INSIGHTS ON PBS HAWAIʻI: Intellectual Property in the Digital World | Program

INSIGHTS ON PBS HAWAIʻI: Intellectual Property in the Digital World | Program


PEOPLE POST PICTURES VIDEOS
SONGS AND OTHER PROPERTY TO FACEBOOK TWITTER, INSTAGRAM
AND OTHER DIGITAL MEDIA PLATFORMS EVERY DAY. AND MANY OF THOSE POSTS ARE SHARED SOME, HOWEVER ARE USED OR STOLEN BY
A COMPETITOR. A RIVAL OR SOMEONE YOU DON’T
EVEN KNOW. WHAT ARE YOUR RIGHTS?
WHAT RECOURSE DO YOU HAVE? IF ANY?
HOW DO YOU PROTECT YOUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE
DIGITAL WORLD? TONIGHT’S LIVE BROADCAST
AND LIVESTREAM OF INSIGHTS ON PBS HAWAIʻI START NOW. [INTRO MUSIC] ALOHA AND WELCOME TO INSIGHTS
ON PBS HAWAIʻI…I’M LARA YAMADA.
POSTING CREATIVE WORK OR A SELFIE OR ANYTHING YOU OWN TO
THE INTERNET CAN BE A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD.
ON ONE HAND, IT’S A WAY TO GET YOUR WORK SEEN AND HEARD OR A
WAY TO SHARE SOMETHING FUN. ON THE OTHER HAND, WHATEVER
YOU HAVE POSTED COULD BE RIPE FOR THE TAKING BY ONLINE
PIRATES, BE THEY COMMERCIAL OR NOT.
WHAT PROTECTIONS DO YOU HAVE? OUR GUESTS TONIGHT INCLUDE
TWO ATTORNEYS WHO WILL ADDRESS THE LEGAL ISSUES OF
POSTING PROPRIETARY WORK ONLINE, AND TWO FUTURISTS,
WHO ARE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT TECHNOLOGY AND ETHICS.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR PARTICIPATION IN TONIGHT’S
SHOW. YOU CAN EMAIL, CALL OR TWEET YOUR QUESTIONS. AND
YOU’LL FIND A LIVE STREAM OF THIS PROGRAM AT PBSHAWAII.ORG
AND THE PBS HAWAIʻI FACEBOOK PAGE.
NOW, TO OUR GUESTS. JENIFER SUNRISE WINTER IS A
PROFESSOR IN THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATIONS AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAIʻI AT MĀNOA. HER RESEARCH
ADDRESSES POLICY AND ETHICS RELATED TO EMERGING
TECHNOLOGIES SUCH AS BIG DATA, ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE, AND THE INTERNET OF THINGS.
BILL MEINKE-LAU IS AN OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
TECHNOLOGIST AT UH MĀNOA, WHERE HE HELPS TO BUILD OPEN
RESOURCES ON THE WEB. JULIA BROTMAN IS AN
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEY WITH SETTLE MEYER
LAW. SHE PROTECTS HER CLIENTS’ BUSINESS AND
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INTERESTS.
AND MIKALIKA NAHOLOWAA IS AN ATTORNEY FOR MICROSOFT
CORPORATION. SHE IS A TRADEMARK/INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY EXPERT AND CAN ALSO SPEAK TO NATIVE HAWAIIAN
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONCERNS AND PROTOCOLS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.
SUCH AN INTERESTING TOPIC AND WE’RE TALKING ABOUT SO POLICE
COMMISSIONAL TO EVERYBODY THESE DAYS.
ALREADY ALREADY SO APPLICABLE TO EVERYBODY THESE DAYS.
LET’S TALK ABOUT, IN YOUR PERSPECTIVE, HOW BIG OF A
CONCERN THIS IS. MISAPPROPRIATION, PRIVACY OF
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ON THE INTERNET.
WHAT IS YOUR TAKE HOW BIG THE SCOPE THIS IS, HOW BIG OF A
PROBLEM? I DON’T KNOW IF YOU WOULD
ALWAYS WANT TO PHRASE IT AS A PROBLEM.
DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT CREATORS AND EVERY DAY USERS
SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT. BE AWARE OF IT.
IT DOESN’T NECESSARILY HAVE TO COME WITH THAT NEGATIVE
CONNOTATION. I THINK.
BUT THERE’S A LOT THAT PEOPLE SHOULD PROBABLY KNOW THAT
THEY DON’T KNOW JUST IN TERMS OF WHO OWNS THE CONTENT YOU’RE
CREATING, WHETHER YOU’RE MUSIC CREATOR OR JUST A PERSON
WITH A PHONE TAKING PHOTOS.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN POSTING THINGS ON LINE, SENDING THEM
TO OTHER PEOPLE. ON THE CLOUD.
PEOPLE DON’T THINK ABOUT THAT TOUGH.
MISUSE OF BIG DATA. WHO CONTROLS THAT AND DO YOU
LOSE THE ABILITY TO REIGN IT BACK IN IF YOU DIDN’T MEAN TO
LET IT GO OUT THERE THE WAY THAT YOU DID.
>>YOUR THOUGHTS?>>I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY.
WE OFTEN DON’T REALLY UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES
OF WHAT WE’RE DOING. SO WHEN WE’RE SHARING
SOMETHING ON LINE, WE MAY NOT READ THOROUGHLY THROUGH THE
AGREEMENTS. OUR WORK MAY BE REPURPOSED IN
MANY WAYS. VERY HARD TO KEEP TRACK OF
ONCE IT IS. I ALSO THINK IT MIGHT BE GOOD
TO OPEN WITH MENTIONING THAT LAW IS ALWAYS STRUGGLING TO
KEEP UP WITH VERY RAPID TECHNICAL CHANGES ACROSS AN
ARRAY OF DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS.
>>THINK THE WAY THEY PUT IT, MISAPPROPRIATING PIRACY,
TALKING ABOUT THE SHARING OF INFORMATION.
HOW WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SHARE IT.
DEFINITELY A LOT OF DIFFERENT CAMPS AS TO HOW WE SHOULD BE
THINKING ABOUT AND HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.
>>YEAH I THINK THESE DAYS, TECHNOLOGY IS AMAZING WHAT
WE’RE ABLE DO. SHARING PHOTOS OF LOVED ONE,
KIDS, REACHING BROAD AUDIENCES, INDIVIDUAL
CREATOR IT’S CAN REACH SO MANY PEOPLE QUICKLY WITH WHAT
SEEMS LIKE BASIC TECHNOLOGY, DIDN’T EXIST TEN OR 20 YEARS
AGO. BUT THEN YOU GET INTO THE
DOMAIN OF COPYRIGHT AND WHERE DOES THE LAW COME IN AND
ENFORCE CERTAIN THINGS. IT GETS A LITTLE BIT TRICKY.
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT WHAT YOU PUT ON THOSE, ON
LINE PLATFORMS, LINKED IN, FACEBOOK, TWITTER, WHAT HAVE
YOU, YOU ACTUALLY GIVE A COPY OF EVERYTHING FULL RIGHTS TO
THOSE COMPANIES THAT OWN THE PLATFORM.
SO WE NEED TO BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT NOT ONLY WHO MIGHT BE
REUSING INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE, BUTS WILL WHAT SORT OF THE
CORPORATE INTERESTS ARE IN WHAT WE’RE SHARING ON THEIR
PLATFORM.>>THAT’S REALLY GOOD POINT.
I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE DON’T THINK ABOUT THAT.
QUESTION ASKED, CAN PEOPLE ACTUALLY COPYRIGHT YOUR OWN
WORK? I GUESS THAT SORT OF FALLS
INTO WHAT YOU RELINQUISH AS FAR AS YOUR RIGHTS, WHETHER
YOU KNEW IT OR NOT.>>ACTUALLY JUST KIND OF
STEPPING BACK TO THAT. WHAT ARE PEOPLE’S
EXPECTATIONS? SO WHAT ARE THE EXPECTATIONS
WHEN THEY’RE THE ONES PUTTING CONTENT OUT THERE?
WHAT ARE THEIR EXPECTATIONS WHEN THEY’RE CONSUMING
CONTENT? INTERESTINGLY, I THINK OFTEN,
EASY TO HAVE DIFFERENT EXPECTATIONS DEPENDING WHICH
HAT YOU’RE WEARING. PUT SOMETHING ON LINE, IT’S
REALLY COMMON FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE A EXPECTATIONS AROUND
CONTROL. DIFFER FROM HOW THEY ACTUALLY
CONSUME THAT CONTENT. REALLY INTERESTING HOW, AS
THE LAW IS CATCHING UP, BIG PART THAT HAVE WE THE SOCIETY
IS CATCHING UP. WHAT OUR EXPECTATIONS ARE
HERE. A LOT OF WHAT WE DO ON LINE
VERY DIRECT ANALOGS TO OFF LINE WAYS OF STORING AND
SHARING INFORMATION. BUT THERE ARE ASPECTS THAT ARE
NET NEW. WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT
THAT MEANS AND RIGHT NOW, BEFORE WE CAN REALLY EXPECT
THE LAW TO GET IT RIGHT, WE HAVE TO KEEP HAVING
DIALOGUES. WHAT ARE YOUR EXPECTATIONS?
DEPENDING WHERE YOUR EA YOU’RE FROM, CULTURAL
CONTEXT, ADDS ANOTHER LAYER OF COMPLEXITY BECAUSE
EXPECTATIONS ACTUALLY DIFFER.
>>LOOKING UP, I THINK DMCA. DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT
ACT. NOTIFICATION OF I’M SURE
YOU’LL BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN IT BETTER THAN I WOULD.
LITTLE OUTDATED.>>YEAH.
THE DNCA, I FORGET WHAT YEAR, I’M BLANKING ON YEAR.
’98 OR SOMETHING. 90s.
