|
Quick Links
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category: Published On: Aug 03, 2007 10:44 AM |
Posner in Second Life (or the perils of being a copyright professor)A transcript of Judge Posner's soiree in
Second Life is now available and, according to Prof. Patry 3 copyright subjects
were touched on: parody/satire, fiction derivative works and the reproduction of
architecture in, er, cyberspace.
The link to the transcript and Prof.
Patry's comments from here.
The signficance (or not) of parody and satire is of heightened interest to us Down Under as, apart from the unresolved question of its/their treatment under moral rights as new sections 41A and 103A (introduced into the Copyright Act by the Copyright Amendment Act 2006) create a new defence of fair dealing for the purpose of parody or satire (and see also the "special circumstances" defence provided by new s 200AB. (Text of the Act to be compiled from the bill as introduced and the amendments to be found in the schedules of amendments from here.) Of course, previously Anglo-Australian jurisprudence, to the extent that it had suggested that use of copyright material for parody or satire was legitimate, had seemed to suggest that parody was legitimate but satire was not (or was that around the other way?) so maybe we have managed to avoid the whole mess. (Subject of course to the unresolved problem of how a use for either parody or satire is affected by moral rights. On the question of reproducing architectural works in cyberspace, here at least there would be a reproduction in a material form and, as Prof. Patry apparently tried to point out, some servers (or their owners/controllers) in the real world amenable to the court's writ. On the other hand, the copyright in a building (or a model of building) is not infringed by including a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of it in a film or television broadcast: s 66. Would Second Life constitute a film a la the computer games in Galaxy v Sega? Would the representation of the building in Second Life constitute a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph? If the Second Lifer can get over those hurdles, the limitation of s 66 to buildings (and models of buildings) may not provide an out for the copyright owner. True, s 67 is limited only to incidental uses of artistic works (such as architect's drawing), but maybe s 68 gets the Second Lifer over the line? S 68 is not exactly clear, however, and maybe it won't help as s 66 (which might justify the use of the building) doesn't have anything to say about artistic works such as architectural drawings. Oh dear! But, if shifting your (legitimate) vinyl and CD copies to your iPod (or MP3 player) is OK and recording the tv broadcast to your VCR or PBR (at least for a limited time) is OK why shouldn't a representation of a building (and the underlying drawings) in virtual reality be OK? No, these are not the perils of a copyright professor - apparently, a female avatar chose to sit on Prof. Patry's avatar's head in the middle of his attempts to Posted: Wednesday - December 13, 2006 at 03:18 PM | |