PROTEST THE FOX CLOSING OF TREEHOUSE WEBSITE! Send this to all Fox Executives!
KirbyCrow
I did not write this. Its from the Treehouse guestbook and it was just
TOO good to pass up. E and Snail mail this to all Fox and Xfile execs.
Mine eyes have seen the horror of the killing of fan sites
By a group of psycho lawyers who enjoy stirring up fights
But much to their dismay we will not fade into the night
We Philes go marching on
Glory, glory, hallelujah
Ya got a problem? Well then screw ya!
We give X-Files support, but you pick on us for sport
What do you hope to gain?
Karma's gonna get you guys, it's got some things in store
For you nasty party poopers who are rotten to the core
You may have won this battle, but you're gonna lose the war
You can't get rid of us
Glory, glory, hallelujah
Ya got a problem? Well then screw ya!
We give your show support, but you hunt us down for sport
Your gun's aimed at your foot!
Phetsy Calderon
> I did not write this. Its from the Treehouse guestbook and it was just
> TOO good to pass up. E and Snail mail this to all Fox and Xfile execs.
>
> Mine eyes have seen the horror of the killing of fan sites
> By a group of psycho lawyers who enjoy stirring up fights
> But much to their dismay we will not fade into the night
> We Philes go marching on
Whoa whoa whoa people. Let's do a little critical thinking here, before we
man the ramparts of righteous outrage.
Fact 1: Under US law, which applies because Fox is domiciled in
California, Fox OWNS THE RIGHTS TO ALL X-FILES IMAGES. That includes the
rights to control where and how those images are made available.
Fact 2: Fox is not "shutting down the Treehouse." That would mean Fox was
blocking Pam from having any Web presence whatsoever. Ain't gonna happen.
Any semi-functional court would slap an injunction on Fox so fast it would
Blenderize their Dolce & Gabbana suits.
Fact 3: Fox has asked Pam to remove all X-Files still and video clips
from her site. No other works are named--which means her site is not being
"shut down" in toto.
Fact 4: Under US law, Fox has a *legal right* to perform this action. Now
whether or not it's wise is another story.
Now, given all that, it might be wiser to respond to Fox like a bunch of
grown ups instead of with something that's the moral equivalent of saying
"I hate you! You're mean and you have cooties!"
Also, for those of you who are responding to the exhortation to download
and retain images on the Treehouse, be mindful of what you are doing: this
is an act of piracy (yup, that's what the law says). Now, you may feel
strongly enough about this that you consider this an act of civil
disobedience, and if so, I can see where you'd feel morally obligated to
followup. Just be sure you understand what you've chosen to do--and what
you are asking others to do.
Let me offer the following resource for educating yourselves about
copyright questions: <http://www.benedict.com/>.
Frankly, I'm not so concerned about Fox exercising its rights over
material it clearly owns: what worries me is the specter of clamping down
on original art and text works created by fans but based on X-Files
concepts. I'm willing to toss them the bone of control over the things CC
& Co. have created if they continue to leave fan works alone
Phetsy
=====================
Phetsy Calderon
phe...@earthlink.net
"I thrive, myself, on all kinds of trouble."
--Maeve of Cruachan, in the Toin bo Cuailnge
Roseprism
THIS IS SOOOOO COOL! Fox's lawyers should really just "piss off!"
Lauren
mox.f...@fib.gob
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:11:14 -0800, Phetsy Calderon <phe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]
> Whoa whoa whoa people. Let's do a little critical thinking here, before we
> man the ramparts of righteous outrage.
I think it's well justified outrage.
> Fact 1: Under US law, which applies because Fox is domiciled in
> California, Fox OWNS THE RIGHTS TO ALL X-FILES IMAGES. That includes the
> rights to control where and how those images are made available.
No one is denying that Fox owns all their XF stuff. Ever heard of fair
use?
> Fact 2: Fox is not "shutting down the Treehouse." That would mean Fox was
> blocking Pam from having any Web presence whatsoever. Ain't gonna happen.
> Any semi-functional court would slap an injunction on Fox so fast it would
> Blenderize their Dolce & Gabbana suits.
Let's get back to the real world. When a fan gets a threat from a huge
corporation, he/she will not be likely to fight back. Why? Because it
takes money to even defend your rights. We are not talking about the law
here, because the legal theat alone does the job.
> Fact 3: Fox has asked Pam to remove all X-Files still and video clips
> from her site. No other works are named--which means her site is not being
> "shut down" in toto.
Actually, they asked for the video and audio clips to be removed, and they
requested that a copyright notice and disclaimer be put next to the
pictures.
> Fact 4: Under US law, Fox has a *legal right* to perform this action. Now
> whether or not it's wise is another story.
Ever heard of fair use?
> Now, given all that, it might be wiser to respond to Fox like a bunch of
> grown ups instead of with something that's the moral equivalent of saying
> "I hate you! You're mean and you have cooties!"
Well, that is exactly the level of maturity Fox is displaying.
> Also, for those of you who are responding to the exhortation to download
> and retain images on the Treehouse, be mindful of what you are doing: this
> is an act of piracy (yup, that's what the law says). Now, you may feel
Which law, specifically?
> strongly enough about this that you consider this an act of civil
> disobedience, and if so, I can see where you'd feel morally obligated to
> followup. Just be sure you understand what you've chosen to do--and what
> you are asking others to do.
> Let me offer the following resource for educating yourselves about
> copyright questions: <http://www.benedict.com/>.
You can also go directly to the government's site and read the law itself:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/title17/
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/title17/1-107.html
> Frankly, I'm not so concerned about Fox exercising its rights over
> material it clearly owns: what worries me is the specter of clamping down
> on original art and text works created by fans but based on X-Files
> concepts. I'm willing to toss them the bone of control over the things CC
> & Co. have created if they continue to leave fan works alone
They have absolutely no right to touch original work.
------------------------------------------------------
Al Ruffinelli <alv...@accesscom.com>
http://alvaro.interspeed.net/xf/xf.htm X-Files
http://alvaro.interspeed.net/xf/xf101.htm X-Files 101
------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mike
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:11:14 -0800, phe...@earthlink.net (Phetsy Calderon)
wrote:
>Fact 1: Under US law, which applies because Fox is domiciled in
>California, Fox OWNS THE RIGHTS TO ALL X-FILES IMAGES. That includes the
>rights to control where and how those images are made available.
Are you saying that if some magazine or photo agency takes pictures of GA
or DD, Fox has control over these?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
See my page of X-Files magazines from Canada, US, Australia, Finland
and England for sale -- http://www.mjq.net/xfiles/xfsale.htm
Cynthia Schmidt
a02...@giant.mindlink.net (Mr. Mike) wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:11:14 -0800, phe...@earthlink.net (Phetsy Calderon)
>wrote:
>>Fact 1: Under US law, which applies because Fox is domiciled in
>>California, Fox OWNS THE RIGHTS TO ALL X-FILES IMAGES. That includes the
>>rights to control where and how those images are made available.
>Are you saying that if some magazine or photo agency takes pictures of GA
>or DD, Fox has control over these?