>>Lara: EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE WHAT THAT IS AND HOW THAT IS
SUPPOSED TO HELP, BUT IT’S A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED THAN
THAT TODAY.>>YEAH, SO WHEN IT WAS
ENACTED, THE IDEA WAS, OKAY, THIS IS GOING TO BRING
COPYRIGHT LAW INTO THIS NEW MODERN DIGITAL ERA.
AND I THINK WHAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO, PROBABLY THE
NOTICE AND TAKE DOWN.>>HEY, SOMEBODY COPYRIGHTED
MY STUFF. WHAT IS MY RIGHT?
WHAT CAN I DO?>>YEAH.
SO THE SAFE HARBOR PROVISION IS DESIGNED PROTECT COMPANIES
LIKE GOOGLE, FOR EXAMPLE WHO MIGHT BE IN THEIR SEARCH
RESULTS, IF THERE ARE IMAGES THAT ARE COMING UP THAT ARE
COPYRIGHTED, THAT ARE OWNED BY OTHER PEOPLE, IS THAT
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, GOOGLE ISN’T GIVING, — ISN’T
CREATING THE ACTUAL REPLICA. SAFE HARBOR SAYS.
GOOGLE IS JUST KIND OF THIS THIS PASSIVE PLATFORM THAT
ALLOWS THIS PERSON WHO IS INFRINGING TO POST THIS THING
AND PUT TO OUT THERE. BUT GOOGLE WHO TAKE A STEP
BACK AN SAY, OH, NO, WE COULDN’T CONTROL THAT.
WE HAD NO WAY TO JUMP IN AND SAY, NO, THAT PERSON CAN’T BE
POSTING THAT INFRINGING PHOTO IN THIS EXAMPLE.
>>Lara: GOOD THING OR BAD THING, RIGHT?
IF YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT SHARING.
>>GOOGLE, IF YOU’RE THE PERSON — GOES BACK TO,
AGAIN, EXPECTATIONS. HOW DOES THIS ALIGN TO OFF
LINE MODES OF COMMUNICATING AND DEALING WITH CREATIVE
WORK, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND WHAT AS ASPECT DOESN’T AND
WHERE ARE PEOPLE EXPECTATIONS.
BIG PART OF THE DNCA, LOOK, NOW THAT WE’RE ON LINE, A LOT
OF PEOPLE DIDN’T REALIZE THAT DEPENDING ON HOW YOU’RE
SHARING ON LINE, THERE’S A THIRD-PARTY IN THE MIX.
AND A PLATFORM. GOOGLE AS A PLATFORM.
SO WHAT IS THE EXPECTATION AROUND THE PLATFORM IS GOING
TO DO TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS.>>WHAT IS THE EXPECTATION?
ONE OF THE FRUSTRATING THINGS I’VE COME UP AGAINST IN MY
PRACTICE RECENTLY, DEALING WITH ACTUALLY AMAZON.
SO NOTICE AND TAKE DOWN DNCA REQUIRES, THESE SERVICE
PROVIDERS AND THEY SAY, OKAY, WE’RE NOT GOING TO HOLD YOU
ACCOUNTABLE BUT IF SOMEONE COME AND COMPLAINS AND SAYS,
HEY, THAT PERSON IS INFRINGING, THAT’S MY THING.
NEED TO TAKE IT DOWN. THEY NEED TO HAVE THIS LIKE
MECHANISM OF COMMUNICATION SO THE PERSON WHO IS BEING
INFRINGED HAS A WAY TO TELL THE INFRINGER YOU NEED TO TAKE
MY THING DOWN. SO I DEAL WITH THIS ON AMAZON
A LOT RECENTLY. SOME OF MY CLIENTS CLOTHING
BRANDS. FABRIC DESIGNERS.
IT DOESN’T ALWAYS WORK THE WAY THAT IT SHOULD.
WE’VE BEEN REALLY FRUSTRATED. GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE.
>>WE HAVE — OKAY. CONFIDENTIALITY.
>>Lara: DON’T SAY NAMES. RIGHT.
FABRIC DESIGNER WHO THEIR WORK IS PROTECTED.
THEY HAVE THESE REGISTERED COPYRIGHTS.
THERE’S ALSO TRADEMARKS ISSUES THAT COME IN.
TRADEMARKS, THAT’S SEPARATE ISSUE.
DNCA IS ONLY DEALING WITH COPYRIGHT ISSUES.
>>Lara: PEOPLE HAVE THINK OF DIFFERENT ASPECTS.
>>DIFFERENT THINGS. OVERLAP.
SO IT’S HARD FOR US TO LODGE A COMPLAINT, DNCA, NOTICE AND
TAKE DOWN PROCESS, WHEN OUR ISSUE DOESN’T FIT INTO THE BOX
THAT AMAZON IS REALLY — AS A FORM, THEY SAY, OKAY, WHAT IS
THE INFRINGING WORK? COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION
NUMBER. ET CETERA.
SEND THAT IN. BUT OUR ISSUE GOES FURTHER
THAN THE SCOPE OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE ARE ABLE
TO GIVE THEM. THEN WE HAVE NO WAY TO GET TO
THAT ACTUAL INFRINGER WE DON’T KNOW WHO THE SELLER IS.
ONLY WAY TO GET THERE IS THROUGH THE FORM THAT AMAZON
LETS US FILL OUT. IF THEY LOOK AT IT AND SAY, OH,
NO, THAT’S NOT INFRINGING. WE DON’T SEE THE TRADEMARK
ISSUE HERE. THE TRADEMARK ISSUE IS STILL
THERE. WE HAVE NO WAY TO FIND THAT
PERSON. AND TRACK IT DOWN.
>>Lara: 2016 OR SO, HAD SOME NUMBERS ON GOOGLE.
NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS THEY GOT.
NOTIFICATIONS THEY GOT. SOMETHING LIKE CLOSE TO A
BILLION. IN THAT ONE YEAR.
CONTEXT FOR PEOPLE. MAKES PEOPLE SIT THERE AND GO,
WE HAVE RIGHTS. WE HAVE RIGHTS.
WHAT DO WE DO? I THINK PEOPLE ARE JUST SORT
OF LOST IN ALL OF THIS.>>OTHER THING TO THINK ABOUT,
ONCE THESE PLATFORMS GOT BIG AND LOTS OF PEOPLE START
SHARING MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF PIECES OF MEDIA ON THEM,
PLATFORMS WERE FORCED TO, LOBBIED, TO GET THEM TO COME
UP WITH AUTOMATED WAYS OF DEFECTING WHEN THERE MIGHT BE
A VALID DNCA CLAIM. WHAT HAPPENS A LOT OF TIMES,
CONTENT MIGHT FALL UNDER FAIR USE.
BUT THAT’S BEEN TAKEN DOWN AUTOMATICALLY.
UP TO THE PERSON OR THE CREATOR POTENTIALLY ARE USING
SOMETHING, BUT FAIRLY, TO PETITION AFTER THE CONTENT
WAS TAKEN DOWN. REALLY TEDIOUS BACK AND FORTH
PROCESS. PUT INDIVIDUAL REMIXERS AND
REUSE CONTENT AT A LOSS FIGHTING AGAINST AUTOMATED
SYSTEM ON A PLATFORM. THAT’S BEEN SUPPORTED BY
ORIGINAL AUTHORS OR WRITES HOLDERS.
>>Lara: DEFINITIONS. DEFINE FAIR USE FOR PEOPLE.
HEAR A LOT OF. HAVEN’T QUITE WRAPPED THEIR
BRAIN AROUND IT.>>MOST LAWYERS HAVE A HARD
TIME WRAPPING THEIR BRAIN AROUND IT.
IT MEANS DIFFERENT THINGS IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS WHICH IS
IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER ALSO. COPYRIGHT LAW, FAIR USE, IS
DIFFERENT THAN TRADEMARK LAW. FAIR USE.
>>Lara: WHAT MIGHT THE AVERAGE PERSON COPYRIGHT.
CERTAIN CREATIVE WORK. FAIR USE, NOT RIGHT, BUT
DEFENSE HOW YOU MIGHT HAVE USED SOMETHING.
MY CASE, TALK ABOUT CREATIVE LICENSES WHICH ARE TOOLS TO
PUT ON YOUR WORK TO MAKE THEM MORE SHAREABLE.
TELL PEOPLE HOW THEY CAN USE THEM.
THAT GOES A LONG WAY AS OPPOSED TO FOLKS JUST LIKE
TRYING TO REUSE CONTENT AND THEN SORT OF HAVING TO RELY ON
DEFENSE FAIR USE. MY USE WAS FAIR.
ALWAYS FALLS UNDER CERTAIN LEVEL SUBJECTIVITY.
NOT INFRINGING USE OF RIGHTS TO COMMERCIAL USE OF WORK OR
GIVING AWAY OF COMMERCIAL INTERESTS AND VARIOUS THINGS.
RIGHTS WHICH ARE SORT OF FORWARD LEANING AND FAIR USE,
MORE OF A DEFENSE.>>JUST GOING TO JUMP IN AND
TO WHAT HE SAID. AUTOMATIC TAKE DOWNS.
A LOT OF COMPLAINTS FROM CREATORS, INDIVIDUAL
CREATORS, FELT IMBALANCE. ONE HAND, DCMA, ULTIMATELY
GAVE CORPORATIONS MORE POWER BECAUSE THEY’RE THE ONES WHO
HAVE THE TOOLS DO THIS. ALSO THE ONES WHO HAVE THE
MONEY TO HIRE LEGAL TEAMS. SO THE QUESTION NOW, THAT I
THINK WE MIGHT WANT TO GET LITTLE BIT AS WELL, BILLY AND
OTHERS COULD CHIME IN. REALLY WHAT CAN THE
INDIVIDUAL DO IN THIS SORT OF GROWTH OF POWER?
