One of the bigger headaches many visual artists have talked to me about is that many, often misguided, think that Google Image search is the same thing as a stock photo gallery and that anything they see or can find is right for the taking.

The problem, however, is that most of the photos in Google Image Search are copyright protected, legal for Google to use in the way it does under the Perfect 10 v Google ruling. Others, using the full-sized images in blog posts or site designs, often run afoul of the law.

However, today Google announced that it was integrating Creative Commons into its image search. The new feature promises to find images available for a variety of reuse scenarios, including commercial use, and actually make Google Image Search an effective way to find images for repurposing.

As promising as this sounds, the system isn’t quite perfect, though it is a great first step.

How it Works

If you’ve ever used the basic Creative Commons Search under Google, you are probably already familiar with how to use the one for image search. First, visit the Google Image Search home page and click the “Advanced Search” link.

There, toward the bottom of the options, you’ll find a dropdown box for filtering the results by license.

Once you select your desired license terms, just perform the search as usual and you should see the familiar results, but with a notice like this one above the thumbnails.

From there, as with regular image searches, you can click the thumbnails to view the Web pages they are on.

All in all, the search seems to work very well. The results seem to come mostly from environments with clear licensing and there’s a good variety of images on most of the queries that I tried. That being said though, there were still a few hiccups and concerns that I saw.

Some Limitations

The biggest limitation that I saw when using Google Image Search’s CC functionality was that it, understandably, can not detect licenses perfectly. In the original blog post, Google warns that users should verify the licenses independently, which is a very good idea.

A big reason is because Google is detecting image licenses on the page, not within the post. So, for example, if a blog post has its text in under a CC license and but uses an image as a fair use example, the image, at least in some occasions, winds up in the search. It can also happen to where Google places unneeded restrictions on an image if, for example, a public domain work is used on a CC-licensed blog.

The other, and less avoidable, problem is that many people are placing CC licenses on works they don’t own. A simple search for “Marilyn Monroe” found many commercial images that were, almost certainly, not licensed for commercial use for free. Other celebrities produce similar results.

The user has to make the final decision about whether they have the correct license for an image and, on that front, I urge caution. Remember, all the search does is point you to pages where an image you like and a CC license exist at the same time.

The other problem is that, despite Google’s impressive breadth on the Web, there seems to be a limited number of sources that it pulls from for these searches. Flickr is by far the most common source, which isn’t shocking as it is the largest repository of CC-licensed images, but it and Wikimedia seem to make up well over 90% of the results I checked. There were a few Blogspot blogs and at least one Typepad blog as well as a few other domains, but they were the extreme minority.

In the end, Google’s search did not seem significantly more robust than Zemanta’s image search, even if they have far more images on paper.

Still, it is a tremendous step forward for Google Image Search, even if it also a catchup to Google’s main search product, and means that, with just an extra step, those used to using Google Image Search to find photos for their blog posts and templates will now be able to do so legally and freely.

Bottom Line

In the end, this new feature is nice, but doesn’t blow me away. Though I’m a big supporter of Creative Commons, the implementation of this is understandably flawed and limited. Much of the benefit is already available via Flickr, Zemanta and Photo Dropper.

Furthermore, as with its main search product, Google works to bury its CC search functionality as deep as it can. Though it isn’t as well hidden as its counterpart, its unlikely anyone is going to stumble on it by accident.

This is definitely a step in the right direction for Google Image Search but there is still more that could and should be done with it. The question is whether or not Google has the dedication to this project to make it happen.

Need a Copyright or Plagiarism Consultant? I am Here to Help.jonb1324cdr

1: Webcasters, Copyright Holders Reach Royalty Agreement

First off today, after over two years of wrangling, webcasters and rightsholders have reached an agreement for royalties to be paid on music played over the Internet. The new rate, which is schedule to be 0.097 cent per song, per person, in 2010 is less than half of the rate proposed by the Copyright Royalty Board in 2007, which was 0.19 cent.

Under this agreement webcasters will pay either the flat rate or 25% of revenue, whichever is higher. Though this new proposal should keep most webcasters from going out of business, at least one, Live365, is opposed to the plan saying that it is unfavorable to smaller stations.

The good news is that most larger webcasters seem to feel they can live with the agreement at this time and it doesn’t seem that any stations will be closing their doors in the immediate future…

2: Judge rules Warner Bros. paid ‘fair-market value’ for ‘Superman’ rights

Next up, the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerome Siegel suffered a minor setback in their ongoing case against DC Comics, ruling that DC paid a fair market value on the royalties and that Siegel was not given less than his share.

This comes one year after the heirs won half interest in the character of Superman, meaning that, begininning in 2013, the Siegels, along with the estate of Joe Shuster, the other co-creator, will have the sole right to license Superman for movies, comic books, TV, etc.

The accounting phase of the trial, which will determine how much back royalties the Siegel’s are owed, will begin in December.

3: Copyright laws threaten our online freedom

Finally today, Christian Engström, the Pirate Party MP to the EU Parliament, has penned an op-ed piece for the Financial Times calling copyright a threat to online freedom saying that copyright enforcement could become a mechanism for the creation of a “big brother” society.

Engström, instead calls for greater securities of users privacy and severe limitations on copyright law. He sites examples such as Wikipedia, where no audio is available on the pages of famous artists, and YouTube, where mashups are often taken down, as examples of the problem.

Whether you agree with him or not, it is an important op-ed to read and think about.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today, we’ll be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

Need a Copyright or Plagiarism Consultant? I am Here to Help.jonb1324cdr

When it comes to fighting plagiarism on the Web, one needs to use the right tools to license and defend their work. Tracking content, persuing infringements and shutting down cases requires a great deal of technology and at least some basic knowledge of how the Web works.

Still, with the right tools, almost anyone can effectively monitor and protect their work. For those who are curious about the tools that I use or perhaps want to see what is available, I am offering this list of my favorite anti-plagiarism tools, targeted at smaller webmasters, artists, bloggers and anyone who posts their work online.

So, without further ado, here is a quick rundown of my favorite anti-plagiarism tools.

Best Licensing: Creative Commons

The first step to protecting your content is to license it correctly and clearly. On that front, I am an unabashed supporter of Creative Commons, even using the BY-SA license on this site.

CC licenses provide machine, human and lawyer readable versions of all their licenses, a great deal of flexibility for those that want to license their work and a sense of certainty for those that want to use content.

Though the licenses aren’t perfect, they work much better for Web content than open source licenses, which have strictly-set terms and are usually targeted at software. That, in turn, is a big part of why Wikipedia moved to a CC license recently, away from the GNU Free Documentation License.

Runner up: All Rights Reserved

If Creative Commons isn’t right for you, and it may not be, then the best fall back right now is a good old-fashioned “All Rights Reserved” license. Though not an actual license since it is the default of copyright, it is the safest approach.

Besides, if one of the 6 CC licenses doesn’t fit your needs, you’re probably better off using the default and handling everything on a case by case basis. Just be sure to make this extremely clear on your site.

Best Text Tracking (Dynamic Content): FairShare

If you are running a blog and are curious about how your content is being used, FairShare is probably the best tool money isn’t needed to buy. FairShare works by having you submit your feed to the service and then subscribing to its output feed. That feed will tell you who is using your content, how much, whether they link back, etc. It even detects for CC compliance.

What makes FairShare so powerful is that it uses the same matching technology as Attributor, a professional content detection system used by major media outlets like the Associated Press.

Though there are many other great content detection tools, most are geared toward static content, not sites that update every day or even more often.

Runner Up: Google Alerts + Digital Fingerprints

Using a digital fingerprint, which is a unique string of characters used to identify your work, and placing it in your RSS feed is a great way to track your content. Using Google Alerts to help you be alerted to new uses is even better.

Though not as thorough as FairShare, it’s free, easy to set up and may work in cases that could trip up other systems. Bear in mind though it won’t help much with those that only take part of the content or that don’t scrape from the RSS feed.

