Comments for Molly Kleinman http://mollykleinman.com Multi-Purpose Librarian Fri, 16 May 2008 02:54:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 Comment on Experimenting with Slideshare by Molly http://mollykleinman.com/2008/05/14/experimenting-with-slideshare/#comment-97 Molly Wed, 14 May 2008 19:50:06 +0000 http://mollykleinman.com/2008/05/14/experimenting-with-slideshare/#comment-97 Hi Rashmi, Sorry, my phrasing was unclear: while I know that Slideshare does allow audio for slideshows, the ones I'm posting don't have audio, because I didn't record my talks at the time and I don't feel like recording them after the fact. Maybe someday, but not right now. I have seen a couple of Slideshare presentations with audio, and they were pretty neat. Hi Rashmi,
Sorry, my phrasing was unclear: while I know that Slideshare does allow audio for slideshows, the ones I’m posting don’t have audio, because I didn’t record my talks at the time and I don’t feel like recording them after the fact. Maybe someday, but not right now. I have seen a couple of Slideshare presentations with audio, and they were pretty neat.

]]> Comment on Experimenting with Slideshare by rashmi http://mollykleinman.com/2008/05/14/experimenting-with-slideshare/#comment-96 rashmi Wed, 14 May 2008 16:49:26 +0000 http://mollykleinman.com/2008/05/14/experimenting-with-slideshare/#comment-96 Molly, SlideShare does allow audio to your presentations. http://www.slideshare.net/slidecasts You can audio to yours as well: http://www.slideshare.net/faqs/slidecast Rashmi SlideShare Cofounder Molly,
SlideShare does allow audio to your presentations. http://www.slideshare.net/slidecasts

You can audio to yours as well: http://www.slideshare.net/faqs/slidecast

Rashmi
SlideShare Cofounder

]]> Comment on The Psychology of Creative Commons: A response in two parts by Molly http://mollykleinman.com/2008/04/28/the-psychology-of-creative-commons-a-response-in-two-parts/#comment-95 Molly Fri, 09 May 2008 20:07:50 +0000 http://mollykleinman.com/2008/04/28/the-psychology-of-creative-commons-a-response-in-two-parts/#comment-95 You're right, Lev! I hadn't thought of it that way, but that's exactly what I was doing. You’re right, Lev! I hadn’t thought of it that way, but that’s exactly what I was doing.

]]> Comment on The Psychology of Creative Commons: A response in two parts by Lev http://mollykleinman.com/2008/04/28/the-psychology-of-creative-commons-a-response-in-two-parts/#comment-94 Lev Fri, 09 May 2008 19:39:18 +0000 http://mollykleinman.com/2008/04/28/the-psychology-of-creative-commons-a-response-in-two-parts/#comment-94 "...unpacking my beliefs about the meanings and significances of the different options has been very helpful..." You're sensemaking around Creative Commons! “…unpacking my beliefs about the meanings and significances of the different options has been very helpful…”
You’re sensemaking around Creative Commons!

]]> Comment on Kindling free e-books by Molly http://mollykleinman.com/2008/05/06/kindling-free-e-books/#comment-88 Molly Tue, 06 May 2008 13:50:43 +0000 http://mollykleinman.com/2008/05/06/kindling-free-e-books/#comment-88 Glad to hear it. I was excited to see Down and Out on the library's Kindle; I've been talking up Cory Doctorow and his awesome promotion of CC and free e-books, but I'd never actually read any of his fiction. It's good. Glad to hear it. I was excited to see Down and Out on the library’s Kindle; I’ve been talking up Cory Doctorow and his awesome promotion of CC and free e-books, but I’d never actually read any of his fiction. It’s good.

]]> Comment on Kindling free e-books by Amy http://mollykleinman.com/2008/05/06/kindling-free-e-books/#comment-87 Amy Tue, 06 May 2008 06:27:52 +0000 http://mollykleinman.com/2008/05/06/kindling-free-e-books/#comment-87 I read Down & Out about 4 years ago. Although I printed instead of read electronically, it was a very pleasant CC experience. I read Down & Out about 4 years ago. Although I printed instead of read electronically, it was a very pleasant CC experience.

