[Noisebridge-discuss] dreamworks reply

[Seth David Schoen]

Danny O'Brien writes:

> as per last week's consensus, is here:
> 
> this week's meeting should agree on whether we should send it or not
> 
> https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/DreamworksReply

I like this letter, but I'm not sure about the target audience.
I see that the letter is addressed to a clearance agency, not to the
producer or director, nor even to the studio.  Making these kinds of
requests (and maybe others that could be more strongly supported by
copyright law) is the clearance agency's entire livelihood; they have
credits for doing it for dozens of feature films.

Although telling the clearance agency how we disapprove of the
permission culture makes sense, and it might be interesting to know
whether they have concerns about the legal and cultural aspects of
their clearance work, I have a sense that they're not exactly the right
audience.  They're not the ones who will be disappointed if they "can't"
use the Noisebridge logo in the film.  In fact, they have no creative
role in the film at all!  Couldn't it make more sense to send the letter
to someone with a clearer creative role, who might have stronger opinions
about the film's content?  For example, someone who might actually want
to have a conversation with the studio about whether they can use the
logo despite its being "uncleared" from the industry's perspective?

-- 
Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org>      |  No haiku patents
     http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/        |  means I've no incentive to
  FD9A6AA28193A9F03D4BF4ADC11B36DC9C7DD150  |        -- Don Marti