Nope that is not what the poster is saying. FOX and 1013 own Mulder
and Scully, so when Gillian and David do like oh say an episode and
their image is captured by a camara that is FOX and 1013's. When
Gillian and David do promo shoots for the x/f (and it is real easy to
figure those out, no mole on Gillian etc etc, oh and there is usualy a
big X some where), and they are in uniform so to speak then yeah FOX
and 1013 own that. When they do just photo shoots not commissioned by
FOX and 1013 David owns David (and Tea owns David), and Gillian owns
Gillian, and a dog and a kid.
Cyn....
Ben
I toataly agree with this guy. Instead of mail bombing them with "I HATE
YOU" copy & pasted hundereds of times, we should be able to think of
something better to do, as almost anything would be more effective. I also
question the logic behind Fox's taking down the sites. About 1month ago I
would only watch X-files about once every 3 weeks. As a result I had no
idea what was going on in the show and didn't like it as much. Then I
visited all the sights out there, figured it out, and turned into a
two-episodes-a-week fan. While it is true that the web masters could've had
episode info w/o pictures and sound, the sights would not be very good, and
I was looking for the "Shaft" sound from Bad Blood when I found all the web
sites. I think Fox doesn't realize that websites help it more than hinder
it, this recent attack on the sights is probably due to some manager trying
to get SOMETHING done, and he just thought of this. Like in the movie "The
Pentagon Wars". Gotta get something done, doesn't matter what. Anyone who
has had a webpage shut down have the email address of whoever shut them
down, would you be kind enough to mail it to me? I'd like to talk to them.
Looking foward to Sunday, Ben.
Phetsy Calderon wrote in message ...
>In article <3506ba19...@news.carol.net>, red...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>> I did not write this. Its from the Treehouse guestbook and it was just
>> TOO good to pass up. E and Snail mail this to all Fox and Xfile execs.
>>
>> Mine eyes have seen the horror of the killing of fan sites
>> By a group of psycho lawyers who enjoy stirring up fights
>> But much to their dismay we will not fade into the night
>> We Philes go marching on
>
>Whoa whoa whoa people. Let's do a little critical thinking here, before we
>man the ramparts of righteous outrage.
>
>Fact 1: Under US law, which applies because Fox is domiciled in
>California, Fox OWNS THE RIGHTS TO ALL X-FILES IMAGES. That includes the
>rights to control where and how those images are made available.
>
>Fact 2: Fox is not "shutting down the Treehouse." That would mean Fox was
>blocking Pam from having any Web presence whatsoever. Ain't gonna happen.
>Any semi-functional court would slap an injunction on Fox so fast it would
>Blenderize their Dolce & Gabbana suits.
>
>Fact 3: Fox has asked Pam to remove all X-Files still and video clips
>from her site. No other works are named--which means her site is not being
>"shut down" in toto.
>
>Fact 4: Under US law, Fox has a *legal right* to perform this action. Now
>whether or not it's wise is another story.
>
>Now, given all that, it might be wiser to respond to Fox like a bunch of
>grown ups instead of with something that's the moral equivalent of saying
>"I hate you! You're mean and you have cooties!"
>
>Also, for those of you who are responding to the exhortation to download
>and retain images on the Treehouse, be mindful of what you are doing: this
>is an act of piracy (yup, that's what the law says). Now, you may feel
>strongly enough about this that you consider this an act of civil
>disobedience, and if so, I can see where you'd feel morally obligated to
>followup. Just be sure you understand what you've chosen to do--and what
>you are asking others to do.
>
>Let me offer the following resource for educating yourselves about
>copyright questions: <http://www.benedict.com/>.
>
>Frankly, I'm not so concerned about Fox exercising its rights over
>material it clearly owns: what worries me is the specter of clamping down
>on original art and text works created by fans but based on X-Files
>concepts. I'm willing to toss them the bone of control over the things CC
>& Co. have created if they continue to leave fan works alone
>
>
a tuber
In article <6e6v8a$h5e$1...@usenet85.supernews.com>, <mox.f...@fib.gob> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:11:14 -0800, Phetsy Calderon <phe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>[...]
>> man the ramparts of righteous outrage.
>
>
>> Fact 1: Under US law, which applies because Fox is domiciled in
>> California, Fox OWNS THE RIGHTS TO ALL X-FILES IMAGES. That includes the
>> rights to control where and how those images are made available.
>
>use?
Whether it's fair use is not clear, in my non-professional opinion. The
pertinent statutory provision, 17 U.S.C. '107, provides that the "fair
use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction...for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching...,scholarship,
or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
I don't think the archive's purpose matches any of the above. However,
that list is not exclusive, and I think it's at least possible that a
court would decide that "entertainment" is fair use (as long as the other
provisions of fair use are satisfied, such as it being non-commercial,
non-competitive with a potential market of the work, and being a
small portion of the work).
One argument that would be hard to dispute is that the owners of the
copyright could put up a multimedia X-Files site and charge for it,
and then the Treehouse site would clearly be hurting the "potential
market for or value of the copyrighted work". I don't think the owners
even have to *have* such a site already; it's enough that they could.
The only way around that would be to make sure that the site is using
only a small amount of copyrighted material for a purpose such as
criticism or scholarship (which it currently is not).
[...]
>> Also, for those of you who are responding to the exhortation to download
>> and retain images on the Treehouse, be mindful of what you are doing: this
>> is an act of piracy (yup, that's what the law says). Now, you may feel
>
>Which law, specifically?
Copyright law, if those who download are not making fair use of the
material.
-Dan Damouth
mox.f...@fib.gob
On 11 Mar 1998 22:52:11 GMT, a tuber <ntco...@heron.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
[...]
> Whether it's fair use is not clear, in my non-professional opinion. The
OK, shouldn't that be decided in court? Ah, but that's not going to
happen, is it?
> pertinent statutory provision, 17 U.S.C. '107, provides that the "fair
> use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction...for
> purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching...,scholarship,
> or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
> I don't think the archive's purpose matches any of the above. However,
> that list is not exclusive, and I think it's at least possible that a
I guess we would need a much more complete and specific list to really
determine what is and what is not a copyright infringement. In the
meantime, all we have is a legal threat from a multi-zillion industry
against a fan who has to keep an eye on her ISP fee.
> court would decide that "entertainment" is fair use (as long as the other
> provisions of fair use are satisfied, such as it being non-commercial,
> non-competitive with a potential market of the work, and being a
> small portion of the work).
[...]
> The only way around that would be to make sure that the site is using
> only a small amount of copyrighted material for a purpose such as
> criticism or scholarship (which it currently is not).
"Small" is also relative. I think a few seconds of video clips is a
"small" sample. The purpose can also be "comment," which is also awfully
vague. Would "This is a great clip!" qualify as a comment?
[...]
> >Which law, specifically?
> Copyright law, if those who download are not making fair use of the
> material.
I dunno about that "piracy" thing.
Phetsy Calderon
In article <3507070f.1323685@proxy>, a02...@giant.mindlink.net (Mr. Mike) wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:11:14 -0800, phe...@earthlink.net (Phetsy Calderon)
> wrote:
>
> >Fact 1: Under US law, which applies because Fox is domiciled in
> >California, Fox OWNS THE RIGHTS TO ALL X-FILES IMAGES. That includes the
> >rights to control where and how those images are made available.
>
> Are you saying that if some magazine or photo agency takes pictures of GA
> or DD, Fox has control over these?
No, those are images of the actors, to which DD and GA have rights.
