
>pub shots are in the pub(lic) domain.
Er, pub probably stands for "publicity", there. And having pored over a
pile of publicity stills at a recent garage sale, I can tell you that
they've got copyright notices on 'em. Presumably, you're allowed to use
them if they send them to you along with a note saying so; otherwise,
look but don't copy.
Now, frankly, I can't see Fox going spazzy over someone reproducing
something that they distributed for the purposes of reproduction, but
maybe they're worried that next, people will start selling, not just
showing. That would be a no-no. I dunno. Lawyers can be very, very
boring people.
--Eric Smith
Ms Parrotfish
Ana...@pipeline.com wrote:
>I've been following this thread fairly closely, and I've read most of
>the posts pertaining to this issue. I'm still a little confused.
>
>Here's my question. I just paid $9.95 for the X-Files and consiracy
>television Cinescape magazine. On the front cover, it says "This
>publication is not sponsored, endorsed, licensed, sanctioned or
>authorized by any studio or production company, including Twentieth
>Century Fox Film Corporation". Inside are a mess of X-Files
>pictures, an episode guide, interviews, reviews, advertisements and
>all kinds of stuff. None of it attributed. (If I'm getting the full
>meaning of the word) If all this was on a web page, what they're
>saying is, this would be illegal? But the magazine isn't? Am I
>missing something? If somebody could help me understand I'd
>appreciate it.
When magazines use photos that weren't taken by their own staff, it is
usually with the written permission of the copyright owner. If the
permission requires attribution, they're attributed. Usually, publicity
photos provided by a studio or production company don't require source
attribution. If the photos are stills from a tv show or movie, there are
probably captions that say so. Original, informational articles ABOUT a
show or a movie, like interviews, reviews and descriptive pieces do not
require permission because they do not infringe on any copyrights.
Parrotfish