Legal Advocacy

  • Soutien Juridique

    By Apollonie on Tuesday, 26 May 2015 - 11:12am
    Message type:
    Tags:

    L’OTW (Organisation pour les Oeuvres Transformatives) pense que les oeuvres créées par les fans sont créatives et transformatives, et qu’elles s’inscrivent donc dans le cadre de l’usage loyal. C’est pourquoi l’organisation sera proactive dans la défense des oeuvres de fans contre l’exploitation commerciale et la contestation judiciaire. Cette aide ne sera pas limitée aux fans et aux projets liés directement à l’OTW.

    Notre travail comprend:

    Davis contre Electronic Arts

    • Mémoire d’Amicus Curiae, Davis v. Electronic Arts (PDF); remis le 30 Janvier 2015
    • Le mémoire d’Amicus Curiae, ou amicus, désigne un mémoire soumis à un tribunal par une personnalité (ou par un organe) non-partie à une procédure judiciaire contenant des informations de nature à éclairer le tribunal sur des questions de fait ou de droit.

      Le comité de soutien juridique de l’OTW a, avec l’Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF - Fondation de la Frontière Electronique), rempli un amicus demandant une nouvelle audience dans l’affaire Davis contre Electronic Arts. Celle-ci concerne la relation entre le Premier Amendement, qui garantit la liberté d’expression, et les lois étatiques (par opposition aux lois fédérales) concernant les droits de la personnalité, qui limitent l’usage et la révélation des noms, de l’image et de l’identité des personnes. Le mémoire demande que la Cour d’appel des Etats-Unis pour le neuvième circuit réinstruise l’affaire. En effet, leur
      décision a établi un déséquilibre, au détriment des créateurs souhaitant réaliser des oeuvres à propos de gens réels.
      L’argument principal de l’amicus est le suivant : “Un artiste qui crée une oeuvre à propos d’une personne réelle n’a aucune idée de l’évaluation que pourrait faire une Cour de sa responsabilité pour avoir fait usage de l’image de cette personne, en particulier lorsqu’il n’a aucun moyen de déterminer quelles règles seront utilisées pour faire cette évaluation.”. Le mémoire a demandé à la Cour de réinstruire l’affaire afin de protéger les artistes souhaitant représenter l’image de personnes réelles de façon réaliste, et de défendre les méthodes d’expression créative face aux incursions du droit à l’image.

    Pétition à l’Office du Copyright (Droits d’auteur américains) en faveur d’une exemption au DMCA (Loi de protection des droits d'auteur numériques aux États-Unis) pour les réalisateurs de remix non-commerciaux, 2014-2015

    Soumission à la Discussion en Ligne ouverte par le Gouvernement Australien à propos des Atteintes aux Droits d’Auteur

    • Commentaires soumis par l’OTW (PDF)
    • Le comité juridique de l’OTW, avec Creative Commons Australia (Organisation australienne à but non-lucratif qui fournit des licences ainsi que des outils gratuits afin que les détenteurs de droits d’auteurs autorisent d’autres utilisateurs à partager, réutiliser, et remixer leur contenu légalement), a participé à la Discussion en Ligne ouverte par le Gouvernement Australien à propos des Atteintes aux Droits d’Auteur le 5 septembre 2014, en se prononçant contre une proposition du gouvernement australien. La proposition élargissait la définition de la responsabilité pour “autorisation” des fournisseurs de services Internet en cas d’atteinte aux droits d’auteur. Cela voulait dire que, même s’ils ne peuvent pas empêcher un à un les utilisateurs de commettre des infractions individuelles, ils auraient pu devoir changer la manière dont leurs services opèrent, en coupant, par exemple, l’accès internet des accusés ou en
      filtrant l’activité de leurs utilisateurs.

    Capitol Records v. Vimeo

    • Mémoire d’Amicus Curiae, Capitol Records v. Vimeo (PDF); remis le 30 juillet 2014.
    • L’OTW s’est alliée au Center for Democracy and Technology (Centre pour la Démocratie et la Technologie), à New Media Rights (Nouveaux Droits des Média), à Electronic Frontier Foundation (la Fondation Frontière Electronique), et à Public Knowledge (Notoriété Publique) pour remettre un amicus à la Cour d’appel fédérale afin de l’enjoindre à bloquer les tentatives des labels de musique de contrecarrer la loi fédérale dans l’affaire Capitol v. Vimeo--un cas qui pourrait compromettre la liberté d’expression et d’innovation, ainsi que les sites d’hébergement.
      En l’espèce, la Cour définit ce qui constitue la connaissance “red flag” de l’existence d’un contenu litigieux (celle-ci oblige le service d’hébergement à enlever le contenu, même sans demande de retrait). Dans ce mémoire, l’OTW et ses alliés soutiennent que les critères mis en place par la Cour sont trop contraignants pour les sites qui hébergent du contenu mis en ligne par leurs utilisateurs, et limitent la liberté d’expression protégée par l’usage loyal.

      Cindy Lee Garcia v. Google, Inc.,YouTubeLLC, et al., et Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

      • Mémoire d’Amicus Curiae, Garcia v. Google (PDF) remis le 25 novembre 2014.
      • Le 12 Novembre 2014, la Cour a annulé sa décision précédente, et renvoyé l’affaire devant la Cour entière (et pas seulement trois juges) pour une nouvelle audience en décembre. L’OTW a soumis un nouvel amicus sur l’affaire, développant les arguments qu’elle avait soulevés dans le premier amicus.

      • Mémoire d’Amicus Curiae, Garcia v. Google (PDF); remis le 14 avril 2014.
      • L’OTW a rejoint Floor64 (l’opérateur de TechDirt) pour déposer un mémoire. Celui-ci demande à la cour de ré-examiner sa décision en prenant en compte le fait que, bien qu’efficace dans l’affaire considérée, elle met en péril la liberté d’expression sur Internet quand on l’applique au cas général. Cette affaire tourne autour de l’étendue et de l’application des dispositions d’exonération contenues dans le DMCA et la section 230 du Communications Decency Act. Celles-ci empêchent les plateformes d’hébergement (comme YouTube, Archive of Our Own - AO3 (Notre Propre Archive), et beaucoup d’autres) d’être responsables du contenu posté par leurs utilisateurs.

      Les commentaires à la Commission Européenne

      • Les commentaires soumis par l’OTW (PDF)
      • En février 2014, le comité juridique de l’OTW a inscrit l’OTW au Registre de Transparence de l’Union Européenne et a soumis un dossier à la Commission Européenne en réponse à son appel aux commentaires sur une possible réforme des droits d’auteur dans l’UE.

        Stephanie Lenz, v. Universal Music Corp., Universal Music Publishing, Inc., et Universal Music Publishing Group

        • Mémoire d’Amicus Curiae, Lenz v Universal (PDF); remis le 13 décembre 2013.
        • L’OTW a rejoint Public Knowledge et l’International Documentary Association (Association Internationale de Documentation), représentés par le projet Stanford Fair Use, pour déposer ce mémoire. Celui-ci démontre que les allégations sans fondement d’atteintes aux droits d’auteur nuisent à l’usage loyal et à la liberté d’expression. Pour ce faire, il documente les abus réitérés dans l’utilisation des demandes de retrait couvertes par le DMCA. La loi demande à l’expéditeur d’un avis de retrait d’affirmer, sous peine de parjure, que le contenu litigieux n’est pas licite (“authorized by law”), et punit les fausses déclarations. Par conséquent, et c’est ce que nous plaidons, la loi demande aux titulaires des droits d’auteur de se faire une idée en toute bonne foi de la loyauté de l’usage qu’ils contestent avant de présenter une demande de retrait sous le DMCA; et elle devrait punir ceux qui adoptent une stratégie revenant à “tirer avant de poser des questions”, comme Universal l’a fait pour la vidéo de Mlle Lenz.

        Commentaires au PTO/NTIA

        • Les commentaires soumis par l’OTW (PDF)
        • En octobre 2013, l’Administration Nationale des Télécommunications des Etats-Unis (NTIA) et le Bureau Américain des Brevets et des Marques Déposées (PTO) ont fait un appel aux commentaires du public sur les questions relatives aux politiques des droits d’auteur, y compris le cadre légal pour la création des remix. Nos avocats ont utilisé les histoires des fans pour expliquer à ces agences, qui vont probablement proposer de nouvelles lois concernant les droits d’auteur, pourquoi tout changement de ces lois devrait favoriser la liberté de créer des oeuvres transformatives.

          Rebecca Tushnet, personnel du comité juridique de l’OTW, a également participé à un panel concernant Le cadre légal pour les remix après avoir été appelée à témoigner devant ces agences le 12 décembre 2013 suite à ce commentaire public. (Elle commence à parler à :33 minutes).

        Fox Broadcasting Company, Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., et Fox Television Holdings v. Dish Network L.L.C. et Dish Network Corporation

        • Amici, Dish v. ABC (PDF); remis le 24 janvier 2014.
        • Amicus, Fox vs. DISH (PDF); remis le 24 janvier 2013.
        • L’OTW a soumis un amicus avec Electronic Frontier Foundation et Public Knowledge qui affirme que “Le Copyright n’accorde pas aux titulaires des droits d’auteur comme Fox, le contrôle absolu sur l’usage de leurs travaux. La cour de district a suivi des précédents clairs, et a appliqué une bonne politique lorsqu’elle a décidé que les utilisateurs d’Ad Hopper de Dish ne portent pas atteinte aux droits exclusifs de Fox, que Dish ne serait pas responsable pour les usages faits par ses clients du logiciel, et que Fox n’a pas souffert de dommages irréparables. Cette Cour doit confirmer la décision de la cour de district, en explicitant le fait que la copie intermédiaire de Dish est un usage loyal.”