Phetsy
=====================
Phetsy Calderon
phe...@earthlink.net
"I thrive, myself, on all kinds of trouble."
--Maeve of Cruachan, in the Tain bo Cuailnge
Phetsy Calderon
In article <6e6v8a$h5e$1...@usenet85.supernews.com>, mox.f...@fib.gob wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:11:14 -0800, Phetsy Calderon
<phe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> [...]
> > Whoa whoa whoa people. Let's do a little critical thinking here, before we
> > man the ramparts of righteous outrage.
>
> I think it's well justified outrage.
I don't mean to suggest site authors should roll over and play dead. I'm
suggesting getting some ammunition in the form of knowledge.
> > Fact 1: Under US law, which applies because Fox is domiciled in
> > California, Fox OWNS THE RIGHTS TO ALL X-FILES IMAGES. That includes the
> > rights to control where and how those images are made available.
>
> No one is denying that Fox owns all their XF stuff. Ever heard of fair
> use?
Yes--and I believe that's usually interpreted to mean either in the
context of a review, or as educational material, or that intended for
personal use only. Do you know of other interpretations which could be
used to justify making the clips available? I'd very much like to know
about them--and I'd be happy to go follow Web links or whatever if that's
the most convenient way to convey the information.
>
> > Fact 2: Fox is not "shutting down the Treehouse." That would mean Fox was
> > blocking Pam from having any Web presence whatsoever. Ain't gonna happen.
> > Any semi-functional court would slap an injunction on Fox so fast it would
> > Blenderize their Dolce & Gabbana suits.
>
> Let's get back to the real world. When a fan gets a threat from a huge
> corporation, he/she will not be likely to fight back. Why? Because it
> takes money to even defend your rights. We are not talking about the law
> here, because the legal theat alone does the job.
My specific point is that Pam is not barred from having a Web site, nor
from having a Web site which makes reference to the X-Files, nor from
having a Web site which may include derivative works. She has been
requested to cease the use of material Fox owns, which is not the same as
saying "You can have no Web presence whatsoever," which is what I
understand 'site shutdown' to mean. I take it that you are looking at a
looser interpretation.
As for whether or not a fan might or might not fight back: I suspect that
would depend on the individual. If Fox contacted me and said "Lose the
X-Files graphic off your pages," I'd say "Cheery aye aye," and hop to it.
If they directed me to remove my original works of fiction which include
reference to their characters, I would immediately contact the ACLU. If
they contacted me and said "Remove any works of literary criticism, social
commentary essays, or reportage which make references to X-Files
material," I'd be on the phone to every major wire service, the ACLU, my
Senator and several reporters fast enough to set world records. Personally
I believe it's possible to make City Hall scramble madly to do damage
control at a far lower cost to me than trying to fight the beast. I do
realize others might see it differently.
> >I'm willing to toss them the bone of control over the things CC
> > & Co. have created if they continue to leave fan works alone
>
> They have absolutely no right to touch original work.
No, they don't, but there is still the question of inconvenience, if
nothing else. I'd rather put energy into writing than wrangling with
attorneys, if possible.
BethLynn
It was put forth:
>Whether it's fair use is not clear, in my non-professional opinion. The
>pertinent statutory provision, 17 U.S.C. '107, provides that the "fair
>use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction...for
>purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching...,scholarship,
>or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
>
>I don't think the archive's purpose matches any of the above.
(snip)
>The only way around that would be to make sure that the site is using
>only a small amount of copyrighted material for a purpose such as
>criticism or scholarship (which it currently is not).
I have, since visiting many of the unofficial x-files web-sites, been
encouraged to research Russia, meteorites, Roche companies, the Japanese
language, dictionaries that translate different languages, jet propulsion (sp),
aliens, editing, journalism, and any number of miscellaneous subjects.
Viewing the X-files episodes did not promote this search for answers. The
official site didn't carry the answers or the questions I needed. The
unofficial sites are creative and informative, and I've read posts regarding
more than one person doing research on the X-files for some report or another.
They (Fox) may put forth the X-files as entertainment, but it makes me think
too much to consider it just entertainment.
I appreciate a sound-byte or .mov file on occasion. Gotta have something to
cheer me on when I'm trying to figure out how to speak japanese, or fly a
space-craft. ;-)
BethLynn
Amy L. E. Jones
It occurs to me (and I apologize if this has already been suggested) that
this might be a matter to take to the EFF (I believe that's what it's
called...Electronic Frontier Foundation? Something like that.) As has
been stated, "fair use" is something of an ambiguous term. As has also
been suggested, one individual fighting a corporation is somewhat
mismatched. I *think* that EFF is an entity that is concerned with
fighting censorship of the internet. They were involved in the fight
against the CDA, if I recall correctly. I don't know if they'd be
interested in something like this, but it's worth a try.
Obviously, FOX doesn't want their property used on the web. Just as
obvoiusly, fans want to put it there, and to have access to it there.
Perhaps a compromise could eventually be reached. As has already been
pointed out, FOX has something to gain from this too.
I kinda miss the days when television networks (and the public at large)
did't know what the net was.
ALEJ
"The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of
a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the
top of a mountain or in the petals of a flower. To think otherwise is to
demean the Buddha--which is to demean oneself."
Robert Pirsig, _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_
CalistaSM
>Copyright law, if those who download are not making fair use of the
>material.
But what is considered fair use? The law is very vague on that. Is posting a
couple stills from the show on your site to make it look better considered fair
use? Is sharing a video clip you just *had* to show everyone considered fair
use? What about those cute little wavs I have from the show that I use for
event sounds on my computer? It is strictly non-commercial and no one makes any
money off of it, so what's the problem? I wonder...does Paramount, who owns
Star Trek, another hysterically popular show on the Internet, have any
restrictions on multimedia usage or is it just a Fox thing? And IMHO, a
download cannot be considered a rebroadcast because if it takes an hour to
download a two minute video clip, how could you broadcast a whole scene, much
less a whole show?
"It's a choice that's been offered to many men, be a slave in heaven or a star
in hell. But hell doesn't always look like hell. On a good day it can look a
lot like LA." "Sometimes you have to look reality in the eye and deny it."
mox.f...@fib.gob
> context of a review, or as educational material, or that intended for
> personal use only. Do you know of other interpretations which could be
> used to justify making the clips available? I'd very much like to know
> about them--and I'd be happy to go follow Web links or whatever if that's
> the most convenient way to convey the information.
We don't have to go too far. It's right there: "the fair use of a
copyrighted work (...) for purposes such as criticism, comment (...) is
not an infringement of copyright." So, if I'm writing a paper on my
theories about the mytharc, or just critizicing the show or a particular
episode, I should be able to legally use short video clips to illustrate
my points. Right?
Yes, provided I follow all the other conditions (non-profit, etc, etc).
[...]
> My specific point is that Pam is not barred from having a Web site, nor
Of course not. But we are talking about a specific web site. That one has
to shut down, or she will face legal actions from Fox. Yes, she could have
other sites, but that's beside the point.
> from having a Web site which makes reference to the X-Files, nor from
> having a Web site which may include derivative works. She has been
> requested to cease the use of material Fox owns, which is not the same as
> saying "You can have no Web presence whatsoever," which is what I
> understand 'site shutdown' to mean. I take it that you are looking at a
> looser interpretation.
