Request for Comments NAGPRA

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-5283.htm


"In brief, this rule pertains to those human remains, in collections, determined by museums and Federal agencies to be Native American, but for whom no relationship of shared group identity can be reasonably traced, historically or prehistorically, between a present day Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and an identifiable earlier group. These individuals are listed on inventories as culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains. The rule requires consultation on the culturally unidentifiable human remains by the museum or Federal agency with Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian
organizations whose tribal lands or aboriginal occupancy areas are in the area where the remains were removed. If cultural affiliation still cannot be determined and repatriation achieved, then the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization may request disposition of the remains. The museum or Federal agency would then publish a notice and transfer
control to the tribe, without first being required to appear before the Review Committee to seek a recommendation for disposition approval from the Secretary of the Interior. Disposition requests, which do not meet the parameters of the rule, would still require approval from the Secretary, who may request a recommendation from the Review Committee.
Therefore, the Department is issuing this final rule to be effective May 14, 2010."

http://www.nps.gov/nagpra/

Michigan Repatriation Developments

"On Monday, a NAGPRA committee approved a change in the act that will force museums — like the University’s Museum of Anthropology — to inform Native American tribes that “culturally unidentifiable” remains found in their tribal regions may potentially be returned to them."
http://www.michigandaily.com/content/change-act-may-make-museum-anthropology-return-native-american-remains-0?page=0,0

"A group of about 30 anthropologists, archeologists and concerned members of the University community gathered to hear Sven Haakanson, Jr., executive director of the Alutiiq Museum in Alaska, speak and answer questions about relationships between museums and Native American tribes. Haakanson also discussed how the issue of repatriation is often handled at other museums."

http://www.michigandaily.com/content/group-gathers-discuss-native-american-remains?page=0,0

Information on The Joint Strategic Plan

I've been collecting a bit of information about this plan as it moves forward:

Bio of Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/intellectualproperty/bio_espinel/

Some comments filed recently - I am not finding a centralized location for these public comments yet:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/big-content-stopping-p2p-should-be-principal-focus-of-ip-czar.ars

http://www.cdt.org/comments/comments-joint-strategic-plan

http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/fsf-opposes-more-copyright-enforcement-in-joint-strategic-plan

http://www.ascap.com/playback/2010/03/action/IPEC_Announcment.aspx

http://opinion.latimes.com/files/joint-submission-re-ipec-3-24-10-2626645.pdf

Here is the letter Re: CCCC-IP Caucus & Committee files public comments on The Joint Strategic Plan, and with support of CCCC

The letter should be posted soon to the CCCC-IP Committee website:

Dear Everyone:

A team of us associated with the CCCC-Intellectual Property (IP) Committee and Caucus (http://www.ncte.org/cccc/committees/ip) submitted a letter to Victoria A. Espinel, United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator regarding The Joint Strategic Plan before yesterday's 5 pm ET deadline. We had asked for your support Monday afternoon (3-22-2010; see copy of request below). We are just following up to provide a copy of the letter that was submitted, linked below (temporarily posted here-will be moved to IP Committee site soon):

http://www.martinecourantrife.com/IP-CAUCUS/cccc-ip_caucus-committee-ltr-03-24-10.pdf

Thanks to everyone for mobilizing on such short notice, and special thanks to Karen Lunsford, Chair of the CCCC Committee on Intellectual Property for working with the larger CCCC organization and obtaining their support.

We'll keep you posted on further developments.

Thanks again—

Martine for the CCCC-IP Caucus, as Junior Chair

CCCC-IP Caucus & Committee files public comments on The Joint Strategic Plan, and with support of CCCC

Last week, we sent out the following email to various listserves and facebook for people to "sign" on in support of public comments crafted by the CCCC-IP Caucus and Committee - here's the email which supplies background information:

Dear Everyone:


We are inviting you to offer your “signature” in support of the CCCC-IP Caucus (endorsed by the CCCC-IP Committee and CCCC) with respect to the letter linked below, on or before Tuesday, midnight EST, March 23, 2010 (send your name and institutional affiliation c/o martinerife@gmail.com). Offering your support to the IP Caucus does not preclude you from additionally composing your own public comments (details below), and we encourage you to do so.


Each year since 1994 the Intellectual Property Caucus of the Conference on College Communication and Composition (CCCC-IP Caucus) meets for an hours long discussion/workshop on issues surrounding teachers and researchers of writing/composing as those issues intersect intellectual property law and policy.


