Tag: U.S. Copyright Office

Update to Digital Millennium Copyright Act Long Overdue

Update to Digital Millennium Copyright Act Long Overdue

by | Jun 1, 2016 | , , , , | 0

Momentum is building for changes to the DMCA that will better protect creators

Content creators from all walks of life are coalescing around the need to update copyright law to protect their work against theft in digital age.  A piece in yesterday’s NY Times,  Music World Bands Together Against YouTube, Seeking Change to Law, is the latest to highlight growing calls by the creative community to update a woefully antiquated Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.

Read More
Will DMCA ‘safe harbor’ loophole finally get fixed?

Will DMCA ‘safe harbor’ loophole finally get fixed?

by | Jan 4, 2016 | , , , | 0

U.S. Copyright Office announces study on impact and effectiveness of the DMCA safe harbor provisions

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) “safe harbor” provision has long been a source of frustration for creators.  For years it’s allowed 3rd parties who enable, and often profit from piracy, to avoid legal liability for infringement.  Momentum to tighten eligibility standards to qualify for safe harbor protection has been growing of late, both in courts and at the U.S. Copyright Office.

Read More
Instagram rip-offs by Richard Prince show why we need a small claims copyright court now

Instagram rip-offs by Richard Prince show why we need a small claims copyright court now

by | May 22, 2015 | , , , , | 0

Ripping off artists in the name of ART is not OK

How long are we going to continue to let small artists get screwed by those with deep pockets?  Talk to any small creator–filmmakers, musicians, photographers, artists, authors–and ask whether they’ve had their work stolen (and monetized) by others and most will likely say “yes.”  Then ask them what they did about it.  The answer will likely be, “nothing.”

Right now a con-artist named Richard Prince is busy raking in the dough by selling Instagram photographs taken by others.   Oh yeah, he adds some drivel and emojis to the bottom of each photo before he blows it up a 65 x 48 print.  Yes art is often derivative, and yes these photographs are altered–but, in essence, at its core, the art remains a photograph taken (and owned) by someone else.

Prince, and the Gagosian Gallery where his work was shown, apparently have no qualms about blatantly appropriating and cashing by selling the work of other artists without their permission.  As a Paddy Johnson noted so succinctly in a piece he wrote for Artnet News, “Richard Prince sucks.”

So, while there’s no doubt Prince is a phony, piggy-backing off the work of Instagram artists; the question is–returning to my original query–Can the photographers whose pictures were stolen do anything to stop Prince’s outrageous fraud?  Well, not really. You see, quite simply,  Mr. Prince is loaded and the people he steals from are not.

Read More
Loading