No, taking a site down does not mean getting off the web, by any means. Of
course they can't force anyone off the web. Fox is saying, in effect, "you
can't have *this* website." That's what 'site shutdown' means.
> As for whether or not a fan might or might not fight back: I suspect that
> would depend on the individual. If Fox contacted me and said "Lose the
> X-Files graphic off your pages," I'd say "Cheery aye aye," and hop to it.
> If they directed me to remove my original works of fiction which include
> reference to their characters, I would immediately contact the ACLU. If
> they contacted me and said "Remove any works of literary criticism, social
> commentary essays, or reportage which make references to X-Files
> material," I'd be on the phone to every major wire service, the ACLU, my
> Senator and several reporters fast enough to set world records. Personally
> I believe it's possible to make City Hall scramble madly to do damage
> control at a far lower cost to me than trying to fight the beast. I do
> realize others might see it differently.
[...]
I'll just call you if I have any problems :-)
a tuber
In article <6e76ne$ml2$1...@usenet85.supernews.com>, <mox.f...@fib.gob> wrote:
>On 11 Mar 1998 22:52:11 GMT, a tuber <ntco...@heron.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
>[...]
>
>happen, is it?
You bring up problems with our legal system that I can only agree
with. However, I have no better system to propose.
>[...]
>> The only way around that would be to make sure that the site is using
>> only a small amount of copyrighted material for a purpose such as
>> criticism or scholarship (which it currently is not).
>
>"Small" is also relative. I think a few seconds of video clips is a
>"small" sample. The purpose can also be "comment," which is also awfully
>vague. Would "This is a great clip!" qualify as a comment?
This issue became relevant to alt.religion.scientology not too long
ago (fully described at
www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/scientology/erlich/home.html). The
short of it is, the cult sued Dennis Erlich for posting copyrighted
materials, and he claimed fair use based on a his "one-liner" style
of "comment". The court said it wasn't fair use. (In the process
of the conflict between him and the cult they managed to get the
authorities to surprise raid his house and confiscate all of his
computer equipment).
>[...]
>> >Which law, specifically?
>
>> Copyright law, if those who download are not making fair use of the
>> material.
>
>I dunno about that "piracy" thing.
Piracy is short for "violating copyright law".
-Dan Damouth
mox.f...@fib.gob
> ago (fully described at
> www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/scientology/erlich/home.html). The
Very bad example. I'm afraid to say more.
[...]
> Piracy is short for "violating copyright law".
> -Dan Damouth
Is that word used anywhere in the copyright law? I can't find it.
ant...@diabetes.org
In article <3507070f.1323685@proxy>,
a02...@giant.mindlink.net (Mr. Mike) wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:11:14 -0800, phe...@earthlink.net (Phetsy Calderon)
> wrote:
>
> >California, Fox OWNS THE RIGHTS TO ALL X-FILES IMAGES. That includes the
> >rights to control where and how those images are made available.
>
> or DD, Fox has control over these?
>
Actually, it's very simple. Whoever took the picture/movie/film owns the
rights to it. There are sometimes slight complications regarding subjects who
have been filmed, but a professional tries to get permissions forms from them.
In the case of Fox/1013, the cameraman/photographer/etc. has been engaged in
a work-for-hire arrangement in which it is understood that he is selling his
time and effort to create this product, but the rights to the product are not
his. They belong to whoever paid and directed him. In the case of some
magazine that takes photos of DD or GA, the photographer is generally in the
same work-for-hire arrangement with the magazine--thus the magazine owns those
photos. Sometimes, the photographer is freelance and sells complete rights to
the magazine, but it amounts to the same thing. Whoever took the picture, or
whoever hired someone specifically for the purpose of taking the picture, owns
the rights to it.
Rob A.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
ant...@diabetes.org
In article <6e7e9s$5c6$1...@usenet11.supernews.com>,
mox.f...@fib.gob wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:24:47 -0800, Phetsy Calderon <phe...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> [...]
> > Yes--and I believe that's usually interpreted to mean either in the
> > context of a review, or as educational material, or that intended for
> > personal use only. Do you know of other interpretations which could be
> > used to justify making the clips available? I'd very much like to know
> > about them--and I'd be happy to go follow Web links or whatever if that's
> > the most convenient way to convey the information.
>
> We don't have to go too far. It's right there: "the fair use of a
> copyrighted work (...) for purposes such as criticism, comment (...) is
> not an infringement of copyright." So, if I'm writing a paper on my
> theories about the mytharc, or just critizicing the show or a particular
> episode, I should be able to legally use short video clips to illustrate
> my points. Right?
>
> Yes, provided I follow all the other conditions (non-profit, etc, etc).
>
[snip the rest]
Two things:
1) Copyright law was fashioned to deal with text, plain and simple. When the
capability of reproducing images on the page became possible, it extended to
cover that as well, though it took some time. At the present, the courts are
still mulling over how to handle rights when it concerns the web or CD-Rom or
other electronic media. Some things have been decided (i.e., the internet
does qualify as a form of public media, and therefore use of it must be
consistent with copyright law); others are still being worked out (i.e., when
it comes to multimedia efforts, what would we consider "fair use"). Copyright
law is always a process of evolution. Consider that at one time the portrayal
of someone's image in a form that they might consider demeaning would have
automatically gotten you in hot water. It took the Supreme Court to decide
that political cartoons were not defamation of character.
2) Any production company will inevitably argue that the use of stills or
movie clips is cosmetic, not intrinsic to criticism. They can point to a
mountain of film criticism books that have not used anything but words to
describe a scene adequately, and they can point to another mountain of books
that did reproduce stills, for which the author's acquired permission from the
copyright owner. History is against the "fair use" of stills or clips, and so
is precedent in court cases. If you can demonstrate to the court that the
display of clips or stills is wholly necessary, and that there is no other
alternative in order to best instruct or critique, then you may win, but such
cases are taken on an individual base by the courts and a general rule would
never be made. It's easier just to show the production company how necessary
it is and get them to give you permission to reproduce.
ant...@diabetes.org
>
> OK, shouldn't that be decided in court? Ah, but that's not going to
> happen, is it?
It well might, if the owner of the website thinks that it's fair use and
leaves the material up. Then the ball is in FOX's court to decide how they
want to proceed.
>
> > pertinent statutory provision, 17 U.S.C. '107, provides that the "fair
> > use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction...for
> > purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching...,scholarship,
> > or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
>
> > I don't think the archive's purpose matches any of the above. However,
> > that list is not exclusive, and I think it's at least possible that a
>
> I guess we would need a much more complete and specific list to really
> determine what is and what is not a copyright infringement. In the
> meantime, all we have is a legal threat from a multi-zillion industry
> against a fan who has to keep an eye on her ISP fee.
This isn't a class struggle here. Multi-billion dollar industries don't
become multi-billionaires unless they protect their products and the manner in
which those products are distributed. Lots of money has been made on the
X-Files, and lots more could be made. I think FOX is well within their
rights to worry that the proliferation of reproduced material on the Internet
(and elsewhere) can potentially infringe on their ability to make money from
their product.
