[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use... it ain't over yet.
Um...I'm not sure why I got this email, but I did, so I thought I would pass it along but it was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] Of course this may be old news Hello, My name is Laura Phillips from the University. I am an Administrative Director for the school and I represent Christine in this discussion. I apologize that this is a long post, but I am going to be addressing the entire conversation so far on this subject and explaining what it is John is really up against and also that we intend NO harm toward John and have always just wanted to find a peaceful solution with him. First of all, Jenny was not authorized to make any agreements of any sort, and it says that the only person who is authorized to make contractual agreements are the board of directors. Jenny is just a young girl who didn't realize the seriousness of the situation or the implications that copyright infringement can bring. Just because Jenny was unknowledgeable about how to handle the situation and did not alert managing staff to the misuse of the video that UMS owns, this does not grant permission and will not be upheld in a court of law. Managing staff did not know about the video until only a few days ago. Only the owners of such copyrighted material are allowed to grant permissions. The permission was not granted by an authorized person, so no contract can be honored in court. Jenny, fresh out of high school, is not authorized to make contracts on behalf of the company. As for the Fair Use Act, John Holden is seriously out of sync with what the Fair Use Act entails. Yes, material is allowed in 3 second clips to be used in parody or commentary. However, entire videos from beginning to end are clearly not allowed, as proven by previous court cases that have been presented to us. The video is not part of a series, and the videos have never been put into one work as if it is all one video in a DVD or any other media. They are only numbered for organizational purposes on youtube so as to keep track of them, which is a practice many people do. At no place in the video is it said that is it part of a series. No videos continue any topic, each topic is discussed only in one video, and each discussion stands alone. There are no continuations. So it is clear to say that the entire video was used by John Holden, exactly all 04:57 minutes of it, (5 minutes) and nothing less. This far exceeds what the fair use act was intended for. There are four factors in determining what fair use is. Number 3 and 4 are what come into play and where John Holden is seriously mistaken. This is where a jury and judge would find fault with his ideas that he has partaken in fair use. Just because a lawyer will take it pro bono so he can have fun challenging it does not put John in a safe place. It is no hair off the lawyer's back if John loses, and if John were to lose, he could be left with large fines and our lawyer's fees to pay. The pro bono lawyer walks away with not a scratch while John Holden is left holding the bag. So don't get too comfortable with the fact that a free lawyer will help out. You get what you pay for. Free is not a good price when you have so much to lose. Is a parody worth thousands of dollars in a lost lawsuit? Factor 3 in the fair use act tells the jury that they must weigh how much of the copyrighted material is used and using the whole thing in its entirety is a clear violation of the fair use act, since only short clips are allowed. Why do you think Saturday Night Live only uses 3 second clips? It is because that is what is safe to get away with. Factor number 4 is that the jury must determine harm to the business that the infringement does. Since students of the school have complained about the comments left on John's video and have complained about the video itself, which were indeed harmful to the business, we do believe that a jury would find that the video is in violation on factor 4 as well. John is safe with factors 1 and 2, but as for 3 and 4, he is not. If even one of these factors has been violated, it is found to be a complete violation. There is no in between. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A lawyer who is an expert in copyright law and online free speech has offered to represent me pro bono! And it all happened because I started talking about on this list and Irina forwarded it to Jason Schultz at LawGeek who is now representing me. I can't thank everybody enough. File this one as an instance of the community standing up for somebody. that's awesome. I would love to set some precedent for quoting video. as I said before, it's an accepted practice to quote text from someone's blog and make comment on it. this is called conversation/critique. When a videoblogger quotes video from someone's blog and makes comment on it, there's a big chance it's called infringement. I
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use... it ain't over yet.
Oh, man... and if you think this is bad, you should see the email he got from the cartoon butterfly's lawyers. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, My name is Laura Phillips from the University. I am an Administrative Director for the school and I represent Christine in this discussion.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use... it ain't over yet.
The high school student who is running the page clearly has more sense than they and the lawyers (and why don't they run their own YouTube page). No, fair use isn't limited to three second clips. And Jason surely knows more than whatever lawyers they have sending threatening letters. He was a staff attorney at EFF, taught at intellectual property and cyberlaw at UC Berkeley, and is now Associate Director of the Samuelson Law, Technology, Public Policy Clinic there. They also don't seem to realize that if they do take legal action far more people will watch the video than if they had just realized no harm was done by a parody being up since July seen by under 3000 people. -- Steve Rhodes http://flickr.com/photos/ari/ photos http://ari.typepad.com http://tigerbeat.vox.com blogs http://del.icio.us/tigerbeat interesting articles sites http://twitter.com/tigerbeat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use... it ain't over yet.