]]> Comment on Baby steps for orphan works by Molly http://mollykleinman.com/2008/03/29/baby-steps-for-orphan-works/#comment-84 Molly Tue, 06 May 2008 00:27:44 +0000 http://mollykleinman.com/2008/03/29/baby-steps-for-orphan-works/#comment-84 Chas, you oversimplify matters considerably. Because copyright lasts so long, there are many many cases where it is possible to attribute a work, but not to find the copyright holder. The artist may have signed away the copyright to a magazine that has since been sold, or gone out of business. The artist may be dead, and without any heirs. There may be heirs, but the artist's will may not have mentioned copyrights. Here's an example from real life: An author wanted to include some photographs of a newsworthy event in her book. The event was in the 1970's, so she knew the photos were under copyright. She also knew who the photographer was and the newspaper in which the photographs were first published. First she tried to contact the newspaper, but learned that it went out of business in the 1990's. She went searching for the photographer and learned that he is dead. She managed to find the photographer's widow, and asked her for permission to use the photos. The widow said, "I'm sorry, but I'm not sure if I can grant you the permission you seek. I would be very happy to have the pictures appear in your book, but I don't know if I control the copyright or not." As a result, the publishers of the book refused to include the pictures because they did not want to risk litigation. With copyrights lasting more than a century, this happens all the time. Works are literally orphaned; their creators and original publishers die, leaving no one to ask for permission to reuse the work. It's true, the world won't end if those works disintegrate in a basement somewhere, never to be seen again. But I think the world would be a much richer place if we could resurrect those orphans, and expose them to a new generation of people who can appreciate and maybe learn from them. Chas, you oversimplify matters considerably. Because copyright lasts so long, there are many many cases where it is possible to attribute a work, but not to find the copyright holder. The artist may have signed away the copyright to a magazine that has since been sold, or gone out of business. The artist may be dead, and without any heirs. There may be heirs, but the artist’s will may not have mentioned copyrights.

Here’s an example from real life: An author wanted to include some photographs of a newsworthy event in her book. The event was in the 1970’s, so she knew the photos were under copyright. She also knew who the photographer was and the newspaper in which the photographs were first published. First she tried to contact the newspaper, but learned that it went out of business in the 1990’s. She went searching for the photographer and learned that he is dead. She managed to find the photographer’s widow, and asked her for permission to use the photos. The widow said, “I’m sorry, but I’m not sure if I can grant you the permission you seek. I would be very happy to have the pictures appear in your book, but I don’t know if I control the copyright or not.” As a result, the publishers of the book refused to include the pictures because they did not want to risk litigation.

With copyrights lasting more than a century, this happens all the time. Works are literally orphaned; their creators and original publishers die, leaving no one to ask for permission to reuse the work. It’s true, the world won’t end if those works disintegrate in a basement somewhere, never to be seen again. But I think the world would be a much richer place if we could resurrect those orphans, and expose them to a new generation of people who can appreciate and maybe learn from them.

]]> Comment on Baby steps for orphan works by Chas http://mollykleinman.com/2008/03/29/baby-steps-for-orphan-works/#comment-83 Chas Mon, 05 May 2008 19:28:54 +0000 http://mollykleinman.com/2008/03/29/baby-steps-for-orphan-works/#comment-83 I'm an artist. I don't like this proposal as currently structured. My comments here are in regards to selling, publishing, and commercial use of unattributed artworks with no creator's agreement. If an unattributed artwork gets sold in any way, I am concerned. I feel much less concern about uses not for sale - educational uses, display in museum collections. First, there's no such thing as an orphaned artwork. There are works that are difficult or impossible to trace. There is no problem of works that are difficult to attribute. There is a problem with non-creators using artwork without an ageeement. If the artwork is hard to trace, that's an indication that the work should not be used. Just because an artwork exists doesn't mean it must be used. I an artwork doesn't get used, the world will not end. An individual or a company wishing to use an artwork of such and such will just have to find or buy or create an artwork without just taking it. It is not considered OK to drive off with a car, if you see the keys in it, but the licence plates are missing and ID numbers are obliterated. We all know, someone IS the owner with certain rights. We just don't know who it is. Why then is it acceptable to use an artwork that is currently difficult to attribute? I’m an artist. I don’t like this proposal as currently structured. My comments here are in regards to selling, publishing, and commercial use of unattributed artworks with no creator’s agreement. If an unattributed artwork gets sold in any way, I am concerned.