        Petition à l’Office du Copyright pour le renouvellement de l’exemption au DMCA pour les producteurs de remix non-commerciaux, 2011 - 2012

        • Commentaire d’Electronic Frontier Foundation (PDF), soumis le 2 décembre, 2011. Rebecca Tushnet, Rachael Vaughn, et Francesca Coppa, membres de l’OTW, ont travaillé avec l’EFF pour soumettre une demande de renouvellement et d’extension des exemptions au DMCA pour les créateurs de remix non-commerciaux.
        • Commentaire de réponse au nom de l’OTW (PDF), en soutien à l’exemption au DMCA proposée par EFF pour les vidéastes et autres créateurs de remix; soumis le 2 mars, 2012. Les membres du comité juridique de l’OTW Rachael Vaughn et Rebecca Tushnet ont travaillé avec les membres du comité juridique et vidding pour écrire une réponse soutenant la proposition de l’EFF; EFF a aussi soumis sa propre Réponse (PDF) soutenant différentes exemptions, y compris l’exemption pour les créateurs de remix non-commerciaux.
        • Une Démonstration de l'Usage Loyal dans les Fanvidéos mise à jour, comprenant une comparaison entre les vidéos provenant de DVD rippés et celles capturées sur écran.
        • Francesca Coppa, Rebecca Tushnet, et Trisha Turk ont témoigné devant la Bibliothèque du Congrès (Library of Congress), le 4 juin 2012; Tisha Turk présente les pièces de notre première galerie d’images démontrant les différences de qualité entre une séquence rippée sur DVD et une capturée sur écran.
        • La réponse aux pièces fournies par le DVD CCA soutenant les captures d’écran, soumise le 2 août, 2012; voir notre deuxième galerie d’images pour trouver deuxième collection de l’OTW.

        Ryan Hart vs. Electronic Arts, Inc.

        • Amicus, Ryan Hart vs. Electronic Arts, Inc.; remis le 23 mai 2012.
        • L’OTW a soumis un amicus, en collaboration avec le Digital Media Law Project (Projet de Loi pour les Média Digitaux), l’International Documentary Association et dix professeurs de droit, plaidant que l’usage fait par EA dans un jeu vidéo des informations et données des joueurs de football universitaire est couvert par le premier amendement. EA et le public ont d’importants intérêts à défendre grâce au premier amendement quant il s’agit d’intégrer des informations factuelles--la taille, le poids, le numéro du maillot, et l’équipe d’un joueur, par exemple--dans leurs créations.

        Salinger v. Colting

        Petition à l’Office du Copyright en faveur d’une exemption au DMCA pour les créateurs de remix non-commerciaux, 2008- 2009

        EFF a demandé à la Bibliothèque du Congrès une exemption autorisant l’extraction de clips d’un DVD pour les inclure dans des vidéos de remix non-commerciales, comme les fanvidéos, qui relèvent de l’usage loyal. L’OTW (et de nombreux vidéastes) ont aidé à la préparation de ce commentaire.

        L’OTW a soumis un commentaire de réponse soutenant l’exemption au DMCA proposée par EFF pour les vidéastes et les autres artistes de remix non-commerciaux.

        Le 22 juin, le Bureau des droits d’auteur a demandé plus d’information de la part de l’OTW et des autres groupes ayant témoigné pendant les Séances Anti-contournement du DMCA du 6 au 8 mai. (Ces séances ont été conçues afin de donner la parole aux témoignages en faveur et contre les exemptions au DMCA pour les éducateurs au-delà des professeurs d’études de cinéma (comprenant donc les enseignants allant de la maternelle à la terminale), les cinéastes de documentaires, les vidéastes et les autres artistes de remix non-commerciaux.) Ces questions supplémentaires portaient sur les DVDs et les logiciels de captures d’écran.

        L’Office du Copyright a posé une deuxième série de questions supplémentaires le 22 août 2009. L’OTW a collaboré avec Electronic Frontier Foundation, plusieurs associations de bibliothèques (ALA, AALL, ARL, ACRL), des professeurs d’études filmiques et d’étude des médias, des cinéastes de documentaire et leurs organisations, pour produire une réponse commune. Nous avons aussi co-écrits une réponse distincte avec l’EFF adressant spécifiquement les besoins particuliers des vidéastes et des autres artistes de remix; cf ci-dessous.

  • Update on DMCA Exemption for Fan Videos

    By Janita Burgess on Monday, 11 May 2015 - 5:13pm
    Message type:

    Banner by Erin of a spotlight on an OTW logo with the words 'Spotlight on Legal Issues'

    Last week OTW Legal joined with the Electronic Frontier Foundation to file comments on the U.S. Copyright Office's rulemaking on Section 1201 of the Copyright Act. This filing explains why noncommercial remix videos are fair use and should receive an exemption from copyright restrictions which make it illegal to break encryption on visual formats such as DVD, Blu Ray and streaming video.

    At the end of this month, current and former OTW staffers Francesca Coppa, Tisha Turk, and Rebecca Tushnet will be testifying in front of the Copyright Office about why the current remix exemptions should be renewed and expanded to cover Blu-Ray. The opponents of an exemption argued that fan videos aren’t fair uses, but they didn’t formally oppose the renewal of the exemptions for DVDs and streaming which we won in 2012. This means those exemptions should continue, though the Copyright Office still needs to rule in our favor despite the lack of opposition. The fact that the MPAA and other opponents now recognize that they have no good arguments against the existing exemptions for DVDs and streaming video also demonstrates the importance of fans having a voice consistently representing them in legal discussions about fair use.

    As the document states:

      "Opponents seek to undermine the 2014 examples by dismissing them as “entertainment” and suggesting that such videos are less likely to be fair. This is nonsense.
      ...
      Opponents may not understand the values and context of the work, but that failure suggests only the importance of not putting them (or anyone else) in charge of vetoing such uses. “‘As Justice Holmes explained, ‘[i]t would be a dangerous undertaking for persons trained only to the law to constitute themselves final judges of the worth of [a work], outside of the narrowest and most obvious limits. At the one extreme some works of genius would be sure to miss appreciation. Their very novelty would make them repulsive until the public had learned the new language in which their author spoke.’"

    Many vidders helped us explain why fan videos need high quality source, including Blu-Ray source, and we thank each of them for their support.

    All of OTW Legal's filings on copyright cases can be accessed from their project page on the OTW website. We will continue to keep fans informed of developments.

  • Legal Advocacy (Yasal Müdafaa)

    By Ridicully on Wednesday, 29 April 2015 - 12:04pm
    Message type:
    Tags:

    OTW (Transformatif Eserler Derneği) hayran eserlerinin yaratıcı ve transformatif eserler olduğuna ve adil kullanımın özünü temsil ettiğine inanır; bu yüzden hayran eserlerini ticari sömürüye ve yasal diretmelere karşı korumada proaktif hareket etmektedir. OTW'nin sağladığı bu destek direkt OTW bağlantılı hayranlar ve projelerle sınırlı değildir.

    Çalışmalarımızın arasında:

    Davis v. Electronic Arts

    • Amicus Lahiyası, Davis v. Electronic Arts (PDF); 30 Ocak 2015’te sunuldu.
    • OTW Hukuk komitesi, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) ile birlikte bir amicus lahiyası başlatarak Davis v. Electronic Arts davasının tekrar dinlenmesi talebinde bulundu. Dava, ifade özgürlüğü garantisi veren ABD’nin İlk Düzenleme yasası (the First Amendment) ile isim, benzerlik ve kişiliklerin kullanımını sınırlandıran, eyaletlerin tanıtım yasalarının hakları arasındaki ilişki üzerineydi. Lahiya ABD Ninth Circuit mahkemesinin, gerçek insanlar hakkında tesir edici eserler yaratmak isteyen yaratıcıların zarar göreceği şekilde dengeyi bozan alınmış karar nedeniyle davayı tekrar dinlemesi yönünde savunma yaptı. Lahiya, var olan karar altında “gerçek bir kişi üzerine bir eser yaratan bir sanatçı, bir mahkemenin o kişinin benzerliğinin kullanımı için nasıl bir sorumluluk yükleyebileceği hakkında, özellikle de bu analize hangi kanunların nüfuz ettiğinden emin olamıyorsa, çok az bilgiye sahiptir.” yönünde savundu. Lahiya, gerçek kişileri gerçekçi şekilde ifade etmek isteyen sanatçıları ve telif haklarının aşımına karşı yaratıcı ifade biçimini korumak için mahkemenin davayı tekrar dinlemesini istedi.

    Ticari olmayan remix yaratıcılarının DMCA (Dijital Milenyum Telif Hakkı Yasası) istisnası statüsü verilmesi için Telif Hakkı Bürosu'na verilen dilekçe, 2014 - 2015

    Avustralya Hükümeti'nin Online Telif Hakkı İhlali Tartışma Bildirisi için Yapılan Sunum

    • OTW tarafından sunulan görüşler (PDF)
    • OTW Hukuk Komitesi, Creative Commons Avustralya ile birlikte 5 Eylül 2014'te Avustralya Hükümeti'nin Online Telif Hakkı İhlali Tartışma Bildirisi'ne katkıda bulunarak Avustralya Hükümeti'nin bir önerisine karşı görüş bildirdi. Öneri, internet servis sağlayıcılarının "yetkilendirme" yükümlülüğünün tanımını genişletiyordu. Bu, bireyler tarafından yapılan ihlalleri engelleyemeseler bile hizmetlerinin çalışma şeklini değiştirebilecekleri anlamına geliyor; ihlalle suçlananların internet bağlantılarını kesmek veya kullanıcıların aktivitelerini süzmek gibi.

    Capitol Records v. Vimeo Davası

    • Amicus Layihası, Capitol Records v. Vimeo Davası (PDF); 30 Temmuz 2014'te sunuldu.
    • OTW, Center for Democracy and Technology (Demokrasi ve Teknoloji Merkezi), New Media Rights (Yeni Medya Hakları), Electronic Frontier Foundation ve Public Knowledge ile bir araya gelerek federal temyiz mahkemesinden plak şirketlerinin Capitol v. Vimeo davasında federal kanunları atlatma girişimini durdurmasını talep eden bir layiha sundu. Bu dava ifade özgürlüğünü, yenilikçiliği ve bunları barındıran siteleri riske atmaktadır. Mahkeme kaldırma ihbarı almadan dahi barındırma hizmeti veren sitenin bir materyali kaldırmasını gerektirecek "kırmızı bayrak" sayılan ihlal bilgisinin ne olduğunu tartışıyor. Layihada OTW ve işbirliği yaptığı kuruluşlar, dava mahkemesi tarafından belirlenecek standartların kullanıcı tarafından oluşturulan içerikleri barındıran sitelere makul olmayan yükler getireceği ve adil kullanım ilkesi ile koruma altına alınan ifade şekillerini uzaklaştıracağını savundu.

