From: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2013 #282 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk Unsubscribe:mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe Website:http://jonimitchell.com JMDL Digest Saturday, February 23 2013 Volume 2013 : Number 282 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- New copyright statement on JoniMitchell.com NJC [Les Irvin ] Safe Habor Law [Jim ] Re: Litigation [Catherine McKay ] Re: Joni Mitchell.com 1996-2013 [shadows and light ] Re: Safe Habor Law NJC [Les Irvin ] Re: New copyright statement on JoniMitchell.com NJC [Robin Adler ] Re: Litigation [shadows and light ] RE: Litigation [jamiezubairi ] Re: Litigation [Michael Flaherty ] Re: Safe Habor Law NJC [Richard Flynn ] Re: New copyright statement on JoniMitchell.com NJC ["David J. Phillips"] fan sites and copyright NJC [Les Irvin ] Re: New copyright statement on JoniMitchell.com NJC [Catherine McKay Subject: New copyright statement on JoniMitchell.com NJC Based on my research (which is based on all the research and help I've gotten from all of you), I have registered as an "agent" with the copyright office and have updated this page to reflect the new policy: http://jonimitchell.com/legal.cfm References to this policy have been put on damn near every page on the site. If I understand correctly, with this in place the site is legally protected against claims as long as, when a legitimate claim arrives, I take action to immediately remove the offending material. Which I've always done anyway. Now, if this current thing will just work itself out. It looks like it's moving in a positive direction. Thanks again to everyone for their support during this mess! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:44:10 -0500 From: "Jim L'Hommedieu" Subject: Fwd: Re: Joni Mitchell.com 1996-2013 Les should resize them to 72dpi. I said, >If pictures are posted at 72dpi, > Jim L'Hommedieu On 2/22/2013 9:25 AM, Anne Sandstrom wrote: > I hear what you're saying, Jim, but actually the file itself can have > a higher resolution, like 300-600 dpi. However, computer screens only > display at 72 dpi. So if you right-click and select Save Picture As, > you could download a higher resolution image than what appears online. > > An easier solution for someone who wants to maintain their copyright > and keep people from copying/printing their work is to put a watermark > on it. > > Lots of love, > Anne > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-joni@smoe.org [mailto:owner-joni@smoe.org] On Behalf Of > jlhommedieu@insight.rr.com > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:56 PM > To: JMDL > Subject: Joni Mitchell.com 1996-2013 > > I don't know anything about the law but I know a little about pictures. > > Screen resolution is 72dpi but it takes 300dpi to make a good print. > > If a web page has a picture that is the size of a Post-It note, it > will look lousy at that size as a print. In theory, I could make a > 300dpi print from it, but the length and width would shrink to 1/4 of > the original dimensions. The print would be about the size of a > postage stamp. > > If pictures are posted at 72dpi, in my opinion, there is no danger > that anyone is going to be able to sell prints. There just are not > enough pixels. > > Jim L'Hommedieu > This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may > contain privileged and/or confidential information intended solely for > the use of the addressee(s). If the reader of this message is not the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, > dissemination, distribution, copying, forwarding or other use of this > message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately > and delete this message, all attachments and all copies and backups > thereof. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:50:10 +0100 From: Oddmund Kaarevik Subject: NJC Re Kate McGarrigle Dear Catherine and Garret. Thanks for sharing this and your love for the great singer-songwriter Kate McGarrigle. She and her sister Anna is the most played artists along with Joni M. on my lastFM account. The music of Kate and Anna McGarrigle has been such an inspiration for me. I also appreciate Rufus and Martha W. Especially Martha has a place in my heart. And for this christmas I wrote an article about the song "Proserpina" in a small magazine that my brother makes. I wish it was in english so that I could have shared it with you guys. It is a really special song. And Martha W. said some really interesting things about it when she released "Come home to mama" last fall. I love the way Kate use greek / roman mythology. The message in the song is so strong. I hope to hear it live myself one day. Well. Just a little note to say thanks- And even though Kate may not have recieved the fame of Joni and Bonnie R. Her music will be remembered. And very grateful for Rufus and Martha, that they use they're time and energy and Fame to make their mother and aunts music known to new generations. I think a dvd of a concert is coming up soon. I am really looking forward for that. If music be the food of love play on./ William S. Love Oddmund, Norway ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 11:38:58 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Subject: Safe Habor Law Here's whatB Ms. BurnsB is referring to and note in the provision it says, "by providing" and not "hasB provided?.B So as long as he submits the info timely to the Copyright office, I think he has complied.B B Here's the exact text she is referring to. B "(2)Designated agent.b The limitations on liability established in this subsection apply to a service provider only if the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement described in paragraph (3), by