Distinguished Toastmaster
BUSINESS & BRANDING COACH . LIFE & LEADERSHIP STRATEGIST MOTIVATIONAL SPEAKER SERVING ENTREPRENEURS &
MAIN STREET

COPYRIGHTS aRE  TOO OFTEN WRONGED    [ You Are On This CLICKs Page ]

INDEX:

• THE PRINCESS & THE COPYRIGHTED PHOTOGRAPHS (c) Carrie Devorah :
  AN IP WORLD CHANGED FROM­ WARHOL INFRINGEMENTS TO COPYRIGHT NUTTINESS (c) Carrie Devorah
• THE DAY THE HOUSE INFRINGED CHARLES DARROW  (c) Carrie Devorah
• SOMETIMES GUILD LEADERS GOTTA GO, LIKE TUROW    (c) Carrie Devorah
• THE RAPING OF AMERICAs IP & COPYRIGHTS FROM AMERICAs EXCEPTIONALISTs THE ARTS COMMUNITIES (c) Carrie Devorah
• I HAD A DREAM TOO BUT MINE HAS BECOME A TECHNOLOGICAL 2D IP THEFT NIGHTMARE (c) Carrie Devorah 
  
• AVE LIBERATOR THE 3D COPYRIGHT SCARE (c) Carrie Devorah 

___________________________________________
THE PRINCESS & THE COPYRIGHTED PHOTOGRAPHS (c) Carrie Devorah :
___________________________________________

    HRH Katherine Middleton has set up a Copyright sting waiting to happen, inadvertently. Following in her father’s footsteps of being like real people taking pics of their newborn kids, Kate took family photo taking to the next level, royally and culpability speaking, that is. Princess Kate, herself, took the first released pictures of Princess Charlotte.   

    There is an unwritten rule that world leaders belong to the people, at least while in service. Someone, it seems, forgot to or deliberately didn’t tell that to Kate, before the pic of Cutie Georgie and Princess Charlotte was released, to remove the © HRH The Duchess Of Cambridge.

    Major royal OMG moment.

    HRH Princess Kate watermarked, with a copyright symbol, the photo of cutie Princess Charlotte. Those released copyrighted photos the proud mom took have been file shared around the world. That the Duchess of Cambridge marked the copyright symbol is, well, complicating for each share, is and remains, a violation of copyright law with each sharer liable.

    Didn’t have to be that way. Shouldn’t have been so. Where were the Duchesse’s posse who are supposed to keep the new princess out of trouble.

    You know, sometimes one must wonder where Press Officers heads are at. Thinking clearly was not in order this day. Ironically, Andy Archibald, deputy director of the National Cyber Crime Unit at the National Crime Agency, speaking at the Infosecurity Europe conference in London, said, “Unauthorised filesharing can be a "gateway" to online crime.”

            Archibald said, "If you think about the illegal downloading of music, of videos and DVDs, I think that practice is more common than we might imagine within the youth of today” continuing, “That's criminality. It's almost become acceptable. That's the first stages, I believe, of a gateway into the dark side."

    Unauthorised downloads are theft. Royal babies are fandom around the globe, from young people to old. Archibald must know the Princess inadvertently launched an infringement of an intellectual monopoly, a general disregard for the law, definition of which varies jurisdiction to jurisdiction, country to country, in a culture that views downloads, albeit illegal downloads, as "acceptable."  

    While some consider filesharing to be a form of free marketing excusing that the more people share, the greater the awareness of the work and the possibility that people will buy more licensed goods to boost the local economy. The Princess had to consider, when releasing her photos marked with a “© HRH Katherine Middleton” that in a piracy culture the sharing of the Princess photos sets up innocent parties for pursuit and conviction of online IP theft by the "National Cyber Crime Unit."

    Princesses are not entitled to Copyright protection, Ma’am. Princesses’ and their children belong to the people. Paraphrasing the Queen of Tarts, “off with the Copyright symbol” or go after each person that shared. Failure to do so injures real, not hobby, photographers, reliant on their © copyrighted arts, to make their livings.

