As a producer/director for a large national organization who also works with Hollywood folks and SAG, I think that the smart thing to do legally is to get signed informed consent forms and talent agreements locked down early to protect oneself for future uses both academic and public. The key is informing ones subjects from the beginning. This is what I did for my study on edutainment & convergence with my subjects who work in the entertainment field. As a working producer/director who now is literally defending my study within the next week or two in higher ed, I think that one has to be transparent from the outset when conducting a study; however, I think one has to take certain steps to protect oneself legally and enable one to have the ability to publish commercially if or when the opportunity becomes available. I have been fortunate because I am debating over whether to publish myself or go with traditional publishers because I have received attention from some folks. My advice is to be smart and be careful because the MPAA and RIAA are suing people every day on infringement issues and they are frequently winning out of court and in the courtrooms because they crafted the legal language and even wrote it to protect their publishing interests. They also created an avenue for ordinary folks,like subjects and actors, to sue because of the issue of digital publishing. The SAG labor fight with Hollywood a year or so ago brought this issue to light. Why is this important for us? Because they are creating the law that will impact publishing online with video, audio and print. Subjects on video have the potential of becoming future SAG members if they go viral and SAG wants a cut whenever possible. Just something to thing about in the future because I see it coming. -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of M. Deanya Lattimore Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 2:20 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-L] public private Hi Ed -- I agree with what you wrote that
I reject the notion that even bloggers who publish stuff are giving informed consent to become research subjects.
Consent to become a research subject is a different matter than citation, as Jeremy's email on the other subject line says. You, like myself, continue to make great arguments about why the dichotomy between public and private spaces will not continue to work; we have got to begin thinking of these things in more nuanced ways. Let's continue to talk through some of your other points, but I don't want to see my statement about policy and usage of internet documents taken as a manifesto on intellectual property or research subject rights; to generalize to terms that I didn't use from the ones that I mentioned makes you run the risk of committing straw man fallacies. So let's continue the discussion in a more amicable fashion -- You may indeed perform a piece of music on a street corner, but once you *record* your music and post it onto the internet, you're in a different level of public space. (Of course, new technology that monitors street corners on video and enhanced video phones may make it possible for someone to record your music and make a YouTube video of it... and good luck finding it to report to YouTube as an infringement unless someone sends you a link to it. And by THAT time, hundreds of other people may have downloaded it to their own computers! :-) No one else has the legal right to record your music and pass it off as their own -- that's just stealing. But someone may theoretically download it and use it on their own personal computers, or they may use it to create a digital piece of artwork without ever letting anyone know that it is yours; them's the facts of posting online. They may even go home and use a few of the words or phrases that they heard in your song on the street corner and make up a new one of their own, never even remembering consciously in the first place that they heard yours. Derivative? yes; unethical? maybe; possible? yes. And even my own personal laptop could be confiscated and used against me in a court of law; computers are FREQUENTLY confiscated these days. Ask anyone who has been convicted of downloading child porn from the internet whether s/he still considers her/his own computer as a "private" space. It's just not that simple, wouldn't you agree? It's not even so much a legal issue for most of us as an ethical one; have you ever checked your computer browser's history to see where your spouse or child had been on the internet? We have *got* to stop dichotomizing private and personal space when it comes to electronic communication technology or else we'll never get anywhere good with public policy. Best! Deanya Ed Lamoureux wrote:
sorry. I don't agree On Aug 10, 2007, at 10:55 AM, M. Deanya Lattimore wrote:
If people did not want their information to be considered "published," then they should write it on paper and keep it under their mattresses, >> not type it into large databases that are collected, spidered, and >> searched by other online tools.
excuse me. "Publishing" something does NOT remove intellectual property rights. In fact, those rights first become attached to the ideas when they are "published" (put into form). When I play a song I've written on the street corner, or in a bar, or at a concert, I'm "publishing" it "in public." Doing so does not give ANYONE permission to use it without my permission. "Fair use" allows the use of very small portions of it for teaching or research, but only under certain conditions. And the Teach Act modifies those allowed uses even further in the case of online educational purposes.
So by default for me, all internet work has been intended for >> publication. Maybe to limited audiences, like when someone posts pics of themselves getting drunk in Facebook, but the fact of the matter is, >> it's still more in the public space than in the private one.
I think that the notion that the internet is a public space is contestable. I would argue that the network of computers, routers, wires and other technological stuff are almost ALL privately owned entities . . . sort of like a great land filled with connected malls . . . a mall is not a public space at all... it's private land often FILLED with people doing stuff in the presence of others. But the internet is not at all like public lands (city, county, state, federally owned public space).
Further, even if there is a "public feel" to internet published stuff, and putting aside for a moment the implications of the DMCA, the Teach Act, and copyright law (not to mention a ton state laws concerning "rights of publicity and privacy"), I reject the notion that even bloggers who publish stuff are giving informed consent to become research subjects.
Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D. Associate Professor, Multimedia Program > and Department of Communication > Co-Director, New Media Center > 1501 W. Bradley > Bradley University > Peoria IL 61625 > 309-677-2378 > <http://slane.bradley.edu/com/faculty/lamoureux/website2/index.html> <http://gcc.bradley.edu/mm/> AIM/IM & skype: dredleelam Second Life: Professor Beliveau
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ >
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/