Just when you're getting used to those Google privacy debates, here comes another helpful effort by Google: Google Public Alerts.
What Google has done is create a platform to share emergency news (public safety, big storms like earthquakes and hurricanes, etc.) over a big huge Google Map of the world. The map flags the spot, information is provided in the margin with links, of course.
Go here to check it out.
Google plans on adding more as time goes on, of course. Speaking for advocates against child abuse and child neglect, having Google Public Alerts of Amber Alerts in the future would be a good thing. Presumably, Google will also be adding these emergency notifications to places like its Everything Search, maybe even gMail for the area affected.
This new Google Alert system is specifically for emergency situations and, in fact, is being run by the "Google Crisis Response team."
They are asking for feedback, so feel free to provide them some. I would think that attorneys might have lots of input here - as well as emergency personnel, etc. - on how Google can provide better and broader information for those in the midst of an emergency situation.
To share a thought or comment, go to their "Feedback" tab at the lower right corner of the Public Alerts page.
2/15/12
U.S. Supreme Court Throws Public Domain Under the Bus: Copyrights Can Be Applied to Longstanding Public Domain Works Under Berne Convention
In the often-confusing area of copyright, there was one bright line: works that had entered the public domain. Find an image or a quote within the public domain and you never got to the question of copyright: are you infringing? is your work fair use? It was black and white, night and day: once a work entered the public domain, there were no copyrights to respect - the copyrights had evaporated, and the works were free for anyone to use at any time. Sweet.
Until now, because that bright line just got fuzzy. The United States Supreme Court has just ruled that Congress can take works in the public domain and slap them with a copyright. Again. This is true even if the work has been floating around in the public domain for years and years.
Golan v Holder
Read the full opinion in Cause No. 10-545 before the United States Supreme Court, Golan et al v. Holder, -- U.S. -- (2012) here. It's a six to two decision; Ginsburg writes for the majority; Breyer and Alito dissent; Kagan recused herself.
Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988
Why? Seems the High Court believes that the United States of America must comply with a trade agreement entered into at The Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, and signed at Berne, Switzerland on September 9, 1886. You can read that treaty online here.
That's because Congress already passed a federal law (the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988), stating that the United States must comply with "all acts, protocols, and revisions" of the Berne Convention. The Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1984 amends 17 U.S.C. 104A, 109(b), and adds chapter 11 to title 17 and section 2319(a) to title 18.
If you check the deal that is known as "the Berne Convention," you will find an agreement (treaty) between several nations around the world, copyrights are to be respected as long as a copyright legally exists in any of the countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention.
Read the list of countries that have signed the Berne Convention here. Right now, there are 165 nations participating in the treaty.
Which means that work you may have used legally on your blog - say, an excerpt from something written by Tolkein - may no longer be free for your use as public domain and now, subject to copyright.
Until now, because that bright line just got fuzzy. The United States Supreme Court has just ruled that Congress can take works in the public domain and slap them with a copyright. Again. This is true even if the work has been floating around in the public domain for years and years.
Golan v Holder
Read the full opinion in Cause No. 10-545 before the United States Supreme Court, Golan et al v. Holder, -- U.S. -- (2012) here. It's a six to two decision; Ginsburg writes for the majority; Breyer and Alito dissent; Kagan recused herself.
Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988
Why? Seems the High Court believes that the United States of America must comply with a trade agreement entered into at The Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, and signed at Berne, Switzerland on September 9, 1886. You can read that treaty online here.
That's because Congress already passed a federal law (the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988), stating that the United States must comply with "all acts, protocols, and revisions" of the Berne Convention. The Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1984 amends 17 U.S.C. 104A, 109(b), and adds chapter 11 to title 17 and section 2319(a) to title 18.
If you check the deal that is known as "the Berne Convention," you will find an agreement (treaty) between several nations around the world, copyrights are to be respected as long as a copyright legally exists in any of the countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention.
Read the list of countries that have signed the Berne Convention here. Right now, there are 165 nations participating in the treaty.
Which means that work you may have used legally on your blog - say, an excerpt from something written by Tolkein - may no longer be free for your use as public domain and now, subject to copyright.