___________________________________________________________
AN IP WORLD CHANGED FROM­ WARHOL INFRINGEMENTS TO COPYRIGHT NUTTINESS (c) Carrie Devorah :
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

The IP world is chaotic, moving from the days of Andy Warhol's unauthorized use of Campbell Soup can Popism art to today's world gone Copyright litigation nuts. Never before have Infringement litigation claims been as raging as they are today.  Rights protection wasn't always this frenetic. That said, with ICANN's exploding GTLD release, Internet abetted  Copyright Violation litigations are getting a whole lot worse. Be scared.

Once upon a design time, an artist by the name of Andy Warhol painted a soup can, not just any soup can or one of his own design, Warhol painted an image people presumed Warhol loved. No. Warhol hated soup. Warhol’s Mom made soup all the time. Painting the Campbell Soup can wasn’t Warhol’s first effort at painting someone else’s work, albeit in Warhol’s own style. The Campbell Soup can was one in a string of Infringments Warhol painted over the years. Painting icons in Comic Book style was the rage back then. The art movement was called Popism.

Artist Roy Lichtenstein got a gallery deal, and Angel, to fund Lichtenstein Popism-ing famous comic characters. Warhol was saddened. Warhol wanted Legacy. Warhol had been infringing advertising imagery and comic strip characters before painting the infamous Campbell Soup can. Warhol claims Lichtenstein Infringed Warhol, in and around April 1961. Warhol decorated a Bonwit Teller window display where Warhol claims Lichtenstein saw Warhol’s style, then copied Warhol.

Warhol painted the Campbell's Soup Cans in the early 1960s, then later produced portfolios of soup can prints, 1968 to 1969. The 1970's brought Warhol’s Reversals and Retrospectives series and, in 1985, Warhol used the soup can imagery again in a series of small silkscreens. 

Popism competitors were battling for Impact. Allegedly Andy Warhol told Muriel Latow, 'Just tell me what to paint.' Latow agreed to help Warhol with an idea. Muriel knew Andy Warhol well enough to get payment in hand first before asking Andy to think of the most common, everyday, instantly recognizable thing ' Andy didn’t know. Muriel said, Money, then advising Warhol  'you've got to find something that's recognizable to almost everybody. Something you see everyday that everybody would recognize. Something like a can of Campbell's Soup.’ Warhol allegedly asked Latow, 'How big?' Latow allegedly told Warhol, 'Make them as tall as me,' - five feet, seven and a half inches.
 
Eleanor Ward, riveted by Warhol’s paintings of Marilyn Monroes, Do-It-Yourself paintings, the Elvis Presley pictures, the Liz Taylor, Campbell Soup Cans,’ said, 'Andy, by a miracle, I have November - which as you know is the prime month of the year,' and I said 'I can show you in November.'  Warhol had also painted 1951 version of the Dick Tracy comic strip for Dick Tracy, Superman, a 1936 image of a typewriter for Typewriter, 1928 images of a telephone for his Telephone paintings "and other advertising takeoffs.’ In time Warhol painted, Raggedy Andy, too.

Warhol knew about profit and “money.” Allegedly a woman asked Warhol what he loved most. Warhol’s answer, “Money” drove a new series of Warhol art, the $2 bill.

Warhol knew the value of Intellectual Property and Brand Protection. Warhol was a mini-money painting machine, literally. Warhol knowing that copying US currency was forbidden, found his way to paint money. Warhol painted everyday familiar items, things other people created or were aka Warhol’s celebrity series. Warhol did not seek licensing rights from Campbell Soup no different from Infringers do not seek permission. Being Warhol’d became the equivalent of a getting an Oscar or Golden Globe. By the time the Campbell Soup company learned of Warhol’s Infringement of Campbell Soup’s can, the company garnering free publicity let the matter ride until Warhol died.

It was after Warhol died that the corporate Campbell Soup company lost their ‘free publicity’ sense of humor noting the big money the Warhol Foundation was raking in from licensing Warhol's Campbell Soup Can on to products. Big money was at stake. Campbell Soup Company demanded the Warhol Foundation sign an official license agreement. The license agreement gave both, Soup and Warhol, a stake in profits and product. Both companies needed to agree  on the licensing deals covering multiple products.

