Re: [videoblogging] Re: Fair use in the Digital Age
I remember an interview I saw with Hunter Thompson where he spoke about how he loved staying in hotel rooms because he always knew the Gideons will have left a copy of the bible in his bedside table, and he loved to poach ideas and quotes from it. Everything we do is derivative, one way or another. Our brains process the information it takes in, then it spits it out in a way that seems logical to us. So any love letter, concerto, grocery list, napkin doodle, epic film, or mural you've ever seen is really an aggregation of ideas that were formed in the author's head by assembling previously experienced bits of information. This is why I laugh at copyrights and Creative Commons. Once it's made, it's not yours anymore. From the moment you show it to one other person, it is in their consciousness as much as it is in yours, and more than it is on the paper you wrote it on, or the magnetic disc it is stored on. On Jan 19, 2008 11:20 PM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excatlyhe didn't make it clear and that whole thing has really got me thinking about the overall practice of just linking willy nilly... it's got me thinking about context, it's got me thinking how people view it, how they don't view it, etcit's just got me thinking... Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Cheryl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think the rules are different at all. If someone quoted me in text, out of context, and to support something I find repellent, I would point it out. Same goes for images, same for video. Asking to have a link (or other part of a conversation) removed is a little extreme, but is sometimes warranted. I would not have done so in the case of my Lumiere videos except I didn't think Andreas was being clear about whether he would remove links if asked, so I asked for it in order to get the question answered. Cheryl --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ wrote: But if Im using parts of your video to build on a bigger conversation, why are the rules different for video and text? Yahoo! Groups Links -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Fair use in the Digital Age
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adam Quirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is why I laugh at copyrights and Creative Commons. Once it's made, it's not yours anymore. As a writer, I have no beef with the concept of copyright law. However, I do wish we had healthier public domain laws. We certainly shouldn't have to wait until a century after an author's death to make full use of his or her contributions to the collective myth pool. Nor should trademark ownership be allowed to squelch the free use of public domain materials, as has often been the case with the Edgar Rice Burroughs stuff and various PD properties Disney has sunk its claws into. My big beef is with the treatment of orphaned movies... if the owner of a movie property hasn't released the movie on some kind of consumer media within the last umpteen years, or refuses to release the theatrical version audiences may have originally experienced and enjoyed, then that person or corporation does a disservice to that film's place in our collective history. After a certain point, it ought to be legal for somebody else with a print of the movie to restore and release it. Even if they have to pay some kind of mandatory fee to the copyright holder, which is fair. The same with TV shows released to home media... it bugs me that so often the soundtrack has to be redone for the DVD release because the license to the original music has run out, or, in the case of MST3K, entire episodes can't be released because the owners of the movies they featured refuses to relicense them. There needs to be some kind of Fair Paid Use where the integrity of a work featuring other licensed works can be maintained, with or without the cooperation of the original license holder, through the payment of a non-exorbitant fee (which could be determined case by case, and would depend on how much of the original work was used and how integral it was to the final product). But until they let me make the rules, it ain't likely to happen. :) Chris
[videoblogging] Re: Fair use in the Digital Age
I don't think the rules are different at all. If someone quoted me in text, out of context, and to support something I find repellent, I would point it out. Same goes for images, same for video. Asking to have a link (or other part of a conversation) removed is a little extreme, but is sometimes warranted. I would not have done so in the case of my Lumiere videos except I didn't think Andreas was being clear about whether he would remove links if asked, so I asked for it in order to get the question answered. Cheryl --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But if Im using parts of your video to build on a bigger conversation, why are the rules different for video and text?
[videoblogging] Re: Fair use in the Digital Age
Excatlyhe didn't make it clear and that whole thing has really got me thinking about the overall practice of just linking willy nilly... it's got me thinking about context, it's got me thinking how people view it, how they don't view it, etcit's just got me thinking... Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Cheryl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think the rules are different at all. If someone quoted me in text, out of context, and to support something I find repellent, I would point it out. Same goes for images, same for video. Asking to have a link (or other part of a conversation) removed is a little extreme, but is sometimes warranted. I would not have done so in the case of my Lumiere videos except I didn't think Andreas was being clear about whether he would remove links if asked, so I asked for it in order to get the question answered. Cheryl --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ wrote: But if Im using parts of your video to build on a bigger conversation, why are the rules different for video and text?
