Ever since authors began putting pen to paper, the byline has been an unbreakable hallmark of their trade. Simply attributing a written document to the correct person has always been the simplest way to assure he or she gets due credit and respect.
Of course, this simple issue was complicated by the invention of the printing press. The press made the written word publicly available—and affordable. As books became more accessible to larger numbers of people, the demand grew quickly. And as people searched for more and more to read, presses began to print anything they could glean from manuscripts, which meant that authors were frequently never paid or credited for their work.
So it was decided that a standard should be imposed to ensure that an author’s rights weren’t trampled. In 1886, in Bern, Switzerland, copyright laws were passed dictating that a press owner must obtain the rights to produce copies of a manuscript. This simple copyright law, which has been with us since the time of the manual press, still exists in its original form today. Not only does it apply to newspapers, it also applies to such current media as television and radio. To reproduce a copyrighted work, the owner of a station or publication must still obtain permission from the author.
Now, with the Internet, the old copyright system is suddenly beginning to look horribly out of date. That’s because the Internet is perhaps the most public of all media, a medium in which any user can become a publisher. And the problem of enforcing copyright on the Internet hinges entirely on its public nature—its interactivity.
To get a sense of just how new and different this problem is, first consider the simple rules governing usage of a book: If you read the book yourself, you’re not infringing copyright. If you read the book to a group of people, you’re not infringing on the copyright either. That’s because it’s interpersonal communication; you’re interacting directly with an audience.
But if you publish sections of the book in a newspaper without permission, you’re in violation of copyright law. That’s because publishing a newspaper is considered one-way communication—publishers generally have little contact with their audience.
The problem with the Internet is that’s unclear just what kind of communication is taking place here. Many people claim the ’Net is interpersonal; the idea of copyright doesn’t apply because a user is “publishing” clips from a copyrighted work for other people’s input. Therefore, it’s protected “free speech.” Needless to say, authors and copyright owners see this issue a little differently—especially where famous names are concerned.
One of those famous names is James Dean. Two Web sites, each sponsored by different companies, are finding themselves at odds over the movie star: Both claim to be the official source of information about Dean. At the center of the dispute are several photographs taken at the height of the star’s career.
Curtis Management Group ( http:// www.cmgww.com/ ) says it owns the photos because it is the licensing agent to the James Dean name and likeness. American Legends ( http://www.americanlegends.com/ ), on the other hand, claims that its site is merely a gathering point for James Dean fans. It should be allowed to use the photos, which are in the public domain because of how they’re being used on the Web site.
Two weeks ago, CMG filed a lawsuit against American Legends in an Indiana court. The battle between the two companies will most likely set a long-standing precedent about copyright on the Internet. Needless to say, neither company wishes to abandon the fight.
Ronald Martinetti, one of the owners of American Legends, puts the fight in an almost patriotic light: “We believe that the Foundation and CMG’s threat to suppress our site raises some interesting issues regarding free speech and access to information on the Net.”
No matter what the court decides, something must be done to clarify the words “intellectual property” before our courts are clogged with cases of infringement. Perhaps it’s best to remember that our current system of copyright has been with us since Gutenberg’s time. Maybe it’s time to retire this law in favor of something that makes more sense in a much larger world.
Bytes
♦ A few new local Web sites to report this week. The Farrell & Farrell Web site, formerly hosted on a Belmont University server, has moved. The Christian pop duo’s pages are maintained by a fan. You can find the site now at http://www.ccmusic.org/farrell/farrell.html.
Fans of ranting and raving might want to check out the Havoc Web site. This mixture of strange links and weird quasi-political hype is definitely worth a look; it claims to host the “Human Home Page.” You’ll find it at http://havoc.ticfin.com/havoc/.
A site to announce? Questions? Email Joel at joel@moses.com.
Comments (0)