This year, on Weds. March 17, the caucus crafted a letter to Victoria A. Espinel, United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator in response to a formal request for public comments (due on or before March 24 at 5pm EST-but to be submitted by us well in
advance of the deadline) on the topic of increasing IP enforcement (see link to “short explanation” below).


CCCC-IP CAUCUS LETTER
http://www.martinecourantrife.com/IP-CAUCUS/CCCC-ip_caucus-committee-ltr-3-22-2010.pdf

Short Explanation
http://www.martinecourantrife.com/IP-CAUCUS/Short-Explanation.pdf

Call for public comments:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-3539.htm

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-3539.pdf

Some sample letters/public comments on somewhat related issues, for further ideas:

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/answers/7_10_responses/decherney-reply-to-post-hearing-questions_1.pdf

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/answers/9_21_responses/otw.pdf

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/answers/9_21_responses/joint-supporters.pdf

http://www.ce.org/PDF/obamaIPcoalitionletter.pdf

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/answers/7_10_responses/final-rife_response-to-questions-july-10-2009.pdf

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/answers/9_21_responses/rife.pdf

http://www.martinecourantrife.com/IP-CAUCUS/sample-public-advocacy-letters/0Arife_request_FINAL_4-1-09.pdf

If you would like to offer your support of the CCCC-IP Caucus, please send your name and institutional affiliation to martinerife@gmail.com on or before Tuesday, midnight EST, March 23, 2010 and it will be included in the designated space on the CCCC-IP Caucus letter (see
letter linked above).


Thank you much for your time!


Martine & Traci


Traci Zimmerman, Associate Professor

The School of Writing, Rhetoric, and Technical Communication

James Madison University

Senior Chair; CCCC-IP Caucus


Martine Courant Rife, Professor

Writing Program, Communication Department

Lansing Community College

Junior Chair; CCCC-IP Caucus

Spain is set to go after file sharing

"The names of 200 Web sites that offer links to illegal downloads in Spain are to be given to the Spanish industry ministry as the first major move in the fight against online music piracy, it was announced in Madrid today (Oct. 19) at the presentation of a report called Parasites' Business."
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i5c14b307d54f1cc3d00b03f51fbe853a

Delaware Court on case of first impression holds photographs published on web in Germany not "published" in US

From Loeb & Loeb LLP: "District court, addressing what it determined to be an issue of first impression, holds that posting a work created outside the U.S. on a website outside the U.S. by a foreign national does not constitute publishing the work simultaneously in the U.S., and therefore plaintiff did not need to register his photographs before filing suit for infringement in a U.S. court."

http://www.loeb.com/news/CaseList.aspx?Type=ip

The opinion states that publishing the work (photos) in Germany is not "publishing" for purposes of the requirement for registration needed on US works in order to bring suit in the US, even though after published on the web in Germany the photos were immediately available on the web in the US.

The court states on page 8, "Thus, in a case of first impression, this Court must consider the correlation between the posting of foreign copyrighted works on a foreign website and the copyright holder’s ability to file suit for infringement in the United States pursuant to the United States Copyright Act."

The court has held that even though, in reality, when the photos were published in Germany they were simultaneously published in the U.S., "as a matter of statutory law" they were *not* published in the U.S.

The opinion doesn't describe that copyright registration is a relatively easy process, and registration is needed to bring suit, not to have copyright protection.

From the opinion:
“What appears to be a simple premise actually joins an issue of first impression not addressed by any court. Defendants contend that plaintiff’s photographs, which were created undisputably outside the United States, are United States works because when
they were posted on a German website, they were ‘published’simultaneously in Germany and in the United States . . . because the posting of a photograph on a website simultaneously ‘publishes’ the photograph ‘everywhere,’ including the United States, it is a ‘United States work,’ and as such, it must be registered prior to filing suit for infringement . . . Professor Cotter explains, however, that the determination of the country of origin is not so simple, as that determination hinges on whether the work is ‘published,’ and, if so, where the work is published . . . The Court does not need to delve into yet another unsettled issue, however, because even assuming that the German website ‘published’ plaintiff’s photographs, the Court holds that as a matter of U.S. statutory law the photographs were not published simultaneously in the United States.” Moberg v 33T LCC, US District Court Delaware