Best Text Tracking (Static Content): Plagium

Plagium and Copyscape were all but identical in my testing of their two services in terms of matching power. But Plagium brings new features to bat, including a Google Alerts-like notification system, and offers it all for free.

Plagium is a solid choice for detecting static content on the Web and, in my tests of it, it has performed extremely well.

Runner Up: Google Alerts

Though I like Copyscape a great deal, its free plan is far too limited. With a little bit of ingenuity you can turn Google Alerts into a plagiarism detection system that is both automated and free. Though Plagium simplifies this process greatly, Google Alerts is a solid alternative that may possibly generate more results, albeit with more effort.

Best Image Tracking: Tineye

Tineye’s database may be limited, but its image matching is very good and its service is free. Though I wouldn’t recommend it for professional photographers, they are probably better off with one of the runner ups, it is a great way for a photographer or artist to do a quick check of their work to see who has copied it.

Hopefully Tineye can both expand their database and add some more powerful tools to make this kind of searching faster and more automated.

Runner Up: Paid Services

There are tons of great services that are available including PicScout, C-Registry and Digimarc that visual artists can use to track their work on the Web. Though these tools are more powerful than Tineye, they all come with a price point likely beyond what your average blogger or Flickr user could muster.

Best Multimedia Tracking: N/A

No one wins this award because, first off, I don’t know enough about this particular industry to offer much feedback and, second, because no one seems interested in helping the average YouTube user track their work.

The problem isn’t that there are no companies that do this, there are at least half a dozen, but they are all geared toward record labels, TV stations, etc. with price points to match. The simple truth is that effective image matching is just now becoming practical at a low cost so video and audio has a ways to go.

Runner Up: Google

That being said, video and audio don’t suffer from the same issues with incorrect and false attribution as pictures and text do so you can likely gain at least some significant benefit from searching for your name or relevant titles.

You won’t catch everything, perhaps not even most, but you’ll at least find some.

Best Email Management: Gmail

If you find yourself dealing with a lot of copyright infringement, you’re probably going to be sending/receiving a lot of email, as such, Gmail is probably your best bet. Not only does it allow you to send and receive email from other accounts, making it possible to set up new accounts just for copyright issues and check them in the same place as your other mail, but its filtering and labeling system makes organizing your mail easy.

Nevermind that you get free IMAP and POP access as well.

Runner Up: Everyone Else

Realistically though, you don’t need a Gmail account to handle these matters. Any solid Web-based email will likely work just as well. If you have a system you’re more comfortable with, you should probably stick with it.

Best Host Location Service: Tie: Domain Tools and Who Is Hosting This

Who Is Hosting This provides drop-dead simplicity while Domain Tools provides the highest level of accuracy possible with the most information available. Which you choose probably depends more on your level of experience with these issues.

If you’re a novice, Who Is Hosting This is much less intimidating. If you are familiar with networking tools, Domain Tools is the best you can get. Both are free (though you need an account with Domain Tools if you make many requests in a day) and I even have a video on how to use them.

Runner Up: IPchecking

IPchecking is very similar to domain tools and, perhaps, a bit easier to use. However, it doesn’t provide whois information about the domain itself and may send you scrambling to another site for additional contact information. As such, I tend to favor the more complete Domain Tools, if only slightly.

Best Takedown Detection: Change Detection

When you send a cease and desist or a takedown notice, you’d probably like to be notified when the work is removed, Change Detection can help with that. It checks the pages you tell it to daily for any modifications and highlights what’s different. It will also let you know if the page goes down completely.

All you do is provide the URL, an email address and Change Detection does the rest.

Runner Up: Everyone

There are dozens of services that provide this exact funcationality. Some even allow you to set the update time to more frequent than what Change Detection allows. Most of these services are free, for at least a limited number of checks. I simply trust Change Detection more because it has been around for ten years and is widely used by security experts.

Bottom Line

In the end, these are just my personal tools. These tools are in constant flux as new services come online and old ones die off. I may, if there is enough change, do a similar list in 2010.

If you use different tools than these, feel free to leave a comment and say why. I’d be interested to hear. That being said, there is nothing wrong with disagreement as many of these are just personal choices.