    Cindy Lee Garcia v. Google, Inc.,YouTubeLLC, et al. ve Nakoula Basseley Nakoula Davası

    • Amicus Lahiyası, Garcia v. Google (PDF); 25 Kasım 2014’te sunuldu.
    • 12 Kasım 2014’te mahkeme önceki kararın geçersiz olduğu yönünde karar aldı ve davanın bütün mahkeme tarafından—sadece üç yargıçlı bir panel değil—Aralık ayında dinlenmesi kararını verdi. OTW, davada yeni bir amicus lahiyası oluşturarak ilk lahiyadaki savunmamızı genişletti.

    • Amicus Layihası, Garcia v Google Davası (PDF); 14 Nisan 2014'te sunuldu.
    • OTW, Floor64 (TechDirt'ün sahibi) ile işbirliği yaparak bir layiha sundu ve mahkemeden kararını tekrar gözden geçirmesini istedi. Verdikleri karar bu davada doğru bir sonuç doğursa da internette ifade özgürlüğüne zarar veren, kötü bir emsal teşkil edecektir. Dava, içerik barındıran sitelerin — YouTube, AO3 ve bu gibi diğer birçok sitenin — kullanıcılarının yayınladığı içerikten sorumlu tutulmasını önleyen DMCA (Dijital Milenyum Telif Hakkı Yasası) güvenli liman hükümleri ile İletişim Ahlakı Yasası (ABD) 230. bölümün kapsamı ve uygulaması hakkındaydı.

    Avrupa Komisyonu'na Sunulan Görüşler

    • OTW tarafından sunulan görüşler (PDF)
    • Şubat 2014'te OTW Hukuk Komitesi Avrupa Birliği Şeffaflık Sicili'ne (Transparency Register) OTW'nin kaydını yaptırdı ve Avrupa Komisyonu'nun olası bir AB telif hakkı reformuyla ilgili çağrısını yanıtlayan bir sunumda bulundu.

    Stephanie Lenz, v. Universal Music Corp., Universal Music Publishing, Inc. ve Universal Music Publishing Group Davası

    • Amicus Layihası, Lenz v Universal Davası (PDF); 13 Aralık 2013'te sunuldu.
    • OTW, bu layihayı Public Knowledge ve Stanford Fair Use Project (Stanford Adil Kullanım Projesi) tarafından temsil edilen International Documentary Association (Uluslararası Belgesel Birliği) ortaklığı ile sundu. Sunulan layiha asılsız telif hakkı ihlali iddialarının adil kullanım kavramına ve meşru ifade özgürlüğüne zarar verdiğini ısrarla kötüye kullanılan DMCA ihbarları ile belgeleyerek açıklıyor. Tüzük, kaldırma ihbarını yollayan tarafın kullanımın "kanun tarafından izin verilmiş" bir kullanım olmadığını teyit etmesi gerektiğini söylüyor ve yalan beyan olması halinde cezalandırma öngörüyor. Bu yüzden biz kanun uyarınca telif hakkı sahiplerinin DMCA (Dijital Milenyum Telif Hakkı Yasası) ihbarı yollamadan önce kullanımın adil olup olmadığı sorusuna iyi niyetle yaklaşmaları gerektiğini savunuyoruz. Universal'in Bayan Lenz'in videosunda yaptığı gibi "önce vur sonra soru sor" şeklindeki yaklaşımların da cezalandırılması gerektiğini düşünüyoruz.

    PTO/NTIA'ya Sunulan Görüşler

    • OTW tarafından sunulan görüşler (PDF)
    • Ekim 2013'te, ABD Ulusal Telekomünikasyon ve Bilgi İdaresi (NTIA) ve ABD Patent ve Marka Ofisi (PTO) halktan telif hakkı politikası sorunları ile ilgili görüş istediler. Bu konu remix yaratmanın da yasal çerçevesini içeriyordu. Avukatlarımız, yeni telif hakkı mevzuatını teklif edecek olan bu kurumlara, telif hakkı kanununda yapılacak herhangi bir değişikliğin neden transformatif eserler yaratma özgürlüğünü gözetmesi gerektiğini açıklamak için hayranların onlara gönderdiği hikayeleri kullandılar.

      OTW Hukuk ekibi üyesi Rebecca Tushnet ayrıca 12 Aralık 2013 tarihinde aynı görüş süreci dahilinde bu kurumlar karşısında tanıklığa çağrılan Remixlerin Yasal Çerçevesi konulu heyette yer aldı. (Konuşması :33'te başlıyor.)

    Fox Broadcasting Company, Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. ve Fox Television Holdings v. Dish Network L.L.C. ve Dish Network Corporation Davası

    • Amici Layihası, Dish v. ABC Davası (PDF); 24 Ocak 2014'te sunuldu.
    • Amicus Layihası, Fox vs. DISH Davası (PDF); 24 Ocak 2013'te sunuldu.
    • OTW, Electronic Frontier Foundation ve Public Knowledge ile birlikte sunduğu amicus layihasında şu görüşe yer verdi: "Telif hakkı mevzuatı Fox gibi telif hakkı sahiplerine eserlerinin kullanımında mutlak kontrol vermez. Yerel mahkeme Dish Ad Hopper (Reklam Atlatıcısı) kullanıcılarının Fox'un özel haklarını çiğnemediğine, Dish'in müşterilerinin kullanımından sorumlu tutulamayacağına ve Fox'un telafi edilemeyecek bir zarara uğramadığına karar verirken bariz emsalleri örnek almış ve doğru politika izlemiştir."

    Ticari olmayan remix yaratıcılarının DMCA (Dijital Milenyum Telif Hakkı Yasası) istisnası statüsünün yenilenmesi için Telif Hakkı Bürosu'na verilen dilekçe, 2011 - 2012

    • Electronic Frontier Foundation'ın görüşü (PDF), 2 Aralık 2011'de sunuldu. OTW üyeleri Rebecca Tushnet, Rachael Vaughn ve Francesca Coppa, EFF ile birlikte çalışarak ticari olmayan remix yaratıcılarının DMCA istisnası statüsünün yenilenmesi ve genişletilmesi için bir teklif sundular.
    • EFF'nin video remixçiler ve diğer remix sanatçılarının DMCA (Dijital Milenyum Telif Hakkı Yasası) istisnası sayılması teklifini destekleyen, OTW adına sunulan cevabi görüş (PDF); 2 Mart 2012'de sunuldu. OTW Hukuk ekibi üyeleri Rachael Vaughn ve Rebecca Tushnet, Hukuk ve Hayran Videosu Komiteleri üyeleri ile birlikte çalışarak EFF'nin teklifini destekleyen bir Cevap hazırladılar. EFF de ayrıca ticari olmayan remixçilerin istinası da dahil olmak üzere birçok istisnayı kapsayan kendi Cevabi Görüşlerini (PDF) sundu.
    • Test Suite of Fair Use Vids (Adil Kullanım Videoları Test Paketi) revize edildi, DVD'den kopyalanan görüntü ile ekrandan alınan görüntünün karşılaştırması eklendi.
    • Francesca Coppa, Rebecca Tushnet ve Tisha Turk ABD Kongre Kütüphanesi (Library of Congress) huzurunda tanıklık etti, 4 Haziran 2012; Tisha Turk ilk Resim Galerimizin sunumunu yaparak DVD'den kopyalanan ile ekrandan alınan görüntü kaynağının kalite farkını örneklerle açıkladı.
    • DVD CCA'nın ekran görüntüsünü savunan örneklerine cevap, 2 Ağustos 2012'de sunuldu; OTW'nin kendi örnek setini ikinci Resim Galerisinde bulabilirsiniz.

    Ryan Hart vs. Electronic Arts, Inc. Davası

    • Amicus Layihası, Ryan Hart vs. Electronic Arts, Inc. Davası; 23 May 2012'de sunuldu.
    • OTW, Digital Media Law Project (Dijital Medya Hukuku Projesi) ve International Documentary Association (Uluslararası Belgesel Birliği) ve on hukuk profesörünün de katılımıyla bir amicus layihası sundu ve EA'nın üniversite futbol oyuncularının verilerini/tasvirlerini kullanımının ABD Anayasası Birinci Maddesi kapsamına girdiği görüşünü savundu. Bir oyuncunun gerçek verilerinin - oyuncunun boyu, kilosu, numarası ve takımı gibi - yaratıcı eserlere dahil edilebilmesi Birinci Madde kapsamında EA'nın ve halkın hakkıdır.

    Salinger v. Colting Davası

    Ticari olmayan remix yaratıcılarına DMCA (Dijital Milenyum Telif Hakkı Yasası) istisnası statüsü tanınması için Telif Hakkı Bürosu'na verilen dilekçe, 2008- 2009

    EFF, ABD Kongre Kütüphanesi'ne (Library of Congress) başvurarak hayran videoları gibi ticari olmayan ve adil kullanım olarak kabul edilen remixlerin yapımında kullanılmak üzere DVD'lerden görüntü kopyalanmasına DMCA (Dijital Milenyum Telif Hakkı Yasası) istisnası olarak izin verilmesini talep etti. OTW (ve birçok video remixçi) bu başvurunun hazırlanmasına yardım etti.

    OTW, EFF'nin video remixçiler ve diğer remix sanatçılarına DMCA istisnası statüsü verilmesi teklifini destekleyen bir cevabi görüş sundu.