>>COMPLICATED. I THINK WHAT YOU’RE GETTING
AT, IT’S COMPLICATED BECAUSE THERE’S ASPECTS THAT SOCIAL
AND LEGAL LEVEL, WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT NO ONE IS
OVERPOLICING AS WELL. WHICH OFTEN THINK ABOUT THIS
CONCEPT OF TAKING THINGS DOWN TO POLICING YOUR RIGHTS.
GOING OUT AND MAKING SURE WHAT PEOPLE ARE ABUSING YOUR
RIGHTS ON LINE OR ANY OTHER CONTEXT YOU’RE OUT THERE
PUTTING THEM ON NOTICE. WHEN THEY’RE DOING THAT.
ASKING THEM REMEDY THEIR BEHAVIOR.
YOU’RE SAYING THERE IS A CONCERN SOCIALLY ABOUT THE
OVERPOLICING FAIR TO SAY ALL OF US HAVE TO BE ENGAGED IN THE
CONVERSATION ABOUT GETTING IT RIGHT.
DMCA REFLECTING LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE MOMENT IN TIME IN
WHICH IT WAS PUT FORWARD. TOOLS HAVE COME A LONG WAY.
DNCA VERY USEFUL. YOU HAVE TECHNOLOGY THAT
ENABLES TONS OF SHARING. PEOPLE LOVE — STUDIES OUT
THERE SHOW THAT WHEN PEOPLE CAN’T GET THE CONTENT THEY
EXPECT, EVEN A DELAY OF HALF A SECOND, THEY GET
FRUSTRATED. WE’RE ENJOYING BENEFITS OF
THE PLATFORM. ENJOYING BENEFITS OF MASS
SHARING THAT ENABLES. IT’S HOW THEN DO WE NAVIGATE ALL OF
THESE ISSUES. ALSO NEED TO BE ENGAGED.
LAWS, BENEFITS WHEN WE ALL HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS.
FRANKLY UNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHERE WE ARE TODAY AND WILLING
TO ITERATE. OVER TIME, LAW ABSOLUTELY
WILL HAVE TO ITERATE AND EVOLVE AND WE DON’T HAVE TO
WAIT FOR THE LAW TO EVOLVE IF THE LAW IS NOT REQUIRING
ENOUGH OF US AND WE HAVE MORE THAT WE CAN DO.
WE’RE TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW PLATFORMS, 90s,
TECHNOLOGY ADVANCED EASIER FOR A PLATFORM.
LOTS TO NEGOTIATE. WE ALL HAVE TO BE ENGAGED IN IT.
IT IS COMPLICATED BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE AS FRUSTRATED WHEN
A PLATFORM OVERPOLICES AS THEY ARE WHEN THEY
UNDERPOLICE. GETTING THAT RIGHT AND
WALKING THAT LINE IS EASIER SAID THAN DONE.
>>Lara: SEVERAL INTERESTING QUESTIONS.
UNDERSTAND THIS. TERM PEOPLE WANT TO GET RIGHT.
BIG ISLAND, CAN YOU DEFINE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
HOW DO YOU DEFINE, ANOTHER LIKE BUZZ TERM EVERYBODY
HEARS ABOUT. CAN’T QUITE WRAP THEIR BRAIN
AROUND.>>INTANGIBLE PROPERTY.
INTANGIBLE THINGS. COPYRIGHT, BREAK DOWN.
TRADEMARK, PATENTS KIND OF THE BIG THREE THAT PEOPLE
THINK OF WHEN WE TALK ABOUT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
COPYRIGHTS –>>PEACE OF ARTWORK?
>>IT’S THE ARTWORK BUT IT’S NOT THE CANVAS THAT’S ARTWORK
IS ON, BUT IT’S THAT WORK OF ART AND WHAT IT REALLY IS WE
SAY IT’S A BUNDLE OF STICKS AND IT’S ALL OF THESE
DIFFERENT RIGHTS AND SO ONE STICK IS THE RIGHT TO
REPRODUCE THAT WORK. ANOTHER STICK, IS THE RIGHT TO
DISPLAY THAT WORK. ANOTHER STICK IS THE RIGHT TO
ADAPT OR CREATE DERIVITIVE WORK.
THAT’S AWARE A LOT OF THE FAIR USE QUESTIONS COME IN.
MAKING ADAPTATIONS. YOU’RE INFRINGING EVEN IF
YOU’RE NOT JUST DIRECTLY COPYING SOMETHING AND
REPRODUCING IT. IF YOU’RE INSPIRED BY
SOMETHING, DEPENDING ON HOW INSPIRED YOU ARE BY IT, YOU
MIGHT ACTUALLY JUST BE INFRINGING THAT RIGHT TO
ADAPT AND CREATE DERIVITIVE WORK.
WE HAVE COPYRIGHTS. EXPRESSION, IDEA, THAT ARE
FIXED IN A TANGIBLE MEDIUM. WE TALK ABOUT ART.
VISUAL ART. SCULPTURES.
FABRIC ART. ARCHITECTURE, CHOREOGRAPHY,
PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT.>>Lara: OPENS UP INTERESTING
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGY WE HAVE TODAY,
AND WHAT MEANS. KIND OF LEADS INTO THE
DISCUSSION EARLIER ABOUT AI AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
AND THANKS ARE CREATED BASED ON ALGORITHM.
KIND OF GOES BEYOND SORT OF HUMAN BEING IN A SENSE.
EVEN THOUGH OBVIOUSLY INTENT BY A HUMAN BEING.
WHO OWNS COPYRIGHT ON ARTWORK OR CREATIVE PIECES GENERATED
BY AI OR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE?
ANYBODY WANT TO TRY TO TAKE A STAB AT THAT ONE?
>>I WOULD LOVE TO. THAT’S A GREAT QUESTION.
ONE THING I NOTICED, TEACHING MY CLASSES, RECENTLY,
STUDENTS SHOWING ME AMAZING MUSIC OR EVEN SOME POEMS THAT
AI CREATED. A LOT OF COMPANIES MARKETING
MUSIC THAT’S CREATED BY AI. WHAT THEY’VE DONE IS GONE BACK
TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN THAT IS WORKS THAT ARE FREELY USABLE,
AND ARE NO LONGER HELD UNDER COPYRIGHT, CLASSICAL MUSIC
FOR EXAMPLE, TRAINED AI TO CREATE ITS OWN.
THAT BECOMES SOMETHING THAT THEY WANTS TO, THEY WANT TO
THEN HAVE AS A CORPORATE CREATION.
ANSWER IS NO ONE KNOWS BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, I THINK, DIVERT TO
THE LAWYER HERE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS REALLY,
THERE’S NOTHING TO SAY, THAT TECHNOLOGY OR FAMOUS EXAMPLE
OF THE ANIMAL MONKEY TOOK THE PHOTO, THAT PANNED OUT TO BE
THAT ESSENTIALLY, YOU HAD TO BE A HUMAN OR A COOPERATION IN
ORDER TO HAVE THESE RIGHTS.>>Lara: THAT WAS PUBLIC
DOMAIN?>>MONKEY PRESSED TRIGGER ON
THE CAMERA. TOOK THE PHOTO.
BUT IT WASN’T HIS CAMERA. AND THE PHOTOGRAPHER IN SOME
WAY HAD SET UP THE SHOT FOR IT TO BE POSSIBLE.
BECAUSE THE PHOTOGRAPHER DIDN’T ACTUALLY DO THE WORK,
CREATES IT, DEBATABLE.>>Lara: INTERESTING.
WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? WHEN IT COMES TO THINKING
ABOUT THINGS LIKE AI AND ALGORITHMS AND THINGS THAT
ARE GENERATED BY SOMETHING THAT MAY BE NOT IN THE
IMMEDIATE HUMAN BEING?>>ONE INTERESTING AREA WHERE
THAT’S COMING INTO PLAY. WITH FACIAL RECOGNITION.
SORT OF MASSIVE DATABASE OF PEOPLE’S FACES.
NOW, THERE ARE ALGORITHMS THAT CAN RECREATE WHAT A
PERSON MIGHT LOOK LIKE. NOT ACTUALLY SORT OF A REAL
PERSON. SO IT’S NOT A REAL PERSON, NOT
REPRESENTING AN INDIVIDUAL AND NOT CREATED BY AN
INDIVIDUAL. TECHNICALLY, MIGHT ACTUALLY
IN BE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. SEEING AREA THERE MIGHT BE
REGENERATIVE PUBLIC DOMAIN ACTUALLY GROWING AS OPPOSED
TO WORK THAT FALLS OUT OF COPYRIGHT.
WITH EVERY WORK THAT ENTERS THE PUBLIC DOMAIN NOT UNDER
COPYRIGHT. LIKE IMMEDIATELY.
>>Lara: I GOT THE WHIZ GUY. PUBLIC DOMAIN.
DEFINE THAT. WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE
UNDERSTANDING THESE TERMS. DEFINE THAT.
I MAY DEFER TO THE LAWYER.>>YOU GET PAID EXTRA.
>>AREA OF WORK. ENTER PUBLIC DOMAIN AFTER
COPYRIGHT HAD EXPIRED OR IN THE U.S., IT’S WORK CREATED BY
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY OR PERSON.
IN LINE OF THEIR WORK.>>ALSO, INDIVIDUAL CAN THEN
GIVE THAT TO PUBLIC DOMAIN AS WELL.
THEY CAN — IS THAT NOT CORRECT?
>>TOOLS.>>ESSENTIALLY, I DON’T KNOW.
YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO SAY IT BETTER.
RELINQUISH THEIR RIGHTS. BECAUSE THEY WANT IT TO BE
USED IN PUBLIC DOMAN.>>TOOL CALLED CCO, PLACING
WORK, RELINQUISHING ALL RIGHTS TO YOUR WORK AND
PLACING IT AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN. NOT ACTUALLY IN THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN. VERY CLOSE.
