Re: [videoblogging] Re: legal rights of copyrighted material
On Jan 19, 2006, at 9:50 AM, David Howell wrote: How about the rebroadcasting of video? I see this time and time again online where someone has captured something off the television, or downloaded it from somewhere and then slapped it up on their website. Case and point, http://www.palazzojay.blogspot.com/ The reason I am using this site as an example (there are tons of sites similar to this one out there) is that these rebroadcasted videos are all over Blip this morning. Now, the person that has that website really isnt breaking a copyright law. Correct? Blip are the ones that are actually hosting those videos. I assume that they must accept full responsibility should a Saturday Night Live lawyer come look around. Something tells me that SNL doesnt use a Creative Commons license with regards to their old shows. Of course, that could open a huge can of worms when it comes to people using copyright music within their videos. Many people do it. I myself have been guilty of using music I didnt own in a video. Blatant rebroadcasting of a television program is another thing though. Am I way off base here and is there some clause in a Blip agreement/contract that releases them of all copyright infringments? David http://www.taoofdavid.com Yeah, Jay was totally violating copyright. There's no question what he was doing was illegal. He wasn't using bits of SNL in a larger piece of artwork. He wasn't making a video of himself on SNL, cutting in and out of their sketches, back to him... He didn't "add value" to the material -- he was clearly rebroadcasting work that he didn't have any rights to. He was putting blip at risk as well. There is no way that blip could sign something with Jay that would release them of responsibility -- Jay has no legal standing to sign a contract about someone else's work. It's interesting that you used him as an example -- he was a student in my videoblogging class last semester. (The whole posting SNL clips and t.v. commercials thing was new, however. He added those to his blog after the semester was over.) SNL is a particularly hot set of videos to post right now, in my opinion, since NBC just signed a deal with Apple to put them on the iTunes Music store. Apple has reason to want to clamp down on illegal rebroadcast, as well as NBC. So what happened? Blip.tv pulled all the videos and emailed Jay to say... uh Mr. Palazzo we don't think so. Blip was very kind, and didn't punish him. They just stopped him cold.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: legal rights of copyrighted material
On Jan 20, 2006, at 9:45 AM, Andreas Haugstrup wrote: You missed my point. It is a great guide. My point is that videobloggers can't do with just knowing Fair Use. There are multiple laws that videobloggers need to familiarize themselves with - copyright being only one. Thus it is not enough *just* to read a guide on fair use. - Andreas Absolutely. Fair use is only one part of a lot of different issues. Copyright is only part of it. Hey - and I'm sorry my email went through like 5 times. I have no idea why that happened. (I hope it doesn't happen with this one!) jen
Re: [videoblogging] Re: legal rights of copyrighted material
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:28:36 +0100, Jen Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 19, 2006, at 6:53 PM, Andreas Haugstrup wrote: > >> that's why I keep >> recommending college text books on mass media law and not just a >> website >> with bullet points about Fair Use. > > Just to be clear -- the website I recommended at: > http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fairuse.htm > is not "just a website with bullet points"... in fact I would regard it > as more authoritative than any book on Fair Use. Usually I would never > say such a thing -- websites are wrong and flaky more often than books > -- but this isn't just any website let me give some background > about who published the info on that site. You missed my point. It is a great guide. My point is that videobloggers can't do with just knowing Fair Use. There are multiple laws that videobloggers need to familiarize themselves with - copyright being only one. Thus it is not enough *just* to read a guide on fair use. - Andreas -- http://www.solitude.dk/ > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: legal rights of copyrighted material