    22 Haziran'da Telif Hakkı Bürosu 6-8 Mayıs'ta Düzenlenen DMCA İhlali Önleme Oturumları'nda. tanıklık eden OTW ve diğer gruplardan ek bilgi istedi. (Bu oturumlar; film çalışmaları profesörleri dışında kalan eğitimciler (K-12 öğretmenleri dahil), belgesel film yapımcıları, video remixçiler ve diğer ticari olmayan remix sanatçılarına DMCA istisnası statüsü tanınmasının lehine ve karşıtı ifadelerin dinlenmesi için tasarlanmıştı.) Bu ek sorular DVDler ve ekran görüntüsü alma yazılımları ile ilgiliydi.

    22 Ağustos 2009'da Telif Hakkı Bürosu ikinci bir grup ek soru gönderdi. OTW, Electronic Frontier Foundation, birçok kütüphane birliği (ALA, AALA, ARL, ACRL), film ve medya çalışmaları profesörleri ve belgesel yapımcıları ve organizasyonları ile birlikte ortak bir cevap üzerinde çalıştı. Ayrıca EFF ile ortaklaşa ayrı bir cevap hazırlayarak video remixçiler ve diğer remix sanatçılarının ihtiyaçlarına dikkat çektik. Bu cevabı aşağıda bulabilirsiniz.

  • المُرافعة القانونية

    By Ridicully on Wednesday, 29 April 2015 - 11:32am
    Message type:
    Tags:

    تؤمن OTW (مُنظمة الأعمال التحويلية) بأن أعمال المُعجبين خلاقة و تحويلية، بمبدأ الإستعمال العادل، و بالتالي ستكون سباقة في حماية و الدفاع عن أعمال المُعجبين ضد الإستغلال التُجاري و التحدي القانوني. هذه المُساعدة لن تتوقف عند المُعجبين و المشاريع التي تتصل مباشرةً OTW.

    يتضمن عملنا

    سيندي لي جارسيا ضد شركة جوجل، يوتيوب ش.ذ.م.م. و آخرون، و ناكولا باسيلي ناكولا

    • مذكرة صديق المحكمة (Amicus Brief)، جارسيا ضد جوجل (PDF)؛ قدمت في ١٤ أبريل، ٢٠١٤.
    • قامت OTW بالاشتراك مع Floor64 (مشغل TechDirt) بتقديم مذكرة تطلب من المحكمة لإععدة النظر في قرارها مع مراعاة أن، رغم أن القرار يؤدي إلى نتيجة فعلية جيدة في هذه القضية بالذات، فيخلق قانون رهيب سيضر حرية التعبير على الإنترنت. القضية ينطوي نطاق و تطبيق أحكام الملاذ الآمن لقانون الألفية الأمريكي للملكية الرقمية (DMCA) و قسم ٢٣٠ لقانون حشمة الاتصالات الأمريكي، التي معاً تمنع مضيفي المحتوى — مثل يوتيوب (YouTube)، AO3 - Archive of Our Own (الأرشيف من جانبنا)، و الكثير من الآخرين — من كونهم مسؤولين عن ما ينشره مستخدموهم.

    تعليقات للمُفوضية الأوروبية

    • التعليقات المقدمة من OTW (PDF)
    • في شهر فبراير ٢٠١٤، اللجنة القانونية لدي OTW قامت بتسجيل OTW في سجل الشفافية للإتحاد الأوروبي و قدمت طلب للمُفوضية الأوروبية رداً على دعوتها للتعليقات بخصوص إعادة صياغة حقوق النشر و التأليف للإتحاد الأوروبي.

    ستيفاني لينز ضد شركة يونيفرسال ميوزيك، شركة يونيفرسال ميوزيك للنشر، و مجموعة يونيفرسال ميوزيك للنشر

    • مذكرة صديق المحكمة، لينز ضد يونيفرسال (PDF)؛ قدمت في ١٣ ديسمبر، ٢٠١٣.
    • قامت OTW بالإشتراك مع المعارف العامة و الجمعية الدولية للأفلام الوثائقية، ممثلة في مشروع ستانفورد للإستعمال العادل، لتقديم هذا الموجز. و هذا الموجز يوضح من خلال توثيق إساءات الإستعمال المستمرة لإشعارات DMCA أن الإدعاءات التي لا أساس لها من الصحة حول إنتهاك حقوق النشر و التأليف تضر الإستعمال العادل و الخطاب القانوني. النظام الأساسي يقتضي أنه على مُرسل إشعار إنهاء الخدمة تأكيد تحت عقوبة الحنث باليمين أن هذا الإستخدام "ليس مُصرح به قانونياً"، و يُعاقب التحريفات. و نتيجة لذلك، فنحن نُجادل، فالقانون يطالب حاملي الحقوق بتشكيل إعتقاد راسخ حول إذا كان هذا الإستخدام عادلاً قبل إصدار إشعار بموجب DMCA — و يجب معاقبة من يتبعون نظرية "أطلق النار أولاً و أطرح الأسئلة فيما بعد" و التي أتبعتها يونيفرسال في مسألة فيديو السيدة لينز.

    تعليقات ل PTO/NTIA

    • التعليقات المقدمة من OTW (PDF)
    • في أكتوبر ٢٠١٣، دعت إدارة الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية للإتصالات و المعلومات (NTIA) و المكتب الأمريكي للبراءات و العلامات التجارية (PTO) الجماهير لتقديم تعليقاتهم بشأن قضايا سياسة حقوق النشر و التأليف، متضمنةً الهيكل القانوني لإنشاء ريمكسات. محامونا قاموا بإستخدام القصص المُقدمة من المُعجبين كوسيلة شرح لهذه الوكالات، التي من المرجح أن تقترح تشريعات جديدة حول حقوق النشر و التأليف، لماذا يجب أن تكون أي تغيير في قانون حقوق النشر و التأليف في صالح حرية خلق الأعمال التحويلية.

      عاملة اللجنة القانونية ل OTW ريبيكا توشنت قامت بالظهور في حلقة نقاشية على الهيكل القانوني للريمكسات و التي طُلبت أن تشهد على هذه الوكالات بخصوص نفس عملية تعليقات الجماهير في ١٢ ديسمبر، ٢٠١٣. (تبدأ بالكلام من الدقيقة ٣٣.)

    شركة فوكس للإذاعة، شركة أفلام تونتيث سينتشوري فوكس، و تلفزيون فوكس القابضة ضد شبكة ديش ش.ذ.م.م. و شركة شبكة ديش

    • مذكرة أصدقاء المحكمة، ديش ضد أ بي سي (PDF)؛ قدمت في ٢٤ يناير، ٢٠١٤.
    • مذكرة صديق المحكمة، فوكس ضد ديش (PDF)؛ قدمت في ٢٤ يناير، ٢٠١٣.
    • OTW قامت بتقديم مذكرة صديق المحكمة، بالإشتراك مع مؤسسة الجبهة الإلكترونية (EFF) و المعارف العامة، التي تجادل بأن "قانون حقوق النشر و التأليف لا يمنح حاملي حقوق النشر و التأليف مثل فوكس السيطرة الكاملة على كيفية إستخدام أعمالهم. قامت محكمة المقاطعة بإتباع سابقة واضحة و سياسة سليمة عندما وجدت أن عملاء أد هوبر (Ad Hopper) لدي ديش لم يتعدوا على الحقوق الحصرية لفوكس، و أن ديش من المرحج أنها ليست مسؤلة عن إستخدامات عملائها، و أن فوكس لم تعان ضرر لا يمكن إصلاحه. و هذه المحكمة يجب أن تؤكد أمر محكمة المقاطعة، و لكن يجب توضيح أن النسخ المتوسط التي قامت به ديش هو إستعمال عادل".

    إلتماس لمكتب حقوق النشر و التأليف لتجديد إعفاءDMCA لصناع الريمكسات الغير تجارية، ٢٠١١-٢٠١٢

    ريان هارت ضد شركة الفنون الإلكترونية (EA)

    • مذكرة صديق المحكمة، ريان هارت ضد شركة الفنون الإلكترونية؛ قدمت في ٢٣ مايو، ٢٠١٢.
    • قامت OTW بتقديم مذكرة صديق المحكمة، بالإشتراك مع مشروع قانون الميديا الرقمية و الجمعية الدولية للأفلام الوثائقية و عشرة من أساتذة القانون، مُجادلين أن إستخدام EA لأوصاف\بيانات الخاصة بلاعبي كرة القدم على مستوى الكلية في لعبة فيديو قد تم تغطيته في التعديل الأول للدستور الأمريكي. EA و الجمهور لديهم إهتمام قوي بالتعديل الأول حيث أنه أصبح في إستطاعتهم دمج معلومات واقعية — مثل طول اللاعب، وزنه، رقم التي شيرت، و الفريق — في أعمالهم الخلاقة.

    سالينغر ضد كولتينج

    إلتماس لمكتب حقوق النشر و التأليف لصالح إعفاءDMCA لصناع الريمكسات الغير تجارية، ٢٠٠٨-٢٠٠٩

    قامت EFF بالتقدم لمكتبة الكونغرس للحصول على إعفاء DMCA للسماح باستخراج مقاطع من الدي في دي لإدراجها في ريمكس الفيديوهات الغير تجارية، مثل فيديوهات المُعجبين، و التي قد تم التأكد من أنها تابعة للإستعمال العادل. OTW (و الكثير من منتجي الفيديوهات) قد ساعدوا في إعداد هذا الطلب.

    • رد OTW على التعليق (PDF، أو عرضه ك HTML) في دعم الطلب التي قامت EFF بعرضه لإعفاء منتجي الفيديوهات و فناني الريمكس من DMCA؛ تم تقديمه في ٢ فبراير، ٢٠٠٩.

    OTW قامت بتقديم ردها في دعم الطلب التي قامت EFF بعرضه لإعفاء منتجي الفيديوهات و فناني ريمكس الفيديوهات الغير تجارية من DMCA.