>>EFFECT, PUBLIC DOMAIN, YOU CAN USE IT WITHOUT FEAR OF
SOMEONE IS GOING TO COME AND CLAIM THAT THEY MADE IT.
STOP WHAT YOU’RE DOING. DO ANYTHING AS LONG AS YOU
DON’T SAY YOU CREATED IT.>>Lara: I WASN’T SURE IF I
STOPPED YOU IN YOUR TRAIN OF THOUGHT THERE.
SO QUESTION TOO. FROM SOMEONE.
ANONYMOUS. CALLER WANTS KNOW, IF AN OPEN
SELLING PROPERTY, OWNER SELLS SAME PROPERTY ON LINE, AS
SOLD, NOT SOLD, CAN AN OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SUE THAT
BROKER?>>IS THAT POSSIBLE?
>>I KNOW. WE’RE TESTING YOU GUYS.
IF AN OWNER IS SELLING PROPERTY, THAT A BROKER
ADVERTISES THAT SAME PROPERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE, ADVERTISES
IT, AS SOLD. BECAUSE THEY’RE KIND OF MAYBE
TRYING TO GAME THE SYSTEM. EVEN THOUGH IT’S NOT SOLD.
CAN THE OWNER, ACTUAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SUE THE BROKER OR
PERSON WENT ON THERE AND SAID, HEY, IT’S SOLD?
>>WELL, YOU COULD SUE ANYONE FOR ANYTHING.
THAT’S MY LAWYERLY ANSWER. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY? LITTLE BIT OF A LEFT TURN.
>>Lara: GET BACK TO THE OTHER QUESTION.
LITTLE MORE INVOLVED HERE. ANSWER IS YOU CAN SUE ANYONE.
SO TALK ABOUT TRANSFERRING DATA.
DOES ANYTHING CHANGE WHEN WE’RE TALKING ABOUT
TRANSFERRING DATA BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF VESSELS
OR, SAY IF IT’S, ARE THERE DIFFERENT TYPES OF
PROTECTIONS IF IT’S TRANSFERRED IN A CERTAIN WAY?
DOES THAT GO BACK THE WHOLE THIRD-PARTY THING?
HOW DO YOU SORT OF, GIVE US AN EXAMPLE.
>>OH, GOSH, LET’S SEE. TRANSFERRING RIGHTS OR LIKE
TRANSFERRING — ACTUAL, CAN YOU PROTECT IT.
IF YOU’RE TRANSFERRING DATA, SAY FROM, ONE PLATFORM TO
ANOTHER. OR FROM, SAY, FROM, SAY,
FACEBOOK TO ANOTHER TYPE OF A SITE.
IS THERE A WAY WITHIN THAT TRANSFERRING PROCESS THAT YOU
CAN BETTER ASSURE THAT YOU’RE PROTECTING THAT DATA?
HOW DOES THAT, OR YOU REALLY JUST OPENING YOURSELF UP ONCE
YOU START TO MOVE THAT PROPERTY AROUND?
>>COPYRIGHT ABILITIES OF DATA ITSELF, FACTS, SORT OF
CONTESTABLE.>>YOU WANT TO THINK ABOUT, I
THINK MAYBE WHAT YOU’RE SORT OF GETTING AT, OR MAYBE NOT,
I’LL SAY IT ANYWAY, IF YOU’RE, SAY YOU’RE ON TWITTER, YOU SEE
SOMETHING SOMEONE ELSE POSTED, IT’S FUNNY, YOU WANT
TO REPOST IT ON TO TWITTER OR FACEBOOK, SOMETHING LIKE
THAT, WHAT RIGHTS ARE IMPLICATED.
WHAT DO YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT?
IS THAT KIND OF THE QUESTION?>>Lara: SURE.
>>SO THIS IS I THINK WE’RE KIND OF TALKING ABOUT THIS
EARLIER. PEOPLE DON’T ALWAYS THINK
ABOUT WHO OWNS, LIKE WHEN WE AS EVERY DAY SOCIAL MEDIA
USERS, ARE INFRINGING. AND WE KIND OF ASSUME IF
SOMETHING IS OUT THERE, ASSUMES WE CAN REPOST IT OR DO
THINGS WITH IT. NOT NECESSARILY TRUE.
WE FIND THAT ARTISTS AND PEOPLE, A LOT OF LIKE DIGITAL
ARTIST, PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING THINGS, VERY EASILY
SHAREABLE, WILL FIND THEIR STUFF BEING POSTED AND THEN
SOMETIMES EVEN USED ON — IT CAN KIND OF ESCALATOR GO
VIRAL. YOU CAN END UP SOMEONE ELSE’S
PROFITING OFF OF YOUR THING. YOU DIDN’T EVEN KNOW HOW THAT
HAPPENED. A LOT OF TIME, ESPECIALLY IN
THIS KIND OF VIRAL CULTURE, THERE’S THIS ATTITUDE OR IDEA
THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE EXCITED THAT THEIR THING IS GETTING
SEEN, EVEN THOUGH THEY’RE NOT GETTING PAID FOR IT.
THAT’S SOMETHING THAT, I GET REALLY DEFENSIVE OF MY ARTIST
CREATOR CLIENTS WHO KIND OF GET STUCK IN THAT MENTALITY.
YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU SPENT TIME AND ENERGY
MAKING THIS THING, AND MAKE IT SHOULDN’T BE ALL OVER THE
PLACE FOR FREE. JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE
SHARED IT. MAYBE YOU SHOULD BE PROPERLY
COMPENSATED FOR THIS. YOU FIND THAT NEWS
ORGANIZATIONS AND KIND OF BIGGER MEDIA COMPANIES ARE
STILL REALLY DILIGENT FOR THE MOST PART ABOUT THOSE KINDS OF
THINGS. NEWSCASTER WANTS TO, SOMEBODY
POSTS VIDEO ON TWITTER OF SOME CRIME THAT THEY SAW
HAPPENING, NEWS ORGANIZATION WANTS TO USE THAT VIDEO,
THEY’RE GOING TO PAY FOR IT. NOT JUST TAKE IT AND REPOST
IT. SO THERE ARE THESE KIND OF
BIGGER ORGANIZATIONS THAT STILL SEE VALUE IN THAT.
BUT ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS, PEOPLE TEND TO NOT WORRY ABOUT
THAT SO MUCH. NOT FEEL LIKE THEY DESERVE
THAT COMPENSATION. OR DESERVE TO HAVE THE RIGHTS
PROTECTED IN THAT WAY.>>PLATFORMS ARE DESIGNED
WITH THIS CONCEPT OF SHAREABLE.
BILLED WITH IMPORTANCES. WHICH ALLOW YOU TO COULD
THINGS LIKE RETWEET OR SHARE OR WHATEVER.
I THINK PART OF THE ISSUE IS THEN WHETHER IT’S ATTRIBUTED
TO THE ORIGINAL PERSON THAT POSTED IT.
WHOEVER OWNED IT OR TAKE SOMEONE ELSE’S CONTENT YOU
DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT DO AND PUTTING IT UP THERE TO BEGIN
WITH. A LOT OF COMPLICATED ISSUES
HERE. THIS IS HOW THOSE LARGE
COMPANIES FLOURISH. WANT TO HAVE THESE RETWEETS.
THEY WANT TO HAVE AS MUCH DATA AS POSSIBLE, AS MANY USERS AS
POSSIBLE. MANY USERS ARE MOTIVATED BY
THAT AS WELL. IF YOU ARE THE ARTIST AND YOU
PUT YOUR WORK UP, AND YOU’RE SHARING IT, IT DOESN’T MEAN
THAT YOU SHOULD EXPECT THAT SOMEONE WILL STEAL IT AND USE
IT IN ANOTHER CONTEXT WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION.
BUT THAT’S WHERE THIS KIND OF BECOMES A STICKY ISSUE.
>>KEEP IN MIND, PLATFORMS LIKE TWITTER, FACEBOOK, THEY
DON’T MAKE CONTENT. THEY HOST CONTENT.
AND THEY MAKE CONTENT SHAREABLE BUT DON’T MAKE
ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE ROADS ON WHICH WE SEND THINGS OUT
AND CHANNELS.>>Lara: TALK MORE ABOUT
CREATIVE COMMON AND OPEN RESOURCES.
THAT INITIATIVE. JUST EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE WHO
DON’T KNOW AREN’T AS FAMILIAR, HOW IT CAME ABOUT,
WHAT THE PURPOSE IS, AND WHERE YOU SEE IT MOVING FORWARD.
>>SURE. CREATIVE COMMON LICENSES FREE
LEGAL TOOLS. ANYBODY CAN USE.
PUT ON THEIR WORK TO MAKE THEM MORE SHAREABLE.
>>Lara: LOOK UP CREATIVE COMMENTS.ORG.
ESSENTIALLY, THE OER, OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
MOVEMENT IS A SEGMENT MUCH SORT OF THE OPEN SHARING
MOVEMENT. THAT’S FOCUSED ON COST
SAVINGS FOR STUDENTS AT U.H. I RUN THE OER PROJECT.
ESSENTIALLY, WE ARE OFFSETTING COST OF TEXTBOOK
MATERIAL FORCE STUDENTS. WRITING FREE OPTIONS, SO FREE
OF COST. BUT ALSO THEY HAVE A CCE
LICENSE ON THEM. INSTRUCTORS CAN ACTUALLY
CHANGE AND ADAPT THE MATERIALS TO FIT THEIR
TEACHING STYLE AND FIT THE NEEDS OF THEIR STUDENTS.
SO IT’S A TWO-FOLD SORT OF PROCESS WHICH WOULD NOT BE
POSSIBLE IF YOU WERE STILL WORKING IN AN RESERVE SORT OF
DOMAIN HERE.>>Lara: INTERESTING.
