[Noisebridge-discuss] dreamworks reply

[John Ellis]

Danny,

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.

IMHO I think we should change the section at the bottom;
"So we say tell your friends at DreamWorks to publish (or print, or
produce) and be damned. Tell them we fully support them in their brave
stand. "
to something a little less ambiguous;
"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. Tell them we fully support fair use."

Cheers!
-John

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com> wrote:

> It's been read by so many people already that it crashed the Noisebridge
> server.
>
> 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.
> On Jan 31, 2013 10:18 AM, "Jeffrey Carl Faden" <jeffreyatw at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130131/89c243b7/attachment-0003.html>