The digital divide

June 12th, the way TV in the US is scheduled to switch from analog to digital. If you receive cable or satellite, you have no worries, you're fine. If you use an antenna (on top of the TV or on top of the roof), you will need a TV which picks up digital transmissions (most newer models do) or else a converter box.

It is too late to get coupons for the boxes. But if you have them, use them before they expire.





But you can purchase the boxes nationwide at Best Buy, Radio Shack, Target, Sears, Wal-Mart and other stores.





Click here for the government's website on the conversion.

The People Need To Sue AP

Shepard Fairey is the artist who produced an infamous piece of campaign art for a campaign we don't care much for. You may have seen the poster, it was reproduced by every where.







A controversy -- and back and forth lawsuits -- ensued when the AP began claiming that Fairey had violated their copyright by utilizing a portion of a photo AP took of Barack with fellow Men's Vogue Cover Boy and Box Office Poison George The Looney Clooney.



Fairey's explained his position and it includes:



No disrespect was intended to photographer Mannie Garcia, but I did not think (and do not think) I needed permission to make an art piece using a reference photo. From the beginning, I openly acknowledged that my illustration of Obama was based on a reference photograph. But the photograph is just a starting point. The illustration transforms it aesthetically in its stylization and idealization, and the poster has an altogether different purpose than the photograph does.





That's really all Fairey needs to state but he throws in other things that neither help his case or anyone else. For example, Mannie Garcia's opinion isn't relevant. Garcia is not suing him. Garcia does not not own his photo, AP does. Fairey countersued and he posted the following to his website on that:



My lawyers filed my response to The AP's claims against me on Tuesday (CLICK HERE FOR SHEPARD’S RESPONSE). It includes a dozen examples of AP photographs that consist almost entirely of copyrighted artwork from me and other artists. Today, The AP issued a statement accusing me of "making attacks" on them. I don't feel the need to respond to that in detail, because my lawyer already has (CLICK HERE FOR LAWYER’S RESPONSE).
As I have stated before I am fighting the AP to protect the rights of all artists but I do want to emphasize one other important point. I'm not accusing the AP of infringing anybody's rights. I'm saying everyone should have the same broad rights of fair use and free expression, and that includes The AP. I'm not questioning The AP's legal right to do what it does. But I am saying they have to be consistent. They can't have it both ways. If AP photographs that do nothing but depict other artists' work are protected by fair use, then my work has to be, too, because it's at least as transformative, creative and expressive as The AP photos we identify in my response, if not much more so. If the AP has the right to do what it's done, then so do I.



Art is art. It's not to be determined by Associated Press or any other news outlet. They can evaluate it, they can critique it, but they are not the ones who determine whether or not something is art. (In the end, history determines what is art.)



We make that point because Shepard Fairey and his attorneys seem to struggle with how to present their case repeatedly. For the record, Fairey's poster does not 'inspire' us. We wouldn't hang it. Nor did any of us vote for Barack (all but Ava and C.I. are on the record as voting for Ralph Nader -- Ava and C.I. have said they voted for Nader or Cynthia McKinney and, other than that, they're not saying). So our defense of him is not based on either being a fan of his art or on being a fan of his political beliefs.



Our defense is based upon art and upon AP practices.



What Shepard Fairey did was re-interpret an image. That is art. Art is all about the artist re-interpreting. Fairey did not reproduce a photo. He re-interpreted it, he re-configured it and, in the end, he came up with a visual that was striking and that was much used. By publications, by other candidates. His art work was more used than the photo that was an original inspiration.



That's what art can do and that's because what Fairey did was change the focal point, emphasize certain aspects and add colors that were not obvious choices. (The same colors predominate in a great deal of Fairey's work. The famous poster took his the palette he works with and exposed it to the world.)



On the basis of what art is, Fairey's on strong ground and should honestly make the case about that.



There's another issue involved, however. Fairey comes close to it noting that when AP photographs his or any other visual artists' work they put a copyright notice on that. How, he wonders, can they do that and refuse to allow him to use one of their photos as a source to create from?



That's a question which could lead to an endless debate.



But one thing became clear this month, how AP abuses copyright law.









Recognize the photo? You may know it (a darker version of it) as something AP copyrighted. They aren't the only ones. Getty Images claims to hold a copyright as well. How can two outlets hold the copyright to the same image? They can't.



And neither truly do.



The image above you can use freely. That's because it's not AP's copy or any other news outlet's copy. It's a copy C.I. picked up at the Mecklenburg Sheriff's Dept. The photo is Steven D. Green's mugshot. AP did not take this photo. Getty Images did not take this photo. The government took this photo and the government will release a copy to anyone who asks for it.



