He labels copyright a “regulation” and a “subsidy,” justifiable if, and only if, it corrects a market failure. This essay thus envisions a “third way” to think about copyright, borrowing ideas from both sides of the debate. While both camps make some valid points, neither offers a complete and cohesive framework for determining the scope of legal rights that governments ought to recognize in expressive works. ![]() To many in this camp, copyright as it exists today is in need of only minor tweaks. Therefore, just as government helps police against incursions on tangible property, creators of “original works of authorship” deserve the aid of government in excluding others from reproducing and commercially exploiting their expressive works. Copyright is said to rest on the same solid foundations as “traditional” property rights in real and personal property. In the other camp, defenders of strong copyright counter that creators of expressive works have a natural, Lockean right to reap the fruits of their labor. At best, these critics argue, copyright as it exists today is a necessary evil and should be narrowed considerably at worst, it is supposedly antithetical to legitimate property rights and free markets. In one, critics of copyright have embraced the memo, echoing its critique of copyright as a dubious governmental subsidy to creators of expressive works. In the wake of Khanna’s memo, interested parties have generally coalesced into two very different camps. ![]() With Congress taking a breather from copyright after last year’s bruising SOPA battle, now is an opportune time to take a step back and consider what the proper governmental role in the market for creative expressions should be. Systrom added that the company will be updating the language in the terms to “make sure this is clear”.įacebook purchased Instagram for $1bn in April.Whatever one thinks of Derek Khanna’s RSC memo about copyright reform, it has certainly sparked a vigorous public debate over why copyright exists and what its contours should look like. “Instagram users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos. “To be clear” it is not our intention to sell your photos,” the statement signed by Kevin Systrom, co-founder of Instagram. Instagram issued a statement on Wednesday acknowledging that customers interpreted the company’s updated terms as saying it would sell their photos without providing compensation. An update posted to the company’s official Twitter account read: “we’ve heard you that the updates to our Privacy Policy & Terms of Service are raising a lot of questions. The online reaction did earn the attention of the service. Mike Shinoda, of the rock band Linkin Park, referenced one of the service’s main criticisms in his response “Why are you so worked up about Instagram? It’s not like they’re going to be able to sell your lunch/cat/sunset pics anyway”. Others, however, took a more comedic approach. Maria Popova, an online editor, said the new TOS “embody just about everything that’s wrong with the ad-supported web”. Jamie Bell, an actor in the United States, took a harsher tone, warning his 77,000 followers: “For anyone who cares for copyright over their own images & photographs, get off of Instagram now”. ![]() Shaun White, professional snowboarder called the new TOS a “ dumb move“. The announcement caused an uproar among the service’s devoted user base who took to the micro-blogging service Twitter to share their outrage. However, Radia said it was unlikely that you would see your pictures “on billboards” as a result of the new TOS. Speaking to Al Jazeera from Arlington, Virginia, Ryan Radia, a technology expert at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said though users don’t have to give specific consent to the service, “when you send someone your picture … that’s opting-in right there”. The Facebook-owned app contended that it is not claiming ownership of people’s pictures, just that it can do what it wishes with images. “You hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licenseable, worldwide license to use the content that you post on or through the service … You agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos, and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you”, the updated Terms of Service (TOS) state. The changes, first appearing on the screens of the service’s 100 million-strong user base on Tuesday, are set to take effect on January 16. Instagram, the photo sharing service for the iOS and Android mobile services has caused an online uproar after announcing a new privacy policy that appeared to give the company a royalty-free, worldwide license on images posted through the app.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |