Heaven knows that I am not a supporter of Public Phallic Griefing, the activity of tiresome faux-rebellious delayed teenagers, but neither am I a supporter of attempts to brush such activities under the carpet.
Puzzled by this reference? Quite possible - do let me explain. Ms Anshe Chung whilst giving a press conference recently was assailed by particles and prims of an obscene nature, something which was reported upon at the time. It now appears that the corporate entity anshechung.com is threatening anyone who published Photographs or Moving Pictures of the occasion with poorly-defined “copyright” proceedings in order to erase this supposed shame.
Quite how the shame of issuing baseless legal threats is less than the shame of being unfortunately assaulted by flexible penii is beyond me, but both behaviours are quite against my particular set of beliefs as to What Is Right. For your further elucidation:
* A report from the Reuters News Agency
* Entry on Clickable Culture
* A piece by the author Warren Ellis on Reuters including comments from Xeni Jardin from the BoingBoing site, threatened in this case
* The original video removed from YouTube, now on Google Video, from where one might download a permanent copy if one were so inclined.
Very poor behaviour. “Copyright” over one’s own form does not extend to portrayals of that form, nor should it.
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://ordinalmalaprop.com/engine/2007/01/05/unwarranted-legalities/trackback/
January 5, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Erbo Evans
Quite so, Madam, quite so! Bad form all around!
To use an analogy with the Other World, Ms. Chung’s actions are the equivalent of a certain large producer of Engine-programs in the American Pacific Northwest deciding to severely restrict images of its bespectacled Chairman and Chief Architect. Which this corporation has not done, to its credit, as that would appear just as petty as ACS’s stance in this case, if not more so.
I believe the use of these photographs and cinematographs to date would fall, in the States, under the “fair use” exemption in copyright law, as they are certainly being used here for the purpose of “comment,” to accompany news stories or Aethernet Journal entries on the events in question. Of course, I am not an attorney…
I doubt that Ms. Chung’s reputation was seriously harmed by the initial phallic attack, despicable as it was, or any reporting of it that took place. There is an old maxim in dealing with the press that would seem applicable here: “It doesn’t matter what they say about you, as long as they spell your name right.” On the other hand, by forcing the issue in the way that it has, her firm has opened the proverbial “can of worms”…and, in the long term, their “cure” may be worse than the “disease.”
January 6, 2007 at 1:01 am
Crissa
Technically, they can own the pictures or video taken on their property - like football games and whatnot. I don’t know why or how this works.
And taking one’s appearance in whole without being reproduced in satire wi not legal. But that’s like pretending to be someone you’re not, or taking someone’s article or text in whole rather than part, which also would be not fair use.
But that’s just clarifying… Taking a picture of someone in a public place is fair use.
But what I want to know… Why was the place public-build-okay, anyhow?