AP thinks they can stamp a copyright on works they did not produce, on works that the tax payers paid for. AP, which wants to sue Shepard Fairey for using one of their photos as a source of inspiration for a piece of art, also wants to claim that by receiving a copy of a public domain photo from the government, they can stamp "copyright AP" on it and refuse to allow anyone to use the photo without their permission.



Steven D. Green gang-raped and murdered 14-year-old Iraqi Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi and in the federal trial which ended this month, the prosecution -- that would be "the state," presented a photo as evidence. It is a photo of Abeer as a young child. Abeer was not a child model. No AP photographer set up a shoot with her and no AP photographer photographed her. Yet, if you click here, you will see the photo which is public domain (it became that when it became part of the prosecution's exhibit) and you will see see AP has stamped their brand on it.



AP has long abused copyright law and continues to do so. There is no big whiner than AP. They whine that their text is being used wrongly. And they attack blogs for that. They never attack, for example, KPFA whose 'news' breaks and, yes, evening news, is often nothing more than reading AP word for word without ever crediting it to AP. AP cares some times and some times it doesn't. An inconsistent stand like that should result in the courts tossing out AP's claims against Fairey -- claims which, on the face of it, do not merit a hearing because AP is not the judge of what constitutes art or what doesn't.



Fairey came across an AP photo and a portion of it inspired him, a portion of it led to his creating a poster because it gave him an image in his head worth sharing with the world. AP claims public domain photos as their own and, when pressed, they'll say the photos need to be seen. It shouldn't matter in the context of the case, but it does bear noting, Shephard Fairey didn't profit from the poster but AP profits from illegally slapping copyrights on public domain photos.



It also doesn't matter in terms of the legal issues, but it's still worth noting that posters were created for Hillary's campaign using similar colors and very close to Fairey's poster. Fairey did not support Hillary Clinton. But that didn't lead him to sue another artist, even one who was heavily borrowing from him, for trademark infringement. Should AP win the lawsuit, will they next go after the artist of the Hillary poster claiming that they also have a right to that poster as well?

Truth Talker of the Month

US House Rep Dennis Kucinich:



America went to war against Iraq based on a lie. We were told back in 2002 that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The previous administration even pursued torture to try to extract false confessions in order to justify the war. It is time to tell the truth. The truth is we should not have prosecuted a war against the Iraqi people. The truth is the Democratic Senate could have stopped the Iraq war in 202. The truth is we Democrats were given control of Congress in 2006 to end the war. The truth is this bill continues a disastrous war, which has cost the lives of thousands of soldiers. The truth is the occupation has fueld the insurgency. The truth is the Iraq war will cost the American and Iraqi people trillions of dollars and as many as a million innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of this war.
Don't tell the American people that you are ending the war by continuing to fund the war. Don't tell the American people that the war will end when their plans leave 50,000 troops in Iraq. Don't tell the American people that the way out of Afghanistan is to escalate our presence.
Get out of Iraq. Get out of Afghanistan. Come home America.

Box Office Poison

"Tom Hanks is over!" So insisted many before the box office returns of his latest film. "Tom Cruise is finished!" argued those foolishly enough to suck up to Sumner Redstone. Sumner's the idiot, Tom's got the career. But there are performers with problems. (Julia Roberts has a problem and Team Julia is working on addressing it.) And, worse, there are performers whom the audience no longer cares for. Below are performers who ended the 90s as certified stars and yet now struggle to sell tickets.



1) George Clooney.



The TV actor was once so magical onscreen he could take even trash like Batman & Robin and turn it into a money maker. Money makers were his speciality due to the fact that he actually starred in very few bona fide blockbusters. 2000 offered promise for George this decade as he finally -- six films after Batman & Robin -- had another film make at least $100,000 million. Sadly, he wasn't the lead. He was the co-lead (with Mark Wahlberg, The Perfect Storm). Since then, no Clooney film has cracked the $100,000 million mark. He has a cameo role in the Spy Kids franchise and he's part of the Oceans' ensemble. But not since Batman & Robin has he demonstrated he can carry a film. He's tried to carry eleven films this decade. None became a blockbuster. The best came in above $60 million US gross -- something to brag about . . . in 1986. Even his most recent film, teaming him with Ocean's co-star Brad Pitt and a huge ensemble, failed to bring in the ticket buyers (it just squeaked by $60 million). This decade, Clooney's repeatedly demonstrated that he cannot deliver an audience and he's ten years older than he was in 1999 so, as a dream boat, he's more than a bit frayed at the edges. In the process, he's become the most over-exposed and under-liked actor in the country.



2) Susan Sarandon.



The Sarandon appears to have spent this decade proving all of Pauline Kael's many critiques of her 'acting.' Sarandon's acting career actually ended with the cheesy, pulp film The Client, in 1994. What followed were "First Lady Of The Screen" roles which so sapped the audience's good will that by the time Sarandon finally returned to one of the tough cookie roles (1998's Twilight) which originally gave her career life (Thelma & Louise, Bull Durham, White Palace), ticket buyers didn't give a damn. She teamed up with Julia Roberts for the love story Stepmom in 1998 and the box office ($91 million) wrongly suggested she had a career. Her film career officially ended with the previews of 2004's Alfie where audience members wondered (a) why she was fat onscreen and (b) why her breasts sagged so? When those comments pop up from an audience seeing what is, for all intents and purposes, "a woman's film," there's a problem. And a number of shots were edited out of the eventually released film but audiences could still watch Susan attempt to strut around appearing sexy when the cameras captured something very, very different. No live action film that she's been the lead, the co-lead or the third lead in this decade has even managed to squeak to $60 million -- two failed to even bring in one million at the box office.



3) Mel Gibson.



Gibson is 54 but looks 64 and that's only one of the many roadblocks for one of the 90s most bankable male stars. At this rate, is there any group that will pay to see him? Some in the LGBT community (wrongly) believed GLAAD when they did their 90s He's-not-a-homophobe! dance. Today, the world knows better and the LGBT community and Catholics and Jews are only some of the many potential ticket buying segments he's offended. On the verge of a nasty divorce which will either find him splitting more than half the community property or having some of the worst stories leak to the press, Gibson's a time bomb for any studio. Few want to be left holding the bag if some disclosures are made. Though known for action pix, 2000 found him in his then-highest grossing film, Nancy Meyers' What Women Want, co-starring Helen Hunt. Even with a lot of careful camera work, it was obvious the days of pretty were fading fast for Mel. With the looks shot to hell (booze will do that) and the acting never developed beyond teen soap opera level, Gibson would be a risk. When you add in his attacks on Jewish people (including during his drunken arrest), his attacks on the Catholic Church and the loss of the only thing some used to point to ("At least he's stay married to the same woman! That says something about him!"), Jodie Foster's homophobic platonic pal appears unaware that his day has passed.



4) Jodie Foster.



In 1997, Jodie finally carried a film to the $100 million mark that she could call her own. Silence of the Lambs was as much Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Demme's vehicle as it was her own, Maverick was a piece of trash that was also carried by Mel Gibson. 1997 found her in a summer blockbuster, Contact, which grossed $100 million in the US. She followed it up with one of her many disasters (this one was Anna and the King) but found her footing at the start of the decade when she became a last minute replacement for an injured Nicole Kidman in 2002's Panic Room. $5 million short of $100 million, it would be her highest grosser for the decade. As the decade progressed, she became dead onscreen, one wooden performance after another. "Jodie With A Gun!" tried to tease the studio for The Brave One but the audience didn't give a damn about watching Jodie give a sexless performance in what appeared to be a sexless homage to Terry Gross ($37 million). Even returning to children's films (last year's Nim's Island) didn't help (adjust the gross for Freaky Friday at today's ticket prices and Nim's Island proved she couldn't regain the children either). Today's audience knows her best from the vicious spoofs of her on Family Guy where she's forever farting and always coming on to women. If Jodie had gotten honest about her sexuality would she still come off so cold onscreen? No one knows but what is known is that it's become the worst kept secret and is now a public joke. She could say, "I don't talk about my personal life." Except for the fact that when the rumors really got traction, she showed up in various women's magazines proclaiming that she taught Scott Baio to kiss. Can an actress make a career out of playing widows, the dateless and/or women whose partners are never on camera? We can't think of anyone who has but the allegedly smart Foster keeps thinking she can. Of all the people on this list, Jodie's the only one who could save her own career in an instant. All it would take is her getting her performance out of the head and back into the body. Otherwise? Greer Garson managed to be a sexless box office attraction from roughly 1939 to 1951. But that came to end.



5) Orlando Bloom.