    في ٢٢ يونيو، مكتب حقوق النشر و التأليف طلبت معلومات إضافية من OTW و المجموعات الأخرى التي قامت بإدلاء شهادتها خلال جلسة الإستماع DMCA ضد التحايل في فترة من ٦-٨ مايو. (جلسات الإستماع هذه كانت قد صُممت من أجل النظر في الشهادة ضد و في صالح مسألة إعفاء DMCA للمتعلمين بالإضافة إلى أساتذة الدراسات السينمائية (بما فيهم مدرسون في المدارس الابتدائية و الثانوية)، صانعي الأفلام الوثائقية، و منتجي الفيديوهات و فناني الريمكسات الغير تجارية الآخرين.) و هذه الأسئلة التكميلية كانت حول الدي في دي و سوفت وير لقطات الشاشة.

    مكتب حقوق النشر و التأليف قام بإرسال مجموعة ثانية من التساؤلات التكميلية في ٢٢ أغسطس، ٢٠٠٩. قامت OTW بالتعاون مع مؤسسة الجبهة الإلكترونية، عدد من جمعيات المكتبات (ALA، ARL، ACRL، الجمعية الأمريكية لمكتبات القانون)، أساتذة دراسات الفيلم و الميديا، صانعي الأفلام الوثائقية و مُنظماتهم، في العمل على رد مشترك. نحن أيضاً شاركنا في كتابة رد منفصل مع EFF بالأخص لمعالجة بعض الإحتياجات الخاصة بمنتجي الفيديوهات و فناني الريمكسات الآخرين؛ انظر أدناه.

  • Bantuan Hukum

    By Sammie Jarrett on Wednesday, 15 April 2015 - 4:16am
    Message type:
    Tags:

    OTW (Organisasi untuk Karya Transformatif) percaya bahwa karya penggemar sedayanya adalah penggunaan wajar yang bersifat kreatif dan transformatif. Oleh karena itu, kami akan melindungi karya penggemar secara proaktif dari eksploitasi komersil dan tantangan hukum. Bantuan ini tidak terbatas pada penggemar atau proyek yang berkaitan langsung dengan OTW saja.

    Pekerjaan kami meliputi:

    Davis versus Electronic Arts

    • Amicus Curiae, Davis v. Electronic Arts (PDF); diajukan pada tanggal 30 Januari 2015
    • Komite Hukum OTW, bersama dengan Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), mengajukan amicus curiae (komentar tertulis) untuk mencari peninjauan kembali dalam kasus Davis melawan Electronic Arts. Kasus ini menyangkut hubungan antara Amandemen Pertama, yang menjamin kebebasan berekspresi, dengan hukum publisitas dalam negara-negara bagian, yang membatasi penggunaan nama, kemiripan, dan persona. Resume ini memberikan pendapat bahwa Sirkuit Kesembilan Amerika Serikat harus meninjau kembali kasus ini karena keputusan akhir kasus ini tidak tepat dan merugikan para pembuat karya-karya ekspresif mengenai orang-orang di kehidupan nyata. Di bawah keputusan yang ada, laporan ini memberi pendapat bahwa “seorang seniman yang membuat sebuah karya mengenai tokoh nyata tidak terlalu tahu bagaimana sebuah pengadilan mungkin akan mengevaluasi kewajiban pencipta tersebut untuk memakai hal-hal yang identik dengan tokoh tersebut, terutama jika dia tidak yakin peraturan juridiksi yang mana yang dapat menguasai analisisnya. Laporan ini juga meminta pengadilan meninjau kembali kasus ini untuk melindungi para seniman yang ingin membuat penggambaran yang realistis dari tokoh-tokoh nyata, dan untuk melindungi kebebasan berekspresi secara kreatif dari hak-hak publik yang melampaui batas.

    Petisi kepada Kantor Hak Cipta untuk pengecualian DMCA untuk para pembuat remix nirlaba, 2014-2015

    OTW, bersama dengan Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF"), membuat dua permintaan pengecualian dengan Kantor Hak Cipta A.S. Petisi tersebut meminta pembaruan untuk pengecualian yang didapatkan dengan bantuan OTW pada 2009 dan 2012, berisi pemberian izin bagi para pembuat video untuk menembus enskripsi atas konten audiovisual yang disediakan lewat DVD dan layanan distribusi online untuk membuat video-video transformatif dan nirlaba. Tidak hanya meminta pembaruan untuk pengecualian-pengecualian tersebut, petisi OTW juga meminta penambahan lingkup pengecualian tersebut hingga kaset Blu-Ray.

    Pengumpulan Proposal untuk Esai Diskusi Pelanggaran Hak Cipta Daring dari Pemerintah Australia

    • Komentar dari OTW (PDF)
    • Komite Hukum OTW, bersama dengan Creative Commons Australia, menyumbangkan sebuah Proposal untuk Esai Diskusi Pelanggaran Hak Cipta Daring dari Pemerintah Australia pada tanggal 5 September 5 2014, untuk melawan proposal dari pemerintah Australia. Proposal tersebut memperluas definisi dari pertanggungjawaban "perizinan" oleh para penyelenggara jasa internet. Artinya, jika mereka tidak dapat menghentikan pelanggaran yang dilakukan pengguna perorangan, mereka bisa mengubah pengoperasian jasa mereka, misalnya dengan cara menghentikan akses internet untuk para tertuduh, atau dengan menyaring aktivitas pengguna.

    Capitol Records melawan Vimeo

    • Amicus Curiae, Capitol Records melawan Vimeo (PDF); dibuka pada tanggal 30 Juli 2014.
    • OTW bersekutu dengan Center for Democracy and Technology, New Media Rights, Electronic Frontier Foundation, dan Public Knowledge untuk mengajukan pernyataan pengadilan, yang meminta pengadilan federal untuk memblokir para label rekaman dalam usaha mereka melawan hukum federal pada kasus Capitol melawan Vimeo—sebuah kasus yang dapat membahayakan kebebasan berpendapat dan berinovasi serta situs-situs yang memuat keduanya.Khususnya, pengadilan menyebutkan material pelanggaran apa saja yang termasuk "bendera merah," yang akan mengharuskan layanan hosting untuk menghapus material tersebut tanpa peringatan. Pada pernyataan tersebut, OTW dan rekanannya memperdebatkan bahwa standar yang ditetapkan pengadilan akan memberi tuntutan yang tidak masuk akal bagi situs-situs yang memuat konten buatan pengguna, dan akan merendahkan pendapat berharga yang dilindungi oleh mandat penggunaan wajar.

    Cindy Lee Garcia melawan Google, Inc.,YouTubeLLC, dan lainnya, serta Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

    • Amicus Curiae, Garcia melawan Google (PDF); dibuka pada 25 November 2014.
    • Pada 12 November 2013, pengadilan membatalkan keputusan sebelumnya, serta memerintahkan Peninjauan Kembali kasus tersebut oleh seluruh jajaran pengadilan —tidak hanya panel tiga juri—di bulan Desember. OTW mengirimkan komentar tertulis baru, memperlebar lingkup pendapat OTW di Komentar sebelumnya.

    • Amicus Curiae, Garcia melawan Google (PDF); dibacakan 14 April , 2014.
    • Organisasi untuk Karya Transformatif bekerja sama dengan Floor64 (operator TechDirt) mengajukan komentar tertulis pada pengadilan. OTW meminta mereka untuk memertimbangkan kembali keputusan mereka dengan memperhatikan fakta bahwa meskipun keputusan tersebut dapat memberikan hasil yang sesuai dan faktual pada kasus ini, keputusan tersebut akan menciptakan hukum yang membahayakan kebebasan berekspresi di internet. Kasus ini melibatkan cakupan dan aplikasi dari ketetapan aman DMCA dan bagian 230 dari Communications Decency Act, yang membebaskan tempat host konten — seperti YouTube, Archive of Our Own - AO3 (Arsip Milik Kita), dan lain-lain — dari materi yang diunggah oleh para penggunanya.

    Komentar terhadap Komisi Uni Eropa

    • Komentar yang diajukan oleh OTW (PDF)
    • Pada Februari 2014, Komite Hukum OTW mendaftarkan OTW di Pencatatan Transparansi Uni Eropa dan mengirimkan sebuah pengajuan kepada Komisi Uni Eropa sebagai tanggapan atas permintaan komentar dari badan tersebut mengenai kemungkinan pembaharuan hukum hak cipta di Uni Eropa.

    Stephanie Lenz melawan Universal Music Corp., Universal Music Publishing, Inc., dan Universal Music Publishing Group

    • Amicus Curiae, Lenz melawan Universal (PDF); dibacakan pada 13 Desember 2013.
    • OTW bekerja sama dengan Public Knowledge dan International Documentary Association, yang diwakili oleh Stanford Fair Use Project dalam mengajukan testimoni ini. Komentar Tertulis tersebut menjelaskan bagaimana tuduhan-tuduhan akan penyalahgunaan hak cipta yang tak terbukti dapat merugikan hukum dan penggunaan wajar dengan cara mendokumentasikan penyalahgunaan berkesinambungan surat peringatan DMCA oleh pihak Universal. Undang-undang mengharuskan pengirim peringatan untuk menegaskan di bawah sumpah bahwa pemakaian tersebut tidak “diizinkan oleh hukum” dan memberikan sanksi atas penyalahgunaan yang dilakukan. Sebagai hasilnya, kami berargumen bahwa undang-undang mengharuskan pemegang hak cipta untuk memahami dengan benar tentang penggunaan wajar sebelum melayangkan surat peringatan di bawah DMCA—dan harus memberikan sanksi pada mereka yang menggunakan pendekatan “tembak duluan, tanya belakangan” seperti yang telah dilakukan Universal terhadap video Nona Lentz.

    Komentar terhadap PTO/NTIA

    • Komentar yang diajukan oleh OTW (PDF)
    • Pada bulan Oktober 2013, Kantor Administrasi Informasi dan Telekomunikasi Nasional Amerika Serikat (NTIA) beserta Kantor Hak Paten dan Merek Dagang Amerika Serikat (PTO) meminta komentar publik mengenai kebijakan hak cipta, termasuk batasan legal dalam pembuatan remix. Para pengacara kami menggunakan cerita dari para penggemar untuk menjelaskan kepada kedua badan tersebut, yang kemungkinan akan digunakan untuk mengajukan peraturan baru tentang hak cipta, mengenai mengapa setiap perubahan dalam undang-undang hak cipta harus memberikan kebebasan bagi pembuatan karya transformatif.