I feel much less concern about uses not for sale - educational uses, display in museum collections.

First, there’s no such thing as an orphaned artwork. There are works that are difficult or impossible to trace. There is no problem of works that are difficult to attribute. There is a problem with non-creators using artwork without an ageeement.

If the artwork is hard to trace, that’s an indication that the work should not be used. Just because an artwork exists doesn’t mean it must be used.

I an artwork doesn’t get used, the world will not end. An individual or a company wishing to use an artwork of such and such will just have to find or buy or create an artwork without just taking it.

It is not considered OK to drive off with a car, if you see the keys in it, but the licence plates are missing and ID numbers are obliterated. We all know, someone IS the owner with certain rights. We just don’t know who it is. Why then is it acceptable to use an artwork that is currently difficult to attribute?

]]> Comment on Good timing: New draft orphan works legislation released by Molly http://mollykleinman.com/2008/04/22/good-timing-new-draft-orphan-works-legislation-released/#comment-82 Molly Mon, 05 May 2008 15:05:54 +0000 http://mollykleinman.com/2008/04/22/good-timing-new-draft-orphan-works-legislation-released/#comment-82 Britt, I understand that you are very upset about the orphan works bills, but it is clear to me from your comments that you still haven't actually read them. You are simply regurgitating Brad Holland's propaganda. If you continue to leave comments without reading the legislation, I will start marking them as spam. You have had your say here. Britt, I understand that you are very upset about the orphan works bills, but it is clear to me from your comments that you still haven’t actually read them. You are simply regurgitating Brad Holland’s propaganda. If you continue to leave comments without reading the legislation, I will start marking them as spam. You have had your say here.

]]> Comment on Good timing: New draft orphan works legislation released by Britt Griswold http://mollykleinman.com/2008/04/22/good-timing-new-draft-orphan-works-legislation-released/#comment-79 Britt Griswold Fri, 02 May 2008 13:25:22 +0000 http://mollykleinman.com/2008/04/22/good-timing-new-draft-orphan-works-legislation-released/#comment-79 You claim the the "LACK OF IDENTIFYING INFORMATION" language is enough to protect Artist rights is completely nullified for practical enforcement purposes by other provisions of the bill that provide extremely easy defenses for those that wish to break infringement laws. Without a really big stick in court cases, artists and defenseless in being able to practically (re: economically) defend their rights. This legislation removes the really big stick. Also, almost all my clients are non-profits. By eliminating penalties for them, the law would eliminate all leverage for me to have them comply with copyright law and fair compensation for the art they used and the lawyer fees I incur to track them down and take them to court. The simple defense offered in the law for all reasonably smart infringers nullifies my ability to bring them to justice. You claim the the “LACK OF IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” language is enough to protect Artist rights is completely nullified for practical enforcement purposes by other provisions of the bill that provide extremely easy defenses for those that wish to break infringement laws. Without a really big stick in court cases, artists and defenseless in being able to practically (re: economically) defend their rights. This legislation removes the really big stick. Also, almost all my clients are non-profits. By eliminating penalties for them, the law would eliminate all leverage for me to have them comply with copyright law and fair compensation for the art they used and the lawyer fees I incur to track them down and take them to court. The simple defense offered in the law for all reasonably smart infringers nullifies my ability to bring them to justice.

]]>