[IP] more on reply to criticism Fwd: Re: [CSL Colloq] Controlling Digital Cloth * 4:15PM, Wed May 12, 2004 in Gates B03 (fwd)
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dennis Allison <allison@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: May 9, 2004 3:24:23 AM EDT
To: Lenny Foner <foner-for-ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] reply to criticism Fwd: Re: [CSL Colloq] Controlling
Digital Cloth * 4:15PM, Wed May 12, 2004 in Gates B03 (fwd)
[Dave: For IP if you wish.]
Larry,
I think the situation has been misunderstood. The CSL Colloquium talk
in
question will be illustrated with material drawn from recent films. The
presenter is one of the people who was responsible for the film effect
being discussed. Almost certainly she has a contractual obligation to
obtain clearance before presenting any material before a public
audience,
broadcast or not. The colloquium talk is a public lecture and open to
all. There is no restriction of the availability of information; attend
the talk live and see all. The IP discussion has centered around our
decision not to broadcast and webcast the talk as is our usual practice.
Colloquium lectures are typically broadcast via SITN to a few hundred
industrial affiliate sites. The talks are also webcast live and on
demand
free of charge to the general public via stanford-online and through a
link on our webpage, http://ee380.stanford.edu. There are occasional
exeptions to our usual practice. For example, we did not broadcast or
webcast Richard Stallman's talk a while back because we could not meet
his
requirement that the talk be distributed in a non-proprietary video
format
(Stanford has standardized on WMP) for which a free software player was
available.
In the case at hand, ILM, the speaker's employer, was unwilling to
release
the material for use in this talk if the talk was to be broadcast or
webcast, presumably because of license or copyright issues but also,
possibly, because of the logistical difficulty of getting clearence from
the multiplicity of film producer(s) for whom the work was done. I am
not
privy to the details of the ILM decision process, only the end result:
no
broadcast and no webcast. As a matter of policy, Stanford requires
copyright releases from all speakers and copyright releases for all
third
party materials used. Honoring the ILM request, under the circumstances,
seems like the right thing to do, just as honoring Richard Stallman's
request was the right thing to do.
You are right, Larry, that there are important battles to be fought and
won in the copyright arena, but I don't think this particular instance
is
one of them. If you follow the CSL Colloquium lecture series, you know
that questions of copyright and other intellectual property are a
recurring theme.
--
Dennis Allison * Computer Systems Laboratory * Gates 227
* Stanford University * Stanford CA 94305
* (650) 723-9213 * (650) 723-0033 fax
* allison@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
* allison@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/