While fair use laws favor using less... In a parody, the parodist is borrowing in order to comment upon the original work. A parodist is permitted to borrow quite a bit, even the heart of the original work, in order to conjure up the original work. That's because, as the Supreme Court has acknowledged, the heart is also what most readily conjures up the [original] for parody, and it is the heart at which parody takes aim. (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music , 510 U.S. 569 (1994).) There's no 3-second rule in copyright, I think that's only when you drop something on the floor. People have been sued for less and cleared for more. There is no magical number. Seems to me that this is all about John's video popping up under related videos when people watch her videos. They just can't stand it. Copyright is the side issue. So let's admit what the real problem is, discuss our feelings, and figure out how we can heal one another? Sorry, I watched a few of her videos. Just as it isn't in anyone's best interest to go to court, I think the same can be said for messing with people who have the capability of posting much weirder (debatable) and copyright compliant video responses to the University's YouTube videos. We could make a month of it.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use... it ain't over yet.
fyi, this person has joined this group today more conversation here ... http://lanbui.com/2007/12/24/how-to-keep-a-high-star-rating-on-youtube/ On Dec 27, 2007, at 5:23 PM, Heath wrote: Um...I'm not sure why I got this email, but I did, so I thought I would pass it along but it was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] Of course this may be old news Hello, My name is Laura Phillips from the University. I am an Administrative Director for the school and I represent Christine in this discussion. . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use... it ain't over yet.
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: fyi, this person has joined this group today more conversation here ... http://lanbui.com/2007/12/24/how-to-keep-a-high-star-rating-on-youtube Oh man... just when I give up hope that this conflict could escalate in hilarity, I am delighted to be proven wrong. Chris
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use... it ain't over yet.
Wow, that Laura lady if Nuckin Futs.wow...she make christians seem tolerant and understanding, and I would know Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: fyi, this person has joined this group today more conversation here ... http://lanbui.com/2007/12/24/how-to-keep-a-high-star-rating-on- youtube/ On Dec 27, 2007, at 5:23 PM, Heath wrote: Um...I'm not sure why I got this email, but I did, so I thought I would pass it along but it was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] Of course this may be old news Hello, My name is Laura Phillips from the University. I am an Administrative Director for the school and I represent Christine in this discussion. . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use... it ain't over yet.
I know!!! Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy markus.sandy@ wrote: fyi, this person has joined this group today more conversation here ... http://lanbui.com/2007/12/24/how-to-keep-a-high-star-rating-on- youtube Oh man... just when I give up hope that this conflict could escalate in hilarity, I am delighted to be proven wrong. Chris
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use... it ain't over yet.
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Um...I'm not sure why I got this email, but I did, so I thought I would pass it along but it was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] Of course this may be old news Hello, My name is Laura Phillips from the University. I am an Administrative Director for the school and I represent Christine in this discussion. On reading this message, it seems that the intent is to bully John into removing his video and influence him not to seek legal representation. Why on earth would someone with legal representation not allow counsel to speak for him/her? Why would this person also contact members of the videoblogging YahooGroup offlist? Or argue about something completely irrelevant on Lan Bui's blog? It simply does not make sense. Here's an unrelated but interesting story of a religious group that used DMCA take down notices to remove videos critical of them from YouTube. http://www.citmedialaw.org/creationist-atheist-brouhaha-over-dmca-takedown-notices (http://tinyurl.com/ywc4cx) Kenya
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use... it ain't over yet.
yay! thank you john for not sitting down on the job! i am really looking forward to see how this turns out really, i just think rhyming crustacean with vacation is all i care about and i am trying to protect the rhyme LOL jason, as always, u da bomb On Dec 25, 2007 11:43 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A lawyer who is an expert in copyright law and online free speech has offered to represent me pro bono! And it all happened because I started talking about on this list and Irina forwarded it to Jason Schultz at LawGeek who is now representing me. I can't thank everybody enough. File this one as an instance of the community standing up for somebody. seems like a bad deal, but maybe worth the hassle of fighting Youtube and her DMCA takedown request. this kind of thing sends a chill through the creative air. -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use... it ain't over yet.