When asked why Warhol painted randomly chosen, iconic American items, Warhol answered, 'It's the synthesis of nothingness.’ The ordinariness of the soup cans emphasized the "nothingness" of the subject matter.  Warhol knew these items were not nothing. Warhol knew what Warhol was, an Infringer using, branding O.P.P., other people’s Copyrighted property, as ‘simple’ objects that Warhol then repackaged these American icons from ordinary in to extraordinary upon affixing the Warhol brand to the stolen Intellectual Property.

____________________________________________
THE DAY THE HOUSE INFRINGED CHARLES DARROW  (c) Carrie Devorah:
___________________________________________________________

Caught me by surprise, it did getting the Charles Brace Darrow Lil' guy in an email from the Minority. Not just him but que'lle surprise when Paris Hilton popped up scrolling down the page along with someone else, brain burp, can't remember the 3rd, but I did recall, Legislator are subject to the same rule We The Peeps are when it comes to infringement of Copyrights and Right of Publicity.

Sometimes, often, Legislator forget that when it comes to Copyright, the playing field is level. Life+70.

Darrow died August 29, 1967, that would be 2037 before Darrow's Monopoly Man hit Public Domain. Darrow? My apologies. Charles Darrow takes credit for inventing Monopoly.

Charles Darrow came from Mount Airy, PA, specifically, 40 Westview Street. Darrow sold heaters. And a bill of goods. Darrow sold his version of Monopoly to Parker Bros, the game people.
 Darrow had down time, plenty of it, when the market crashed in '29. Darrow took inspiration from a game he saw people play. people were buying and selling real estate upon home made boards. Darrow, seeing the games popularity, commercialized his version. Darrow called his, Monopoly.

Darrow's game's predecessors were  Elizabeth Magie's The Landlord's Game and The Fascinating Game of Finance. Magie's game started in the Midwest. Like all good things, and ideas, it crossed borders traveling East eventually hitting Atlantic City where the real estate game was customized with the names of Atlantic City sites and streets.

Then Darrow did the IP Content Creators nasty. Darrow copied the game he played off of, the game board shared with him by his friend Charles Todd.

Darrow's game monopoly building was a family affair. Darrow's game board was cut of it own loth, oil cloth. Darrow drew the property designs. Darrow's kid an wife colored the properties in. The Darrow's worked together to corners, cutting the game cards, for the properties, Community Chest and Chance. It wasn't much of a risk, after all. Sorta like the husband an wife who cashed in on the historic cut "Keep Marching On," Darrow knew he had a home run from having watched people's enthusiasm to play it.

Darrow hired designed a graphic designer. The designer created the iconic Monopoly "Go" red arrow, the railroad black locomotives, waterwork faucet, electric company faucet and question mark on Chance, all eerily like elements on Magie's Landlord's game board.

Darrow copyrighted his version of the board in 1933. By 1934, Darrow graduated his game board from oilcloth to board. Sometime that year, Darrow's Monopoly game was being sol in PA's Wanamaker store. Emboldened, Parker pitched his board game to Milton Bradley. Unphased by rejection, Darrow pitched Monopoly, next, to Parker Brothers. Parker Brothers said no. Parker Brothers sai th game was too complicated.

Darrow continued selling his game, updating its packaging and design. And then Parker Brothers came calling. A bit of wheeling and dealing, Darrow and Parker Brothers negotiate terms. Parker Brothers had rejected Elizabeth Maggie's game twice.

Darrow was awarded U.S. Patent 2,026,082. The year the patent was issued 1935. By 1936, 20,000 sets were being sold each week, at $2 a piece. Eventually, Monopoly came under. Hasbro's toy empire umbrella. Monopoly was the best-selling board game in history. Darrow was the first game millionaire game.

Darrow had no hubris. Darrow took all credit as if the game was of design of his own, failing to credit Elizabeth Magie, Jesse Raiford, Ruth Hoskins, Louis and Ferdinand Thun, John Heap and Daniel Layman. Who are they? Not uprising you didn't know. These are the people designed key elements of the game Darrow copied from.

