The trade group sent a wake-up call to the photofinishing industry when, in 1999, it sued Kmart Corp., alleging that the discount store violated federal copyright law by copying images without the permission of the copyright owners.

In 2000, Kmart settled the case by paying $100,000 and agreeing to implement procedures to guard against the unlawful copying of professional photos.

...

Watson said the manager of the photo department "felt" that three of the photos were possibly taken professionally. "I offered to sign anything, but there was just no way around it for them," Watson said. "They were not going to print them.

Decius Writes:
Man, I hate this crap. People that work behind the counter at Kinkos and Walmart do not understand copyright law and they are not well equiped to make spot judgements about what is and is not illegal. The result is that copyright enforcement consists of "I think you look like a punk kid so I'm not going to copy this." As a rule, I don't use Kinkos anymore because everytime I go in there I have some busybody trying to prevent me from doing business with them.

The absolute most annoying case was when I was required (by law) to make color photocopies of a government ID and the idiot at Kinkos insisted that I was commiting a crime and threatened to call the police.

There is a fundamental policy flaw in this, but I'm not sure where to pin it. The government has never required cash register clerks at these outlets to act as judge, jury, and executioner for copyright law. These companies have gotten sued by copyright owners who were not satisfied with actually suing the person who violated their copyright, but wanted to go after someone with big pockets (very honorable, indeed). The companies settled, partially because its cheaper then a suit, and partially because they didn't have the forsight to go through with a suit.

There ought to be a law which limits the liability of printing services.

SignOnSanDiego.com - Snap judgments

I'm quoting the story but I'm linking to Lessig's response to the story, which which links to the story.

] While Fraser has written more than 150 songs, continuing
] royalties from radio and TV use of two compositions --
] "All Right Now" and "Every Kinda People" (first recorded
] by Robert Palmer) -- generate most of his income. Had he
] given up his rights to those early hits, he would not
] have the resources to cover his treatment for AIDS.
]
] Such a decision might have been tragic...
]
] "No one should let artists give up their rights," he
] says.

Creative Commons kills people with AIDS

] On balance, not quite as bad a day for Grokster as I
] think a lot of people were expecting. Not a sure (or
] even a probable) victory for them by any means, but the
] Court did seem quite attuned to the effects on innovation
] of whatever liability rule it ultimately adopts.

Lawyer on the Grokster hearing

] Why is this search different?
]
] This Yahoo! Search service finds content across the Web
] that has a Creative Commons license. While most stuff you
] find on the web has a full copyright, this search helps
] you find content published by authors that want you to
] share or reuse it, under certain conditions. Learn
] more...

Yahoo! Creative Commons Search

] News agency Agence France Presse has sued Google Inc.,
] alleging the Web search leader includes AFP's photos,
] news headlines and stories on its news site without
] permission.

robots.txt, anyone? AFP is making a legal problem out of a technical issue. If they don't want their content to be included in search engines and aggregators, there is a time tested technical solution to this problem. You say "no", only you do not say "no" with a lawsuit, you say "no" in a text file the machines can understand.

This is bullshit that can only result in bad law.

CNN.com - News agency suing Google - Mar 19, 2005

] The ASCAP license is only the tip of the iceberg: there
] are also comparable licenses for BMI and SESAC, two other
] performing rights organizations; mechanical rights from
] the Harry Fox Agency, _and_ a "master use license" to be
] negotiated with the record labels for each track. The
] latter can be under any terms the label chooses, and they
] can refuse you outright.

ASCAP only has the right to license public performance of non-dramatic works. This is outside the scope of PROs. It is not a performance in the manor a "stream" is viewed, but a mechanical copy. Someone equated the "cast" part of podcast with streaming. The more knowledgeable techies know that even a stream is technically a copy of bits, but the copy prevention (legally protected from tampering via DMCA) changes the way its viewed.

Podcasts are not broadcasts, or more specificly, not public performance. If you played a podcast for a group of people in a situation outside a normal gathering of friends/family at a location such as your house (like a bar, coffee house, restaurant, hold music, a ra stream, etc), you would need a license from the respective PRO to play the podcast, regardless of how the mechanical licensing angle is resolved. However, a PRO is not able to license the mechanical copy. If a podcast was actually a "stream", it would be different. Its a different right. (Assuming your podcast contained protected works...)

Depending on the usage of the work within the podcast, it may be fair use.

Boing Boing: Wil Wheaton: So, ASCAP to *license* podcasts? Readers respond.

The parallels are unavoidable.

This op-ed by Larry Lessig was published in Wednesday's Washington Post.

Bytes and Bullets

] The two brothers who created the fantastic "This Land"
] parody -- sending up President Bush, Senator Kerry, and
] the current state of American democracy to the tune of
] "This Land is Your Land" -- have been threatened with a
] copyright lawsuit.

I like what Guthrie had to say about it:

] "This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright
] # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught
] singin it without our permission, will be mighty good
] friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it.
] Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's
] all we wanted to do."

Could that be construed as explicit licensing, a la Creative Commons?

EFF: This Land isn't your land

] The Electronic Frontier Foundation is spoiling for a
] fight, and on Wednesday it named the top 10 patents it
] wants killed, or at least redefined.
]
] The EFF said all 10 patents are in some way illegitimate
] and are being used to limit free expression.

Wired News: EFF Publishes Patent Hit List

] Tuesday, February 24 will be a day of coordinated civil
] disobedience: websites will post Danger Mouse's Grey
] Album on their site for 24 hours in protest of EMI's
] attempts to censor this work.

Well, not exactly, but lots of people are turning their web pages grey.

I didn't find this until just this morning and I don't have time to tweak up the site code. However, if you re-recommend this meme others are more likely to read it.

Grey Tuesday