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A lawyer who is an expert in copyright law and online free speech has offered to represent me pro bono! Wow... a piece of GOOD copyright news with the word Bono attached. There's something you don't see every day. Chris
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use... it ain't over yet.
A lawyer who is an expert in copyright law and online free speech has offered to represent me pro bono! And it all happened because I started talking about on this list and Irina forwarded it to Jason Schultz at LawGeek who is now representing me. I can't thank everybody enough. File this one as an instance of the community standing up for somebody. that's awesome. I would love to set some precedent for quoting video. as I said before, it's an accepted practice to quote text from someone's blog and make comment on it. this is called conversation/critique. When a videoblogger quotes video from someone's blog and makes comment on it, there's a big chance it's called infringement. I know its a hazy issue, but be great to start defining. if not, we're just going to have all these separate videos on youtube with no interaction between them. its just TV again with lots of different channels. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Video: http://ryanishungry.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use... it ain't over yet.
A lawyer who is an expert in copyright law and online free speech has offered to represent me pro bono! And it all happened because I started talking about on this list and Irina forwarded it to Jason Schultz at LawGeek who is now representing me. I can't thank everybody enough. File this one as an instance of the community standing up for somebody. seems like a bad deal, but maybe worth the hassle of fighting Youtube and her DMCA takedown request. this kind of thing sends a chill through the creative air.
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use... the situation is resolved.
Well, the good news is I worked out a compromise. The bad news is the video I just spent 10+ hours working on will never be posted. She wants me to sever all connection to her from the video, remove her name, the metatags and the youtube response connection so that nobody watching her stuff will find my stuff. But I can keep the video. Otherwise, she will hunt me down, her team is researching my website server right now to have it shut down. She will ask youtube to delete my entire account. She says she will begin a two year legal battle. And she will sue me for slander if I start blogging about it or speaking in forums. I'm avoiding using her name right now because geez, she would not be happy if she found out I was talking about it. I briefly thought about becoming a martyr for fair use but quickly came to my senses. I get to keep the video! --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm taking your advice, Jay. All this pointy headed thinking has put me in the mood to make a humorous video about this situation. Controversy gets you views. And it makes the jokes better. since no one is making money hereit seems more a matter of this woman not having a sense of humor. god knows Ive been skewed in my time. John, just post this video to blip if Youtube is going to take it down. if anything, controversy gets you views.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use... the situation is resolved.
so much for living in the now :) On Dec 24, 2007, at 12:20 AM, ractalfece wrote: Otherwise, she will hunt me down, her team is researching my website server right now to have it shut down. She will ask youtube to delete my entire account. She says she will begin a two year legal battle. And she will sue me for slander if I start blogging about it or speaking in forums. I'm avoiding using her name right now because geez, she would not be happy if she found out I was talking about it. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use... the situation is resolved.
Well, the good news is I worked out a compromise. The bad news is the video I just spent 10+ hours working on will never be posted. She wants me to sever all connection to her from the video, remove her name, the metatags and the youtube response connection so that nobody watching her stuff will find my stuff. But I can keep the video. Otherwise, she will hunt me down, her team is researching my website server right now to have it shut down. She will ask youtube to delete my entire account. She says she will begin a two year legal battle. And she will sue me for slander if I start blogging about it or speaking in forums. I'm avoiding using her name right now because geez, she would not be happy if she found out I was talking about it. i wonder if she has a psychic assassination squad. these dudes in blue jumpsuits who meditate outside your housethe bad kind of meditating. black meditation. seems like a bad deal, but maybe worth the hassle of fighting Youtube and her DMCA takedown request. this kind of thing sends a chill through the creative air. again, I ask the question: Why is is perfectly normal, accepted, and encouraged to use blocks of text from someone's text blog in your own text blog? No one would scream copyright infringement if I took your entire text blog post, and responded to each paragraph. this would be called criticism, parody, and CONVERSATION. Can you imagine someone emailing Blogger because I used part of your text blog? no one would respond, or need to respond. But if a videoblogger uses any part of someone else's video, it becomes copyright infringement. Has the MPAA infected our minds with ideas of piracy that we're crazy? Youtube is so sensitive to people posting Simpson's clipsthat its extending to anyone using anyone's else's clips. The threat of Youtube deleting your account kills the connection between people's work. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Video: http://ryanishungry.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use...