Somewhere in the Boardwalk near Park Place, in Atlantic City, lies the commemorative plaque the City lay three year after Darrow's death. Between 1973 -1983, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found Darrow infringed Charles Todd's version of the board game, short of a few typos, that is. This legal finding came to light while Hasbro was suing a college professor for marketing his version of Charle's Todd's game. The professor called his version anti-monopoly.

So it goes for innovation and infringement. It's all relative, eh, even when it comes to keeping violation within the House political family.

______________________________________________________________
SOMETIMES GUILD LEADERS GOTTA GO, LIKE TUROW (c) Carrie Devorah :
______________________________________________________________

Its time for the Authors Guild to tell Turow to go.

Was I surprised when the Google Books judgement came down? No. Not at all. I heard in DC circles the decision was heading that way. Who did I hear it from? A member of the Author’s Guild angered with their leadership. Who is the Author’s Guild leader? Scott Turow. Who is Scott Turow? Not one of the starving writer’s hanging out in coffeeshops, feeding off of  free WIFI, making it, post day job, with their night job ambition of being a Scott Turow.

I have met Turow in DC. I was raised to judge a man by how he treats a child or a dog. I expanded that guidance to include how he treats  his membership. Shabby is most often heard whispered at events. The lawyer I heard it from most recently at the Marakesh Treaty event up at Washington Law School of American University, led me to believe he is the Guild’s lawyer. He was not kind at all about his leader.

Call it my naivete to offer voting Turow out of office. I should know better. Money. Time. And Relationship are the same-old same-old reason for keeping a person in office, along with the reality that one out of office means another person coming in. Sometimes, consensus is Dance With The Devil You Know Rather Than The Devil You Don’t. Everyone knows Scott.

Author Guild members postings online, not only are not flattering but question funds paid to a reclusive Executive Director suggesting ½ million over three years is a lot. From an 8000 membership? I should say so, too. Moreso when members are unhappy in the ranks, moreso when the Google decisions came down in the matter of The Authors Guild Inc and Betty Miles, Joseph Goulden and Jim Bouton on behalf of themselg and all other similarly situated, plaintiffs, against Google Inc., defendant.

The world was oddly quiet after the decision came down. Opinion 05 Civ. 8136 (DC) was presided over by what DC circle chit-chat called an activist Judge. A few months back I heard the decision was expected to go this way. In another part of America, where activism was kept of the Bench, a Judge presiding on another Google Matter had her bead set right, something I have written about time and before. Google is rockin’ the RICO, wire fraud. Wire fraud was not even considered in Case 1:05-cv-08136 DC Document 1088 Filed 11/14/13. Thirty pages, no mention of Wire Fraud, Mail Fraud or Conspiracy to Defraud. Not even a correct reading of Title XVII. At times, you get what you paid for. Maybe the Authors Guild got their monies worth or what they wanted- a well known spokesperson elitist when it comes to his ranks.

Look, Copyright is an issue to me, enough of an issue I make time to go to the Hill, attending hearings, and such. Have I seen Scott there in the past almost year? No. I have seen the rep. I call their type Wonks and Lobbyists, defined as people who get monthly paychecks whether they produce or not. And each month the annuity rolls in. Write a few lines, speak here and there. Rarely do you see them crossing industry. Some groups do cross industry. They learn in time they cannot speak for all parties. In the case of Authors v Tech giant? Am still waiting for something of relevance, other than fuming Members of the Authors Guild.

The legal ball got dropped on Chin’s interpretation of Fair Use. Google’s Summary judgment was granted. Case was dismissed, eight years after it was filed in 2005.

Chin’s footnote Page 2 said it all “When pressed at oral argument to indetify any factual issues that would preclude the aware of summary judgment, plaintiffs counsel was unable to do so..”

Cold.

Fair Use is NOT as Chin chose to interpret it. Fair Use is as  defined in Title XVII Section 107. Google was self defined or described on Page 3, Google Resp 9, “Google owns and operates the largest Internet search engine in the world” with “millions of people using Google’s search engines free of charge…” Not quite. People using Google do pay. They pay with their privacy a techie sort of Barter system. Barter is a currency. The IRS measures the exchange.