More than anything, I hope that this list gets a debate started about what the best tools are and why, I’m sure there’s a lot of disagreement out there and I’d to hear where the issues are, as we as where they are not.

Disclosure: I have consulted for Attributor and am a paid blogger for Who Is Hosting This

Need a Copyright or Plagiarism Consultant? I am Here to Help.jonb1324cdr

1: Judge Curbs YouTube Suit On Copyrights

First off today, a Federal judge in one of YouTube’s ongoing copyright disputes has thrown out some of the damages that the plaintiffs has asked for. The case, which involves music publishers and Britain’s top soccer league among others, has seen punitive damages be thrown out and that the plaintiffs could not seek damages on foreign works that were not registered in the U.S.

The judge, however, did allow for damages on live broadcast footage uploaded to the service.

The case is moving forward and the plaintiffs are saying that they now have “clarity” on their case and are moving forward with what is left.

2: Judge Rules P2P Legal, Sites To Be Presumed Innocent

Next up, a judge in Spain, while refusing to grant an injunction against a file sharing site in the country, has become the first judge to say that P2P file sharing is completely legal. Saying that, “As a mere transmission of data between Internet users, do not violate, in principle, any right protected by Intellectual Property Law.”

According to the judge, adding a work to a file sharing network does not make a copy of the file and the distribution portion of the Spanish copyright act mentions specifically the need for something tangible.

With that in mind, the judge refused to grant an injunction and set the case for a full trail to be held at a later date. What this may show though is that Spanish copyright law could be in serious need of updating if it isn’t available to address digital content, one way or another.

3: Did Black Eyed Peas Steal Freeland’s ‘Mancry’?

Finally today, a bit of a plagiarism brouhaha is forming between The Black Eyed Peas and Adam Freeland. Freeland accuses the band of using a portion of his 2007 song “Mancry” in their recently-released song “Party All The Time”. A YouTube video, which has been embedded in the article above, puts the two tracks side by side.

Personally, I have a very difficult time making a decision on this one. Though I hear the similarity between the two, not only is the alleged plagiarism just a few notes, but since The Black Eyed Peas used it in the background of other elements, its hard to get to hear it very clearly.

I’m going to turn this one over to the music theorists that know much more about this than I.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today, we’ll be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

Need a Copyright or Plagiarism Consultant? I am Here to Help.jonb1324cdr

1: Jammie Thomas challenges “monstrous” $1.92M P2P verdict

First off today, in a move that was widely predicted, Jammie Thomas has asked the judge in her case to either throw out the monetary award against her, reduce the $1.9 million judgment against her to the statutory minimum of $18,000 or to receive a new trial, which would be her third if granted.

Calling the verdict, “excessive, shocking, and monstrous” her attorneys have asked the judge to reduce the damages to be awarded and cites ratios of 1:62,015 and 1:5,333, which reference the amount the songs are worth to the damages awarded. However, the ratios are largely meaningless as the amount of actual damages can not be known since she was accused of distributing the songs via file sharing networks, making them available to millions.

Finally, her attorneys hinted that they will move to exclude RIAA investigator MediaSentry on appeal. MediaSentry, whose evidence was allowed in the first and second trials since they could not be held accountable to Minnesota’s private detective rules since it has no staff there, is now being accused by Thomas’ attorney of violating rules in their native states of Maryland and New Jersey.

This one definitely seems to be far from over.

2: Pez sues museum over giant dispenser

Next up, the makers of Pez candy are suing a museum of Pez-related memorabilia claiming that a giant Pez dispenser with a snowman head is a violation of their trademark and is demanding that the work be destroyed.

Several sites, sadly, have gotten this story very wrong reporting that it was a copyright dispute but the truth appears to be that it is a trademark issue, not a copyright one. Either way though, the makers of Pez candy are asking a museum about their candy to destroy world-record-holding homage to their product, making this suit one of the worst PR movies I’ve seen in a while.

3: Is the Copyright Royalty Board Unconstitutional?

Finally today, its an argument we’ve heard many times before but now it’s coming from an Appeals Court judge.

Though Judge Kavanaugh sided with the other two judges in the D.C. circuit Appellate court in its their recent ruling in the case of SoundExchange, Inc. v. Librarian of Congress, which deals with a dispute over the royalty rates paid by satellite radio, he did so with a caveat.

According to a concurrence he submitted along with the ruling, he said that the copyright royalty board, due to the way it appoints its members, raises constitutional questions. In short, they are appointed by neither the President nor vetted by the Senate but appear to be officers of the United States, they may be in constitutional limbo.

The issue was ducked in this case since neither side raised it in a timely manner but similar arguments have also been used against copyright registrars.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today, we’ll be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

Need a Copyright or Plagiarism Consultant? I am Here to Help.jonb1324cdr

It is Monday again and that means that it is time for another episode of the Copyright 2.0 Show.

Due to the long weekend it was a rather slow week for copyright news but don’t let that fool you into thinking it’s going to be a short show. Patrick and I both have a few “rant box” moments as we discuss the week’s news including The Pirate Bay’s sale, Jammie Thomas’ appeal and even an ugly catch-22 in music copyright law.

All in all, there were thirteen stories this week including news from all over the copyright world including our “Weird Story of the Week”.

This week’s stories include:

• Pirate Bay Sells, Users Revolt
• RIAA Wins Big over Usenet.comr
• J.D. Salinger Gets His Injunction
• Bing Accused of Plagiarism
• Music Copyright Education Deals with a Catch-22
• And Many more…

You can download the MP3 file here (direct download). Those interested in subscribing to the show can do so via this feed.

Show Notes

About the Hosts

Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey (@plagiarismtoday) is the Webmaster and author of Plagiarism Today (Hint: You’re there now) and works as a copyright and plagiarism consultant. Though not an attorney, he has resolved over 700 cases of plagiarism involving his own work and has helped countless others protect their work and develop strategies for making their content work as hard as possible toward their goals.

Patrick O’Keefe

Patrick O’Keefe (@iFroggy) is the owner of the iFroggy Network, a network of websites covering various interests. He’s the author of the book “Managing Online Forums,” a practical guide to managing online communities and social spaces. He maintains a blog about online community management at ManagingCommunities.com and a personal blog at patrickokeefe.com.

Need a Copyright or Plagiarism Consultant? I am Here to Help.jonb1324cdr

1: Judge: Ono owns copyright to rare Lennon footage

First off today, a judge has ruled that Yoko Ono, the widow of the musician John Lennon, exclusively owns the rights to 10 hours worth of footage shot of the star while at home. World Wide Video, who claimed to have bought the video from Anthony Cox, who shot the footage, claimed they held the rights to the work but the judge found that Ono had a very clear agreement with the photographer and she was the rightsholder.

The dispute came about after World Wide Video had planned to show a two-hour documentary produced using the footage to a school in Maine in 2007. When Ono found out about the showing, she sent a letter that put a stop to it. Ono, who wishes to keep the footage private, paid $300,000 to Anthony Pagola, an intermediary who had copies of the film, for the rights.

Pagola was served in the lawsuit as well but failed to answer, leading the judge to file a notice of default against him.

2: DOJ Officially Opens Investigation Into Google Book Search

Next up, the Department of Justice has officially announced it is investigating Google’s Google Book Search product for possible anti-trust violations. This move had long been expected, especially last month when the DOJ sent “civil investigative demands” to Google indicating that they were eyeing Google Book Search for possible violations.

Though it is unclear how serious this investigation is, the DOJ is saying it has not yet determined the merit of the case against Google, but the Google Books Search settlement is still pending final approval in the courts, which should come later this year if all hurdles are cleared.

3: Supreme Court Lets Cable Company Store Recorded TV Shows

Finally today, the Supreme Court has declined to hear the Cablevision case, which pitted several major media companies against the cable company over its remote DVR system. In doing so, it allows the lower court’s ruling to stand, which found that the system was legal.