I DIDN’T REALIZE THEY COULD TO A DEGREE, CHANGE THE ACTUAL
SORT OF CONTENT. HOW IS THAT, HOW DO YOU THEN,
IF WE’RE — I GUESS WE’RE FLOATING IN BETWEEN
STANDARDIZATION CERTAIN TYPE OF THINGS.
EDUCATION, INFORMATION SHARING, AND NOT BECAUSE WE
WANT TO TO BE OPEN AND FREE AND CREATIVE ABOUT THEIR THOUGHT
PROCESSES. HOW DO YOU KIND OF SORT OF
BALANCE THAT OR HOW DO YOU HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WHEN
YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT OPENING UP AND SORT OF FREEING THIS
TYPE OF INFORMATION AND SHARING SO PEOPLE CAN USE IT
THE WAY THAT THEY FEEL IS MOST APPROPRIATE IN THEIR CONTEXT?
>>EDUCATION SPECIFICALLY, EDUCATION IS ABOUT SHARING.
IT’S ABOUT SHARING KNOWLEDGE. IT’S ABOUT SHARING RESOURCES.
THAT SORT OF THING. SO WHAT WE DO IS LOOK FOR THE
MOTIVATED FACULTY USED TO SORT OF WRITING THEIR OWN
NOTES IN THE MARGIN, CREATING OWN MATERIALS, KIND OF AROUND
EXISTING BOOK. WE SAY, HEY, WE’RE GOING TO
FIND YOU EXISTING BOOK, OFF THE SHELF THAT YOU CAN
ACTUALLY OPEN IT UP, REORDER THING, ADD YOUR OWN CONTENT TO
THEM AND SHARE IT WITH YOUR STUDENTS.
AND STUDENTS NEVER LOSE ACCESS TO IT.
YOU CAN HAVE A WHOLE TEACHING TEAM.
WHOLE CURRICULUM TEAM WORKING TOGETHER.
TEAMS WORKING ACROSS THE SYSTEM AT U.H. DOING THIS SORT
OF THING. BROAD AREA WHERE A SINGLE
CONTRIBUTION IN THE FORM OF OER OR OPEN TEXTBOOK CAN HELP
LIKE LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS.
OUR OWN PROJECT AT U.H. MĀNOA, GIVE SMALL GRANTS TO FACULTY
GOING TO THIS. SPEND THE TIME TO ADOPT AND
ADAPT A BOOK. AND WE INVESTED ABOUT $80,000
OVER 2 YEARS. AFFECTED MORE THAN 12,000
STUDENT ENROLLMENT. S WHEN YOU FIGURE THE AVERAGE
COST OF TEXTBOOK, SOME WAY MORE EXPENSIVE.
SOME LESS EXPENSIVE. AROUND $100.
LOOK AT IS $.2 MILLION. PRETTY GOOD ROI.
BASED ON THE IDEA WITH OER, I CAN MAKE YOU A COPY OF MY
CURRICULUM AND IT DOESN’T TAKE AWAY FROM WHAT I HAVE BUT
YOU ALSO HAVE AN EQUAL COPY TO DO WHAT YOU WANT WITH IT.
CCI LICENSE FACILITATES THAT PROCESS.
>>Lara: DOES THAT MAKE YOU CRINGE A LITTLE BIT?
>>NO. IMPORTANT FOR THINK THINGS
ABOUT DIFFERENT WAYS AND BE MORE FLEXIBLE AS LONG AS
EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THEY’RE GETTING INTO AND THEY
UNDERSTAND LIKE YOU WERE SAYING EARLIER WHAT THE
CONSEQUENCES ARE. WHEN I START CRINGING WHEN
PEOPLE DON’T KNOW THEIR RIGHTS.
DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY THINGS ARE HAPPENING THE WAY THAT
THEY ARE. DON’T KNOW WHAT THEIR OPTIONS
ARE. SO THEY DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT
THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE GIVING UP.
THAT’S WHEN I GO, OH.>>Lara: ANOTHER QUESTION.
KIND OF LENDS ITSELF TO THAT. WHAT ABOUT THIS SCENARIO?
TALKING ABOUT EDUCATION. CLASSROOM TEACHER SHARES
IDEAS ON PINTEREST. AT RISK OF HER SCHOOL CLAIMING
OWNERSHIP OF THAT. BECAUSE SHE’S EMPLOYED BY THE
SCHOOL AND POSSIBLY CLAIMING SOME REVENUE OF HER
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. SAY, I’M REPRESENTING THE
SCHOOL. EMPLOYED BY THE SCHOOL.
POSTED AS AN INDIVIDUAL. MY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN
MY MIND. HAVE THINGS CHANGED?
BECAUSE OF HOW I POSTED IT ON WHAT MY POSITION IS.
>>DEPENDS WHAT THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT IS.
>>Lara: READ THE CONTRACT.>>YES.
CONTRACT WITH THE SCHOOL PROBABLY SAYS IF LESSON PLANS
ARE YOUR OWN, VERSUS GOING TO BE THE PROPERTY OF THE SCHOOL.
KIND OF THE STARTING POINT.>>IF IT WAS DONE ON SCHOOL
TIME, MATERIAL THAT THEY GOT FROM THE SCHOOL, THERE’S
LIKE, IT DEPENDS. IT ALWAYS DEPENDS.
>>Lara: INTERNET IN THIS SCENARIO, JUST HAPPENS TO BE
A MEDIUM BY WHICH THE PERSON IS SHARING IT, THERE’S
NOTHING ABOUT THIS THAT IS PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE
INTERNET. EVERYONE ON LINE.
YOU COULD ASK THE SAME QUESTION IF SHE WERE TO MAKE
PHOTOCOPIES AND SHARE THEM AT A CONFERENCE.
IT WOULD BE THE SAME QUESTION.>>OTHER PIECE IS IDEAS AREN’T
NECESSARILY COPYRIGHTABLE. IT’S THE IDEA IN A FIXED
TANGIBLE FORM, THAT IS COPYRIGHTABLE.
PEOPLE BROWSE THE INTERNET. I READ THIS LESSON PLAN,
REALLY GOOD. IF YOU’RE NOT ACTUALLY MAKE A
COPY OF THAT LESSON PLAN AND PULLING DIRECTLY FROM THAT
CONTENT AND ACTUALLY MAKING YOUR OWN ADAPTATION THAT
DOESN’T DRAW DIRECTLY FROM IT.
THAT MIGHT NOT BE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
>>Lara: PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE A TOUGH TIME.
DECIPHERING BETWEEN THE TWO. AT WHAT POINT ARE YOU CROSSING
OVER TO SOMETHING THAT IS COPYRIGHT OR SORT OF USING
SORT OF THE CONCEPTS IN A WAY THAT, QUOTE, UNQUOTE,
GENERALLY APPLIED TO WHAT YOU’RE TRYING TO DO, FOLLOW
SOME GENERAL STANDARDS OF SOME KIND, ADAPTED IT TO A
DEGREE THAT WOULDN’T NECESSARILY MAKE THAT
ORIGINAL PLAN RECOGNIZABLE. I DON’T KNOW.
TO ME, THAT’S KIND OF A TOUGH AREA FOR A TEACHER OR SOMEBODY
WHO IS SORT OF, I CAN JUST ABSOLUTELY SEE THAT SCENARIO
HAPPENING. LOOKING UP ON LINE.
LOOKING FOR SOME REFERENCE POINTS TO MAKE THEIR OWN
CURRICULUM AND OWN PLAN. AND JUST PULLING FROM
DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THEY’VE SEEN ON LINE.
HOW WOULD THEY KNOW WHEN IT’S THEN BECOMES COPYRIGHT?
>>I THINK WOULD BE TOUGH. THAT’S AT THE CORE.
THIS IS THE BALANCE. SHARING.
AWESOME POTENTIAL. FOR EVERYONE TO BENEFIT FROM
WHAT YOU’RE SHARING. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
PROVIDING DEFINED MONOPOLIES SO PEOPLE CAN MAINTAIN
ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THAT CREATIVITY.
SO THAT’S AT THE CORE OF IT. PREDATES INTERNET.
>>Lara: HERE’S ANOTHER QUESTION.
SPECIFIC ONES. IF A PHOTOGRAPHER USES A WATER
MARK OR SYMBOL ON HIS OR HER PHOTOS WHEN PUBLISHING, WOULD
IT BE PROTECTED?>>WATER MARK DO IT?
>>WATER MARK DOES NOT DO IT. BUT WORK WILL BE PROTECTED.
SO COPYRIGHT, YOU HAVE COPYRIGHT PROTECTION AS SOON
AS YOUR WORK IS FIXED IN TANGIBLE MEDIUM OF
EXPRESSION. YOU CAN REGISTER IT WITH THE
COPYRIGHT OFFICE, WHICH IS A GOOD IDEA.
>>Shawn: THAT’S WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT?
>>YES. BUT LIKE THAT QUESTION,
WRITTEN DOWN THERE, IT’S FIXED IN A TANGIBLE MEDIUM OF
EXPRESSION.>>Lara: PUTTING THE WATER
MARK ON IT.>>NO.
JUST BY THE WRITING IT DOWN ON A PIECE OF PAPER.
YOU DON’T HAVE TO DO — YOU DON’T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.
NOT SAYING YOU SHOULDN’T DO OTHER THINGS, BUT JUST IF I
GOT A NAPKIN, DREW A PICTURE OF A BIRD, THAT WOULD BE
PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE OTHER
PROTECTIONS, LIKE THE ABILITY TO SUE AND GET CERTAIN KINDS
OF DAMAGES YOU WANT TO HAVE YOUR WORK REGISTERED WITH THE
COPYRIGHT OFFICERS.>>Lara: TECHNICALLY, IT WOULD
BE PROTECTED. IN THAT SENSE.