John yep, definitely , your version is so damn hilarious-keep on...I am still laughing JohnDkar www.youtube.com/johndkar http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use...
Great idea! I'll let Bonny know and see if she can contact Christine. -Lan www.LanBui.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Lan Bui lan.bui.vloggroup@ wrote: BTW, I could not sit through her version. Your version actually got me all the way through, I laughed and actually heard and understood her message. Oh, man. You need to send Bonny out to interview Christine Breese on the subject of Monkey Mind. It would truly be the Greatest Thing Ever. ;) Chris
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use...
That's not fair use, that is a remix, so I would say you are screwed. Fair use is generally when you use a clip or part of something to inform or use for teaching or to state an opinion (that get's cloudy) but taking a video and just adding yourself and making responses to the video, that's just a remix and I would say you would have to take it down...but contact someone to be sure.. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So I made a parody of somebody's video. I knew I was taking a risk. For six months they were cool with it. They wrote me and said they had a sense of humor and they weren't going to do anything about it. But a few days ago, they decided they didn't like it after all. They asked me to remove it and threatened copyright infringement. The original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXw17LFEgBo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXw17LFEgBo My version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1YkerJ0r7E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1YkerJ0r7E Like I say, I knew I was taking a risk when I made this video and I was prepared to take it down. But I also think I'm within the spirit of fair use. I used their copyrighted material for the purposes of criticism and parody. And they want it removed because they are offended by it. But I know being within the spirit of my own interpretation of the law isn't going to count for much. They have spoken with a lawyer and of course now they're trying to intimidate me, telling me how I'm just using unreliable wikipedia and crazy ideas of fair use from bloggers who know nothing. How far am I within or outside the bounds of fair use? I feel like which ever direction it is, it can't be by very much. -John Holden P.S. I know it's YouTube and I'm fucked. The video is coming down. But I'm asking these questions for the sake of argument and also to learn more about fair use.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use...
A remix can be fair use (Dara Birnbaum's work starting in the late 70s is just one example. here is one of her pieces and more are under related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jwkf-sQTWAfeature=related ) the sites I included have good explanations of fair use. -- Steve Rhodes http://flickr.com/photos/ari/ photos http://ari.typepad.com http://tigerbeat.vox.com blogs http://del.icio.us/tigerbeat interesting articles sites http://twitter.com/tigerbeat
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use...
Unfortunately only a judge or jury ultimately gets to decide what's fair use, which means the person without the in house legal team is at the mercy of the person with legal resources regardless of who's right and who's wrong. Follow Steve's links above for the nitty gritty. This seems like an open and shut case of fair use to me, but I'm on the wayyy media hacky lefto archist side of that issue so my interpretation isn't what would necessarily hold up in court. In my world, unless someone's pirating (making money off of a copy of something as if you are the producer / selling something as if its the real thing when its not) or non-satirically making it look like you endorse something when you don't (which is libel so doesn't even fall under this umbrella anyway), the use should not only be protected, but get a little Upholder of Free Speech gold star. The Fair Use exception can be interpreted to be pretty close to that (minus the gold star of course) - unfortunately, it can be interpreted in the reverse direction too, depending on which of the evaluative factors listed in the law is weighted more heavily by those making the judgment. The DMCA muddies the waters further. Brook ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use...
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:11 am, Jay dedman wrote: All the stories I hear make it seem like the video hosts' have no choice but to take down any video that is someone asks. They don't have to, but they do most of the time in the name of rear-end coverage. You do have a recourse to fight a takedown in writing, and challenging in writing typically causes the host to review the material ... I used this once with YouTube to get the Stormtroopers Gone Wild video restored when it was improperly taken down. -- Brian Richardson - http://whatthecast.com - http://siliconchef.com - http://dragoncontv.com - http://www.3chip.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use...
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:49 am, Brook Hinton wrote: Unfortunately only a judge or jury ultimately gets to decide what's fair use, which means the person without the in house legal team is at the mercy of the person with legal resources regardless of who's right and who's wrong. Brook is dead on here, which is why I avoid video remixes and use of movie footage. Some use of pictures of characters from movies shows seems to be kosher, but long video and music clips steer off the road of fair use straight into the ditch of copyright infringment. This is why I own a lot of stock music libraries :) -- Brian Richardson - http://whatthecast.com - http://siliconchef.com - http://dragoncontv.com - http://www.3chip.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use...