2/10/12
Cut and Pasting From the Web: Be Careful.
Last week, another client was happily posting away on their blog and proud of their word count. Which was good. However, most of that word count involved cutting and pasting from other web sites. Not so good.
First of all, it's fine to share news releases. They are written to be distributed -- the intent of that release is to get that message out. So, sharing these cuts and paste excerpts in a blog post with an intro "news from Acme site this week" is not a bad, horrible (and by that I mean illegal) thing to do.
Second, it's fine to share information provided on government sites, for example in their "frequently asked questions" section. Intro the cut and paste excerpt with something like "the [name of agency] recommends the following" and you're fine.
Third, it's okay to share your own stuff. Excerpts from your firm website in a firm blog post isn't violating anything. Example: the post is discussing a major product recall and you provide an excerpt from the site that discusses your state's products liability law.
Here's where it's not okay. It is not okay to take content from other sites - especially news sites - and cut and paste them into your blog post, wham bam. My client, excited about coverage in the media, plugged media coverage into the blog without getting any okay from the media source.
Not to mention not checking with the news source to determine how much they wanted in payment for the use of their news story. And its photos.
Luckily, that post was not published online before someone checked with me and I pointed out that this was copyright infringement of the copyright held by the media source.
Newspapers and television news departments publish news with photos and videos online because that is how they generate revenue. They will share that content and those images with you, but they may want payment for the use. Maybe it's a lot. Maybe it's a little.
Point is: news stories and television videos - even if you are prominently a part of the story - should not be duplicated on your web site or blog without the permission of the copyright owner.
Sure, you may think I am nit-picking. After all, aren't you helping that news source by publicizing its work? Sorry, but I don't know that the owner of the copyright will agree with that argument. And, after all, isn't the story all about you and your victorious win, so don't you have some sort of indirect ownership right in the news article anyway? No. No you don't.
Go ahead if you want to risk it. Lots of sites do this, true. However, now that NewsRight is out of the box, my nit-picking today may seem prophetical tomorrow.
Better safe than sorry, folks. Plus, it's the right thing to do. Don't just plug those news articles into a blog post, even if you or your firm is the star of the story.
First of all, it's fine to share news releases. They are written to be distributed -- the intent of that release is to get that message out. So, sharing these cuts and paste excerpts in a blog post with an intro "news from Acme site this week" is not a bad, horrible (and by that I mean illegal) thing to do.
Second, it's fine to share information provided on government sites, for example in their "frequently asked questions" section. Intro the cut and paste excerpt with something like "the [name of agency] recommends the following" and you're fine.
Third, it's okay to share your own stuff. Excerpts from your firm website in a firm blog post isn't violating anything. Example: the post is discussing a major product recall and you provide an excerpt from the site that discusses your state's products liability law.
Here's where it's not okay. It is not okay to take content from other sites - especially news sites - and cut and paste them into your blog post, wham bam. My client, excited about coverage in the media, plugged media coverage into the blog without getting any okay from the media source.
Not to mention not checking with the news source to determine how much they wanted in payment for the use of their news story. And its photos.
Luckily, that post was not published online before someone checked with me and I pointed out that this was copyright infringement of the copyright held by the media source.
Newspapers and television news departments publish news with photos and videos online because that is how they generate revenue. They will share that content and those images with you, but they may want payment for the use. Maybe it's a lot. Maybe it's a little.
Point is: news stories and television videos - even if you are prominently a part of the story - should not be duplicated on your web site or blog without the permission of the copyright owner.
Sure, you may think I am nit-picking. After all, aren't you helping that news source by publicizing its work? Sorry, but I don't know that the owner of the copyright will agree with that argument. And, after all, isn't the story all about you and your victorious win, so don't you have some sort of indirect ownership right in the news article anyway? No. No you don't.
Go ahead if you want to risk it. Lots of sites do this, true. However, now that NewsRight is out of the box, my nit-picking today may seem prophetical tomorrow.
Better safe than sorry, folks. Plus, it's the right thing to do. Don't just plug those news articles into a blog post, even if you or your firm is the star of the story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)