And now its time for ALL tangental ARTS Industry leaders to tell Turow to go. His bad, hurt ARTS ownership rights


______________________________________________________
THE RAPING OF AMERICAs IP & COPYRIGHTS FROM AMERICAs EXCEPTIONALISTs THE ARTS COMMUNITIES (c) Carrie Devorah :   _______________________________________________________

The irony of the Copyright Office Green Paper is that it took 122 pages to detail a conversation that should have started and finished with one allegiance that allegiance being to the Integrity and history of Title XVII in loyalty to the Founding Fathers. The continuing effort of the Register of Copyrights to change America to facilitate the push of Technology Titans is mind boggling. That the Register of Copyrights is participating in the Crush of Creative Entrepreneurism is mind boggling and short sighted of Legislators not getting out into the Hackathons, musician conference, arts and photographic get  together to hear first hand the pain artists trying to make a living are suffering through.

That the Register of Copyrights isnt paying attention to the push of Technological activists and entities on the AM-CHAMS around the world as part of the push to rape Creative Sources and Owners to their rights to profits in mind boggling moreso in light of the staff heavy entities of the Copyright Office and the USPTO in that the theft is replicated in the Triple Crown of American Entrepreneurism.

That the Register of Copyrights allows witnesses before the Judiciary to stack in favor of Technology rather than the ARTS and Photographic Community makes one shake their head. To allow the panelist from the SIX year Orphan Works collection state unashamedly she could not find artists when Congresswoman Judy Chu asked ‘where are the artists?’ is enough to ask for the Register To Resign in that the answer to the Judiciary’s question is in the Archives of the Library of Congress that, in good faith, every day citizens pay in to ‘for copyright registration, when the Berne Convention of which America is a signators states an ARTS work is Copyrighted from moment of inception. What is the Register of Copyrights then selling? Well, nothing less than a piece of paper to a Star or a piece of paper to a plot of land on the moon- being ‘that valuable’, not.

Copyright is simple. You create it, you own it unless you assign it but for whatever  reason the Register of Copyright is turning her back to that being the law on the books pushing forward with Technology Activists to rob Citizens of their Intellectual Property hence their abilities to make their livings.


Regardless of how Technology changes it is NOT the role of the Register of Copyrights to change laws to accommodate the changes, it is the role of Technology innovators to make sure their inventions comply with Copyright Law which states in Section 107 that (4) IF the Creator/Owner is harmed from making their living by another’s use of their IP then IT IS NOT Fair use and (3) IF the Creator /Owner is harmed because more than a portion of their ARTS is used then IT IS NOT Fair Use and if an ARTS is used by an entity under non-profit or education that it isnt enough just to take that image that the prospective USER must make that request FIRST not after the fact as was done with GOOGLE in their effort to Scan Books, as is being done by Search Engines and ISPS for their walls of photos and/or other continuing emerging product.

Nor is Safe Harbor to continue as the artful dodge by the Search Engines and ISPs to avoid giving their Users product to steal and allege no liability in that being done.

Slowly but surely the Courts are seeing the Scam being perpetrated and are acknowledging that fraud through the wires is Rocking The RICO.

In that the Copyright Office runs at a profit while individual citizens, small businesses and entrepreneurs are struggling to keep their lights on, the role of the Register of Copyrights is NOT reflected in that 122 Green White Paper.

RED LIGHT! HAZARD! GO SLOW and enforce TITLE XVII. Don’t change it

_________________________________________________________________________
I HAD A DREAM TOO BUT MINE HAS BECOME A TECHNOLOGICAL 2D IP THEFT NIGHTMARE
(c) Carrie Devorah :
_______________________________________________________

Amidst the many things that happened in 1987, were two special things- Dr. King’s iconic speech and, a teaching moment in Copyright history the Congressional Judiciary Committees neglected to draw upon as Technology’s creep on 2D ARTS IP Copyright Ownership algorithmically speeds up theft of ARTS Creators Works, Rights and Commerce. The teaching moment in Copyright history? Oh, its on the books, so to speak…. Fair Use, Right To Identity, Right To Publicity, something Dr. King’s Estate is fierce to protect, matters rarely addressed in Judiciary hearings on the Hill, these days it seems.