      Staf hukum OTW Rebecca Tushnet juga hadir dalam panel tentang Batasan Legal dalam Pembuatan Remix yang diminta untuk memberikan testimoni pada kedua badan tersebut sehubungan dengan komentar serupa yang dilayangkan pada 12 Desember 2013. (Rebecca memulai testimoninya pada menit :33)

    Fox Broadcasting Company, Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., dan Fox Television Holdings melawan Dish Network L.L.C. dan Dish Network Corporation

    • Komentar Tertulis, Dish melawan ABC (PDF); dibacakan pada 24 Januari 2014.
    • Komentar Tertulis, Fox melawan DISH (PDF); dibacakan pada 24Januari 2013.
    • OTW, bersama dengan Electronic Frontier Foundation dan Public Knowledge mengajukan sebuah komentar tertulis yang menyatakan bahwa “Undang-undang Hak Cipta tidak memberikan kendali penuh kepada pemegang hak cipta seperti Fox atas penggunaan karya mereka. Pengadilan wilayah telah mengikuti preseden yang jelas dan peraturan yang berlaku saat mereka menemukan bahwa pengguna dari Dish’s Ad Hopper tidak melanggar hak ekslusif milik Fox, bahwa Dish tidak bertanggung jawab atas pemakaian oleh para penggunanya, dan bahwa Fox tidak mendapatkan kerugian yang berarti. Persidangan harus menegaskan tata tertib peradilan wilayah, tetapi juga mengklarifikasi bahwa peniruan tingkat menengah yang dilakukan oleh Dish masih termasuk penggunaan wajar.

      Petisi kepada Badan Hak Cipta untuk Memperbaharui Pengecualian DMCA untuk para pembuat remix non-komersil, 2011 - 2012

      • Komentar dari Electronic Frontier Foundation (PDF), diajukan pada 2 Desember 2011. Anggota OTW Rebecca Tushnet, Rachael Vaughn, dan Francesca Coppa bekerja sama dengan EFF untuk mengajukan sebuah proposal guna memperbaharui dan memperluas pengecualian DMCA bagi para pembuat remix non-komersil.
      • Tanggapan Atas Nama Organisasi untuk Karya Transformatif (PDF), sebagai dukungan atas pengajuan pengecualian DMCA untuk para pembuat video penggemar dan pembuat remix lainnya; diajukan 2 Maret 2012. Anggota staf hukum OTW Rachael Vaughn dan Rebecca Tushnet bekerja dengan anggota bagian Hukum dan vidding untuk memberikan tanggapan sebagai dukungan atas proposal EFF; EFF juga memberikan Komentar Jawaban (PDF) mereka untuk mendukung berbagai pengecualian DMCA, termasuk pengecualian untuk pembuat remix non-komersil.
      • Persyaratan Penggunaan Wajar Video yang sudah direvisi, termasuk di dalamnya perbandingan antara footage yang diambil dari DVD dan footage dari screen capture.
      • Francesca Coppa, Rebecca Tushnet, dan Tisha Turk bersaksi di hadapan the Library of Congress pada 4 Juni 2012. Tisha Turk menunjukkan bukti dalam Galeri Gambar pertama kami yang mendemonstrasikan perbedaan kualitas antara sumber dari DVD dengan screen capture.
      • Tanggapan atas bukti DVD CCA yang mendukung screencapture, diajukan pada 2 Agustus, 2012; silakan lihat set kedua dari bukti di
        Galeri Gambar Kedua.

      Ryan Hart melawan Electronic Arts, Inc.

  • OTW Legal Comments on Audio Takedowns

    By Kirsten Korona on Monday, 2 March 2015 - 6:04pm
    Message type:

    Banner by Erin of a spotlight on an OTW logo with the words 'Spotlight on Legal Issues'

    Recently, there have been concerns about accounts being terminated on Tumblr if a user has made audio posts that allegedly infringe on existing copyright. The OTW is concerned by reports of this practice being applied to users who have made posts which fall under Fair Use. Read on for an explanation of the situation and instructions on what you can do if you feel your account has been terminated in error.

    What's Going On?

    There's a lot of information going around about this situation. A FAQ post has been circulating which attempts to explain the situation, along with a script to help users locate audio posts they've made and a description of how one user had their account restored after termination. It's difficult to be certain about a lot of the details, though. Tumblr's Terms of Service state that they "may immediately terminate or suspend Accounts that have been flagged for repeat copyright infringement," and their policy for the past few years has reportedly been to terminate accounts that accrue 3 DMCA takedowns within 18 months, though they are not legally required to operate this way.

    However, it appears that accounts are being terminated without investigating the possibility that posts fall under Fair Use, even though this has been a legal requirement in the US since 2008. Fair Use exemptions ensure that the use of media for the purpose of commentary, criticism, education, or transformative works, such as fanworks, is considered legitimate and non-infringing. Reportedly, on Tumblr, there have been no Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notices issued prior to the termination of many accounts, and thus users have not been given an opportunity to claim the legitimacy of their posts under Fair Use legislation prior to having their accounts terminated. However, we have also heard reports that some users have been able to successfully argue against one or two of the strikes and have their blogs reactivated.

    Restoring Wrongfully Terminated Accounts

    So what can you do if you feel your account has been terminated in error? Tumblr outlines in section 20 of its Terms of Service the procedure to follow for submitting a DMCA counter-notification, which is also the procedure that should be used to contest termination for copyright infringement without the receipt of a takedown notification. The procedure is as follows:

    If you believe you are the wrongful subject of a DMCA notification, you may file a counter-notification with Tumblr by providing the following information to the Designated Agent at the address below:

    • The specific URLs of material that Tumblr has removed or to which Tumblr has disabled access.
    • Your name, address, telephone number, and email address.
    • A statement that you consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which your address is located (or the federal district courts located in New York County, New York if your address is outside of the United States), and that you will accept service of process from the person who provided the original DMCA notification or an agent of such person.
    • The following statement: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled."
    • Your signature.

    Designated Agent
    Tumblr, Inc.
    35 East 21st St, 10th Floor
    New York, NY 10010
    Attn: Copyright Agent
    Fax: +1 (646) 513-4321
    Email: dmca@tumblr.com
    Copyright notice form: http://www.tumblr.com/dmca

    Upon receipt of a valid counter-notification, Tumblr will forward it to Notifying Party who submitted the original DMCA notification. The original Notifying Party (or the copyright holder he or she represents) will then have ten (10) days to notify us that he or she has filed legal action relating to the allegedly infringing material. If Tumblr does not receive any such notification within ten (10) days, we may restore the material to the Services.

    Further to this, we recommend reading the Electronic Frontier Foundation's report Who's Got Your Back?, which includes a lot of information about widely-used online companies’ “objectively verifiable, public policy statements” regarding copyright DMCA notices and counter-notice procedures.

    This information was adapted from a post written by OTW Legal staffer Heidi Tandy on the fyeahcopyright tumblr. Permission was given but was not actually necessary as this write-up is a Fair Use of that content.

  • 10 Fair Use Misconceptions

    By Kiri Van Santen on Wednesday, 25 February 2015 - 7:29pm
    Message type:

    This is Fair Use Week 2015 in the U.S. which takes place from February 23-27. The event is held to raise public awareness of the importance the rights of individuals, nonprofits like schools and libraries, and even corporations like Google and The New York Times have when it comes to copyright. Today we're following up on yesterday's post which explained how Fair Use works in the U.S. - and we're looking at some misconceptions about Fair Use.

    Fair Use is a kind of infringement, right?

    Nope! Fair Use is a lawful use of copyright. That's what the law says, and it's also what the Northern District of California said in the case of Lenz v. Universal Music back in 2008. If your new work is a Fair Use of someone's copyrighted work, you're not infringing on that work. Also, fair use isn't a license; the whole point is that you don't need the copyright owner's permission. (Just imagine if a copyright owner had to grant permission every time someone created a parody that was critical of the original - they probably wouldn't!)

    If a site has ads, nothing I put on there can be Fair Use, right?

    Nope! For two reasons. First, while many hosting sites are moneymaking ventures, that doesn't mean that the people posting their works there are engaged in commercial use. People who post their fanworks on YouTube aren't making money from those works - if anyone is, it's YouTube or their advertisers. (But as a reminder, the AO3 is entirely nonprofit and noncommercial, and is dedicated to providing a platform for fanworks with no ads.)

    Second, even if someone is engaged in a moneymaking venture, they still might be engaged in Fair Use. While the commercial aspects of a project are one of the factors a court looks at when determining if a use is Fair Use, it's not the only factor. So while the Organization for Transformative Works is a nonprofit, and our legal advocacy team focuses on noncommercial works, we do want to note that commercial works can also be noninfringing because of Fair Use.

    As noted copyright expert Judge Pierre Leval of the Second Circuit stated last year in arguments regarding whether Google Books' scans of entire books was a Fair Use, “The classic fair use cases are commercial. I would be surprised if [one is] going to win by pleading that Google, like the New York Times, is a profit-making enterprise.” In fact, US courts have found many commercial uses to be fair. One example of a commercial work found to be fair use is the (commercially published) book The Wind Done Gone, which retold the story of Gone with the Wind from the perspective of the slave characters. A more recent example was addressed in 2013 in the case of Cariou v. Prince; in that case, artist Richard Prince purchased a book of photos by Patrick Cariou, and painted over the photographs, selling his "appropriative" art at prices in the many thousands of dollars. (In fact, some sold for two million dollars or more.) The court found that most of Prince's works were Fair Use.

    Fair Use only covers uses that criticize or comment on the original copyrighted work, right?