And, yes, ALL we have is a legal threat. FOX lawyers could have come swooping
down with court injunctions, a hefty lawsuit, and any manner of perfectly
legal and justified stuff. But they didn't. They said, "Look, we own this
stuff. Take it down or we'll insist on our rights." It's not personal.
There's no lawyer going "How can I crush the average working stiff today? I
know! The Internet!" Goliath they are not; maybe more like a fat king that
sees you sitting in his chair and says, "I think you'd better move."
mox.f...@fib.gob
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 09:51:41 -0600, ant...@diabetes.org wrote:
[...]
> Actually, it's very simple.
HA! That's a good one.
> Whoever took the picture/movie/film owns the
> rights to it. There are sometimes slight complications regarding subjects who
> have been filmed, but a professional tries to get permissions forms from them.
> In the case of Fox/1013, the cameraman/photographer/etc. has been engaged in
> a work-for-hire arrangement in which it is understood that he is selling his
> time and effort to create this product, but the rights to the product are not
> his. They belong to whoever paid and directed him. In the case of some
> magazine that takes photos of DD or GA, the photographer is generally in the
> same work-for-hire arrangement with the magazine--thus the magazine owns those
> photos. Sometimes, the photographer is freelance and sells complete rights to
> the magazine, but it amounts to the same thing. Whoever took the picture, or
> whoever hired someone specifically for the purpose of taking the picture, owns
> the rights to it.
So... does "screen-grabbing" qualify as taking a picture? Do I own it,
then?
mox.f...@fib.gob
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:08:09 -0600, ant...@diabetes.org wrote:
[...]
> Two things:
> 1) Copyright law was fashioned to deal with text, plain and simple. When the
Not so plain and simple. Copyright law includes "literary works; musical
works, including any accompanying words; dramatic works, including any
accompanying music; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial,
graphic, and sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual
works; sound recordings; and architectural works," as well as compilations
of those and derivative works. In other words: it's meant to protect
original work, in any shape or form.
> capability of reproducing images on the page became possible, it extended to
> cover that as well, though it took some time. At the present, the courts are
> still mulling over how to handle rights when it concerns the web or CD-Rom or
> other electronic media. Some things have been decided (i.e., the internet
> does qualify as a form of public media, and therefore use of it must be
I would like to have the specific reference to that. Someone?
> consistent with copyright law); others are still being worked out (i.e., when
> it comes to multimedia efforts, what would we consider "fair use"). Copyright
> law is always a process of evolution. Consider that at one time the portrayal
Exactly. This goes against some people's notions that "Fox owns it, and
that's that."
> of someone's image in a form that they might consider demeaning would have
> automatically gotten you in hot water. It took the Supreme Court to decide
> that political cartoons were not defamation of character.
> 2) Any production company will inevitably argue that the use of stills or
> movie clips is cosmetic, not intrinsic to criticism. They can point to a
What about quoting relevant passages from a book for a school report? You
can certainly do the criticism without any quotes, right?
> mountain of film criticism books that have not used anything but words to
> describe a scene adequately, and they can point to another mountain of books
> that did reproduce stills, for which the author's acquired permission from the
A picture is worth 10,000 words. Or something like that.
> copyright owner. History is against the "fair use" of stills or clips, and so
> is precedent in court cases. If you can demonstrate to the court that the
Hold it. "Against the 'fair use' of stills or clips" in which cases,
specifically, and for what purpose? See, this makes a big difference. It
may make all the difference, in fact. Does the reporter who took pictures
at the expo have to pay Fox or the actors? Nope. All I'm saying here is
that there *are* exceptions, and that things like *purpose* do matter.
> display of clips or stills is wholly necessary, and that there is no other
> alternative in order to best instruct or critique, then you may win, but such
> cases are taken on an individual base by the courts and a general rule would
> never be made.
Exactly. Each case should be considered individually. But this is not
going to happen. Why? Because when a fan gets a legal threat from a huge
company, he/she is not likely to be able to challenge it in court.
> It's easier just to show the production company how necessary
> it is and get them to give you permission to reproduce.
I dunno, they just don't seem likely to give you permission, so most fans
fly under the radar for as long as possible. Personally, I wanted to add
audio and video clips, but decided not to risk the rest of my work for
this. Instead, I put a strong emphasis on facts (which can't be
copyrighted), my own thoughts and design (which Fox doesn't own), and I
keep the material itself (graphics) to a bare minimum, in context, and
with a disclaimer.
mj
> In article <6e76ne$ml2$1...@usenet85.supernews.com>,
> mox.f...@fib.gob wrote:
>
> It well might, if the owner of the website thinks that it's fair use and
> leaves the material up. Then the ball is in FOX's court to decide how they
> want to proceed.
Absolutely true. I do not think that FOX has shut down via court order
*any* website yet. Their threats have been sufficiently powerful.
However, they've been just that--threats. No one has stood their ground
long enough to see if FOX would follow through.
IMHO--If Pam wants to use XFMMA as a test case to see if FOX is doing
anything other than blowing hot air, we would finally see this issue given
some publicity, and perhaps, allow Pam to find an advocate. There's a law
professor at Harvard, Steven Nelson, who's been doing pro bono work in
Internet cases. I bet that some lawyer, wanting to latch on to what would
become a precedent-building case, would take up the cause. And if not--if
FOX simply bullies her enough that she would have to appear in court
unless she shut the site down--we all know that there will have been
several news stories done on the topic by then. Word would get out that
FOX is beating up on their greatest fans. That might be enough to shame
them into avoiding this scare tactic in the future.
Alas, I wonder if anything will actually be done.....
--
Melissa
****** Take the 86 Bus to the cloisters.
You'll find me inside, with the monks.
mox.f...@fib.gob
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:21:22 -0600, ant...@diabetes.org wrote:
[...]
> It well might, if the owner of the website thinks that it's fair use and
> leaves the material up. Then the ball is in FOX's court to decide how they
> want to proceed.
That's IF the owner of the web site has the money to get a lawyer to go to
court. How likely is that?
[...]
> This isn't a class struggle here. Multi-billion dollar industries don't
> become multi-billionaires unless they protect their products and the manner in
> which those products are distributed. Lots of money has been made on the
Unless they protect their products from REAL THREATS, not fans.
> X-Files, and lots more could be made. I think FOX is well within their
> rights to worry that the proliferation of reproduced material on the Internet
> (and elsewhere) can potentially infringe on their ability to make money from
> their product.
Doesn't the show airing every night infringe on their ability to sell
videos?
> And, yes, ALL we have is a legal threat. FOX lawyers could have come swooping
> down with court injunctions, a hefty lawsuit, and any manner of perfectly
> legal and justified stuff. But they didn't. They said, "Look, we own this
How nice of them! Remind me to send them some flowers.
> stuff. Take it down or we'll insist on our rights." It's not personal.
> There's no lawyer going "How can I crush the average working stiff today? I
> know! The Internet!" Goliath they are not; maybe more like a fat king that
> sees you sitting in his chair and says, "I think you'd better move."
NO ONE IS SITTING ON THAT CHAIR. That's the point. There is no real threat
to their property or profits, no competition.