Kudos.

Jennifer Jenkins, director of the Center of the Study of the Public Domain at Duke University’s Law School, stated she respects the King’s family’s right to maintain their father’s legacy. Legacy? Legacy is a word to describe what a dear departed parent leaves a Child when parent passed. Synonym? Heirloom. Treasure. Yes, even a way to make a living no different than stock in a company or a family jewel, speedboat, $2 bill or a red jellybean touched by the late President Reagan or Eva Longoria’s back end of things she produces in film, stage and beyond. But for some reason, ARTS, the brain food of industry, has a different cachet. Profit from the ARTS caps out a Life Plus 70, unless you are Disney with special Congressional dispensation able to renew rights twenty years at a time.

Since when did We The People become We and Then There Are The Other People…..

Jennifer Jenkins went further in her argument postulating that EMI Publishing, the British conglomerate working for the King Estate has a reason for protecting Dr Kings “I Have A Dream Speech,” making money. To the head of the class, Jennifer. Yes. Remember Joel Grey in “Cabaret?” Money makes the world go round. Some make more. Some make less. And others? Don’t care to make money of their own at all preferring to take the sweat of hard work off other’s brows.

Reverend Dr. Martin Luther Kings “I Have A Dream” is the only non musical performance of its kind in the EMI catalogue, a little known factoid, that shouldn’t make a difference in Copyright debate but since it is being brought up in the mud slinging against the King Family for protecting their father’s likeness, it is to be noted. EMI Publishing auctioned its catalogue November 2011. The consortium owning Sony won the catalogue bid for $2.2 billion. Dr. King’s “Dream” was a separate deal struck with the King family. The sum? Undisclosed. Dexter King, chairman of the King Estate said “EMI was the best candidate to preserve perpetuate and protect the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.”

Jenkins adjective for describing selling “I Have A Dream” is “Exploit.” Jenkins who did not list all or any personal encounters with Dr. King to offer first hand evidence of what the good Reverend wanted, publicly opines “that goal may be somewhat at odds with what King would have wanted people to do with his speech.” Furthermore, Jenkins said, that “every year on MLK Day that any kid, any educator, anybody should be able just to Google it online and watch the speech in its entirety. It’s a piece of history and I think most people think that he would have wanted it to be available (for free) maybe not available for use in a commercial but certainly available for education and journalistic purposes or documentaries about the civil rights movement.” No coincidence that Jenkins released her comments in and around the 50th Anniversary of The Speech, blushing publicity for herself and her organization by entering in to the debate invoking “The Dream.”

Excuse me but as the expression goes, who died and left her (a) King?

Copyright is a recognition and encouragement of authorship. Copyright is the vehicle by which 2D ARTS IP creators pay bills today and plan for tomorrow. It is not only legal but appropriate for Executors of Estates to define and restrict applications of the Copyrighted ARRS from requests and exploitations of Fair Use. Culture and historical value are secondary to the rights of the Inheritors of the Legacy. “Extract(ing) value” is the Law.

Detractors of Copyright Ownership, Dr King’s Estate, to be specific, challenge that Dr King would be turning over in his grave if he knew “I Have A Dream” was working for his family and descendants. Outspoken critics include some of the entities who marched with him, entities that fight to find financing for the Battle they continued. Fact is, the Speech are Dr. Kings words. And Clarence Jones didn’t demand a piece of the Copyright pie even though Jones worked on the speech.

Dr. King was an orator and an Author not an accountant. And he listened to sage advice. Dr King died leaving his family financially challenged, for the moment. The cash register on his “Dream” has been ringing for decades with protection of Trademark law under license by EMI Publishing. So what is Jenkins complaining about. People can buy a CD of King’s words for $20 at the King Center just like people can buy memorabilia of Elvis at Graceland, benefiting Elvis’ heirs, or images of the Beatles, or Dolly, or Reagan, or George Washington, the list of families, profiting from dead relatives goes on. Jenkins cannot profit from Dr Kings name in any way, shape or forum other than be a fan. Why, even the US Capitol cannot be exploited commercially nor images released from the Architect of the Capitol be used without permission. Without oversight, Dr King’s Likeness, Identity and Copyright, would be invoked for everything from car washes to conflict in the Middle East or What Would Reagan Do to Speakeasys or Beer Coolers at the Indy 500..

