Tim Wu, Professor, Columbia Law School kicked off with a discussion of fan content. Pulls up a fan page on Wikipedia for a fictional character in the television show "Lost" which includes copyrighted materials from the show, along with complete copies of screenplays from the show on Lostpedia. The question is, is this marketing or a copyright infringement? This is for copyright holders to decide, of course, in the instance of these materials fans are creating lots of value-add conent. The Harry Potter Lexicon was considered to be the most authoritative reference source for the many tiny details that make up the fictional world of Harry Potter and his friends. The site has not only content but opportunities to buy merchandise, so it was not entirely a work or charity. Unfortunately, his rock-star status of site creator Steve Vander Ark in the Potter groupie set has been stymied because of a copyright suit against him when he decided to pursue the publication of a print version of the reference. The fans decided to take author J.K. Rowling's side in the matter and, according to Wu, expelling him from events and online venues. This in and of itself has created a whole new stream of content discussing the case and its legalilties and social issues. Ironically, the fan site carries its own restrictive copyright statement.

Does this put a pall over fan sites in general? Author Douglas Rushkoff points out the "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" aspect of copyright holders' relationships with such products. Gigi Sohn, President and Co-Founder of Public Knowledge, points out that copyright holders for Potter are not being sincere in their intent to create an alternative work, but it's different she thinks in Europe where artists have "moral rights." Ironically she has allowed other books to be created by fans, but Wu notes that the problem was that it was useless, that it was just her work resorted. Yet Wu points out that it's largely an index of where particular terms are referenced. Matt Mason, author of The Pirate's Dilemma, notes that this is not so different from a remix of a video online. To Matt it's not about the legal decision because the author has been ostracized.

Wu sees this as a verdict by the leaders of fandom, because fans get so much from their relationship with Rowling. It becomes, if you will, a social issue as much as a copyright issue. Are authors co-opting fans, as opposed to Vander Ark's advocacy for fans? Doug points out that this forces original authors to consider what it is that they can do that's valuable. If you're still the best at what you do, then that's great, but if amateurs respect your work enough to create original works in homage to you, doesn't that need to be respected, Matt notes.

Wu returns to the Vander Ark site, he points out that Rowling and her media companies didn't care about this site until they wanted to put it online. When it was going to be a physical instantiation she got involved. In the court case, when the judge asked why she didn't do anything before, she said that it wasn't a book so she wasn't concerned. GiGi points out that nobody is going to print out a 400-page book from online materials, books have a special status because they haven't been replicated easily. Matt notes that some books that were pirated in electronic copies created a market for millions of copies in print when they were introduced in foreign markets. Yet print is a different authority, Matt argues.

Gigi notes that in some ways people still consider the Web to be the realm of amateurs, Douglas notes that books and money are both products of the printing press era. The money that we use now was invented in the Renaissance, before that there were many local currencies. (COMMENT: this is a real key point, value exchange in Web content becomes far more pesonalized and localized. Media could be called content that's fungible via central value recognition vehicles - money.). Gigi notes that at a conference Michael Eisner was caustic with Ariana Huffington because she was giving content from others for free.

Wu asks if the online world, seen as a sandbox where anything goes and things like posted transcripts are infringements, as soon as you exit it are you in the "real world" of copyright? Douglas notes that copyright is used primarily to serve corporations who can put up toll booths, the Web is where we stand a chance of restoring a non-extractive model for human production. Gigi notes that it's not an anything goes model, Google gets thousands of take-down orders from copyright holders. Matt notes that all of these online materials don't replace the experience of watching an episode of Lost on television. It depends, he notes, on whose ecosystem will be shut down. Wu notes that at the trial it was revealed that the site made USD 6,500 over serveral years. Is it really about the money? (COMMENT: Social media creates different kinds of value that can be leveraged in different contexts).

I raised the point that in many ways the online Potter lexicon would seem to be making an original work of authorship by reorganizing the content into a unique index. I think that this is the key point for such issues, is there original value being created that does not replicate an original work of authorship? Wu pointed out that at the trial on the lexicon the defendant's lawyer argued that fair use applied to protect the original work, but I think that it's really not so much fair use as taking an original work and creating something with unique value. Vander Ark completely reorganized Rowling's content: you can't read his lexicon and say that you've had the experience of reading her book, even though you may have read the large bulk of the words that were in the book. It's simply not the same experience. It is, as Matt suggested, a huge remix.

Good comment from Douglas Q&A: he was at Sony Records and people were crying because they were working for people who didn't give a hoot about music. It's not a matter of making money but rather do you care about what you're doing? Matt notes that people thinking about how we can make USD 40 billion for our shareholders instead of thinking about how they can create value. He notes that in Silicon Valley people are getting worried because you really don't need the capital that one used to need to make an idea happen. (COMMENT: this goes to the issue of what is it do you own and why? Is copyright supposed to exist to serve corporate business models or does copyright exist to ensure the distribution of valuable information and experiences? Altruism is not about doing things for free but about creating different types of value.) Douglas later noted how corporations are struggling with the concept of death, that business cycles come to an end and that this creates problems for our economies. I loved the rant, it fits in directly with what I'm writing about in Content Nation, it is necessary for publisher to recognize that how people consume value moves on and that they need to adapt to that reality.

This was a really good panel that raised really good questions, but at the end of the day it would seem that the key problem is that Rowling and her publishers didn't address the use of materials online first. The print version is of little consequence if the essential value of the content reorganization isn't addressed first. Authors need to recognize that unless their original works are really being hurt directly by direct replication, then copyright is not the tool that they should be using to further their well-being as a source of creativity.

Labels: copyright, copyright clearance center, intellectual property