On Jan 19, 2006, at 6:53 PM, Andreas Haugstrup wrote: that's why I keep recommending college text books on mass media law and not just a website with bullet points about Fair Use. Just to be clear -- the website I recommended at: is not "just a website with bullet points"... in fact I would regard it as more authoritative than any book on Fair Use. Usually I would never say such a thing -- websites are wrong and flaky more often than books -- but this isn't just any website let me give some background about who published the info on that site. In the U.S., understanding Fair Use had become increasingly confusing to independent media makers. With our desire and ability to quote other media rising in this digital era, and with the increasing power of media corporations who buy copyrights from other people & corporations and have their lawyers extend the length of time of those copyrights through longer than ever seen before, and with the way the _all_ of the laws are being rewritten in the U.S. to favor corporate rights over human rights... more and more documentary filmmakers were giving up on ever using Fair Use. It was especially hard for documentary feature filmmakers who would do research (like you are advocating), learn about copyright law in-depth, make decisions about what they could use under fair use and without paying huge fees... and then these filmmakers would take their films to PBS / ITVS / POV (all public funding / distribution programs in the U.S.) and these major distributors would say no -- we can't show this, you have to pay royalties on all this. Sometimes the broadcast royalties that were being demanded cost much more than the original film budget -- hundreds of thousands of dollars. And film projects would get stopped cold. Basically fair use existed in the U.S., but independent filmmakers couldn't use it because the broadcasters were so conservative in their interpretation of what could be done. And foundations and funding sources were getting chewed up paying royalties to by rights to footage / music / etc that could have be used without paying by declaring fair use. So, the Rockefeller Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation (who fund a lot of the projects that I'm talking about) got together and funded a huge multi-year study and conversation about what's going on. American University coordinated the whole project, and they consulted with a gazillion lawyers and fair use experts and filmmaker associations and together wrote up a statement. This statement that's been produced is not one person's idea about fair use, it is now the definitive guide and statement of intention of an entire industry about how all of these people will now understand, interpret and use the concept of "Fair Use". They are not legislatures or judges, so they didn't actually re-write the law, but I would consider this the next best thing. Basically it's a huge alliance of all of the biggest players in the U.S. saying, look, it's been confusing, we all ran away from the issue because we didn't want to get in trouble, but that wasn't working for us, so this is what we are going to do now. If anyone exercises fair use under these guidelines, and then gets sued, they have the entire pack of organizations behind them defending what they did. Judges are into professional guidelines and statements like these, and will listen. Who's in this alliance? The statement was co-written by: Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers Independent Feature Project International Documentary Association National Alliance for Media Arts and Culture Women in Film and Video (Washington, D.C., chapter) and endorsed by: Arts Engine Bay Area Video Coalition Doculink Full Frame Festival Independent Television Service P.O.V./American Documentary University Film and Video Association Video Association of Dallas Women Make Movies So it's a REALLY big deal. Now it covers only Fair Use, in the U.S., and not all of the issues that have come up in this email discussion. And I've argued for the use of copyrighted material that goes beyond fair use. This document is more careful, and names specific instances when a media maker should feel very justified to use copyrighted material. There are, of course, many non-fair-use instances that are illegal, many others that are not, and others that are still vague. And of course, people are free to make choices that might be considered illegal, or are in the grey area, and wait to see what happens... Negativeland is a great example of a group of artists who pushes the boundaries of what's considered legal, to test those boundaries and to create art that couldn't be created by towing the line. It's that spirit that created Creative Commons. To me, I don't want to assume that videoblogging falls under the law in exactly the same way that television broadcasting does. But that of, course is my opinion -- in this moment. And you and I disagree it seems, and I think that's good + hel
Re: [videoblogging] Re: legal rights of copyrighted material
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:11:00 +0100, Carl Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And who is in the video doesn't have anything to do with it. The > copyright is > owned by the person or company that created the piece. Just like the > copyright > of a portrait I shoot as a photographer is owned by me, not the person I > photographed. I may give someone else permission to use the picture or > not. But > if you decide to republish it without permission, we have a problem. > There are > also all sorts of legalities involved with whether I have permission > from the > person to use their likeness and image for certain purposes, but that > person > does not own the copyright to the image without my assigning it to them. You're right that who is in the video doesn't have any relation to copyrights, but that's not the same as it doesn't matter. That's why a videoblogger can't just learn copyright laws, and again that's why I keep recommending college text books on mass media law and not just a website with bullet points about Fair Use. Misappropriation laws (using another's likeness for profit) and privacy laws *do* matter. They just aren't copyright-related. Even if you own the copyright on a video it doesn't mean you can use the video for anything you want. - Andreas -- http://www.solitude.dk/ > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: legal rights of copyrighted material