The defense of Kings Copyright has gone on for years.The King Estate sued CBS Inc. and Henry Hampton producer of the 1994 Mike Wallace documentary, “The 20th Century with Mike Wallace” in which CBS Inc used Dr King’s “I Have A Dream” speech. “The Estate said King’s Copyright was in force under Common Copyright Law retroactively to the date of his Speech. King copyrighted “I Have A Dream” a month later. CBS Inc. argued public performance of spoken word put The Speech in to Public Domain. The King Family argued the speech, albeit delivered over radio and TV, though unpublished at the time of its debut performance was protected under the 1909 Copyright Act.

The Matter was remanded to District Court where a green light was given for the Kings case against CBS Inc. to proceed. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled “A performance, no matter how broad the audience, is not a publication; to hold otherwise would be to upset a long line of precedent. This conclusion is not altered by the fact that the Speech was broadcast to a broad radio and television audience and was the subject of extensive contemporaneous news coverage. We follow the above cited case law indicating that release to the news media for contemporary coverage of a newsworthy event is only a limited publication,” positioning King’s iconic Speech into a protected arena of being delivered to Media, not the Public, limiting its exposure to protection from exploitation.

CBS Inc settled with the King Family before the Court Matter proceeded further. The Kings were paid lawyers fees of $10,000, a $1700 licensing fee. And an unnamed sum.  

That isnt the end of the iconic 17 Minute’s arguments in Courts, seventeen minutes being how long Dr. King’s “I Have A Dream” lasted.  December 1963, the King family sued Mister Maestro Inc and Twentieth Century Fox Records Company along for uses of his likeness. Fox had recorded the Speech at the Mall, in the course of covering news, the King speech along with all the Speeches given that day.

Fifty years later, on the anniversary of the MLK March, Twitter’s feed reignited fire in the bellies of people who want access to the Speech for free. Along with the throngs of people, of all colors, came to the National Mall, to recreate history, came criticisms of ‘how could the King’s cash in’ Obvious answer…. Who’s their Daddy? That’s who. And for that reason alone, the King Estate had the right to sell Dr. King’s Likeness and phrases for more than $700,000 to the Foundation that built the MLK Memorial on the Mall. “Excesses of copyright” for limiting release of  MLK iconic speech, photographs, sound bytes and images? No. Excesses of expectation that it should be free.

Clarence Jones is the attorney who set this debate solid where it should be, years back. Jones reminds people to this day he told King, ‘Copyright it (The Speech).’ Jones, currently a visiting professor at the University of San Francisco, is also Writer In Residence at the Martin Luther King Jr Research and Education Institute at Stanford University and Palo Alto CA. Jones is pretty heavy weight. Jones is the first African American partner in a Wall Street Investment Banking firm, twice recognized as Fortune Magazine’s Man Of The Month.  

The King family had been left without  much money.

The King Center, in Atlanta, provides people access to The Speech. All the people have to do is ask, submit an application, comply with the Terms Of Service and/or agreement. People that ask are given access if their proposal is accepted Miri Ben Ami requested playing her violin to the a recited accompaniment of one of the most recognizable collection of words, The Speech, in the 20th Century, a National Treasure.    

Courts ‘finding’ for Fair Use, defending the Fair Use was central to ‘the progress of science and advancement of the useful arts’ tend to look past Celebrity when benchmark is a Law for All People, not just Famous People.

People can photograph the heck out of the Words “I Have A Dream” if they want to make the pilgrimage to DC and climb the Lincoln Memorial steps up to where Dr Kings words are chiseled in to the ground stone. No one seems to know it The King Estate charged the National Park Service to put those words there. If they did? What of it? Disgraced President Nixon’s estate charged America $18 million for Nixon’s Memorabilia.   The video of President Kennedy’s assassination had a pretty price tag too. Alcatel licensed a clip of Dr King’s iconic speech for an ad Alcatel aired in 2001. That’s ok, for now. Wont be long. 2038 is when Dr. King’s speech will be in public domain.

