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]
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]
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]
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
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]
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
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]
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