They don't have to, but they do most of the time in the name of rear-end coverage. You do have a recourse to fight a takedown in writing, and challenging in writing typically causes the host to review the material ... I used this once with YouTube to get the Stormtroopers Gone Wild video restored when it was improperly taken down. so if someone asks blip/youtube/etc to take down a video...they take it down. then I can say its fairuse, and they put it back up. Then its up to the other person to take me to court? I guess im trying to figure out how much interpretation all the players in this process have BEFORE it hts the courts. I feel we as creators and hosting services need to help define what is fair use. then stand up for it. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Video: http://ryanishungry.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use...
John, I wonder if because she granted you use before, if she has the right to revoke that... It might seem like she would have that right, but you should check that out. BTW, I could not sit through her version. Your version actually got me all the way through, I laughed and actually heard and understood her message. -Lan www.LanBui.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So I made a parody of somebody's video. I knew I was taking a risk. For six months they were cool with it. They wrote me and said they had a sense of humor and they weren't going to do anything about it. But a few days ago, they decided they didn't like it after all. They asked me to remove it and threatened copyright infringement. The original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXw17LFEgBo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXw17LFEgBo My version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1YkerJ0r7E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1YkerJ0r7E Like I say, I knew I was taking a risk when I made this video and I was prepared to take it down. But I also think I'm within the spirit of fair use. I used their copyrighted material for the purposes of criticism and parody. And they want it removed because they are offended by it. But I know being within the spirit of my own interpretation of the law isn't going to count for much. They have spoken with a lawyer and of course now they're trying to intimidate me, telling me how I'm just using unreliable wikipedia and crazy ideas of fair use from bloggers who know nothing. How far am I within or outside the bounds of fair use? I feel like which ever direction it is, it can't be by very much. -John Holden P.S. I know it's YouTube and I'm fucked. The video is coming down. But I'm asking these questions for the sake of argument and also to learn more about fair use.
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use...
Thank you Jay. It's great to have someone affirm your right to exist. I contacted the Fair Use Project and I read the documents at the Center for Social Media (Thank you Steve Rhodes!). I'm pretty sure my video is within the bounds. Of course it's still messy. Did I use too much of their original video? I used the entire thing. But I would argue that it was necessary to make my point. I wanted to make fun of her conversational style. She talks like she's having a conversation with someone who isn't there. I used her pauses to show how this imaginary conversation might proceed. It was necessary for me to not break the time line of the original video because my intention was to be the other half of her imaginary conversation. I would also argue that a single video in her case does not represent a complete work. She has posted a series of videos that are identical in style and tone. They are numbered. The video I commented was 6 Now is A Good Moment, Suffering is in the Mind, Monkey Mind. I only used lesson #6 in a 21 part series. Clearly anyone who is interested in her spiritual message will not be satisfied with my video. They will seek out the originals, which are readily available because I have linked to them. I am not trying to be a replacement. Which brings up another point, my video was posted as a video response. I re-read their original message (from July 14th) after I posted my response. We aren't going to authorize it to be posted to our own video in connection, though, just to let you know, but we are happy to let you use our vid in your own profile stuff even though it is copyrighted. I'm glad your friends are enjoying it too, so carry on, oh silly one that you are! Geez, sort of sounds like they granted me the use of their copyrighted material. Now, six months later, I have stolen their work. It's absurd. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess im trying to figure out how much interpretation all the players in this process have BEFORE it hts the courts. I feel we as creators and hosting services need to help define what is fair use. then stand up for it. Just watch John's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1YkerJ0r7E why cant this exist! haha the monster butterfly. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Video: http://ryanishungry.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use...