[videoblogging] Re: Fair use in the Digital Age
Ok we will call it a lakeside discussion ;) Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jay, I think this would make for an interesting panel at vloggercamp! Not only fair use, but the overall effect of linking, etc cool! though I think at Vloggercamp we should have no panels. we can have workshops or time to hang out and talk about these things by a lake with no wifi. you, Bill and David Meade (and other midwest vloggers) should start thinking of some kind of structure. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Fair use in the Digital Age
I think Jay is right from the creators' perspective, but I would like to look at this from a different angle, namely the relationship between a video maker and the subject. When I ask for permission to photograph someone without a written release, I usually explain why I am taking the video and what it will be used for. Often it is implicitly understood. Neither I nor my subjects have had any problems with this. However, if someone grabs that same material and re-edits it or embeds it in another site, then it interferes with the trust between me and my subject. i hear you. you are perfectly laying out the crux of the question. If you replace video/photograph with text, does this change the argument? Why? If I interview you for a newspaper, there is never any issue if someone else uses that quote for another text work. its just understood that my interview becomes part of the larger conversation. As John said, if im just ripping off parts of your video because Im lazy, bad news. Just like if I plagerize by stealing your text as my own. But if Im using parts of your video to build on a bigger conversation, why are the rules different for video and text? remember, the majority of videoblogs is not TV or movies. it is moments, commentary, and conversations. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
[videoblogging] Re: Fair use in the Digital Age
Jay, I think this would make for an interesting panel at vloggercamp! Not only fair use, but the overall effect of linking, etc Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Two laywers (one from NBC, the other from Columbia law school) are discussing what fair use these days when it come to remixing. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/830/ NBC laywer says, fair use is not a right, a misconception and misstatement frequently made these days. you can imagine how the conversation goes from here. This is a really interesting argument in light of the issue that John had over at Total Vom: http://www.detrimentalinformation.com/2008/01/my_legal_struggle_with_c hristi.html As ive said before, its strange that it's totally accepted and encouraged for text bloggers to use text from other sources to build their own work. The lawyer from Columbia uses the example of the NY Times Book review using quotes from books without fear. This makes for a healthy media ecosystem. So why would online video be any different? Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Fair use in the Digital Age
Jay, I think this would make for an interesting panel at vloggercamp! Not only fair use, but the overall effect of linking, etc cool! though I think at Vloggercamp we should have no panels. we can have workshops or time to hang out and talk about these things by a lake with no wifi. you, Bill and David Meade (and other midwest vloggers) should start thinking of some kind of structure. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
[videoblogging] Re: Fair use in the Digital Age
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, B Yen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 17, 2008, at 2:27 AM, Jay dedman wrote: I don't quite understand the question. Everyone is able to embed Youtube videos in blogs BBS forums. Doesn't that solve your grab a Youtube video from the site? He's not talking about embedding, he's talking about grabbing clips and incorporating them into other works in a way compliant with Fair Use. Chris
[videoblogging] Re: Fair use in the Digital Age
Two laywers (one from NBC, the other from Columbia law school) are discussing what fair use these days when it come to remixing. Just then a third lawyer walks in, carrying a filthy pig under his arm. The bartender says, Where'd you get that disgusting thing? And the pig says, I found him in front of the courthouse. ba-dum-bum
[videoblogging] Re: Fair use in the Digital Age
But not everyone who remixes or uses video gives the proper attribution like the majority of text bloggers do. That and with text it easy to follow the links and get the information that you are looking for or see how it adds to the overall conversation. With video I don't know how many people are going back to the source material when people are remixing and then as I stated, if there is no attribution then you as the viewer may think it's a completely orginal work. I also think with video it's easier to take things out of contextI am not sure why maybe because it's visual But an interesting train of thought, jay Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Two laywers (one from NBC, the other from Columbia law school) are discussing what fair use these days when it come to remixing. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/830/ NBC laywer says, fair use is not a right, a misconception and misstatement frequently made these days. you can imagine how the conversation goes from here. This is a really interesting argument in light of the issue that John had over at Total Vom: http://www.detrimentalinformation.com/2008/01/my_legal_struggle_with_c hristi.html As ive said before, its strange that it's totally accepted and encouraged for text bloggers to use text from other sources to build their own work. The lawyer from Columbia uses the example of the NY Times Book review using quotes from books without fear. This makes for a healthy media ecosystem. So why would online video be any different? Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