making available through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public, and by providing to the Copyright Office, substantially the following information: (A)the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent. (B)other contact information which the Register of Copyrights may deem appropriate. The Register of Copyrights shall maintain a current directory of agents available to the public for inspection, including through the Internet, and may require payment of a fee by service providers to cover the costs of maintaining the directory." For full text, see http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 ________________________________ From: shadows and light To: jamiezubairi Cc: lesirvin@gmail.com; joni@smoe.org Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 1:17 PM Subject: Re: Litigation here is what Leslie Burns posted 15 minutes ago. A little legal lesson (but NOT legal advice... just for your education): in order for a "service provider" to be protected by the DMCA "take down" safe harbor, the provider must have a copyright agent registered with the US Copyright Office. No "designated agent" means they are liable, even if they remove/take down the work when asked. See 17 USC 512(c)(2) we have to focus and make this go away.B love to all, topanga lesli On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:49 AM, shadows and light < cloudhidden101@gmail.com> wrote: > on the lawyer's fb page they say removing photos promptly doesn't count > unless you have a copyright agent. > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:45 AM, jamiezubairi >wrote: > > > Hello All > > > > This is also from Neill "I would politely say there is no claim under of > > 17 USC Section 512(c) because your website was not involved in > > infringement, and any infringing materials posted by others will be > removed > > upon notification of infringement."B > > > > > > Sent from Samsung MobileJamie Zubairi Home > > wrote:A friend of mine is American but works in the UK and specifically > in > > copyright, and quotes: > > "In my view there's a strong argument that if the website took down any > > infringing materials upon notice then there's like to no claim under safe > > harbour provisions. I'd politely respond that we do not believe there is > a > > claim." > > > > Hurrah! > > > > Jamie Zubairi > > Actor, Painter, Voiceover, Creative > > > > Appearing in Why The Lion Danced for Yellow Earth Theatre touring until > 9th > > March. Please see www.yellowearth.org.uk for details ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 11:53:30 -0800 (PST) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: Litigation I don't even get that. It sounds like BS to me. If that's the law, then there must be some reason why it's in there (otherwise, the law is a ass.) Why would any website or webmaster have a copyright agent, unless it's for their own work? It's not as if Les, or anyone else, can hold a copyright on someone else's work. And what do they really mean by "agent?" Can an individual not be their own agent? I don't necessarily expect anyone to be able to answer those questions, but something does not compute for me. As well, I've had a look at this person's websites and s/he sounds like a flake to me. I believe L. Burns is a woman and yet she has herself listed as Leslie Burns, Esq. which is a BS pseudo-title that some people (generally men, that I know of) have used (like a century ago) to suggest they have some sort of higher status than the hoi polloi, but really signifies nothing. Don't know if it's a weird attempt at humour (do lawyers have a sense of humour?) or more evidence of flakiness. I truly wonder whether these people somehow think that Joni Mitchell is personally invested in the site and that, by shaking down Les, they're going to tap into her money. >________________________________ > From: shadows and light >To: jamiezubairi >Cc: lesirvin@gmail.com; joni@smoe.org >Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 2:17:54 PM >Subject: Re: Litigation > >here is what Leslie Burns posted 15 minutes ago. >A little legal lesson (but NOT legal advice... just for your education): >in order for a "service provider" to be protected by the DMCA "take down" >safe harbor, the provider must have a copyright agent registered with the >US Copyright Office. No "designated agent" means they are liable, even if >they remove/take down the work when asked. >See 17 USC 512(c)(2) >we have to focus and make this go away. love to all, topanga lesli > >On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:49 AM, shadows and light < >cloudhidden101@gmail.com> wrote: > >> on the lawyer's fb page they say removing photos promptly doesn't count >> unless you have a copyright agent. >> >> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:45 AM, jamiezubairi > >wrote: >> >> > Hello All >> > >> > This is also from Neill "I would politely say there is no claim under of >> > 17 USC Section 512(c) because your website was not involved in >> > infringement, and any infringing materials posted by others will be >> removed >> > upon notification of infringement."B >> > >> > >> > Sent from Samsung MobileJamie Zubairi Home >> > wrote:A friend of mine is American but works in the UK and specifically >> in >> > copyright, and quotes: >> > "In my view there's a strong argument that if the website took down any >> > infringing materials upon notice then there's like to no claim under safe >> > harbour provisions. I'd politely respond that we do not believe there is >> a >> > claim." >> > >> > Hurrah! >> > >> > Jamie Zubairi >> > Actor, Painter, Voiceover, Creative >> > >> > Appearing in Why The Lion Danced for Yellow Earth Theatre touring until >> 9th >> > March. Please see