The system, which allows users to record shows on Cablevision’s servers rather than an in-home DVR, drew the ire of many TV networks and movie studios who sued Cablevision claiming that the service was an infringement. However, the lower courts found that, since in-home DVRs were non-infringing and this service did not function any differently, other than where the data was stored, this service was a non-infringement as well.

The Supreme Court, by not taking the case, has allowed those rulings to stand, clearing Cablevision to continue offering the new service.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today, we’ll be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

Need a Copyright or Plagiarism Consultant? I am Here to Help.jonb1324cdr

1: Jammie Thomas will appeal, lawyer says

First off today, Jammie Thomas plans on appealing her case, focusing on the constitutionality of the damages levied against her. She has said that she is not interested in any settlement that involves her admitting guilt or paying money and has decided, despite the $1.9 million judgment against her, to appeal the case in hopes of either getting the verdict tossed or the damage reduced.

However, as Ben Sheffner points out in a quote, Thomas has an uphill battle on this front as no Federal court has done what she and her attorneys are asking it to do.

After the first trial, there are reports she received an offer to settle the case for about $25,000, an offer that was passed up in favor of a retrial, where the current $1.9 million verdict was handed down.

2: Ruling for Salinger, Judge Bans ‘Rye’ Sequel

Next up, Judge Deborah A. Batts has issued a preliminary injunction, barring the sale of “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye” in the U.S. saying that it is an unauthorized sequel of the book “Catcher in the Rye”, written by J.D. Salinger, and is thus a likely violation of Salinger’s copyright. This comes after the judge issued a temporary 10-day order late last month.

Fredrik Colting, the Swedish author of the new book, said his work was intended to be a parody and expressed disbelief at the “banning” of his book. He could still take this matter to trial but the book can not be published in the U.S. until the litigation is resolved.

However, the book is currently published in the UK.

3: The Copyright Catch 22

Finally today, attorney Ronald S. Rosen, who successfully defended John Williams against claims he lifted musical elements when writing the score for E.T.: The Extraterrestrial, explained why he has not released video or podcast versions of his book to help laypeople understand the intricacies of music. Namely that he would need to obtain licenses to use the music, even short passages, in any talk, video or audio presentation he gave.

This highlights the issue with teaching music copyright to up and coming attorneys outside of the courtroom and classroom. It raises a slew of questions about how to educate attorneys and laypeople about these issues moving forward.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today, we’ll be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

Need a Copyright or Plagiarism Consultant? I am Here to Help.jonb1324cdr

In May I covered C-Registry, an orphan works prevention service that is working to create a registry of images and other visual content on the Web as well as give visual artists a means to both locate their work on the Web and ensure that anyone who finds it will know who they are and how to correctly license it.

Though my review was overall very positive, I noted that the site had several potentially serious limitations, most notably that the service could only match exact images, meaning that any modification (cropping, recoloring, etc.) would prevent an image from being correctly identified and likely make it an orphan again.

Well, last week C-Registry announced a series of upgrades to its service, including aforementioned exact matching problem. Here’s a quick rundown of the biggest enhancements.

Image (Pattern) Recognition

Where previously C-Registry needed an exact match of an image to find the original, it now also provides a collection of similar images for the user to search through . These similar images are displayed in a system somewhat similar to Mac’s Coverflow feature (see example right) and the user just clicks the displayed image to see the ones behind.

Though this system confused me at first, I’m more used to a mouse click opening up the image than moving to the next one, it works relatively well and the matching, from the limited samples I was able to see, seemed to do a decent job, catching a variety of changes to the image including sizing, color and more. As you can see in the example, it detected a different version of the scale image, one where the bowl is filled with ice instead of the brown sugar.

What is interesting about this system is that, according to their press release, the technology can also work on video and audio as well as it is truly pattern matching, not image matching. This could make it very useful to a broader audience as the service expands.

In its current form though, this system seems to be very effective and it addresses one of the major holes with the service.

Bulk Uploading

Previously, images could only be uploaded one at a time. C-Registry has fixed this problem by adding a pair of bulk upload options, one using a desktop application and the other through a bulk upload process where the rightsholder uses a CSV file with the information about each image the URL of the file and the system takes care of the rest.

