Congratulations to the makers of Star Wars Uncut who last week won an Emmy for “outstanding creative achievement in interactive media" for their collaboratively made, "crowd-sourced" fan film.

The group divided the original Star Wars film into 15 second chunks, and then invited fans to claim a segment and remake it in whatever creative way they wanted. The pieces were then edited back together to make a new version of the film--or, more accurately, many versions of a new film, since each segment has been remade more than once. (A computer program lets you move between them.)

The group is currently “working through the legal issues" with Lucasfilm to produce a full version of the film with official Star Wars soundtrack; Lucasfilm is apparently supportive of the project.

Here’s a roundup of stories that might be of interest to fans: we've got stories from A (Afghanistan) to Z (the Zombie Beatles!) beneath the cut!

* In international news, the Afghan Ministry of Communications has mandated that all ISPs filter websites that fall under the categories of "alcohol," "dating/social networking," "gambling," and "pornography. This has resulted in countrywide blockages of Facebook, Gmail, YouTube, and Twitter, and follows similar censorious moves in Pakistan and Turkey.

* Boing Boing indeed! A parody Twilight game hosted on YouTube that was BoingBoinged was taken down for copyright infringment by Summit Entertainment, then put up again! And has now been taken down again! Ironically, BoingBoing's latest post compliments Summit by saying, "good to see a digital department at a traditional company being helpful." Spoke too soon! The Washington Post has also criticized Summit for "lobbing lawsuits at pretty much anyone who uses Twilight's name or images without its permission", including not only the game, but an unofficial Twilight-magazine, fan-made Twilight t-shirts, and even the makers of a documentary about Forks, Washington, the real-life town where the story is set. Apparently Summit thinks it should be able to control who sparkles and who doesn't!

* In RPF news, we bring you notice of the publication of Paul is Undead by Alan Goldsher, subtitled "The British Zombie Invasion." The book charts "the rise and fall of the zombie Beatles... through eyewitness accounts, newspaper clippings, and interviews." Oh, and Ringo is a ninja lord. Obviously.

* Zazzle has enforced a c&d against a fan who made an SPN keychain featuring only the single, fan-coined word, "Metallicar!" Crazily, even though TPTB at SPN didn't invent the word, they're claiming trademark over it (and it's really unlikely that the WB owns a word so closely associated with the band Metallica--but that's another story!) Alas, Zazzle—being a private company—can enforce any rules it wants, but, as with the Twilight case above, this is really a classic case of overstepping to no purpose.

We want your suggestions! If you know of an essay, video, article, event, or link you think we should know about you can submit it in three easy ways: comment on the most recent Link Roundup on LJ, IJ or DW, tag a link with "for:otw_news" on Delicious or give @OTW_News a shoutout on Twitter. Links are welcome in all languages!

Submitting a link doesn't guarantee that it will be included in a roundup post, and inclusion of a link doesn't mean that it is endorsed by the OTW.

The New York Times reports that a company called Rumblefish is partnering with YouTube to license songs to amateur video artists for use in noncommercial videos at $1.99 each. At the moment, they do not represent any major labels, though they are hoping to expand (don't hold your breath, given the difficulties the major labels have had with most new business models).

While this idea certainly has the potential to be beneficial for vidders and other remix artists, and the price is comparable to a ringtone or higher-quality download, this isn't the solution: the license Rumblefish and YouTube are offering doesn't allow users to remix, mash up, speed up, slow down, alter or translate lyrics or do lots of other things that vidders and other remix artists routinely do; all you can do is cut the length of the song. Also, you are only permitted to stream your video, and only at authorized sites like YouTube; you can't offer your vid for download, or stream from your own site. Moreover, the licence stipulates that your use:

must not be pornographic, promote hate or violence, must not be libelous, defamatory, fraudulent, infringing or otherwise illegal, and must not involve criticism of Friendly Music, Rumblefish, UGC Network, or any of their products or services.

And of course they get to decide what is okay and what isn't. (Doesn't that make you want to make an anti-Rumblefish political remix right now?)

While this service might be useful for makers of home movies and amateur films who just want to add a soundtrack to their child's birthday party or high school graduation, transformative works like vids, anime music videos, and political remix videos are not using music as a soundtrack. In these transformative works, the music is a crucial part of the message, and the message is a form of speech.

This seems like an attempt by Rumblefish and YouTube to charge noncommercial video makers for fewer rights than they already have. In fact, it's interesting that Rumblefish and YouTube are trying to create a market to license songs to amateur video makers just as laws like Canada's Copyright Modernization Act are proposing the legalization of noncommercial remix - but only if it doesn't aversely affect "an existing or potential market." Minimalist licenses for some songs, no matter how affordable, can't substitute for fair use.

Canada’s proposed copyright bill, the Copyright Modernization Act, also known as bill C-32, would legalize user-generated works like fanfiction, vids, mashups, and other forms of remix if passed in its current form. The provision, which is being called the “YouTube Exception” by a lot of legal commentators, “grants Canadians the right to create remixed user generated content for non-commercial purposes under certain circumstances.”

The relevant portion of the bill is below the cut. (Thanks to Grace Westcott for the information.)

29.21 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to use an existing work or other subject-matter or copy of one, which has been published or otherwise made available to the public, in the creation of a new work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists and for the individual - or, with the individual's authorization, a member of their household- to use the new work or other subject-matter or to authorize an intermediary to disseminate it, if

(a) the use of, or the authorization to disseminate, the new work or other subject-matter is done solely for non-commercial purposes;

(b) the source - and, if given in the source, the name of the author, performer, maker or broadcaster - of the existing work or other subject-matter or copy of it are mentioned, if it is reasonable in the circumstances to do so;

(c) the individual had reasonable grounds to believe that the existing work or other subject-matter or copy of it, as the case may be, was not infringing copyright; and

(d) the use of, or the authorization to disseminate, the new work or other subject-matter does not have a substantial adverse effect, financial or otherwise, on the exploitation or potential exploitation of the existing work or other subject-matter - or copy of it - or on an existing or potential market for it, including that the new work or other subject-matter is not a substitute for the existing one.