IF YOU ARE TAKING, GETTING INTO OTHER THINGS, WANT TO GO
TAKE ACTION OF SOME KIND, YOU NEED FURTHER PROTECTIONS.
>>YES. THEN THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE,
SYMBOL, C IN THE CIRCLE, THAT IS REALLY HELPFUL TO PUT OTHER
PEOPLE ON NOTICE. SO IF I HAVE MY NAPKIN DRAWING
WITH THE BIRD, COPYRIGHT SYMBOL, LEAVE IT HERE,
SOMEONE WALKING THROUGH THE STUDIO WOULD SAY, SHE’S
CLAIMING RIGHTS ON THAT.>>Lara: DRAW A LITTLE C.
>>IT’S JUST, USED TO BE A REQUIREMENT.
UNDER THE OLD COPYRIGHT ACT IN 1909, REQUIREMENT IF YOU WERE
GOING TO PUT SOMETHING OUT THERE.
HAD YOU TO HAVE THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE.
BUT NOW, IT’S NOT A REQUIREMENT, JUST A GOOD
IDEA.>>Lara: DO YOU SEE IT THE SAME
WAY?>>AS FAR AS, THAT’S ENOUGH.
ENOUGH OF AN INDICATOR. SHOULD DRAW THE LINE EVEN IF
WE’RE TRYING TO BE OPEN ABOUT HOW WE SHARE INFORMATION.
>>YOU KNOW, SO COPYRIGHT IN THE U.S. AUTOMATIC.
YOU DON’T HAVE TO REGISTER FOR YOU TO ACTUALLY HAVE
COPYRIGHTS TO YOUR WORK. REGISTERING IS GOOD IDEA IN
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. BUT NOT NECESSARY.
SPEAK TO THE QUESTION OF HAVING A WATER MARK, ONE
TACTIC FOR PUTTING OFF FOLKS WHO MIGHT USE YOUR WORK
WITHOUT PROTECTION. PHOTOGRAPHERS, WEBSITE,
MIGHT PUT LOW RESOLUTION VERSION OF THE WORK.
IF YOU TRIED TO PRINT IT, IT WOULD LOOK TERRIBLE.
WATER MARK OR THE LOW RES VERSION MIGHT INSPIRE YOU TO
REACH OUT AND CONTACT THE CREATOR AND ACTUALLY LIKE
COMPENSATE THEM FOR THEIR CREATION.
>>Lara: SHOWS ADDITIONAL INTENT.
I THINK THIS IS TOUCHING ON REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUES.
>>EVEN IF YOU HAVE COPYRIGHT, VERY HARD TO ENFORCE
NECESSARILY, RIGHT? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW FOR EXAMPLE
THAT SOMEONE IS USING YOUR WORK?
YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN EXTENSIVE PROCESS, MAYBE
HIRING SOMEONE TO LIKE GOOGLE REVERSE IMAGE SEARCH, ENABLE
YOU TO MATCH THAT PHOTO ACROSS THE WEB.
THING THIS GOOGLE, PUTS AN IMAGE, IT WILL LOOK FOR
SIMILAR IMAGES. YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO
SYSTEMATICALLY DO THAT TIME INTENSIVE.
VERY HARD. SOME AUTOMATIC TOOLS EMERGING
WHICH ARE BEING USED BY INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE SEEKING
TO ADDRESS THAT. I’M NOT SURE HOW EFFECTIVE
THEY ARE. BUT THAT’S ONE THING THAT I’VE
SEEN LAST YEAR, THREE OR FOUR YEARS.
NUMBER OF AUTOMATED TOOLS, JOIN A SITE THAT WILL ATTEMPT
DO ALL OF THESE THINGS FOR YOU.
EVEN SOME DEGREE, HAVE INTERNATIONAL LAW TEAMS.
I’M SURE IT’S NOT, NOT FREE. BUT THERE’S AN EFFORT TO TRY
TO TRACK THESE THINGS DOWN. ENFORCEABILITY IS A PART THAT
A LOT OF PEOPLE GET STUCK ON. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT BUT HOW DO
YOU KNOW IF BEEN VIOLATED AND HOW WOULD YOU GET DAMAGED
WITHOUT A LENGTHY PROCESS? , I MEAN, IT’S EXPENSIVE.
PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT ARE REALLY
IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE ALWAYS TELL PEOPLE, YES, IF YOU WANT
TO PROTECT YOUR STUFF, REGISTER IT.
BUT LIKE YOU KNOW, BE STRATEGIC WITH THIS.
IF YOU HAVE A TON OF WORK, IT’S GOING TO GET EXPENSIVE JUST DO
THOSE REGISTRATIONS. PEOPLE OFTEN WANT TO HIRE A
LAWYER TO DO IT AND WE CERTAINLY WILL HELP WITH
THAT. IF IT’S SOMEONE WRITING A
BUNCH OF MUSIC OR TAKE BUNCH OF PHOTOS DOING A WHOLE BUNCH
OF THINGS, I TRY TO TEACH THEM HOW TO DO IT SO THEY CAN DO IT
THEMSELVES. OTHERWISE, IT’S NOT WORTH IT.
SHOULDN’T SAY THAT BUT IT CAN JUST BE SO EXPENSIVE JUST TO
KIND OF JUMP THROUGH THESE HOOPS.
WHEN YOU GET THE ENFORCEMENT, STAGE TOO, IT’S EXPENSIVE.
IT’S EXPENSIVE TO HIRE LAWYERS.
EXPENSIVE TO FILE CERTAINLY TO FILE A LAWSUIT.
EVEN JUST AT LETTERS STAGE, IT CAN BE A LOT OF WORK.
YOU HAVE TO REALLY THINK ABOUT WHETHER IT’S WORTH IT.
WITH ANY GIVEN INFRINGEMENT I THINK.
>>STRATEGIES, THERE’S SO MANY STRATEGIES THAT YOU CAN
EMPLOY. SO AND THERE’S A WHOLE TECH
SPECTRUM OF TERMS HOW INVESTMENT YOU PUT INTO THAT,
GREAT IDEA TO GET SAVVY AS TO HOW THIS STUFF WORKS.
WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX, SO WE TALKED
LITTLE BIT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SHOW ABOUT DNCA, GETS
TOWARDS HOW DO YOU WORK WITH THE THIRD-PARTY PLATFORM, I
MAKE IMAGE. YOU POST.
MY BEEF IS REALLY WITH YOU. YOU OWN THE SOCIAL MEDIA
NETWORK ON WHICH THAT IS GETTING SHARED.
SO NOW WE’RE LOSING YOU INTO IT BECAUSE I COULD EITHER SUE
YOU OR I COULD GET TO YOU TAKE IT DOWN.
THAT’S SO MUCH FASTER. FIGURING OUT LIKE, WELL,
OKAY, YOU’RE GOING TO SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, I’M NOT A JUDGE
AND JURY. YOU’RE GOING TO SAY, FAIR USE.
DON’T OVERPOST. GETS COMPLICATED SUPERFAST.
ONE HAND, GREAT THAT I CAN EVEN GO TO YOU.
AN OPTION. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO WANT SO
IT’S PRACTICAL FOR YOU TO ENGAGE AND PARTICIPATE IN
THIS, DISPUTE, ANY MANNER, AN FEEL GOOD THAT YOU’RE MAKING
THE RIGHT CHOICE? BECAUSE WE ARE ASKING THAT
THIRD-PARTY A CHOICE THAT TRADITIONALLY, WE WOULD ASK A
JUDGE OR JURY TO ASK. HOW COMFORTABLE ARE YOU THAT
WE WOULD BE ASKING A THIRD-PARTY WOULD HAPPENS TO
BE A TECHNOLOGY COMPANY TO ACTS A JUDGE AND JURY.
WE THINK ABOUT THAT.>>SOME PEOPLE THAT THINK
TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES SHOULD BE DOING A LOT MORE.
BECAUSE THERE’S BIG TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES THAT
PROBABLY HAVE THE RESOURCES TO FIGURE OUT THESE
ALGORITHMS INSTEAD OF ARTISTS HAVING TO PAY RESOURCE DOES
THAT. WHATEVER TRACKING THEY’RE
DOING.>>SOME PEOPLE THAT SHOULD BE
ON THE TECH COMPANIES. THEY’RE OFFERING THIS.
CREATED THIS WORLD WHERE PEOPLE CAN POST AND SHARE AND
DO THINGS ON THEIR SITES. WHY AREN’T THEY TAKING MORE
INITIATIVE TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS RIGHTS ARE BEING
PROTECTED.>>Lara: THAT’S TOUGH TO WRAP
YOUR BRAIN AROUND. A ANOTHER AREA INTERESTING
PART OF THIS CONVERSATION. TALKING ABOUT INDIGENOUS
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. WHAT THAT MEANS AND WHAT
YOU’VE SORT OF SEE HAPPEN. WE HAD TALKED ABOUT A CASE I
THINK THAT RESONATE WITH PEOPLE HERE.
A LOT THAT HAPPENED NOT THAT LONG AGO.
ALOHA POKE. THE NAME ALOHA.
OR THE WORD ALOHA. WHETHER OR NOT, I THINK IT WAS
A CHICAGO COMPANY THAT BASICALLY, SENT OUT CEASE AND
DESIST NOTICES TO EVERYBODY HERE FROM CHICAGO HERE,
SAYING, HEY, ANYBODY WHO HAS THE WORD ALOHA OR ALOHA POKE,
IN ANYTHING, YOU CAN’T. BECAUSE WE HAVE RIGHTS TO IT.
WHAT ARE YOUR, TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT.
WHAT YOU’VE SEEN AND SORT OF WHAT’S HAPPENING WITH THAT
CONVERSATION?>>SUPERTIMELY.