One of the most glaring faults of this decade has been the inability of films to create any new stars. Your comedy stars either got their start in films before this decade or on TV. No actress emerged in the 00s as a major bankable star due to films (Anne Hathaway, tremendously talented, would be the closet thing and her best box office is as a co-lead). But no actor was pimped harder by a studio than Orlando Bloom whom New Line would whisper was the only "good looking" young actor in the Lord of the Rings films. He got publicity. And once upon a time, so did Mark Hamill. We know how this story ends even if the studios haven't caught on. Appearing in the Pirates franchise confused the issue but an examination of any film he has to carry demonstrates that he can't and that the actor New Line thought was "good looking" has a face made for stage work. Kingdom of Heaven, Ned Kelly, Elizabethtown, Haven, The Calcium Kid . . . How many disasters can a faded piece of not-all-that eye candy command before the studios catch on? The refusal to cast him in last year's Twilight indicates that they already have figured out he's a 'teen idol' in the same way Anthony Perkins was.

Rights Lawyers File Motion for Activists Indicted Under Terror Law for Leafleting, Internet Research

For immediate release

Contact:



Alison Roh Park , 212.614.6480, apark@ccrjustice.org

Jen Nessel , 212.614.6449, jnessel@ccrjustice.org


Rights Lawyers File Motion for Activists Indicted Under Terror Law for Leafleting, Internet Research


Rights Attorneys File Motion Saying AETA Indictment In Violation of First Amendment


May 21, 2009, New York , NY -- Today, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the Civil Liberties Defense Center (CLDC) joined in defense attorneys' motion to dismiss the U.S. government's indictment of four animal rights activists under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA).
"To characterize protest and speech as terrorist activities is ludicrous,” said CCR cooperating attorney Matthew Strugar . "And it is not just animal rights activists who are in danger here. The AETA is so broad and unclear it could be used to suppress lawful protests and boycotts by any activists across the spectrum, no matter what the issue. The law must be struck down."
The activists, Joseph Buddenberg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope and Adriana Stumpo, referred to as the AETA 4, were indicted for alleged conspiracy to commit "animal enterprise terrorism" as a result of their alleged participation in conduct including protesting, writing with chalk on the sidewalk, chanting, leafleting, and the use of "the Internet to find information on bio-medical researchers." These activities are protected by the First Amendment.
Passed by Congress towards the end of the Bush administration, the AETA makes activities such as protests, boycotts, picketing and whistleblowing crimes. Though the AETA targets animal rights activists, lawyers say its language is so broad and vague that it could be easily used to prosecute any activists who might engage in peaceful activities such as a labor group picketing or organizing a boycott. For this reason, CCR has joined with the AETA 4 to ask the court to strike down the law as unconstitutional.
The case of the AETA 4 is the first use of the AETA since it was signed into law -- it is clear that the law can and will be used against lawful activists. Attorneys say it is of critical importance that the case against the AETA 4 be dropped in order to protect our Constitutional right to dissent.
"These activists are peaceable individuals exercising their rights as guaranteed by the United States ," said volunteer attorney for the AETA 4 Bob Bloom. "This law is a blatant attempt to silence peaceful political dissent and fundamental rights in the interests of industries that abuse our natural resources."
For more information on the AETA, click here. For more information on the case, click here.
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a non-profit legal and educational organization dedicated to protecting and advancing the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change and uses litigation to empower poor communities and communities of color, to guarantee the rights of those with the fewest protections and least access to legal resources, to train the next generation of constitutional and human rights attorneys, and to strengthen the broader movement for constitutional and human rights. Visit www.CCRjustice.org
The Civil Liberties Defense Center is a nonprofit organization focused on defending and upholding civil liberties through education, outreach, litigation, legal support and assistance. The Civil Liberties Defense Center strives to preserve the strength and vitality of the Bill of Rights and the U.S. and state constitutions, as well as to protect freedom of expression. Visit www.cldc.org.

Highlights

This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights. On illustration, we haven't chosen one. Ty said people were e-mailing to ask who the kids and the people were? That was Bette Davis. Here's Frank Sinatra.





"I Hate The War" -- most requested highlight by the readers of this site as passed on by Ty.

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Cult of St. Barack Holds Feet to the Fire" -- Isaiah's comie from last Sunday, an instant classic.

C.I.'s Thursday "Iraq snapshot" and Friday "Iraq snapshot,"Betty's "Gail McGown Mellor is a MENACE," Trina's "Steven D. Green is happy with his sentence," Rebecca's "the worst library in the country is in dallas, texas," Ruth's "The CBS Evening Junk News," Kat's "Senate Armed Services Committee" Marcia's "The Dumb Ass Gail McGowan Mellor," Stan's "The sentence," Mike's "The sentence for Green, CCR" -- the sentence for Steven D. Green and the reaction in the community.

"Movie" and "The embarrassing Jerry Lewis" -- Betty and Cedric cover mvoies.