Money doesn’t bring peace. Three years after the death of their Mom, Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King III and Bernice were fighting Dexter in Court over their parents Estate. EMI chairman Roger Faxon says protecting right for compensation  of Kings words that inspiring the world is a responsibility. And Dr King’s name is invoked in the SOPA debate. At what price Copyright Innovation? Why should Entreneurship be free? Who makes those decisions? Who has the right to Censor a Copyright Owners Rights or their heirs their due Legacy? The entirety of Dr Kings speech will rarely be published or viewed or heard in full. Dr. King’s pitbull EMI will make sure violators are held accountable to the Law.

But not everyone is a Dr King. But every dollar and dime belongs to 2D ARTs IP Creatives too. Remember that Congress and Legislators around the world that Dancers and Artists and Musicians and Photographers had a dream too. In the Internet Age with each change made in Title XVII away from the Integrity of the Founding Father’s Property Rights declaration…. Copyright Owners dreams have become crippling nightmares growing exponentially each day the Internet Abuse of Fair Use and Safe Harbor isnt roped in…..

_______________________________________________________
AVE LIBERATOR THE 3D COPYRIGHT SCARE (c) Carrie Devorah :
_______________________________________________________

President Obama crisscrossed the nation on the deathbeds of 21 tots, campaigning for gun reform. Shells flew off the shelves. Gun stocks shot up through the roof. Newtown families caught up their grief, were flown on Air Force One. And then the unthinkable happened. Downloads for 3D Printed Liberator Gun Reach 100,000 catching Democrat gun grab supporters off guard. Citizens gun rights were being grabbed while undetectable gun parts were being printed- at home.

And Copyright Creators had begun to quake in their boots on the ground. What was once a 2Dimensional drawn image was now about to be warp speeded into a whole new area of Copyright Concern and Congress? Well, so far behind the Copyright Eight Ball that Creatives were coughing up kittens.


Blueprints of Liberator, Defense Distributed’s 3D printed plastic gun was downloaded over 100,000 times since it went online with most of the downloads in the US then Spain, Brazil, Germany and the UK. New York congressmen Steve Israel and Chuck Schumer aimed their legislation at adding a 3D-printing provision to the US Undetectable Firearms Act. The US Undetectable Firearms Act requires all guns to be detectable.

Two British journalists had taken a 3D gun onto the London-Paris Eurostar train- undetected- during weekend rush hour, unchallenged. The gun was capable of firing live rounds. Less than 36 hours after reporters, Simon Murphy and Russell Myers bought a 3D Systems’ CubeX 3D printer from online, they printed out the 15 components of the plastic gun. The firing pin, too small to be detected by metal detectors, was bought from a local hardware. It took a few minutes for the journalists to assemble the DIY gun- undetectable in some amounts, just as metal joints can be, too.

The Newtown 21 were shot by a rapid firing weapon that could be seen. Legislators did not see this one coming. So much for legislation outdated before its time.

FIGHT THEFT OF COPYRIGHTS
<>
SUPPORT

_________________
WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN
____________________

___________________
Capitol Hill Switchboard
(202) 224 3121 _____________________

WRITE YOUR
SENATOR
___________________

Create
The 2D ARTS IP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
PROTECTION
ACT
FOR
TREASURED
HEIRLOOM
ARTS
LEGACY
INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY
PROTECTION
SIGN THE PETITION

______________

__________________
TELL HERE HOW COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT HURT YOU ______________

___________________
TELL
TECHNOLOGY
KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF
MY COPYRIGHT
_______________

HONORING THOSE WHO GAVE THEIR ALL
SO WE MIGHT HAVE OUR
PROPERTY RIGHTS
THANK YOU
 

______________________________________________________________________________________________
ALL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STARTS with a Pencil &Paper in 2D(dimension) 
Everything Else about IP(intellectual property) comes down to COMMERCE .
_______________________________________________________________________________________________