<div>Danny,</div><div><br></div>I think that the letter has already made the point. The use of "clearance agents" has turned respect for others trademarks, copyrights etc. into a mere "minor detail" for studios, not one of actual respect for individuals, and small non-profit organizations, who do own the rights to said material.<br>
<div><br></div><div>IMHO I think we should change the section at the bottom; </div><div>"<span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">So we say tell your friends at DreamWorks to publish (or print, or produce) and be damned. </span><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px">Tell them we fully support them in their brave stand.</span><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px"> </span><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px">"</span></div>
<div><font face="sans-serif"><span style="line-height:19px">to something a little less ambiguous;</span></font></div><div><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">"So we say tell your friends at DreamWorks to publish (or print, or produce) under the doctrine of 'fair use', and not be concerned about further legal consequences. </span><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px">Tell them we fully support fair use."</span></div>
<div><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px">Cheers!</span></div>
<div><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px">-John</span></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Danny O'Brien <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:danny@spesh.com" target="_blank">danny@spesh.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">It's been read by so many people already that it crashed the Noisebridge server.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I can engineer it so that more people at DreamWorks read it too, but I'm not sure that's the point. In fact if they actually went and used the logo anyway (which I doubt but it happens), that might actually put the nice clearance people in more trouble, which I personally would like to avoid. </p>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Jan 31, 2013 10:18 AM, "Jeffrey Carl Faden" <<a href="mailto:jeffreyatw@gmail.com" target="_blank">jeffreyatw@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
In other words, this whole reply is going to be read by no one.<br>
<br>
Jeffrey<br>
<br>
On Jan 28, 2013, at 7:22 PM, Seth David Schoen <<a href="mailto:schoen@loyalty.org" target="_blank">schoen@loyalty.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Danny O'Brien writes:<br>
><br>
>> as per last week's consensus, is here:<br>
>><br>
>> this week's meeting should agree on whether we should send it or not<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/DreamworksReply" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/DreamworksReply</a><br>
><br>
> I like this letter, but I'm not sure about the target audience.<br>
> I see that the letter is addressed to a clearance agency, not to the<br>
> producer or director, nor even to the studio. Making these kinds of<br>
> requests (and maybe others that could be more strongly supported by<br>
> copyright law) is the clearance agency's entire livelihood; they have<br>
> credits for doing it for dozens of feature films.<br>
><br>
> Although telling the clearance agency how we disapprove of the<br>
> permission culture makes sense, and it might be interesting to know<br>
> whether they have concerns about the legal and cultural aspects of<br>
> their clearance work, I have a sense that they're not exactly the right<br>
> audience. They're not the ones who will be disappointed if they "can't"<br>
> use the Noisebridge logo in the film. In fact, they have no creative<br>
> role in the film at all! Couldn't it make more sense to send the letter<br>
> to someone with a clearer creative role, who might have stronger opinions<br>
> about the film's content? For example, someone who might actually want<br>
> to have a conversation with the studio about whether they can use the<br>
> logo despite its being "uncleared" from the industry's perspective?<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Seth David Schoen <<a href="mailto:schoen@loyalty.org" target="_blank">schoen@loyalty.org</a>> | No haiku patents<br>
> <a href="http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/" target="_blank">http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/</a> | means I've no incentive to<br>
> FD9A6AA28193A9F03D4BF4ADC11B36DC9C7DD150 | -- Don Marti<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>