If we were talking about people making money off their work or products,
OF COURSE they should squash them. That's simply not the case here, so do
not confuse them.
ant...@diabetes.org
In article <6e92e0$3ia$2...@usenet52.supernews.com>,
Okay, now you want to argue semantics. Look, if you are the original producer
of the image, you own the rights to how it can be used or reproduced. With
very very few exceptions, that's it.
ant...@diabetes.org
In article <6e944e$d4c$1...@usenet85.supernews.com>,
mox.f...@fib.gob wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:08:09 -0600, ant...@diabetes.org wrote:
> [...]
> > Two things:
>
> > 1) Copyright law was fashioned to deal with text, plain and simple. When
the
>
> Not so plain and simple. Copyright law includes "literary works; musical
> works, including any accompanying words; dramatic works, including any
> accompanying music; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial,
> graphic, and sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual
> works; sound recordings; and architectural works," as well as compilations
> of those and derivative works. In other words: it's meant to protect
> original work, in any shape or form.
>
by Mark Twain, who was sick and tired of other publishers ripping off his
work, publishing it themselves, and not paying him royalties. As the ability
to reproduce images more cheaply and easily came along, those things were
incorporated as well, but the first focus of copyright law was text.
> I would like to have the specific reference to that. Someone?
I'd highly recommended combing through some back issues of _Publishers_Weekly_
, where the battle over copyright and electronic rights makes the news every
moth or so.
>
> > consistent with copyright law); others are still being worked out (i.e.,
when
> > it comes to multimedia efforts, what would we consider "fair use").
Copyright
> > law is always a process of evolution. Consider that at one time the
portrayal
>
> Exactly. This goes against some people's notions that "Fox owns it, and
> that's that."
>
I don't even know what this means. If you mean to say that copyright law
should evolve in a different direction, I would disagree--but that's just my
opinion. Well, not only mine . . .
> > of someone's image in a form that they might consider demeaning would have
> > automatically gotten you in hot water. It took the Supreme Court to
decide
> > that political cartoons were not defamation of character.
>
> > 2) Any production company will inevitably argue that the use of stills or
> > movie clips is cosmetic, not intrinsic to criticism. They can point to a
>
> What about quoting relevant passages from a book for a school report? You
> can certainly do the criticism without any quotes, right?
That betrays an incredible innocence about literary criticism. But even in
criticism, it is important that very small amounts of the text be quoted.
>
> > mountain of film criticism books that have not used anything but words to
> > describe a scene adequately, and they can point to another mountain of
books
> > that did reproduce stills, for which the author's acquired permission from
the
>
> A picture is worth 10,000 words. Or something like that.
Again, I don't know what you mean. If this is some qualitative point about
allowing people to reproduce stills, I can't see to what you are pointing.
>
> > copyright owner. History is against the "fair use" of stills or clips,
and so
> > is precedent in court cases. If you can demonstrate to the court that the
>
> Hold it. "Against the 'fair use' of stills or clips" in which cases,
> specifically, and for what purpose? See, this makes a big difference. It
> may make all the difference, in fact. Does the reporter who took pictures
> at the expo have to pay Fox or the actors? Nope. All I'm saying here is
> that there *are* exceptions, and that things like *purpose* do matter.
I explained in another post (to you) about who owns a photograph, so I won't
go into that again. Photographers have a right to take a picture of David
Duchovny, but they can't use a picture of DD as Mulder in an episode of
X-Files without permission. Of course there are exceptions, but many fewer
than you seem to think.
>
> > display of clips or stills is wholly necessary, and that there is no other
> > alternative in order to best instruct or critique, then you may win, but
such
> > cases are taken on an individual base by the courts and a general rule
would
> > never be made.
>
> Exactly. Each case should be considered individually. But this is not
> going to happen. Why? Because when a fan gets a legal threat from a huge
> company, he/she is not likely to be able to challenge it in court.
No, every case is not considered individually because then our civil courts
would be so swamped with useless cases that nothing would ever move. It can
already take up to 5 years for a civil case to see trial. Do you want to make
that process longer? More arduous?
In any case, a fan can't challenege a legal threat in court, you're right. Of
course, there's no point in challenging a threat. You can let yourself be
threatened, or you can ignore it and do what you want. Then, if the
corporation still thinks you are in error, they will sue you. Then you can
have your day in court. Everyone can.
>
> > It's easier just to show the production company how necessary
> > it is and get them to give you permission to reproduce.
>
> I dunno, they just don't seem likely to give you permission, so most fans
> fly under the radar for as long as possible. Personally, I wanted to add
> audio and video clips, but decided not to risk the rest of my work for
> this. Instead, I put a strong emphasis on facts (which can't be
> copyrighted), my own thoughts and design (which Fox doesn't own), and I
> keep the material itself (graphics) to a bare minimum, in context, and
> with a disclaimer.
>
I don't think a disclaimer is such a huge thing to ask, but that's just me.
It has its purpose, anyway. I agree that corporations like FOX aren't likely
to give permission to fansites to reproduce XF material, but why would they
want to? They can make money by reproducing and selling it to fans
themselves. Actually, I take that back--FOX does seem to be allowing this
woman to keep all the stills up, as long as she gives a designation of who the
copyright owner is. That's much more than other corporations would do.
ant...@diabetes.org
In article <6e96g7$7ml$1...@usenet54.supernews.com>,
mox.f...@fib.gob wrote:
[ snipped all the other stuff]
> NO ONE IS SITTING ON THAT CHAIR. That's the point. There is no real threat
> to their property or profits, no competition.
>
> If we were talking about people making money off their work or products,
> OF COURSE they should squash them. That's simply not the case here, so do
> not confuse them.
>
Not in your mind, it's not. But to a company you are a potential consumer.
And there are many ways to turn a potential consumer into an actual patron.
One is by offering low prices, something they want, etc. Another is the
ability to offer them products that they can't get anywhere else. If you can
get that product--or a product similar and for free--elsewhere, then why would
you pay for it? You wouldn't, of course.
Also, what if FOX does come out with material that is different, but by the
time they get it out you are so glutted with X-Files clips and wavs and
everything else that you don't care about buying it anymore? Again, the free
material has ruined FOX's potential market.
Like it or not, that's business.
mox.f...@fib.gob
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:55:23 -0600, ant...@diabetes.org wrote:
[...]
> > Hold it. "Against the 'fair use' of stills or clips" in which cases,
> > specifically, and for what purpose? See, this makes a big difference. It
> > may make all the difference, in fact. Does the reporter who took pictures
> > at the expo have to pay Fox or the actors? Nope. All I'm saying here is
> > that there *are* exceptions, and that things like *purpose* do matter.
> I explained in another post (to you) about who owns a photograph, so I won't
> go into that again. Photographers have a right to take a picture of David
> Duchovny, but they can't use a picture of DD as Mulder in an episode of
> X-Files without permission. Of course there are exceptions, but many fewer
> than you seem to think.
The issue I'm addressing in that paragraph, if you read it, is the PURPOSE
of use, not ownership.
[...]
> In any case, a fan can't challenege a legal threat in court, you're right. Of
> course, there's no point in challenging a threat. You can let yourself be
> threatened, or you can ignore it and do what you want. Then, if the
> corporation still thinks you are in error, they will sue you. Then you can
> have your day in court. Everyone can.
As long as you have money for a good lawyer.
[...]
> I don't think a disclaimer is such a huge thing to ask, but that's just me.