TOTALLY A COINCIDENCE. IT’S BEEN ABOUT EXACTLY A
YEAR. I REMEMBER BEING HERE LAST
OCTOBER TALKING TO YOU A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT AUDIENCES
ABOUT THIS TOPIC. SO THAT TRIGGERS A COUPLE OF
DIFFERENT THINGS. CALLING ON THINGS.
WE TALKED ABOUT HERE. ONE WOULD BE FIRST OF ALL, HOW
AGGRESSIVE SHOULD ONE BE AS YOU START OUT?
OVERPOLICING, UNDERPOLICING. THINKING ABOUT THAT.
AS SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES YOU OWN A BRAND OR A CREATIVE WORK
OR WHATEVER. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FORM.
THAT’S ONE THING. YOU MIGHT SAY, FIRST OFF, YOU
CAN LAID IT OUT AS, AGGRESSIVE COMPANY, THAT’S ONE THING I
PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT. NOBODY WANTS TO BE CHEATED.
AT THE SAME TIME, REFLECT ON WHETHER, HOW ARE YOU SHOWING
UP TO AN OBJECTIVE THIRD-PARTY?
ONE THING. SECOND THING IS WE’RE JUST
LOST ON THIS. COMPANY MADE THIS CHOICE.
GOING TO TAKE THIS ACTION. IS THERE GOOD BASIS FOR THAT
IN THE LAW? I THINK YOU’RE HAVING YOUR
REACTION. EVERYBODY HAS A REACTION IN
HAWAIʻI ABOUT THAT.>>Lara: WE GET INTO THE
CULTURAL ASPECT OF IT. CULTURAL TERM.
CULTURAL PHRASES. HOW DOES THAT SHIFT THE
CONVERSATION? HOW DO YOU SORT OF VIEW HOW WE
SHOULD THINK ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION WHEN WE GET INTO
THAT REALM?>>IN THAT PARTICULAR
INSTANCE, WHAT’S HARD, WE HAVE A LAW THAT ATTEMPTS TO
PROVIDE RULES THAT WORK FOR EVERYONE IN TERMS OF HOW WE
CONTROL THESE INTANGIBLES. THESE ACTS OF CREATIVITY.
WE HAVE A LOT OF SENSIBILITIES ABOUT WHAT IS RIGHT, FAIR AND
GOOD ABOUT THAT CONTENT. ALOHA POKE, NUMEROUS THINGS.
ONE OF THEM IS HOW IS THAT BALANCE WORKING OUT?
WHEN YOU’RE A COMMUNITY, I THINK WHAT’S HAPPENING THE
NATIVE HAWAIIAN COMMUNITY, PERCEPTION THAT THIS SHOULD
NOT EVEN BE OWNED. WAY OVER AGGRESSIVE.
>>Lara: THE WORD ALOHA.>>THE WORD ALOHA SHOULDN’T BE
OWNED. TRIGGERED ASPECT IT’S WHAT
ASPECTS OF OUR LANGUAGE IS OWNABLE.
BY OWNABLE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
I CAN’T SAY IT? DOES THAT MEAN I CAN’T USE IT
COMMERCIALLY? DO WE WANT NOBODY TO OWN IT?
THAT’S ONE. THINGS AS A COMMUNITY, I THINK
IT’S A GOOD CASE FOR KEYING UP ROBUST CONVERSATION IN THE
COMMUNITY. WHAT DO WE EVEN WATCH?
>>Lara: WHAT’S HAPPENED WITH THAT CASE?
HOW DID IT END?>>I THINK MULTIPLE MATTERS
GOING ON THERE. MULTIPLE SMALL BUSINESSES
CHICAGO COMPANY WAS CLAIMING WERE INFRINGING.
SO I THINK THE DIFFERENT, I’M NOT SURE HOW MANY COMPANIES P
I HEARD OF TWO DIFFERENT COMPANIES RECEIVED LETTERS.
I BELIEVE ONE JUST CHOSE TO RENAME BECAUSE THERE IS,
FELT.>>Lara: THE COST.
REALITY. SECOND COMPANY, THIRD-PARTY
HERE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY JUST
PERSISTED. THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING.
I DON’T THINK ANYTHING HAPPENED.
LAST CHECKED, COMPANY IN CHICAGO CONTINUED TO THE
PROCESS OF OWNING THAT BRAND. I BELIEVE IT’S STILL ACTIVE
THE FEDERAL TRADEMARK REGISTER.
I’D HAVE TO CHECK THAT.>>Lara: WHAT COMES OUT OF
THAT? HOW DO WE THEN SORT OF TAKE
WHAT HAPPENED AND MOVE THAT INTO THE NEXT PHASE?
>>OPTIONS IN THE LAWS IT IS TODAY, ONE CONVERSATION.
BASICALLY, SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO CHALLENGE THAT
TRADEMARK AS TRADEMARKABLE. AND I THINK THE PROBABLY MOST
COMPELLING ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE UNDER CURRENT LAW IT’S
NOT DISTINCTIVE. TERM ALOHA, POKE, FOR POKE
SHOP IS NOT DISTINCTIVE. GENERIC TERM.
TERM ALOHA IS NONDISTINCTIVE AS WELL.
UBIQUITOUS. NOT DISTINCT ENOUGH TO BE A
BRAND. THEN THERE’S OTHER THINGS YOU
COULD BE. COMPANY WHO USED IT PRIOR TO
THE CHICAGO COMPANY, SOME CLAIM THAT YOU GOT IT FIRST.
BASICALLY. DIFFERENT THINGS YOU COULD DO
WITH THE CURRENT LAW. INTERESTING QUESTION PEOPLE
HAVE, IS IT EVEN RIGHT TO THAT THAT COULD BE OWNED AND HOW
ARE WE THINKING ABOUT DIFFERENT LANGUAGES.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS I TRY TO CHALLENGE PEOPLE ARE, I’M A
SUPERADVOCATE OF MY PEOPLE AND OUR CULTURE AND
TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE, BUT HOW THIS WORK IF IT’S LANGUAGE
MUCH MORE COMMONLY SPOKEN IN HOW THIS WORK IF IT’S A TERM
IN CHINESE? WE HAVE FOLKS, ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT REALLY TRIGGERED PEOPLE ABOUT THIS INCIDENT
THE COMPANY THAT WAS ENFORCING THE TRADEMARK RIGHT
IS NOT HAWAIIAN. OFFENSE OF LIKE, WELL, I DON’T
KNOW THEY SHOULD BE AT ALL. DEFINITELY NOT YOU.
YOU’RE NOT IN OUR COMMUNITY. I GET THAT.
TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. AT THE SAME TIME, WE’RE
LETTING PEOPLE OF ITALIAN DESCENT OWN CHINESE
RESTAURANTS AND BRAND THEM WITH CHINESE NAMES.
SO YOU KIND HAVE TO THINK ABOUT HOW WOULD THIS WORK NOT
JUST IN OUR OWN COMMUNITIES BUT GENERALLY.
GOOD ARGUMENT MADE, IS THIS ISSUE OF NONDISTINCTIVENESS.
CURRENT LAW, WHAT YOU WOULD WANT TO SAY, ESPECIALLY IN
TERMS THAT ARE SUPERUBIQUITOUS AND ALMOST,
OFFENSIVE. I THINK IT’S OFFENSIVE TO OUR
CULTURE TO TELL SOMEONE THAT YOU COULD EVER TRY TO
MONOPOLIZE THAT WORD IN PARTICULAR.
SOME LEVEL, YOU BECOMES SPECIFIC TO THE TERM.
I’M NOT SURE YOU COME UP WITH A BROAD RULE AROUND IT.
THAT’S JUST TRADEMARK. THERE’S CULTURAL
IMPLICATIONS TO ALL THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF IP.
>>Lara: PEOPLE NEED TO, NEEDS TO BE ONGOING DISCUSSION.
WHAT TYPE OF PARAMETERS YOU MIGHT WANT TO TRY THAT MAKES,
THAT’S FAIR. I GUESS.
OR MAKES SENSE.>>UNFORTUNATE THAT THE ALOHA
POKE CASE IS WHAT KIND OF BROUGHT THESE ISSUES TO THE
FOREFRONT. BUT NOW THEY’RE HERE, I THINK
DISCUSSION NEEDS TO BE HAD.>>ALSO A QUESTION — IS THIS
A BEEF TO HAVE WITH — SORRY. UNITED STATES PATENT AND
TRADEMARK OFFICE. THEY ISSUE THE REGISTRATION.
IS IT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO SAY, HEY, IS THIS CULTURAL
APPROPRIATION. NOT COOL.
YOU GUYS SHOULDN’T GET THIS MARK.
OR IS IT ON THE PEOPLE IN CHICAGO WHO ARE USING ALOHA
POKE AND THEN TRYING TO PREVENT OTHER LOCAL PEOPLE
FOR USING IT HERE, IS IT ON THEM TO KIND OF FEEL LIKE THEY
ARE OKAY DOING THAT AND THEY’RE NOT OFFENDING THE
REST HAWAIʻI’S PEOPLE. HOW DO WE HAVE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS THAT MAYBE THE LAW ISN’T THE BEST WAY TO
ADDRESS THAT. CERTAINLY ISN’T RIGHT NOW.
BECAUSE IT REALLY DOESN’T ACCOMMODATE THOSE KINDS OF
ARGUMENTS.>>I THINK IT’S FAIR TO SAY WE
NEED TO HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS LIKE
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE NEED TO HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS IN
THEIR COMMUNITIES AN HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS ALL THE OTHER
STAKEHOLDERS WITH OUR LAWMAKERS, WITH OUR
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE GAINING AWARENESS SO WE CAN
COME AT SOME SORT OF SOLUTION THAT WE’RE ALL LEANING IN TO
DO THE RIGHT THING. I DO THINK THAT PEOPLE,
INDIVIDUAL PARTIES, SUPERAGGRESSIVE OWNER,
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, MIGHT NOT BE LEANING IN TO DO THE
RIGHT THING. GROUPS IN BROAD TERMS, ACTUAL
TRY DOING THE RIGHT THING. CULTURAL DIVERSITY, REQUIRES
THAT KIND OF WORK.>>Lara: CALLER APPLIED TO
HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL. APPLICATION INDICATES THAT
ALL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND ALL WORK CREATED BY STUDENTS
WHILE ENROLLED BELONGS TO THE UNIVERSITY.