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:28:16 +0100, Jen Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for letting us know about copyright law are Australia. Anyone > else?? Other places?? The basics of Copyright are covered in the Berne Convention. These basics are shared by the 160 countries who have agreed to follow the convention (yes, I had to look up the number). This solves many issues alone. There are variations from country to country of course. Variations in the extent of Fair Use rights (Fair Use is not as well defined in Denmark for example) and variations in damages (bigger in the US than in Denmark) and so on. > This does bring up interesting points -- the internet is global, so how > does the law or practices of individual countries come into play? Since > the corporate conglomerate has become more powerful than any country > and more rights-laden than any individual, and passes right over > borders as if they aren't there -- how does this reality affect what we > as artists do or don't do? Does U.S. copyright law cover the globe in a > way, since most global corporations are run by U.S. owners (with an > "off-shore" address to evade taxes of course)? You can only be sued for breaking the law in the country you reside. Thankfully US corporations can't extend messed up American laws to my country (and vice versa). I have yet to hear of extraditions for civil suits! - Andreas -- http://www.solitude.dk/ > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [videoblogging] Re: legal rights of copyrighted material
Wow, I guess this is my first "Two cents" post... My humble opinion is simply this: I will post my itty bitty vlog on the big world wide web... I will give credit where credit is due at all times providing URL's, Artist names, and core information. I will not say "I wrote this!" or "I made This!" if I didn't and will say who did whenever humanly possible. I will also not charge people money of any kind to access or utilize my material or the material I share with others via my vlog/blog/Insert favorite form of media sharing mode here. Although I won't use Metallica stuff... (sorry bad cheap shot at Lars there). If some famous person wants to come and take what wealth I have they're welcome to the beatup 68 chevy and the four kids it's all the wealth in the world I have. I believe unless the big guys just get a wild hair and wanna crucify some poor mid-western housewife and mother of fourI'm probably safe enough being honestly dishonest? Okay.. That's all I got The end >From: "Ms. Kitka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com >To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [videoblogging] Re: legal rights of copyrighted material >Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:02:18 - > >People... THIS is why you never hear any new music being played by >crew members on Star Trek... > > > >--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 19, 2006, at 7:35 AM, Crystal wrote: > > > > > Okay but how about Music? If I publish lets say stillshots with > > > background music of my favorite artist that goes along with the > > > pictures...and I have the CD so its not like I stole it off the net. > > > Republish on the net...so every "can" see it. But yet its mainly for > > > Friends and Family > > > > > > is that breaking any laws? > > > > > > I mean its my CD so why can't i put MY pictures to music and share > > > it with people?? > > > > The answer: no one knows yet. > > The laws regarding use of copyrighted works were written to be > > intentionally vague. The plan was for the law to have a large grey area > > so a judge could decide on a case-by-case basis what's right and what's > > not. The world has changed a lot, very quickly, however, and this new > > world we live in is, well, new! What does it mean for a ''regular > > person" to make a movie using protected work and put it on the internet > > for a handful people to see?? I don't think a case like that has ever > > come before a court for a decision, and since the laws passed by > > legislators and previous court cases don't deal with this issue, then > > there is no law about it yet. > > > > Meanwhile not only has the internet changed broadcasting, and computers > > have broken-down barriers to entry to creating films and media... but > > also corporations have taken over more and more, buying up the rights > > to more and more. > > > > Really I think there are two issues here: > > what is legal, and > > what is respectful. > > > > I see no need to respect the copyright on "Happy Birthday" (which was > > owned by AOL/Time Warner... who's got it now?) If you are making a > > feature film to distribute in theaters, you have to buy the rights to > > use the song -- and it's incredibly expensive. The song was written in > > 1893 by Mildred and Patty Hill, with different words, and so the > > artists are long gone. AOL Time Warner is just using the legal system > > and their power to make as much money as possible without regard to > > what the song means to us as a culture. So... if I get together with > > friends and sing happy birthday in a restaurant, I'm not going to worry > > about paying a fee for a public performance of a song. That's totally > > ridiculous. If we videotape the moment, and I post it to my videoblog, > > I am also not going to worry about it. Of course, I don't want the > > wrath of AOL Time Warner lawyers upon me... I make less than $20k a > > year, how in the world could I afford to defend myself in a lawsuit > > BUT A HA! I am not alone. I'm sure if I got a seizt and desist letter > > from AOL, I could contact American University and all these non-profits > > working on fair use and they would jump on the case, donating their > > services and taking care of the thing for me. It would be a great case > > to see happen, and could mean breaking the hold of these ridiculous > > money-grabbers!! > > > > Meanwhile, at the same time, there are many examples where it's grey as > > to whether or not I "have to" get permission to use someone else's > > work, but I decide I want to, because it's the right thing to do -- > > it's the respectful thing to do. I can use my own judgment, and not > > worry about "the law". If a local band is selling their first album, > > it's great exposure for them if I use their song in my videoblog. I'd > > make sure I credit them, and link to their band website where people > > can find out where they are playing and bu
Re: [videoblogging] Re: legal rights of copyrighted material
On Jan 19, 2006, at 7:35 AM, Crystal wrote: Okay but how about Music? If I publish lets say stillshots with background music of my favorite artist that goes along with the pictures...and I have the CD so its not like I stole it off the net. Republish on the net...so every "can" see it. But yet its mainly for Friends and Family is that breaking any laws? I mean its my CD so why can't i put MY pictures to music and share it with people?? The answer: no one knows yet. The laws regarding use of copyrighted works were written to be intentionally vague. The plan was for the law to have a large grey area so a judge could decide on a case-by-case basis what's right and what's not. The world has changed a lot, very quickly, however, and this new world we live in is, well, new! What does it mean for a ''regular person" to make a movie using protected work and put it on the internet for a handful people to see?? I don't think a case like that has ever come before a court for a decision, and since the laws passed by legislators and previous court cases don't deal with this issue, then there is no law about it yet. Meanwhile not only has the internet changed broadcasting, and computers have broken-down barriers to entry to creating films and media... but also corporations have taken over more and more, buying up the rights to more and more. Really I think there are two issues here: what is legal, and what is respectful. I see no need to respect the copyright on "Happy Birthday" (which was owned by AOL/Time Warner... who's got it now?) If you are making a feature film to distribute in theaters, you have to buy the rights to use the song -- and it's incredibly expensive. The song was written in 1893 by Mildred and Patty Hill, with different words, and so the artists are long gone. AOL Time Warner is just using the legal system and their power to make as much money as possible without regard to what the song means to us as a culture. So... if I get together with friends and sing happy birthday in a restaurant, I'm not going to worry about paying a fee for a public performance of a song. That's totally ridiculous. If we videotape the moment, and I post it to my videoblog, I am also not going to worry about it. Of course, I don't want the wrath of AOL Time Warner lawyers upon me... I make less than $20k a year, how in the world could I afford to defend myself in a lawsuit BUT A HA! I am not alone. I'm sure if I got a seizt and desist letter from AOL, I could contact American University and all these non-profits working on fair use and they would jump on the case, donating their services and taking care of the thing for me. It would be a great case to see happen, and could mean breaking the hold of these ridiculous money-grabbers!! Meanwhile, at the same time, there are many examples where it's grey as to whether or not I "have to" get permission to use someone else's work, but I decide I want to, because it's the right thing to do -- it's the respectful thing to do. I can use my own judgment, and not worry about "the law". If a local band is selling their first album, it's great exposure for them if I use their song in my videoblog. I'd make sure I credit them, and link to their band website where people can find out where they are playing and buy their album. If I knew them, I'd probably let them know / ask them if it's okay. But for me, if I didn't know them and didn't have time / felt too shy to find them, I'd use their music anyway. It is great exposure for them -- if Good Morning America wanted to do a spot on them, crediting them, but without paying them, I'm sure they'd be thrilled!!! If however, I had some project going where I was going to make money -- like I'm selling videos, and I take their music, and especially don't credit them, but rather take advantage of a situation and even try to pass off their art as my own -- well then I'm doing something wrong. I say if it feels like stealing, then don't do it!! Even if you could fight off a lawsuit and win. It's still wrong. But to your original question -- does every home-movie maker who wants to use a mainstream song off a CD for their photo slide show or movie of their kids have to worry about copyright violation?? I say no. Apply created iPhoto and iMovie to let people do this very easily, and did demonstrations of this very kind of project, and no one said, "hey you have to get Madonna's permission to use her song with those pictures of your dog". I think publishing the movie to the web is just a step further... and still should be allowed. Again, there is no law drawing the line in the digital sand. And every record label (all 5 of them) will probably have a different policy about what to do about this. There may be some band or some label that eventually decides to do something about this and sue. But I say, bring it on -- what happened to freedom?? We have to defend our rights if we have any hope of keeping any. jen
Re: [videoblogging] Re: legal rights of copyrighted material
Yes, in my rant I was being completely U.S.-centric without acknowledging it... (very american). I apologize. Thanks for letting us know about copyright law are Australia. Anyone else?? Other places?? This does bring up interesting points -- the internet is global, so how does the law or practices of individual countries come into play? Since the corporate conglomerate has become more powerful than any country and more rights-laden than any individual, and passes right over borders as if they aren't there -- how does this reality affect what we as artists do or don't do? Does U.S. copyright law cover the globe in a way, since most global corporations are run by U.S. owners (with an "off-shore" address to evade taxes of course)? The professional independent U.S. filmmaker community is obsessed with copyright law in just the U.S., but it really is a globe question. Is the global videoblogging community the group to help figure a lot of this out / help create a climate of openness, a culture of taking all opportunities, and a habit of pushing the envelope instead of recoiling in fear?? jen jenSimmons http://www.emergingawareness.org http://www.inclinationsthemovie.com http://www.jensimmons.com On Jan 19, 2006, at 1:34 AM, Kath O'Donnell wrote: > > > Jen, I'm guessing you live in USA? > just for info for any Aussies on the list who haven't already seen > this, here's a fair use - myths & misconceptions document from > Australian Copyright Centre ( http://www.copyright.org.au ) as there > are some differences between Aus & US laws > http://www.copyright.org.au/specialinterest/G091.pdf > > cheers > Kath > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: legal rights of copyrighted material
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:35:58 +0100, Crystal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay but how about Music? If I publish lets say stillshots with > background music of my favorite artist that goes along with the > pictures...and I have the CD so its not like I stole it off the net. > Republish on the net...so every "can" see it. But yet its mainly for > Friends and Family > > is that breaking any laws? > > I mean its my CD so why can't i put MY pictures to music and share > it with people?? When you buy a cd you buy a copy of the music for personal use. What you can and cannot do is governed by copyright law. Broadcasting the music to the world is not one of the things you can do. This is why I keep repeating my mantra: Educate yourself. Buy a book or borrow one at the library. Learn the law. - Andreas -- http://www.solitude.dk/ > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: legal rights of copyrighted material
Jen, I'm guessing you live in USA?just for info for any Aussies on the list who haven't already seen this, here's a fair use - myths & misconceptions document from Australian Copyright Centre ( http://www.copyright.org.au ) as there are some differences between Aus & US lawshttp://www.copyright.org.au/specialinterest/G091.pdf cheersKath--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>>> It's called FAIR USE, and there are many many times people can use> footage created or owned by others, images and trademarks and public > appearances and such.>-- http://www.aliak.com YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