[videoblogging] Re: Fair use in the Digital Age
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My point is that there seems to be an idea that online videos are like individually wrapped movies not to be touched, instead of pieces of a large conversation we can all use to talk to each other. This watch but dont touch mentality is being firmly entrenched in our minds with Youtube leading the way since there is no easy way to grab a Youtube video from the site. Youtube being the largest video site has the greatest impact on how we understand correct interaction. So as creators, our relationship is this: you make a video. I watch. I make a video for you to watch. We do not use each others videos. if you replaced text where I said video, you would not have blogging as we know it today. I think Jay is right from the creators' perspective, but I would like to look at this from a different angle, namely the relationship between a video maker and the subject. When I ask for permission to photograph someone without a written release, I usually explain why I am taking the video and what it will be used for. Often it is implicitly understood. Neither I nor my subjects have had any problems with this. However, if someone grabs that same material and re-edits it or embeds it in another site, then it interferes with the trust between me and my subject. I was a documentary film maker for many years (many years ago). Even with a written release people gave consent because they trusted me and knew the purpose of the film and where and how it would be shown. Believe me, I have worked on many controversial projects and have never been asked to prescreen for approval. It was trust and the technical consideration that I never allowed these films to be available for stock footage. Now with video the access is more open. My YouTube videos are usually put up without the embed code. If they link to my site, well, that is understood and I only put up videos that are appropriate for that. I have been chided for not allowing other videomakers to re-mix my materials. Call it what you will, but it is against the trust I have with my subjects. I guess all I am saying is that it depends on the content. Stan Hirson http://hestakaup.com
[videoblogging] Re: Fair use in the Digital Age
-John, totl --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Two laywers (one from NBC, the other from Columbia law school) are discussing what fair use these days when it come to remixing. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/830/ NBC laywer says, fair use is not a right, a misconception and misstatement frequently made these days. you can imagine how the conversation goes from here. This is a really interesting argument in light of the issue that John had over at Total Vom: http://www.detrimentalinformation.com/2008/01/my_legal_struggle_with_christi.html I think my usage of the fourth dimension threw off the Metaphyiscal Scientists. They didn't realize the uniqueness of their original video, how their leader pauses as if waiting for a response and how this lends itself to be commented upon, criticized and parodied in a unique way. I think if I had used the more traditional method of cutting back and forth between their video and my video, they would have never threatened me with a lawsuit. As ive said before, its strange that it's totally accepted and encouraged for text bloggers to use text from other sources to build their own work. The lawyer from Columbia uses the example of the NY Times Book review using quotes from books without fear. This makes for a healthy media ecosystem. So why would online video be any different? I tried to think up some best practices for when neither party is making money from selling content, in other words, when both parties have put their content online for free. Exposure is the main currency in the digital age and fair use should be defined very wide. Best practice for using materials fairly: If you want your audience to find the original work, then what you're doing is probably fair. For example, let's say I need a cat in one of my videos. And I take a short clip from somebody's cat video and fit it into my narrative. But I don't want to link back to the original because I want it to look as if it was my own cat footage. This is probably a rip-off. Not fair use. Identical situation, but in this case I link back to the original because this is part of the joke. I'm creating the illusion that I'm interacting with somebody else's cat. This is probably some blend of commentary, criticism and/or parody. Fair use. Best practice for protecting your original work: Be very honest with yourself about what is bothering you. Is it the ersatz copy or is it the commentary, criticism or parody? When someone is making fun of you, this is hard to do. But try to imagine if the same material was being used to flatter you, would the use of your work still bother you? -John, totalvom.com