> It has its purpose, anyway. I agree that corporations like FOX aren't likely
> to give permission to fansites to reproduce XF material, but why would they
> want to? They can make money by reproducing and selling it to fans
> themselves. Actually, I take that back--FOX does seem to be allowing this
> woman to keep all the stills up, as long as she gives a designation of who the
> copyright owner is. That's much more than other corporations would do.
> Rob A.
When you disprove yourself, I don't have much to add.
Phetsy Calderon
In article <6e7e9s$5c6$1...@usenet11.supernews.com>, mox.f...@fib.gob wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:24:47 -0800, Phetsy Calderon
<phe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> [...]
> > Yes--and I believe that's usually interpreted to mean either in the
> > context of a review, or as educational material, or that intended for
> > personal use only. Do you know of other interpretations which could be
> > used to justify making the clips available? I'd very much like to know
> > about them--and I'd be happy to go follow Web links or whatever if that's
> > the most convenient way to convey the information.
>
> We don't have to go too far. It's right there: "the fair use of a
> copyrighted work (...) for purposes such as criticism, comment (...) is
> not an infringement of copyright."
I'm sorry, I should have specified that I meant interpretations in the
form of court rulings/case law. Any cites you can point me to?
mox.f...@fib.gob
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 17:01:24 -0600, ant...@diabetes.org wrote:
[...]
> Not in your mind, it's not. But to a company you are a potential consumer.
> And there are many ways to turn a potential consumer into an actual patron.
> One is by offering low prices, something they want, etc. Another is the
> ability to offer them products that they can't get anywhere else. If you can
> get that product--or a product similar and for free--elsewhere, then why would
> you pay for it? You wouldn't, of course.
I can get each and every episode from cable, twice a day, for free. Is
this hurting Fox's videotape sells? On the contrary, it's probably
helping by promoting the show and introduce more viewers, who will then
go out and buy the tape.
[...]
> Like it or not, that's business.
Of course it's business, but it's not black and white, and "it's
business" does not mean "it's always right and it will never fail."
Look at how Paramount alienated its Star Trek fans with threats and
lower-quality products. Look at their ratings dive. That's no small
achivement, burning a gold mine to the ground.
Ben Turner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11 Mar 1998 21:21:14 GMT, mox.f...@fib.gob wrote:
> No one is denying that Fox owns all their XF stuff.
I'm not going to sit here and attempt to argue with laws I'm not well
versed in, but I do agree with Al (which is not to say he'll agree
with this).
Perhaps it may be fully within Fox's right to restrict the FREE
distribution of video and sound they own. Perhaps it may be within
Fruit of the Loom's right to threaten a webmaster who modified their
trademarked logo to place in a NON-COMMERCIAL personal site essay
about their marketing campaign. Maybe it's legal for Radio Shack to
consider Bianca's Shack, a NON-COMMERCIAL site with some racy (but not
explicit) stories and feedback, a threat to the benign connotation the
word "shack" still clings onto. Yes, these are actual conflicts.
Let's assume that legally they are justifiable.
In the effect of protecting your content, you are alienating the very
customers and viewers you rely on so heavily to generate revenue for
you. Maybe the law is in favor of the companies, but good public
relation ain't.
Successful ventures, particularly TV shows, rarely show their
appreciation to their fans. Sorry, but it's true. Sure, the actors
may be grateful, and the show may take a quick moment to say thanks,
but that's hardly reciprocal to millions of viewers saving a sinking
show's life.
By closing sites down, sites which made no money and which only
delighted and inspired fans turn into martyrs against the businesses
who spend almost all their time kissing fans' asses. Regardless of
how Fox feels, it remains that we fans find it harder and harder to
get the information we want from a show we so devoutly follow. Of
course X-Files fans will become bitter to Fox. It's a slap in the
face to the people who put so much time into something with no
pecuniary return.
Simply put, yes, you can take information down, but people will only
resist more, and you'll only attract hate and resentment. On the
other hand, you could work WITH your fans, give them the information
they want on your own (and we all know how anemic the information is
on Fox's web site...Jesus...I wrote a small X-Files page for my site a
couple years ago and it still has more tangible info than the official
site does...), and embrace the people who made you successful.
It's no secret why id Software (maker of such games as Doom and Quake)
is successful. They listen to their fans and they accept suggestions
for their games. Hell, a lot of the people who work with them were
first fans of their games. This closeness to the customer made Doom
and Quake so much better, so that the effects of those games can be
strongly felt, now, in software, the gaming industry in specific, the
3d graphics world, and virtually anything relating to making money in
the computer industry. id knows very damn well that people pirate its
software left and right, but it's probably the most profitable company
in proportion, to its competitors.
That's good business, folks.
Fox couldn't care less about its viewers. This seems pretty clear to
me. If it cared, it wouldn't be throwing out all the free publicity,
the strength of word of mouth, the ever-sought power of staying on the
tips of peoples' tongues, and what is one of the most active fan bases
for a TV show in the world (X-Files came in second to Highlander in
posts/per day [avg.] to Usenet -- can you believe that?).
You know, it's good and well, Fox, that you're successful and you host
the only shows I watch regularly, but damn...show some hint of
consisting of living, breathing human beings.
B, who thinks the TV networks are still old-school, as evidenced by
their half-hearted attempts to cash in on the Web.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNQjHHTht+nuXAiYfEQIAJQCePNMR+NnROPy8s47d/n70hjmoc3wAoINv
5J8aCIu45kqtGevnUMFwS96h
=FWW3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ben Turner . pushed...@benturner.com
http://www.benturner.com/ . PGP key: 0x9702261F
mox.f...@fib.gob
> form of court rulings/case law. Any cites you can point me to?
That's not "interpretation." That would be "precedent."
Nope, I'm afraid I haven't found such a case yet--which doesn't mean much
either way, really.
Sarah Stegall
In article <phetsy-1103...@1cust171.tnt15.sfo3.da.uu.net>,
phe...@earthlink.net (Phetsy Calderon) wrote:
> Frankly, I'm not so concerned about Fox exercising its rights over
> material it clearly owns: what worries me is the specter of clamping down
> on original art and text works created by fans but based on X-Files
> concepts. I'm willing to toss them the bone of control over the things CC
> & Co. have created if they continue to leave fan works alone
>
Amen. At this point, the only things I *know* are safe are my reviews.
Even my fiction is in danger. I'll live with the tension, however, since
I've been on both sides of this fence.
Perhaps our best response to Fox is to create ORIGINAL content on our
websites, instead of just passively copying what they've spent so much
money creating.
And remember, parody is *specifically* exempt from most copyright
applications. Write all the X-Files parodies you can stand....
Sarah Stegall
In article <6e6v8a$h5e$1...@usenet85.supernews.com>, mox.f...@fib.gob wrote:
> > Frankly, I'm not so concerned about Fox exercising its rights over
> > material it clearly owns: what worries me is the specter of clamping down
> > on original art and text works created by fans but based on X-Files
> > concepts. I'm willing to toss them the bone of control over the things CC
> > & Co. have created if they continue to leave fan works alone
>
> They have absolutely no right to touch original work.
Nor have they. Nor have we heard so much as a breath of a threat aimed at
reviewers, commenters, this newsgroup, or any other forum for original
content. And have we heard *anything* about fanfic sites? Anything???
Clue me in, here.
Sarah Stegall
> I don't think a disclaimer is such a huge thing to ask, but that's just me.
