Comments on: Eyes on the Fair Use Prize http://madisonian.net/2008/09/09/eyes-on-the-fair-use-prize/ a blog about law, tech, culture, and related things Thu, 10 May 2012 20:32:56 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Tim Wu http://madisonian.net/2008/09/09/eyes-on-the-fair-use-prize/comment-page-1/#comment-260046 Tim Wu Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:25:05 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=1495#comment-260046 Thanks for the presentation of my idea. I was thinking of whether I'd ever put that idea in print, and in fact I did, in a paper called "tolerated use." I think it is on SSRN somewhere. Thanks for the presentation of my idea.

I was thinking of whether I’d ever put that idea in print, and in fact I did, in a paper called “tolerated use.”

I think it is on SSRN somewhere.

]]> By: C.E. Petit http://madisonian.net/2008/09/09/eyes-on-the-fair-use-prize/comment-page-1/#comment-260042 C.E. Petit Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:05:30 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=1495#comment-260042 The other problem with the CCC's assertion comes from <i>Tasini</i>. Remember, the CCC refuses to deal with the actual copyright holders of works from periodicals; it deals only with the periodical itself. In turn, this means that a copyright holder who did not consent to reproduction of a work provided to a periodical as a freelancer similarly is not bound by the periodical's consent to participate in CCC. Sadly, due to the arrogance and ignorance of management at the CCC (and its commercial competitors — the largest of which, ironically, is a subsidiary of a Certain Oligopolist in legal publishing), individual authors who did not, and would not, consent to CCC licensing are faced with having to deal with reusers who usually had a good-faith belief that they were complying with the relevant licensing requirements at the time they made the CCC-authorized reuse. This is a lose-lose-lose situation that puts money in CCC's pocket and takes it out of the authors', while forcing the authors to act in a way that seems unreasonable to outside observers... and particularly to those who believe the CCC's bloviating on its role and rights. Disclosure: I have engaged more than once with the CCC on this issue, and I have represented more than one copyright holder in disputes that eventually resulted in both the reuser and copyright holder using wash-your-mouth-out-with-soap language about the CCC's practices and attitude. The other problem with the CCC’s assertion comes from Tasini. Remember, the CCC refuses to deal with the actual copyright holders of works from periodicals; it deals only with the periodical itself. In turn, this means that a copyright holder who did not consent to reproduction of a work provided to a periodical as a freelancer similarly is not bound by the periodical’s consent to participate in CCC.

Sadly, due to the arrogance and ignorance of management at the CCC (and its commercial competitors — the largest of which, ironically, is a subsidiary of a Certain Oligopolist in legal publishing), individual authors who did not, and would not, consent to CCC licensing are faced with having to deal with reusers who usually had a good-faith belief that they were complying with the relevant licensing requirements at the time they made the CCC-authorized reuse. This is a lose-lose-lose situation that puts money in CCC’s pocket and takes it out of the authors’, while forcing the authors to act in a way that seems unreasonable to outside observers… and particularly to those who believe the CCC’s bloviating on its role and rights.

Disclosure: I have engaged more than once with the CCC on this issue, and I have represented more than one copyright holder in disputes that eventually resulted in both the reuser and copyright holder using wash-your-mouth-out-with-soap language about the CCC’s practices and attitude.

]]>