<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Pixels, unlike pizzas, can only be copied, not stolen, TechDirt tells MiniMediaGuy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://minimediaguy.org/2007/12/23/pixels-unlike-pizzas-can-only-be-copied-not-stolen-techdirt-tells-minimediaguy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://minimediaguy.org/2007/12/23/pixels-unlike-pizzas-can-only-be-copied-not-stolen-techdirt-tells-minimediaguy/</link>
	<description>studying the media ecosystem</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 06:39:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: MiniMediaGuy</title>
		<link>http://minimediaguy.org/2007/12/23/pixels-unlike-pizzas-can-only-be-copied-not-stolen-techdirt-tells-minimediaguy/comment-page-1/#comment-60688</link>
		<dc:creator>MiniMediaGuy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:14:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minimediaguy.org/2007/12/23/pixels-unlike-pizzas-can-only-be-copied-not-stolen-techdirt-tells-minimediaguy/#comment-60688</guid>
		<description>Charlotte, nice to hear from you. How should the above words be applied in an era of PhotoShop -- say the Mona Lisa is painted and you assist the artist with a moustache? Too derivative and therefore a violation? How about if you substitute the face of a political leader for Mona&#039;s visage and also give s/he a Hitler moustache? Is that a political statement? And does it matter whether the altered or derived work is sold or freely circulated? These are the sorts of issues that the words of copyright law render ambiguous.

Hey, why am I thinking about this instead of bah-humbugging it!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Charlotte, nice to hear from you. How should the above words be applied in an era of PhotoShop &#8212; say the Mona Lisa is painted and you assist the artist with a moustache? Too derivative and therefore a violation? How about if you substitute the face of a political leader for Mona&#8217;s visage and also give s/he a Hitler moustache? Is that a political statement? And does it matter whether the altered or derived work is sold or freely circulated? These are the sorts of issues that the words of copyright law render ambiguous.</p>
<p>Hey, why am I thinking about this instead of bah-humbugging it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlotte Yee</title>
		<link>http://minimediaguy.org/2007/12/23/pixels-unlike-pizzas-can-only-be-copied-not-stolen-techdirt-tells-minimediaguy/comment-page-1/#comment-60411</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlotte Yee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:23:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minimediaguy.org/2007/12/23/pixels-unlike-pizzas-can-only-be-copied-not-stolen-techdirt-tells-minimediaguy/#comment-60411</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not sure the recipe analogy works well for literary works.  From the U.S. Copyright office itself:

&quot;Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection. However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection.&quot;

&quot;Protection under the copyright law (title 17 of the United States Code, section 102) extends only to “original works of authorship” . . . “Original” means merely that the author produced the work by his own intellectual effort, as distinguished from copying an existing work.&quot;

Where substantial amounts of original text are copied without attribution, I&#039;d say writers have a reason for concern, as much as if a fine art artist found their work surrepticiously copied, reproduced and sold at the Art Shack.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure the recipe analogy works well for literary works.  From the U.S. Copyright office itself:</p>
<p>&#8220;Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection. However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Protection under the copyright law (title 17 of the United States Code, section 102) extends only to “original works of authorship” . . . “Original” means merely that the author produced the work by his own intellectual effort, as distinguished from copying an existing work.&#8221;</p>
<p>Where substantial amounts of original text are copied without attribution, I&#8217;d say writers have a reason for concern, as much as if a fine art artist found their work surrepticiously copied, reproduced and sold at the Art Shack.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