> It has its purpose, anyway. I agree that corporations like FOX aren't likely
> to give permission to fansites to reproduce XF material, but why would they
> want to? They can make money by reproducing and selling it to fans
> themselves. Actually, I take that back--FOX does seem to be allowing this
> woman to keep all the stills up, as long as she gives a designation of who the
> copyright owner is. That's much more than other corporations would do.
The whole "Fox is shutting down websites" hysteria started with Fox
shutting down one of the first Millennium fan sites. Yet when I went to
the official Millennium site, they had posted an image SPECIFICALLY FOR
THE PURPOSE of fans downloading and using it. My anarchist roots to the
contrary, I can see a great advantage to Fox in deliberately and freely
publishing photos on the Net for fans to download and use. Of course,
they could not use the actors' images for royalty reasons, but at least
they could post some graphics, shots without actors, etc.
Sarah
ant...@diabetes.org
In article <6e9t0a$aeh$1...@usenet50.supernews.com>,
mox.f...@fib.gob wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 17:01:24 -0600, ant...@diabetes.org wrote:
> [...]
> > Not in your mind, it's not. But to a company you are a potential
consumer.
> > And there are many ways to turn a potential consumer into an actual
patron.
> > One is by offering low prices, something they want, etc. Another is the
> > ability to offer them products that they can't get anywhere else. If you
can
> > get that product--or a product similar and for free--elsewhere, then why
would
> > you pay for it? You wouldn't, of course.
>
> I can get each and every episode from cable, twice a day, for free. Is
> this hurting Fox's videotape sells? On the contrary, it's probably
> helping by promoting the show and introduce more viewers, who will then
> go out and buy the tape.
>
> [...]
> > Like it or not, that's business.
>
> Of course it's business, but it's not black and white, and "it's
> business" does not mean "it's always right and it will never fail."
>
> Look at how Paramount alienated its Star Trek fans with threats and
> lower-quality products. Look at their ratings dive. That's no small
> achivement, burning a gold mine to the ground.
>
to think. I also think the Star Trek ratings dive may have had something to
do with flooding the market, but there's no question that Paramount gave fans
the short end of the stick. It's too bad, but it seemes to be ingrained in
corporate America.
ant...@diabetes.org
In article <munchkyn-130...@dynamic25.pm11.ba.best.com>,
munc...@munchkyn.com (Sarah Stegall) wrote:
>
> In article <6e9p23$51t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ant...@diabetes.org wrote:
>
me.
> > It has its purpose, anyway. I agree that corporations like FOX aren't
likely
> > to give permission to fansites to reproduce XF material, but why would
they
> > want to? They can make money by reproducing and selling it to fans
> > themselves. Actually, I take that back--FOX does seem to be allowing this
> > woman to keep all the stills up, as long as she gives a designation of who
the
> > copyright owner is. That's much more than other corporations would do.
>
> shutting down one of the first Millennium fan sites. Yet when I went to
> the official Millennium site, they had posted an image SPECIFICALLY FOR
> THE PURPOSE of fans downloading and using it. My anarchist roots to the
> contrary, I can see a great advantage to Fox in deliberately and freely
> publishing photos on the Net for fans to download and use. Of course,
> they could not use the actors' images for royalty reasons, but at least
> they could post some graphics, shots without actors, etc.
>
> Sarah
>
Actually, actors don't get any royalties off photos. Assuming that they sign
release forms for the publicity shots (and I'm sure that's a part of their
contracts), and knowing that they have signed away all rights for how their
images can be used in the show (They probably get residuals for syndication,
but they don't get a say in anything else), FOX can do with the photos as they
like. So FOX could plaster publicity and still shots all over their website
if they wanted to.
Rob
Circe
Sarah Stegall wrote:
> >
> > They have absolutely no right to touch original work.
>
> Nor have they. Nor have we heard so much as a breath of a threat aimed at
> reviewers, commenters, this newsgroup, or any other forum for original
> content. And have we heard *anything* about fanfic sites? Anything???
> Clue me in, here.
No, we haven't. This is just the usual "they're coming after fanfic next"
hysteria that always crops up at times like this.
--
Circe
The Titanium Magnolia
SPCDD, MDL
X-Phile--We're not obsessed; we're focused.--gizzie
Baldy
Amy L. E. Jones <am...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.3.96.98031...@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>...
> It occurs to me (and I apologize if this has already been suggested) that
> this might be a matter to take to the EFF (I believe that's what it's
> called...Electronic Frontier Foundation? Something like that.) As has
> been stated, "fair use" is something of an ambiguous term.
Fair Use is not ambiguous. It is well outlined in the Copyright Laws and
the supporting documentation that were used to develop the law. Fair Use
has serious limitation, one of the principle being that it is for
educators, in an educational setting. Fox is well within their rights, just
as Disney is within their rights when they pursue violations.
You may not like it - but those of use who make our living by writing have
little else to protect us, and it is good to see the Copyright Laws being
enforced.
Baldy
mox.f...@fib.gob
On 14 Mar 1998 23:51:25 GMT, Baldy <co...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
[...]
> Fair Use is not ambiguous. It is well outlined in the Copyright Laws and
> the supporting documentation that were used to develop the law. Fair Use
> has serious limitation, one of the principle being that it is for
> educators, in an educational setting. Fox is well within their rights, just
> as Disney is within their rights when they pursue violations.
False. Reality check #1: Fair use consists of 4 criteria that a judge must
evaluate case by case, and it is not as evident as you would think--
specially when dealing with new technologies and new media. Reality check
#2: Yes, non-profit educational use is the better known use, but it is not
the ONLY one. Reality check #3: Like you say, fair use is OUTLINED in the
law, but by no means fixed to one meaning only. Parody, for example, IS
NOT SPECIFIED in the law, but it is generally considered fair use. Reality
check #4: EVEN IF YOU ARE MAKING A PROFIT using someone else's work, you
are not automatically a criminal. No, not because I say so, but because
the Supreme Court said so.
> You may not like it - but those of use who make our living by writing have
> little else to protect us, and it is good to see the Copyright Laws being
> enforced.
> Baldy
You may not like this, but you do not understand copyright law. The reason
you are given exclusive rights (section 106) to your own work, is to
encourage you to be creative, from which the PUBLIC benefits. Would you
put the same time and effort in your writing if we did not have any kind
of intellectual protection? Of course not. Everyone would be copying your
work (if you are good), and that is not a very good incentive. By
protecting your work, the PUBLIC is encouraging you to do what you do
best, while encouraging competition at the same time.
That is what the Constitution says. The purpose of copyright is "To
promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited
times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective
writings and discoveries" [Article I, Section 8, Clause 8].
i.e., to promote knowledge. That is also the reason for 'fair use'. If
the PUBLIC benefits from the modifications other people make on your work,
it is probably going to be considered fair.
You should be concerned about gross violations to your rights. The small
stuff is even good for the economy. i.e., you really do not need to get
paranoid about people stealing or mistreating your babies. Your rights are
secured.
Copyright law is a balance between your rights and the public's benefit.
Sadly, this balance can be tainted by overzealous companies blinded by
greed. When this is combined with the public's ignorance about these
issues, bad laws are passed and we ALL lose. Yes, you lose, too. You are
also part of the "public."