www.yellowearth.org.uk for details ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:14:41 -0800 From: shadows and light Subject: Re: Joni Mitchell.com 1996-2013 yesterday kakki wrote: > But there is a question rattling > around in the back of my mind that perhaps there could be a separate claim > for the infringment itself, regardless of improper use, sale, profit, etc. > Can it be argued that the availability of the material alone could have > caused it to be used by other unknown persons for sale, profit, etc.? At > any rate, I do find the whole matter personally distasteful and unfortunate > that Les has to be embroiled in it. > > Kakki > and here is what's on burns' site: "People... you can't eat a credit line (attribution). Every time an image of yours is posted, someone is making money off it. Maybe the blog runs ads so the blogger is; Google almost assuredly is (just about every time); but the point is, no use should be permitted without PRIOR permission and, when the artist chooses, payment. You are being naove if you think that most of the "sharing" isn't 1) causing your work to be devalued; 2) making it impossible for you to license your work later (no way you can ever grant exclusivity to previously "shared" work); and, 3) making money for someone else." so, shoot. it's so good to hear from you les. but not like this.. so sorry this burr is under your skin. lesli ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:49:41 -0800 From: shadows and light Subject: Re: Litigation on the lawyer's fb page they say removing photos promptly doesn't count unless you have a copyright agent. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:45 AM, jamiezubairi wrote: > Hello All > > This is also from Neill "I would politely say there is no claim under of > 17 USC Section 512(c) because your website was not involved in > infringement, and any infringing materials posted by others will be removed > upon notification of infringement."B > > > Sent from Samsung MobileJamie Zubairi Home > wrote:A friend of mine is American but works in the UK and specifically in > copyright, and quotes: > "In my view there's a strong argument that if the website took down any > infringing materials upon notice then there's like to no claim under safe > harbour provisions. I'd politely respond that we do not believe there is a > claim." > > Hurrah! > > Jamie Zubairi > Actor, Painter, Voiceover, Creative > > Appearing in Why The Lion Danced for Yellow Earth Theatre touring until 9th > March. Please see www.yellowearth.org.uk for details ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:04:25 -0700 From: Les Irvin Subject: Re: Safe Habor Law NJC Is the website an "online service provider"? I'm not clear on that. On 2/22/2013 12:58 PM, Jim wrote: > Here's the link to the US Copyright office to file the form required. > The fee is $105 to register as the designated agent and I'd be happy > to chip in if needed. > http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 11:08:34 -0800 From: Robin Adler Subject: Re: New copyright statement on JoniMitchell.com NJC Great news Les! On Feb 23, 2013, at 8:54 AM, Les Irvin wrote: > Based on my research (which is based on all the research and help I've gotten from all of you), I have registered as an "agent" with the copyright office and have updated this page to reflect the new policy: http://jonimitchell.com/legal.cfm References to this policy have been put on damn near every page on the site. If I understand correctly, with this in place the site is legally protected against claims as long as, when a legitimate claim arrives, I take action to immediately remove the offending material. Which I've always done anyway. > > Now, if this current thing will just work itself out. It looks like it's moving in a positive direction. Thanks again to everyone for their support during this mess! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 11:58:14 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Subject: Re: Safe Habor Law Here's the link to the US Copyright office to file the form required. The fee is $105 to register as the designated agent and I'd be happy to chip in if needed. http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 11:17:54 -0800 From: shadows and light Subject: Re: Litigation here is what Leslie Burns posted 15 minutes ago. A little legal lesson (but NOT legal advice... just for your education): in order for a "service provider" to be protected by the DMCA "take down" safe harbor, the provider must have a copyright agent registered with the US Copyright Office. No "designated agent" means they are liable, even if they remove/take down the work when asked. See 17 USC 512(c)(2) we have to focus and make this go away. love to all, topanga lesli On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:49 AM, shadows and light < cloudhidden101@gmail.com> wrote: > on the lawyer's fb page they say removing photos promptly doesn't count > unless you have a copyright agent. > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:45 AM, jamiezubairi >wrote: > > > Hello All > > > > This is also from Neill "I would politely say there is no claim under of > > 17 USC Section 512(c) because your website was not involved in > > infringement, and any infringing materials posted by others will be > removed > > upon notification of infringement."B > > > > > > Sent from Samsung MobileJamie Zubairi Home > > wrote:A friend of mine is American but works in the UK and specifically > in > > copyright, and quotes: > > "In my view there's a strong argument that if the website took down any > > infringing materials upon notice then there's like to no claim under safe > > harbour provisions. I'd politely respond that we do not believe there is > a > > claim." > > > > Hurrah! > > > > Jamie Zubairi > > Actor, Painter, Voiceover, Creative > > > > Appearing in Why The Lion Danced for Yellow Earth Theatre touring until > 9th > > March. Please see www.yellowearth.org.uk for details ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:45:22 +0000 From: jamiezubairi Subject: RE: Litigation Hello All This is also from Neill "I would politely say there is no claim under of 17 USC Section 512(c) because your website was not involved in infringement, and any infringing materials posted by others will be removed upon notification of infringement."B Sent from Samsung MobileJamie Zubairi Home wrote:A friend of mine is American but works in the UK and specifically in copyright, and quotes: "In my view there's a strong argument that if the website took down any infringing materials upon notice then there's like to no claim under safe harbour provisions. I'd politely respond that we do not believe there is a claim." Hurrah! Jamie Zubairi Actor, Painter, Voiceover, Creative Appearing in Why The Lion Danced for Yellow Earth Theatre touring until 9th March. Please see www.yellowearth.org.uk for details ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:57:27 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Flaherty Subject: Re: Litigation That's great, Jamie. Any chance your friend would be willing to write that to the photographer's lawyer? Just asking... I think getting something from a lawyer would help. Michael F. ________________________________ From: jamiezubairi To: lesirvin@gmail.com; joni@smoe.org Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:45 AM Subject: RE: Litigation Hello All This is also from Neill "I would politely say there is no claim under of 17 USC Section 512(c) because your website was not involved in infringement, and any infringing materials posted by others will be removed upon notification of infringement."B Sent from Samsung MobileJamie Zubairi Home wrote:A friend of mine is American but works in the UK and specifically in copyright, and quotes: "In my view there's a strong argument that if the website took down any infringing materials upon notice then there's like to no claim under safe harbour provisions. I'd politely respond that we do not believe there is a claim." Hurrah! Jamie Zubairi Actor, Painter, Voiceover, Creative Appearing in Why The Lion Danced for Yellow Earth Theatre touring until 9th March. Please see www.yellowearth.org.uk for details ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:28:24 -0500 From: Richard Flynn Subject: Re: Safe Habor Law NJC I believe that refers to an ISP, not a Web site. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID Les Irvin wrote: >Is the website an "online service provider"? I'm not clear on that. > >On 2/22/2013 12:58 PM, Jim wrote: >> Here's the link to the US Copyright office to file the form required. >> The fee is $105 to register as the designated agent and I'd be happy >> to chip in if needed. >> http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:04:07 -0500 From: "David J. Phillips" Subject: Re: New copyright statement on JoniMitchell.com NJC please let us know how much this ends up costing you. we're in this together. djp Les Irvin wrote: >Based on my research (which is based on all the research and help I've >gotten from all of you), I have registered as an "agent" with the >copyright office and have updated this page to reflect the new policy: >http://jonimitchell.com/legal.cfm References to this policy have been >put on damn near every page on the site. If I understand correctly, >with this in place the site is legally protected against claims as long > >as, when a legitimate claim arrives, I take action to immediately >remove >the offending material. Which I've always done anyway. > >Now, if this current thing will just work itself out. It looks like >it's moving in a positive direction. Thanks again to everyone for >their >support during this mess! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:03:02 -0700 From: Les Irvin Subject: fan sites and copyright NJC I sure could use some help reading through this document... if anyone has time to gleen some good news from it... http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1395&context=elr ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 11:11:35 -0800 (PST) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: New copyright statement on JoniMitchell.com NJC Absolutely. We're not just all cheap talk, y'know! >________________________________ > From: David J. Phillips >To: Les Irvin ; Les Irvin ; Joni List >Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 12:04:07 PM >Subject: Re: New copyright statement on JoniMitchell.com NJC > >please let us know how much this ends up costing you. we're in this together. > >djp > > >Les Irvin wrote: > >>Based on my research (which is based on all the research and help I've >>gotten from all of you), I have registered as an "agent" with the >>copyright office and have updated this page to reflect the new policy: >>http://jonimitchell.com/legal.cfm References to this policy have been >>put on damn near every page on the site. If I understand correctly, >>with this in place the site is legally protected against claims as long >> >>as, when a legitimate claim arrives, I take action to immediately >>remove >>the offending material. Which I've always done anyway. >> >>Now, if this current thing will just work itself out. It looks like >>it's moving in a positive direction. Thanks again to everyone for >>their >>support during this mess! ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2013 #282 ***************************** ------- To post messages to the list, sendtojoni@smoe.org. Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe -------