This Four-letter word has me ANGRY!
Which four-letter word? Why DMCA of course!

Ok, so it's an acronym, but you still would not believe how steamed I get whenever it is mentioned.

Copyright is out of control. The DMCA may be the worst piece of legislation regarding creative content in the last 50 years.

For those unfamiliar with these issues and interested in learning more should check out http://www.educause.edu/issues/dmca.html and also this insightful look at copyright http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/forum/copyright/intro.htm.

The Spark
However, I normally spend my day humming along without much thought about the actual negative effects that these laws have on creative content and innovation. In fact, I don't often come across instances "in the wild" where the DMCA/Copyright law has had an obvious negative impact on creativity.

Well, tonight I came across one such instance. Curt Cloninger is a Web guru and author among other things and is someone I greatly admire. His art Web art is amazing and his insight into design is invaluable. Recently the Getty Images corporation (which some art on this site was legally purchased from) evoked the DMCA and all it's power to prevent Clonnninger from displaying a "Nature Quilt." The nature quilt is an artistic experiment and basically features art contributed freely by other people and organizations.

Cloninger details the entire incident in his e-mail correspondence regarding the issue and it is incredibly interesting and worth the time it takes to sit down and read it in it's entirety.

Without getting too specific the basic summary of the exchange is that Getty Images told Cloninger to pull an image from his "Nature Quilt" because the rights had not been legally purchased. Cloninger's argument was that he wasn't hosting the image and that it was merely being linked on his site to another site. The actual image was the responsibility of the individual or group who was hosting it and who is to know if they paid for the rights or not. His point was that it's not his responsibility to check if every image he links to is paid for or not and that he should be able to link to the image. If it was illegally obtained then Getty Images should go after those responsible and NOT Cloninger (anything familiar about this? can we say Napster?).

Easy Pickings
What we have here is an independent artist essentially being attacked and in turn repressing his ability to create. Can it be any more clear? The quilt is incomplete without this image! The artist has not been allowed to create because of the DMCA/Copyright law. This is only one clear example of many, many instances where creativity has been stopped because of laws constructed to maintain the old regime of copyright business instead of embracing new technology and rethinking the benefits and consequences of existing laws as well as new ones.

Let me be clear. I do not condone the stealing of images. I understand that the photographer and even Getty Images have a right to be paid for their work. Essentially all images used on a Web site must comply with copyright law. While I don't think that the current copyright laws are completely just in today's technology driven world I do understand that they should be followed until changed.

Yet, common sense demands that we ask what exactly did Cloninger do wrong? Why go after him and not the source of the image? Even more importantly, what if the image HAD been paid for in full? Is it not the right of the purchaser to "give" the image or "loan" the image to a non-profit organization or individual for a unspecified period of time? What is the harm? What is the benefit? If I buy a book the law says I can make a few copies of pages to give to my friend. If I buy a CD the law also says I can make a taped copy and give it to my sister. So why can't I purchase a photo and loan that photo to a friend for a couple of months?

These are the inconsistencies that worry me. The inconsistencies result from new law being piled on top of old law. The old law is not only NOT being applied correctly but it is being ignored when it clearly demands use of common sense and it's being ignored to the peril of creativity and innovation.

Call to Action
So, what should be done? Well in this case if the photo was NOT paid for by the image host then go after them. Shut them down. That scenario is common sense even under the new laws. However, we should also rethink how we view copyright. Is it so wrong to share a few images? Maybe it is. But then again, maybe it's not.

Think. Now I'm not so angry anymore. Just don't mention that ugly four-letter word around me for a while.