    Nope! Although criticism and commentary are among the types of fair use described by the statute, U.S. courts have held that a work need not comment on the original in order to be transformative. In Cariou v. Prince, the court said that "a secondary work may constitute a fair use even if it serves some purpose other than ... criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." In other words, Prince's art was so transformative of Cariou's photographs that Prince's follow-on works were noninfringing because of the Fair Use doctrine. Cases about mass digitization projects like Google Book Search have found transformativeness even when copyrighted works are copied into a database without any commentary or criticism. In the case of Author's Guild v. Google, for example, the court explained that Google Book Search was transformative because it transformed the purpose of the digitized books--for example, by allowing large-scale data searching, preserving out-of-print books, and making books available for print-disabled users--even without transforming their meaning.

    So Fair Use only applies to transformative works, right?

    Nope! Fair Use allows newspapers to quote books, films, and yes, fanworks, for purposes of news reporting, commentary and criticism. Fair Use also covers certain uses for educational purposes, like when teachers assign little kids to write their own ending to a tv show or film, or show clips from a film in a media analysis class, or make copies of a page or two of a book for classroom use. Fair Use is one reason why the backgrounds of films and tv shows can include book covers, and why songs on the radio can mention copyrighted comic book characters. It doesn't cover a university tv station showing films over its network during finals, though.

    My use will be Fair Use if I use a disclaimer identifying the original creator and saying I don't own it, right?

    Not necessarily! In fact, attribution isn't part of the Fair Use analysis. So something that's Fair Use will be Fair Use regardless of whether it has a disclaimer - and a disclaimer won't help a copy that isn't Fair Use (like uploading an entire copyrighted movie for others to share and watch, see below). That doesn't mean that fans should stop putting disclaimers on their fanworks - it's a good ethical practice, and it honors those who created the original works that fans love so much - but it isn't something courts are likely to consider in determining whether something is Fair Use. Also, though you definitely don't need to add a note to your work about it being Fair Use (remember, it's not a license!), it never hurts to explain ahead of time why you think it might be.

    If a site that's not as enlightened as AO3 takes my fanworks down, there's nothing I can do, right?

    Nope! Most sites that operate in the US have what's called a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) policy - the AO3 has one, too. Generally, they require a copyright claimant who wants someone else's work to be taken down to submit a pledge that they own the copyright in a specific work, and their copyright in that work has been infringed. Some courts have held that copyright owners are supposed to conduct a Fair Use analysis before issuing a takedown notice, but oftentimes, they don't bother, or they use a rigid matrix. And sometimes sites don't conduct that Fair Use analysis either--they just take the content down. So the Copyright Act also provides for a counter-notice process (17 U.S.C. § 512(g)) where the person whose work was taken down has a chance to demonstrate to the site that the work is noninfringing - usually because it's Fair Use. At that point, the claimant can argue to the site that Fair Use doesn't apply, or realize that huh, it does! In reality, the final decision usually rests with the site or server company hosting the content, but the counternotice process at least provides for an opportunity to respond to someone else's copyright claim. And if you get a takedown notice for a noncommercial transformative work and want help understanding the counter-notice process, you can get in touch with OTW's legal team.

    Fair Use means I can upload films and tv shows and songs and entire books for others to download in their entirety, right?

    Nope! Or, at least, most of the time, nope. There are some exceptions, such as where the content is in the public domain (see below), or is the subject of a Creative Commons license or another license for a specific use like the kind we have here on AO3 that allows readers to download stories onto their e-readers, accessible via a password-and-license process for educational or other specific purposes. (Or if you're Google, creating Google Book Search, as we've described above--but you're probably not!) If you've done something transformative with it before you share your follow-on work, it may be Fair Use, but putting someone else's film or album or novel or webisode onto a torrent or server usually doesn't qualify. (But you're not the only one with this question; Mark Ruffalo wondered about it last year, too.)

    Fair Use is some newfangled thing made up by fandom lawyers and fanfic writers who want to play with someone else's characters and stories, right?

    Nope! Fair use has been part of the U.S. Copyright statute for many decades, and existed in the common law long before that. In a case called Folsom v. Marsh in 1841, Justice Story set out a summary that's been quoted, cited, paraphrased and made the subject of follow-on works for over 170 years: "We must often . . . look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work."

    Fair Use is why I can use things in the public domain, right?

    Nope. Works that were originally published in the U.S. before 1923 and works created by the U.S. Government (and a few more categories, but those two are the most common) are in what's known as the "public domain," which means that they aren't protected by copyright law at all. Films, songs, stories, plays, poems, essays, art, books and other works in the public domain can be used by anyone for any purpose because they're not protected by copyright. It's fair to use them, but follow-on works inspired by things in the public domain aren't literally Fair Use situations. As the Seventh Circuit said last summer in Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate, "When a story falls into the public domain, story elements—including characters covered by the expired copyright—become fair game for follow-on authors."

    Fair Use is a worldwide concept, right?

    Alas, nope. Fair Use is a U.S. doctrine, although a number of other countries have similar laws. If you're outside the U.S., the law that applies to you may be significantly different than what we've described here. Regardless, no matter where you are, Fair Use law matters to you if you're posting your works on U.S. sites or if you're using source material owned by U.S. copyright holders.

    We're here to help! If you have questions about fair use and fanworks, feel free to contact our legal team.

  • OTW Supports Fair Use Week

    By Claudia Rebaza on Tuesday, 24 February 2015 - 5:50pm
    Message type:

    This is Fair Use Week 2015 in the U.S. which takes place from February 23-27. The event is held to raise public awareness of the importance of maintaining their rights when it comes to copyright. Many law schools, the Association of College and Research Libraries, as well as organizations involved in fair use activism are taking part. Some campuses will have live panels, webcasts or other special events and organizations will be releasing their own blog posts as well as contributing to a Fair Use Week Tumblr blog.

    We at the OTW talk a lot about how fanworks are legal under U.S. copyright law. The OTW FAQ explains that this is because U.S. copyright law is limited by the doctrine of “fair use,” which protects free expression by giving people the right to use copyrighted material in certain ways without getting permission or paying. But what does “fair use” actually mean, and why does the OTW believe that fanworks are fair use?

    Knowing the Facts

    Fair use is defined by section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act. The law provides an exception to the rule that copyright holders have an exclusive right to make and authorize derivative works—that is, works that are based upon their copyrighted works.

    The law explains that it may be fair to use copyrighted material for certain uses, such as criticizing or commenting on the original, and provides a list of four factors to consider in determining whether a particular use is allowed: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Courts generally balance all four factors in deciding whether something is fair use--no single factor determines the answer.

    The Four Factors

    Fanworks generally fit well within these four factors. Here’s how:

    (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

    This factor incorporates two important traits of fanworks. First, fanworks are noncommercial—that is, the fans making them aren’t selling them or otherwise making money from them. Although some transformative works are sold (and the media has recently given more attention to the commercialization of fanworks through services like Kindle Worlds), that isn’t what most fanwork creators are looking to do. Most fans want to share their creative work with their fan communities without thinking about commercial gain.

    Second, fanworks are transformative. In the case of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that this first factor asks whether the new work “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message; it asks, in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is ‘transformative.’” Transformative uses are favored in the fair use analysis. The Supreme Court explained that transformative works “lie at the heart of the fair use doctrine’s guarantee of breathing space within the confines of copyright,” and “the more transformative the new work,” the more likely it is to be fair. For this reason, courts usually find that when a work is transformative, it is not infringing.

    (2) the nature of the copyrighted work.

    This factor doesn’t have much to do with fanworks either way. It deals with whether the original work was published rather than secret, and whether the original work was factual rather than fictional. Fair use is more likely to be found when the original work was public and/or factual than when it was unpublished and/or fictional. Since most fanworks are made from published works rather than unpublished or secret ones, this factor generally weighs in favor of fair use, but the fictional nature of many fanworks' source material weighs in the other direction. Regardless, it is usually not a factor that courts tend to place heavy weight on unless the original copyrighted work was unpublished or factual. As the Supreme Court poetically put it in the Campbell case: the factor "is not...ever likely to help much in separating the fair use sheep from the infringing goats in a parody case, since parodies almost invariably copy publicly known, expressive works." This is as true for fanworks as it is for parodies.

    (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

    How this factor applies will vary widely from fanwork to fanwork, but most fanworks only take parts of the original work, and relatively small parts at that. Fan fiction, for example often just uses characters, settings, or moments from a work, and recasts them into something new. (This factor, by the way, is one reason why the AO3 does not allow reproductions of entire copyrighted works without the consent of the copyright owner.) Sometimes fanworks rely on important parts—key characters or moments in a work—but courts have found fair use even when someone has used a “qualitatively important” part of a work.

    (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    This factor focuses on whether the derivative work serves as a market replacement: will people use it instead of buying the original copyrighted work? Here again, fanworks are favored. Not only do they not harm the market for the original—they often help it. Fans tend to spend a lot of money on on the original work and associated merchandise, and encourage others to buy also. They are not competing with the original creator's work, and if anything help to promote it.

    The OTW's Role

    The OTW is committed to advocating for fans and preserving the principle that fanworks are fair use. In 2012, the Copyright Office, relying partly on material that the OTW submitted, cited fan videos as examples of fair use that the law should permit. More recently, the OTW used stories submitted by fans to explain to the U.S. government why any change in copyright law should favor the freedom to make transformative works.

    We’re here for you! If you have questions about fair use and fanworks, feel free to contact our legal team.

  • القضية ضد ترخيص أعمال المُعجبين

    By Ridicully on Thursday, 27 November 2014 - 11:08am
    Message type:

    lBanner by Erin of a spotlight on an OTW logo with the words 'Spotlight on Legal Issues'

    مع زيادة شهرة أعمال المُعجبين و مع زيادة شيوع فكرة أبتكار أعمال المُعجبين، فشرعية أعمال المُعجبين أصبحت قضية أكثر تداولاً في قصص وسائل الإعلام و مشاركات البلوج. البعض من هذه القصص يعكس مفاهيم قد تكون مغلوطة أو خاطئة تماماً عن القانون الأمريكي لحقوق النشر و التأليفة.

    الكُتاب — خاصةً هؤلاء الذين ألقوا الضوء على أخر الأمثلة من أعمال المعُجبين "ذات الطابع التجاري" — قاموا بتجاهل أو لم يقوموا بالتأكيد على مبدأ الإستعمال العادل لحقوق النشر و التأليف، أو قاموا بالبحث عن طرق لدمج عملية إنشاء أعمال المُعجبين مع أسواق الميديا. واحدة من المجازات الشائعة، حالياً، كانت من خلال إقتراح أنه يمكن أو ينبغي منشئ أعمال المُعجبين أن يقوموا بالحصول على رخص قبل إنشاء أعمال مُعجبين. على كل حال، يقولون، فالعديد من الكُتاب و منشئ الميديا الآخرين إستطاعوا إكتشاف القيمة الإيجابية لأعمال المُعجبين، و سيكونون سعداء لأعطاء السماح للمُعجبين لإنشاء أعمال المُعجبين. و لهذا لماذا لا يتواجد أنظمة تصاريح أكثر لأعمال المُعجبين، حيث يصبح في إمكان حاملي حقوق النشر و التأليف إعطاء الإذن للمُعجبين لإنشاء أعمال المُعجبين، حيث يكون هذا ربما من خلال الحصول على رسوم أو نصيب من العائدات إذا أراد المُعجبين تسويق أعمال المُعجبين خاصتهم؟ة.

    لذا لما لا — لأن الترخيص ليس ضرورياً قانونياً و ليس مُرحباً به من قبل المُعجبين أو ثقافة المُعجبين للعديد من الأسباب.ة.

    الترخيص ليس ضرورياً، خاصةً للمُعجبين الذين لا يرغبون في تسويق أعمال المُعجبين خاصتهم.

    مبدأ حقوق النشر و التأليف الأمريكي للإستعمال العادل يُفضل الأعمال التحويلية الغير تجارية. فمبدأ الإستعمال العادل هو إستثناء لإنتهاك حقوق النشر و التأليف، و يتيح للناس الحق في إنشاء أعمالهم مستندة على أعمال محفوظة الحقوق دون المساس بحقوق النشر و التأليف. المعايير التي يتم تقديرها لمعرفة إذا كان العمل إستعمالاً عادلاً — يعني، ليس إنتهاكاً — تتضمن التحقق إذا كان هذا العمل يقوم بتحويل المعنى أو الغرض من العمل الأصلي، إذا كان العمل تجارياً أو غير تجاري، ما مقدار المحتوى الأصلي الذي يقوم بنقله، و إذا كان يعد بديلاً في السوق للعمل الأصلي. و لأن الجدوى التجارية للإستعمال هي إحدى المعايير في تحليل الإستعمال العادل، فالمُعجبون الذين يرغبون في تحصيل المال من أعمالهم يواجهون صعوبات قانونية أكثر، و لكن إذا لم تشكل أعمالهم منافسة في السوق مع العمل الأصلي، فيمكن إعتبارها إستعمال عادل. و لكن الأعمال التحويلية الغير تجارية — كالتي يتم إستضافتها على AO3 – Archive of Our Own (الأرشيف من جانبنا)، على سبيل المثال — فهي محمية من الإنتهاك بمبدأ الإستعمال العادل.ة.

    لترخيص يفتح الطريق للرقابة.

    الترخيص يتطلب إما الحصول على إذن من صاحب الحقوق، أو إيجاد عمل يتماشى مع مجموعة من الأذونات التي قام المُنشأ بوضعها. في مشاركة سابقة، قمنا بمناقشة كيف يتيح نظام الترخيص ل Kindle Worlds ل
    Amazon أن تقيد ما يقوم المُعجبون بإنشاءه في هذا السياق، و هذا فقط مثال واحد. فأعمال المُعجبين تتيح للمُعجبين التعبير عن أشياء لم يقم الكاتب الأصلي بالتعبير عنها، و حتى حاملي الحقوق الودودون قد لا يتفقون مع ما قد يرغب المُعجبون في إنشاءه. قد تكون بعض مخططات الترخيص تريد "أن يحتفل المُعجبون بالقصة بالطريقة التي هي عليها،" و عدم إستكشاف طرق قد تكون مختلفة. و لكن هذا يسلب الحرية التي تجعل أعمال المُعجبين مفعمة بالحيوية، مبتكرة، و قد تصل لحد إنتقاد الأعمال الأصلية في النهج التي سلكته إتجاه الميول الجنسية، العرق، السياسة، أو أياً من المواضيع الأخرى.ة.

    لترخيص يقوم بالتميز ضد ذوي الإحتياجات المنخفضة

    الترخيص عموماً يحتوي أيضاً على تبادل مالي — الدفع لحامل الحقوق، تقاسم العائدات، أو تطبيق طرق دفع أخرى لحامل الحقوق سواء كان لكل عمل أو الأعمال التي تلبي معايير معينة (مثلا الوصول لنجاح مالي محدد مسبقاً). حتى الرسوم الرمزية من الممكن أن تشكل عائق لتحقيق هذا الهدف و الذي قد يكون غير مناسب للمُعجبين قليلي الموارد المالية، المُعجبين صغيري السن، و الفنانين المبتدئين و الفقراء، و الكثير من الذين يعتمدون على أعمال المُعجبين لصقل حرفهم.ة.

    الترخيص يخلق عائق نفسي و عملي أمام عملية خلق أعمال المُعجبين

    كما قالت ريبيكا توشنت رئيسة اللجنة القانونية ل OTW (منظمة الأعمال التحويلية) لسنوات، الإبتكار هو غالباً تلقائي و غير متوقع، و إذا توجب على الناس طلب إذن قبل الشروع في كتابة ٥٠٠ كلمة عن هاري بوتر، سيقومون بتنفيذ خطط أخرى. و هذا يعنى أن الكثير من أعمال المُعجبين لن يتم إنشأها تحت نطاق نظام الترخيص. هذا الحاجز يعد أقوى بالنسبة للمُعجبين صغار السن و هؤلاء الذين يشككون في سلطاتهم السياسية و التعبيرية — أولئك الذين يستخدمون أعمال المُعجبين لإستكشاف أنفسهم، التحدث للثقافة، أو الإستفادة من دعم مجتمعات المُعجبين.ة.

    الترخيص يقوض ثقافات المُعجبين

    الترخيص يدعو لفكرة تسويق أعمال المُعجبين و يقوض فكرة "الإقتصاد المجاني" الذي يجمع المُعجبين مع بعضهم. فهو يجعل عملية خلق أعمال المُعجبين صفقة أكبر من كونها مجرد محادثة، و يشوش النظام البيئي الخاص بالمُعجبين.ة.

    الترخيص يؤذي القانون

    أخيراً، و المهم، فإن إنتشار فكرة الترخيص لبعض أنواع أعمال المُعجبين قد تؤدي لتشوية المفاهيم الخاصة بمبدأ الإستعمال العادل، و الذي بصراحة (الأهم لحرية التعبير!) يستثني الإستعمال العادل من عملية الترخيص و متواجد بالفعل لتوفير مساحة لعملية خلق أعمال المُعجبين. بعض المحاكم قامت بإيضاح أنه عند تواجد سوق الترخيص، سيكون الفشل في الحصول على رخصة السبب في إعتبار الإستعمال غير عادل. و لكن حتى عند تواجد سوق الترخيص — كما رأينا في الأعلى — فلا يوفر هذا النوع من الحرية التي صُمم الإستعمال العادل لتوفيره.ة.

    هذه فقط هي بعض التفسيرات لماذا لا تدعم OTW الحركة إتجاه ترخيص أعمال المُعجبين. للمزيد حول رؤية OTW عن الهيكل القانوني لأعمال المُعجبين و سلبيات تطبيق نظام الترخيص، قم بالإطلاع على الوثيقة التي أنتجنها (بالإنجليزية) حيث نلقى الضوء على أهمية حدوث تغيير في قانون حقوق النشر و التأليف إذا كان هذا التغيير يدعم الحرية لجعل الأعمال تحويلية.ة.

    لجنة OTW القانونية تعمل لصالح المُعجبين و الفاندوم للتأكد أن أصواتنا يتم التعبير عنها و يتم تمثيلها في المناقشات حول إعادة تشكيل حقوق النشر و التأليف و هم متوفرون للإجابة على أسئلة المُعجبين الفردية.ة.

  • OTW Legal Files New Amicus Brief in Garcia v. Google

    By Claudia Rebaza on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 - 7:30pm
    Message type:

    Banner by Erin of a spotlight on an OTW logo with the words 'Spotlight on Legal Issues'

    In April, OTW's legal team filed an amicus brief in Garcia v. Google. In that brief, we asked the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to re-hear the case, which dealt with the internet "safe harbor" provisions that protect intermediaries (like YouTube and the AO3) from liability for user-created content. A three-judge panel of the court had issued a ruling that ignored these safe harbors and imposed liability on Google for material that its users posted. As we noted then, it was a case of "bad facts make bad law," since the plaintiff -- an actress tricked into taking part in the film Innocence of Muslims -- has good reason to want the film taken down. But in creating what might have seemed a just result in that case, the panel disrupted Congress's intent in passing the safe harbor laws and created potentially chilling risks to free speech.

    We succeeded! On November 12, 2014, the court ruled that its previous decision was void, and ordered that the case would be re-heard by the entire court--not just a three-judge panel--in December. The OTW has filed a new amicus brief in the case, expanding on the arguments we made in our original brief. As we explained in our filing, the court should interpret the safe harbors broadly enough to provide safety for content hosts, because that safety is what permits content hosts like the AO3 to exist. If hosts were vulnerable to lawsuits over user-created content, it would allow censorship to flourish and create an environment in which many intermediaries could no longer afford to continue operating. As we argued: "when intermediaries’ immunity is not robust, the vibrant marketplace of ideas they enable is compromised."

    We will keep you informed as the case progresses. Our brief is available in PDF on the Legal Project page, along with all our filings, on the OTW website.

Pages

Subscribe to Legal Advocacy