TRUE? COMMON?
WHAT STUDENTS SHOULD EXPECT?>>IF IT’S THE CONTRACT THAT
THEY SIGNED, TRUE. USUALLY, I THINK WE’RE KIND OF
GETTING AT THIS EARLIER TOO WITH THE QUESTION OF
EMPLOYMENT, IF YOU CREATE A, UNDER THE COPYRIGHT ACT.
DOESN’T REFER TO LIKE INVENTIONS PATENTS
TRADEMARKS. WITH RESPECT TO COPYRIGHTABLE
WORK. IF YOU CREATES SOMETHING
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT, THERE’S A WHOLE
TEST. SAME TEST THAT THE IRS USES.
IF YOU’RE USING UNIVERSITY COMPUTERS, SHOW UP TO CLASS,
SPEND THIS MUCH TIME MAKING THAT THING, PROFESSOR TOLD
YOU TO MAKE. ET CETERA, ET CETERA, PRETTY
LIKELY GOING TO BE A WORK MADE FOR HIRE, WHICH MEANS THE
UNIVERSITY WOULD BE THE ORIGINAL OWNER.
>>Lara: I THINK THIS QUESTION FROM KAUAI RELATES.
CITY AND STATE EMPLOYEE. IF YOU CREATE PROGRAM WHILE
YOU’RE AT WORK, WOULD HAS RIGHT DOES THAT PROGRAM?
WOULD THAT KIND OF FALL WITHIN THE SAME ARGUMENT OF WHAT YOU
NEED TO THINK ABOUT?>>YES.
PROBABLY IN THEIR EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.
IF IT’S DONE ON WORK TIME. AS A PART OF THEIR REGULAR
DUTIES. PROBABLY EITHER SHARED
OWNERSHIP OR PROPERTY OF THEIR EMPLOYER. SPEAKING TO
THE HARVARD APPLICATION, HARVARD TERMS, DYNAMIC
BECAUSE THE STUDENT IS PAYING MONEY TO H HARVARD AND GIVING
AWAY TO IP TO HARVARD TO BE EXPLOITED.
>>DOUBLE WHAMMY I’M NOT SURE FAVORING THE STUDENT AT ALL.
IF I WERE A STUDENTS, I WOULD SAY, SURE, I WOULD LOVE TO
COME, HERE MIGRANT AND SCHOLARSHIPSES.
BUT I’M GOING TO RETAIN RIGHTS TO EVERYTHING I CREATE HERE.
>>Lara: LET ME ASK, FEW MINUTES LEFT.
WANT TO MAKE SURE I ASK YOU GUYS THESE QUESTION.
AVERAGE PERSON OUT THERE, I THINK TYPICALLY THEY WANT TO
KNOW, OKAY, IF I POST, FAMILY PICTURE ON LINE OR PICTURE OF
ME THAT I POSTED ON LINE. USED SOMEWHERE ELSE, WHAT
LOGICALLY OR REASONABLY COULD THEY DO?
WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST? RIGHT UP FRONT TO TRY TO
PROTECT THEMSELVES SOMEWHAT IF THEY’RE CONCERNED ABOUT
THAT? AVERAGE JOE.
>>ONE THING, A LOT OF TIMES, COULD BE ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHO
OWNS IT. ANY EVIDENCE YOU HAVE THAT YOU
CREATED, EVEN PHOTO, THE WORK, EVEN THE UNDERLYING,
DATES AND LOCATION. SOME EVIDENCE.
WHEN YOU SAY EVIDENCE. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY EVIDENCE?
>>IF IT’S WITH A PHOTO, YOU WOULD HAVE SOME UNDERLYING
CODE UNDERNEATH THE PHOTO UNLESS YOU STRIPPED IT.
THAT WE TALK ABOUT DATE, OCCASION.
ET CETERA. AND SUBJECT.
IF YOU’RE THE SUBJECT, THAT’S GOING TO HELP.
IF IT’S A LANDSCAPE, YOU’RE GOING TO NEED TO INDICATE HOW
YOU CREATED IT. EASILY SAY THEY DID.
ANYTHING YOU HAVE THAT SHOWS THAT IT CAME OFF YOUR CAMERA,
CERTAIN DATE AN TIME, ANY EVIDENCE YOU CAN KEEP, WOULD
BE TO YOUR BENEFIT.>>I WOULD ADD, YOU MENTIONED
IF YOU’RE THE SUBJECT, OF THE PHOTO, SO HAWAIʻI RECOGNIZES
THE RIGHT OF PUBLICITY. SO PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT,
EXLUSIVE RIGHT TO EXPLOIT THEIR IMAGE, NAME, DATE,
VOICE, SIGNATURE, PERSONNA FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.
IF SOMEONE ELSE TAKES THAT FAMILY PHOTO AND USES IT IN A
MEME OR AD OR SOMETHING, MAKING MONEY OFF OF IT, YOU
CAN’T DO THAT.>>Lara: STRONG CASE THERE.
>>YES. COPYRIGHT LAW ISN’T THE ONLY
THING THAT CAN PROTECT YOU IN SOME OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
AS WELL.>>Lara: YOU WANTED TO CHIRP
IN?>>YES.
IN TERMS OF POSTING THINGS ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM.
PICTURE OF YOURSELF, FAMILY. LEANING TOWARDS BEING MORE
CONSERVATIVE ABOUT THAT. I ACTUALLY WOULD NOT POST
PICTURES OF MY FAMILY AND FRIENDS ON THOSE PLATFORMS
FOR THESE COPYRIGHT ISSUES AND PRIVACY ISSUES.
I PREFER TO USE ENCRYPTED NETWORKS AND SORT OF LIKE ONLY
YOU AND I WILL GET THIS PHOTO AND NOBODY IN BETWEEN.
THAT’S SORT OF WHERE IT STAYS. ONCE IT GOES OUT THERE ON A
PLATFORM, RIGHTS ARE GIVEN AWAY.
YOU DIDN’T KNOW WHERE IT’S GOING TO STOP.
REALLY EASY TO MAKE COPIES OF IT.
OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT FIND IT AND USE IN WAYS YOU DON’T EXPECT.
WHEN IT COMES TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS AND PERSONAL THINGS,
I JUST DON’T SHARE THINGS ON LINE.
>>Lara: SOME PEOPLE REALLY HAVE TO START TO THINK ABOUT
IT. WHAT DO THEY WANT, WANT TO
SHARE. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS AS TO WHAT
PEOPLE NEED TO THINK ABOUT? JUST IT’S AVERAGE PERSON.
GOT ABOUT 30 SECONDS LEFT. YOUR THOUGHTS.
WHAT DO THEY NEED TO THINK ABOUT?
>>AVERAGE PERSON WORRIED ABOUT SENSITIVE INFORMATION.
SENSITIVE IMAGERY, SUCH A COMPLEX AREA.
SO THE MORE THAT YOU CAN DO TO JUST BE GENERALLY SAVVY AS TO
WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN I POST IT?
WHERE DO I POST IT? HOW HA WORK?
WHO CAN SEE IT? GETTING SAVVY IS IMPORTANT.
A LOT OF THE BIG PLATFORMS ARE TILLY, THEY REALLY DO WANT
PEOPLE TO BE HAPPY WITH THE EXPERIENCE.
>>Lara: TRUE.>>CONTINUE THIS
CONVERSATION, EVEN MORE.>>Lara: WE JUST RAN OUT OF
TIME. THANK YOU SO MUCH ALL OF YOU
FOR JOINING US TONIGHT. AND WE THANK OUR GUESTS –
JENIFER SUNRISE WINTER, PROFESSOR IN THE SCHOOL OF
COMMUNICATIONS AT UH MĀNOA. JULIA BROTMAN, INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY ATTORNEY. BILL MEINKE-LAU, OPEN
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TECHNOLOGIES AT UH M?NOA.
AND. MIKALIKA NAHOLOWAA, ATTORNEY
FOR MICROSOFT CORPORATION. NEXT WEEK ON INSIGHTS, WHO
MANAGES OUR WATER SUPPLY? AND CAN YOU IMAGINE AN ENTIRE
DAY WITHOUT ACCESS TO WATER. JOIN US THEN.
I’M LARA YAMADA FOR INSIGHTS ON PBS HAWAIʻI – A HUI HOU!

2 Replies to “INSIGHTS ON PBS HAWAIʻI: Intellectual Property in the Digital World | Program”

  1. Sadly, the problem may go beyond what we can do, and until our governments do something concrete to put an end to IP theft, even our best DIY solutions will not fix the problem. Because there are those who’ve been stealing our copyrights, patents, trade secrets, etc. for years, permitted by a loophole in foreign shores’ laws on contracts (like a lack of protection for non-disclosure agreements) and a likely condoning by their own governments. I’m referring, of course, to years of IP theft being conducted by Chinese firms. If the widescale piracy, hacking, and espionage aren’t enough to convince and alarm us into action, then soon majority of the world’s economy will fall.

    To be fair, vids like this help the public become more aware and discerning of IP, especially in the age of the internet. But we need to be united and rally behind the ongoing global cause to fight off the shameless stealing of our intellectual property by Chinese manufacturers.

    https://www.americaagainststolenip.org/jury-backs-american-companies-patent-infringement-ucloudlink-huawei/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *