|
|
Quaking in My Boots Thanks to the several readers who sent expressions of concern. Yes, we survived the August 23rd east-coast earthquake handily — though, working in our second-floor sunporch, I felt the tremor distinctly and recognized it for what it was, having lived in quake-prone San Francisco in the ’60s. My stepson […] While I consider the protection afforded me by the copyright law appropriate and necessary, I also believe in the justness of the “fair use” exception thereto, when properly applied. I make use of this myself, as a researcher and scholar and author, and allow others to make use of it in relation to my own work, so long as they respect the rules that apply to “fair use.” I can’t recall ever complaining about anyone quoting an excerpt from my writing — even a lengthy one — in a non-commercial context. […] I’m variously amazed, amused, bemused by the amount of misinformation about IP issues in circulation, and the attitude of hapless bewilderment adopted by many otherwise competent professionals in relation to them. While copyright law, trademark law, and patent law certainly have their complexities, the basic principles thereof, including the “fair use” exception to the copyright law, hardly qualify as arcane. Don’t let the laziness or ineptitude of others discourage you from learning about this. It ain’t rocket science. Even trademark law and patent law, much less familiar to the lay public, function according to elementary rules and reasoning that aren’t hard to grasp. […] As should be obvious to even the most casual visitor, I don’t produce this blog for dumb-and-dumber types who call people “dude” and think [email protected] is a clever email address, nor for self-absorbed Brit-twit fashionista wannabes convinced the world takes an interest in where they shit. How on earth did these twerps find their way here? Another mystery of the intertubes. Immanuel Velikovsky was right: See what can happen when universes of discourse, definitely not parallel, collide? […] In selling a work of visual art — a painting, a sculpture, a photographic print — the artist doesn’t commonly sell the IP rights thereto. The artist gets to benefit for decades from the licensing of all IP rights to the work, as do his heirs and assigns. Presumably the artists cheering on the follow-up rights campaign don’t intend to give any share of that income to collectors of their works. But shouldn’t that be part of any droit de suite deal? […] |
 SPJ Research Award 2014 |