Though this is something of a catch up feature, most registries offer some form of bulk upload, at least behind the scenes and is not likely to be useful for most smaller rights holders, larger ones, such as newspapers, stock photo agencies, etc. will greatly appreciate this feature since the information is, most likely, already in some form of database and can be easily exported.

At this time, bulk uploading is limited only to authenticated accounts, which costs $25 per year.

Video User Support

The C-Registry has also opened up a YouTube account where they provide some basic instructions on how to use the service, including the video about their bulk upload feature embedded below, and hopes to expand its video library with a series of tutorials and guides on how to use the service for various functions.

Though this is certainly a minor upgrade to the service it is very helpful when trying to use the site and gives a glimpse at features only available to paid users without requiring a user to put up any money.

Bottom Line

In the end, this is just one of the obstacles the site has to overcome to become a major image search database to locate and identify orphan works. It still has to solve the “chicken and egg” problem of getting enough images to warrant searching through (something it hopes to handle through partnerships with stock photo agencies) and the site itself could certainly use a visual and technical refresh (I could not stay logged in during my testing).

However, it is clear that the site is gaining some traction and that the backend technology is starting to come together. Their system of fingerprinting, not storing, files has made it possible for them to build a very large database with a relatively small infrastructure and the technology seems to be working very well. Hopefully they can continue to build upon this and grow their service.

In short, there is a ton of potential here, even more so now, but there is still a lot of work to be done, something I think the admins know very well.

Scale Photos from: Pictures Color Library UK

Video

Need a Copyright or Plagiarism Consultant? I am Here to Help.jonb1324cdr

1: RIAA triumphs in Usenet copyright case

First off today, the RIAA scored a big win over Usenet.com. Usenet is an online network that is over two decades old and predates the Web. It was, and still remains, one of the most popular ways to share files and content online and Usenet.com is a service that charges a monthly fee for easy access to that network, including the files.

The fact Usenet.com lost may not be as important as why it lost. The company was accused of massive amounts of misconduct during the discovery process including, allegedly, destroying seven hard drives, sending witnesses to Europe so they can’t be deposed and otherwise obstructing the RIAA from gathering information.

In the end, the judge ruled that Usenet.com can not use the Betamax ruling in its defense, which said that the creator of a product can not be held liable if it has significant non-infringing use, due to the fact that Usenet.com’s relationship with the customer continued after the sale. Also, due to the misconduct, the judge barred the company from raising a defense under the DMCA, which protects Web hosts from liability if they expeditiously remove infringing material following notification.

In the end, it seems as if Usenet.com had a better chance at success before the alleged misconduct and only narrowly escaped a judgment against them on those grounds alone.

2: The Pirate Bay’s Revolt

Next up today, The Pirate Bay users, in a move that was pretty predictable, have revolted in a significant way against their former favorite Bittorrent tracker following its recent sale to a Swedish software company.

Though no one is really sure what will happen to the site, users have been asking for the ability to delete their account, while others have been calling for attacks against the site to bring it down.

However, even if The Pirate Bay is able to complete itself and survive this revolt, its odds of becoming a successful, legitimate business (if that is indeed the plan) are slim. Grokster, Napster and other services have shown have difficult it is to “go legit”.

3: Music copyright lawsuit targets Microsoft, Yahoo, Real

Finally today, Microsoft, Yahoo! and Real (though not Apple) are all being sued by Music Copyright Solutions (MCS) for allegedly not obtaining all of the correct rights to some of the songs in their catalogs. At odds specifically are the rights to some 200 compositions that MSC claims the companies correctly licensed the performance rights to, but not the composition ones. It is the composers that they are representing.

The case would be fairly dull but MCS is suing for each copy of every recording. So if a song is on four different albums, it is listed four times and MCS is seeking the maximum damages possible, $150,000 per infringement, putting the potential liability into the billions.

Now the odds of the judgment/settlement reaching anywhere near that is slim to none, but the numbers are eyeball-popping. Still, it will most likely be settled for a tiny fraction of the requested amount.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today, we’ll be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.