[Noisebridge-discuss] dreamworks reply

[Jeffrey Carl Faden]

In other words, this whole reply is going to be read by no one.

Jeffrey

On Jan 28, 2013, at 7:22 PM, Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss