The Apple e-books litigation post #1: why did it happen at all?

Although the Apple e-books judgment is a few months old, its consequences haven't yet begun to be fully understood. Tthis judgment starts to rebalance the playing field away from bottlenecks and distributors and toward individual content creators in several fundamental ways.

To understand the significance of the judgment, it's necessary to know what it does (and doesn't) say. And it's 160 pages, so bear with me because I'll have to break this into several parts...

Three not-so-elementary tips for using pre-existing characters, my dear author...

Being the start of a new year, January 1 (yesterday) saw a whole new set of works come into the public domain. And as that happens, some authors may want to use their characters for their own purposes. But if those characters are used in multiple works and not all of them are available, you might think you can't. Certainly the rightsholders for the later works will want you to think so. Are they right? A recent judgment on Sherlock Holmes gives some insight into this far-from-elementary question.

Okay, this time I'm *really* back

You are entitled to disbelieve, but I'm really back this time. 2013 brought a ton of personal stuff: some good, some bad, some great, some awful, all huge. But just like 2013, that's in the past.

Two things became clear to me during the hiatus:

1. Writing these posts was helpful to keep me sharp. Keeping up on topics of interest and figuring out how to explain them to the world made me understand them more deeply. That's something I can build upon...
2. I've taught my Entertainment Law class at the University of Washington for 4 years and it's time to update the curriculum. The thing is, most of the topics I cover here would also be good for my students. And teaching doesn't have to be boring, and textbooks don't have to be boring either.

So here's a marker I'm throwing down right now. In 2014 I will work out first iterations of thoughts on this blog, look for comments and criticisms etc., and use those to assemble the thoughts in longer form that I'll make available as an e-book and through CreateSpace for print.

I need you to keep me honest. So if I don't do these things, hold me to them.

On with the show... and thanks for coming back.

Back after a (too) long hiatus

Wow, that was a much longer hiatus than I had ever wanted. Many apologies to those who've been checking back during the absence, many thanks for coming back now.

I'm going to start posting again, and also start working up a book that could both double as a textbook for my course (Entertainment Law at the University of Washington) and also serve a more general audience. Thoughts, input, topics you'd like to see, things you don't care about etc. requested and welcomed!

In its response to the Plaintiffs' amended complaint, Harlequin has nothing new to say

I've had a copy of the Harlequin response to the Plaintiffs' amended complaint in their motion for a class action in the e-books litigation, and I haven't been able to motivate myself to write about it for one simple reason: they had nothing new to say.

I've only found one item that even bears mentioning, and even that one can be dealt with quickly.

Two reasons museums charge for reproductions (and one consequence)

By way of The Digital Reader, I've just read an interesting article that I think misses a very important point. That point leads to two of the bigger and related themes I'll be exploring here in 2013, as well as one of their consequences.

The article, linked below, laments that many famous works of art aren't available in high-res and so they can't be used in teaching. It sets forth the reason for this as being because museums are overreaching, using their legal rights of control over the environment where these works are stored, or the license terms of their own photos and the websites where they are displayed, as a way to stop otherwise-permitted reproductions of works that would be in the public domain. (I'm oversimplifying but I don't think I'm changing the thrust of the piece; read it and make your own decisions.)

Yes, if it wasn't for copyright and the control it gives over images and reproductions the museums wouldn't be able to stop this kind of thing. But that's putting the cart before the horse.

Harlequin plaintiffs bring new allegations, improve their case

[NOTE TO READERS: It's been a while since I've posted. Thanks for coming back.]

On November 2, 2012, the authors(*) in the Harlequin class action upped their game against Harlequin. If they're wrong, they will lose their class certification request. But if they win, they will find themselves making a point that will have repercussions far beyond just e-publishing and authors.