"Barry will detain you" -- Bully Boy Bush was "the decider," Bully Boy Barry wants to be "the detainer."

"Matthew Rothschild finally comes out of the closet," "Right before his dick falls off, Old Man Rothschild gets honest" and "COWARD ROTHSCHILD FINALLY OUT OF THE CLOSET" -- Elaine, Cedric and Wally cover Matty Roth's disclosure.

"Steven D. Green's case may not be over" -- will Green appeal?

"Iraq snapshot," "Jim Webb on dwell time," "Senate Armed Services Committee (Army suicide)," "Iraq snapshot," "Senate Democratic Policy Committee hearing," "Iraq snapshot" and "Senate Armed Services Committee" -- C.I., Ava and Kat report on some of the hearings they attended in DC last week (they're reporting on three hearings, Kat says they attended at least six and maybe seven).

"Tomatoes and Bean Salad in the Kitchen," "Steven D. Green is happy with his sentence," "ACLU, Al Jazeera," "Senate hearing" and "Isaiah, Roberto Rodriguez" -- Trina's posts. Betty suggested we highlight all of them. Due to C.I.'s reporting on the Congressional hearings and also due to the Green case, Trina posted every day last week.

"Why should anyone vote for Marcy Winograd?" -- Ruth asks an important question.

"Music and don't give a dime to KPFA" -- Kat comes out strongly against KPFA (which ended up $50,000 short on Friday according to KPFA friends -- the pledge drive ended Friday).

"(Scott) Horton Who's A Whore" -- Who doesn't love Dr. Seus?

"Whoring it Sonoma State style" -- Elaine takes on self-marketed cheese cake.

"Medium" and "Medium, Third, Isaiah, more" -- Betty and Mike weigh in on Medium.

"Karl 'n Cuffs" and "Downing Street Memo" -- Two because we forgot him last week. Our apologies. Isaiah is posting his comics at his own site. He's putting tags on them and doing one a week in the hopes that it will make it easier if we need to search for something. (We're all very bad about calling him and asking him when such and such ran? When he doesn't know, we call C.I.? We appreciate the website and only wish that it were already up to 2008.) Our apologies for forgetting him last Sunday. C.I. caught it and Ty states readers Myra, Dean and Louann e-mailed to point it out as well.

Truest statement of the week

I'd like to actually focus on one thing really quick. Jeremy Scahill recently wrote about this. I'd like one quote from him, that "by September of this year, Obama will have sent more troops into combat than Bush." We, as military families, we feel this. We see the rest of the numbers going down in protests and peace activities because everyone kind of feels like, well, they did their job, they voted Obama in, and the job is over and everything is winding down. It's not winding down. We are getting increased deployments. We are -- you know, the processes that led us to this are actually being accelerated under Obama and I just really want to emphasize as a military family that we really need your help and support out there when we have these events like on Sunday or Winter Soldier on Saturday we need people to attend and listen to our stories because things are actually ramping up in these wars especially with the drone attacks and the destabilization and what's happening in Pakistan. It's only going to get worse, not better. We have a lot of work to do.



-- Tina Richards, Tuesday, May 12th, on KPFK's Sojourner Truth.

Truest statement of the week II

First, many Democrats are reluctant to recognize that Obama, who they have invested so much hope in, has not been the agent of change that they expected. This reluctance persists in the face of the evidence and takes the form of clinging onto the belief that Obama, even though he has shown every indication of the opposite, nonetheless secretly wants to hold the Bush criminals to account. According to this view, Obama is delaying prosecutions because he can’t move on these matters yet. He is biding his time and waiting for the proper moment. This persistence of hope in Obama in the face of substantial contrary evidence also takes the form of people no longer openly protesting in street demonstrations the wars that were previously so egregious when Bush was president.
Second, we see a re-creation of the same kind of ad hominem defense that existed among Bush’s followers now for Obama. Among some of these Obama fans (a small minority) we find, when you scratch the surface, a startling degree of vituperativeness and ruthless dishonesty (including attempted character assassination) directed against anyone who dares to deliver the bad news that Obama is not doing what so many hoped that he would. This subgroup of Obama fans finds itself bedfellows with GOP reactionaries who have common cause with them in trying to prevent the Bush criminals from being prosecuted (tactical unity, for now at least) and preventing or discounting exposes of the illegal war crimes being committed, the predations of the national security state, and enlarged executive powers (present under Bush and now being carried forward under Obama.)

-- Dennis Loo, "The Impossibly Bad Policies of the Politics of the Possible" (World Can't Wait).