For the last week, Facebook has been in court over one of the biggest intellectual property scandals this year. The founders of rival social networking site “ConnectU” claim that Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, stole their ideas and trade secrets.
Their story goes like this:
- While ConnectU's founders Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevosss and Divya Narendra where attending Harvard, they began working on Harvard Connection, a social networking site (later renamed ConnectU).
- The plaintiffs claim to have hired Zuckerberg (at that time sophomore at Harvard) to work on the computer program software and database definitions for Harvard Connection, and even gave him access to the source code for their site.
- The plaintiffs claim that on Jan. 11, 2004, Zuckerberg registered the domain name “TheFaceBook.com” and launched Facebook on Feb. 4, 2004, using information gleaned from them.
- Zuckerberg allegedly never gave them the promised code, and never completed work on Havard Connection.
- The three then filed a lawsuit accusing Zuckerberg of copyright infringement, fraud, and misappropriation of trade secrets. The plaintiffs hope to get the hugely popular site shut down, and want all assets transferred to ConnectU.
Although Facebook’s attorneys claim that the allegations are are unsubstantiated with evidence, if it’s found that Zuckerberg did steal ConnectU’s intellectual property the results will be momentus. Facebook, valued at about 4 billion dollars (though this is arguable) and with 30 million active members, has a lot to lose.
As a user of facebook, I’m hoping that the allegations against Zuckerberg are false, and that Facebook wins the case.
So is this a case of dishonest disgruntled ex-colleagues with stars in their eyes, hungering over a piece of the Facebook pie? Or do the claims have something to them?
Only tomorrow’s ruling will tell.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Copyright set free
In this weeks blog I will be discussing a project which is itself a “golden mean” between the harsh stipulations of traditional copyright and the free-for-all of putting one’s work into the public domain – The Creative Commons.
The Creative Commons is an innovative project which gives authors the option to declare“some rights reserved.” Unlike the black-and-white totalitarianism of traditional copyright ( with “all rights reserved”, which can seriously stunt the life of a work) or the anarchy which results when no rights are retained (and an author’s work may be exploited), Creative Commons aims to protect the work while still encouraging transformative, innovative uses of it.
Creative Commons was in part inspired by the Free Software Foundation’s GNU General Public License first project (GNU GPL), however, unlike the GNU GPL, Creative Commons does not deal primarily with software : instead, it’s focus is on the licensing of other cultural commodities such as photography, literature, artworks, film, websites, scholarship etc.
Getting a Creative Commons license for one’s work (whether it be a photograph or a flash cartoon) is a great way to to retain one’s copyright while still licensing the work as free for certain uses on certain conditions. Allowing for a fair amount of freedom can keep your work “alive” for longer.
To give an example, imagine you take a photograph of a sunset. If you were to get it copyrighted and have “all rights reserved”, anyone wanting to use your photograph will have to get your permission, and possibly pay you to use it. This can be a huge discouragement to anyone wanting to use your work, and it may mean that your work never really has the chance to “evolve”, or to be more widely circulated. If, however, you are not terribly concerned about getting money from anyone using your work, and you opt for “some rights reserved”, you may find that your photograph exceeds its bounds, and is used in a variety of interesting and exciting ways (for example, maybe someone will incorporate your photograph into a webdesign, or a painting).
There are four conditions which one can apply to one’s work with a Creative Commons license:
-attribution requirement: the work may be reproduced and redistributed as long as credit is given
- no commercial use: the work may not be used for commecial purposes, unless permission is granted
- no derivative works: work may be copied and redistributed, but may bot be altered or transformed
- share alike option: people who use the work must make it available on the same terms given in the license
As media producers, we are often involved in personal side-projects – from designers making digital artworks in their spare time to print journo’s writing a book on the side – and its important to think very carefully about how to license one’s work before sharing it with the world.
The Creative Commons is an innovative project which gives authors the option to declare“some rights reserved.” Unlike the black-and-white totalitarianism of traditional copyright ( with “all rights reserved”, which can seriously stunt the life of a work) or the anarchy which results when no rights are retained (and an author’s work may be exploited), Creative Commons aims to protect the work while still encouraging transformative, innovative uses of it.
Creative Commons was in part inspired by the Free Software Foundation’s GNU General Public License first project (GNU GPL), however, unlike the GNU GPL, Creative Commons does not deal primarily with software : instead, it’s focus is on the licensing of other cultural commodities such as photography, literature, artworks, film, websites, scholarship etc.
Getting a Creative Commons license for one’s work (whether it be a photograph or a flash cartoon) is a great way to to retain one’s copyright while still licensing the work as free for certain uses on certain conditions. Allowing for a fair amount of freedom can keep your work “alive” for longer.
To give an example, imagine you take a photograph of a sunset. If you were to get it copyrighted and have “all rights reserved”, anyone wanting to use your photograph will have to get your permission, and possibly pay you to use it. This can be a huge discouragement to anyone wanting to use your work, and it may mean that your work never really has the chance to “evolve”, or to be more widely circulated. If, however, you are not terribly concerned about getting money from anyone using your work, and you opt for “some rights reserved”, you may find that your photograph exceeds its bounds, and is used in a variety of interesting and exciting ways (for example, maybe someone will incorporate your photograph into a webdesign, or a painting).
There are four conditions which one can apply to one’s work with a Creative Commons license:
-attribution requirement: the work may be reproduced and redistributed as long as credit is given
- no commercial use: the work may not be used for commecial purposes, unless permission is granted
- no derivative works: work may be copied and redistributed, but may bot be altered or transformed
- share alike option: people who use the work must make it available on the same terms given in the license
As media producers, we are often involved in personal side-projects – from designers making digital artworks in their spare time to print journo’s writing a book on the side – and its important to think very carefully about how to license one’s work before sharing it with the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