Thank you Lan. I was just writing about this when you posted. Here is what she said on July 14th: We aren't going to authorize it to be posted to our own video in connection, though, just to let you know, but we are happy to let you use our vid in your own profile stuff even though it is copyrighted. She now says it has been revoked. This is where the weirdness starts to come out. The person who I have been speaking with is not the woman in the video. She is a woman named Jenny who maintains Christine's YouTube account. She claims in the first message she sent me, she did not have the right to grant the copyright. She is just a worker within the Metaphysical Science University. She made a mistake. But it's a pretty big mistake. I mean, how am I suppose to know when I receive a message from someone's YouTube account that I am not speaking with the owner of the videos? I know when you grant a Creative Commons license you can't revoke it if you don't like the resulting uses of your work which are in accordance with the license. Seems like a similar thing should apply in this case. But I don't know. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Lan Bui [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, I wonder if because she granted you use before, if she has the right to revoke that... It might seem like she would have that right, but you should check that out. BTW, I could not sit through her version. Your version actually got me all the way through, I laughed and actually heard and understood her message. -Lan www.LanBui.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: So I made a parody of somebody's video. I knew I was taking a risk. For six months they were cool with it. They wrote me and said they had a sense of humor and they weren't going to do anything about it. But a few days ago, they decided they didn't like it after all. They asked me to remove it and threatened copyright infringement. The original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXw17LFEgBo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXw17LFEgBo My version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1YkerJ0r7E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1YkerJ0r7E Like I say, I knew I was taking a risk when I made this video and I was prepared to take it down. But I also think I'm within the spirit of fair use. I used their copyrighted material for the purposes of criticism and parody. And they want it removed because they are offended by it. But I know being within the spirit of my own interpretation of the law isn't going to count for much. They have spoken with a lawyer and of course now they're trying to intimidate me, telling me how I'm just using unreliable wikipedia and crazy ideas of fair use from bloggers who know nothing. How far am I within or outside the bounds of fair use? I feel like which ever direction it is, it can't be by very much. -John Holden P.S. I know it's YouTube and I'm fucked. The video is coming down. But I'm asking these questions for the sake of argument and also to learn more about fair use.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use...
Which brings up another point, my video was posted as a video response. I re-read their original message (from July 14th) after I posted my response. We aren't going to authorize it to be posted to our own video in connection, though, just to let you know, but we are happy to let you use our vid in your own profile stuff even though it is copyrighted. I'm glad your friends are enjoying it too, so carry on, oh silly one that you are! Geez, sort of sounds like they granted me the use of their copyrighted material. Now, six months later, I have stolen their work. It's absurd. as has been said before, the ones with the better lawyers will usually always win. But why do we always have to take everything to court? When the disagreement is between two independent creators, I wish we could define fair use and the subtleties of CC licensing as a community. It's like we need to all agree on best practices. By allowing Youtube or any hosting site to be the police, we're just giving then more power than they deserve. since no one is making money hereit seems more a matter of this woman not having a sense of humor. god knows Ive been skewed in my time. John, just post this video to blip if Youtube is going to take it down. if anything, controversy gets you views. It reminds me of Bill Cosby going after Channel 101 for this cartoon. (watch episode #1!) Somehow they were able to keep it up on their site: http://www.channel101.com/shows/show.php?show_id=121 The first Channel 101 series ever to go three consecutive months at #1, House of Cosbys was one of those rare 101 breakouts that went on to satisfy the world. In the show, the real Bill Cosby never came along and destroyed his own clones, but in real life, creator Justin Roiland and channel101.com site administrator Dan Harmon received cease and desist orders from Cosby's attorney in June 2005. The legal questions ground HOC's intensive animation process to a halt and House of Cosbys became Channel 101's first show to be killed not by the audience or by its own creator, but by lawyers. An unofficial fifth episode was created for the live screening by Romano and Falconer but is not served by channel101.com for genuine legal concerns. However, due to outcry and outrage, Channel 101 will continue to carry the first four episodes for your enjoyment. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Video: http://ryanishungry.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use...
I'm taking your advice, Jay. All this pointy headed thinking has put me in the mood to make a humorous video about this situation. Controversy gets you views. And it makes the jokes better. since no one is making money hereit seems more a matter of this woman not having a sense of humor. god knows Ive been skewed in my time. John, just post this video to blip if Youtube is going to take it down. if anything, controversy gets you views.
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use...
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Lan Bui [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW, I could not sit through her version. Your version actually got me all the way through, I laughed and actually heard and understood her message. Oh, man. You need to send Bonny out to interview Christine Breese on the subject of Monkey Mind. It would truly be the Greatest Thing Ever. ;) Chris
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright and fair use...
Oh, man. You need to send Bonny out to interview Christine Breese on the subject of Monkey Mind. It would truly be the Greatest Thing Ever. ;) Lan, please do this. they can mind meld. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Video: http://ryanishungry.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
