A sound reasoned, thought out responsesweet...but I would expect no less
from Michael...me, well here is my take.
What I think is disgenious is the following, record labels, corporations,
marketing people, all for years, heck decades have done is try to get us as
consumers to think of
Heath you're totally right. I made a short film a few years ago based
on my brother and I playing Star Trek when we were kids. I actually
wrote to Paramount to ask for permission to use a few sound clips
(transporter, bridge beeps, etc). Not only did they say no, they
reminded me that the words,
I agree with both of you.
The issue begins with us backed into a corner.
That's why Creative Commons was born. As a sensible alternative.
But their should not have been a need for Creative Commons to begin with.
You can look at this issue from the perspective of reality or one of assumed
I have recently shot two copyright related talks:
William Patry : Moral Panics and the Copyright wars
http://punkcast.com/1666/index.html
David Post : Jefferson's Moose in Cyberspace
http://punkcast.com/1671/index.html
While in some countries it is accepted that an author has a moral right to
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Joly MacFie j...@punkcast.com wrote:
I have recently shot two copyright related talks:
William Patry : Moral Panics and the Copyright wars
http://punkcast.com/1666/index.html
David Post : Jefferson's Moose in Cyberspace
http://punkcast.com/1671/index.html
I read somewhere ( I believe it was in YouTube and Video Marketing in an Hour a
Day ) that when music in a video is flagged as a copyright violation, the owner
of the copyright has two choices:
1) They can get the video pulled.
2) They can choose to have an ad placed over the lower third
We do the music cue sheet thing for tv as well. We've never been asked
to provide it for online use, though I'm sure we can do that easily
enough.
What Brightcove is doing just isn't user friendly and they're
obviously okay with that. I think they're wanting to be looked at like
a TV network,
As Tim said, music cue sheets are used in broadcast television. The
shows have to document whose music they used as well as how long the
clip is that they used. So you would put something like:
Artist's Name
DVD Title
Track Number/Name
Amount Used (seconds, minutes...)
It's also possible that
Just catching up on this thread. I have never heard of music cue
sheets before. I generally use public domain or creative commons type
music. I usually just print a copy of the place where I got the music.
I'm planning a new project and it might be a good idea to start using
these. This is just a
Awesome give-back Gena. Thank you!
Rox
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Gena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just catching up on this thread. I have never heard of music cue
sheets before. I generally use public domain or creative commons type
music. I usually just print a copy of the place where
+1. It's not worth it to have to wonder WHETHER your next episode is
going to be accepted or rejected. Find another company with similar
functionality that you like and repost or move your materials there.
Bill Cammack
http://BillCammack.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Roxanne
That's an insanely convoluted and backwards way to do business. Get out of
there. Move to Blip, or rent server space from a hosting provider. With
all the video hosting services out there, they should be competing for your
content by making it as easy as possible for you, not making you jump
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
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
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
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
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
--- 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
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
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 ...
--- 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
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
--- 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
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
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
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
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.
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
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]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
--- 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
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:
Yeah, Verdi, I often feel that way m'self, and on other days than Talk Like
a Pirate Day, too.
Sometimes I pirate the works of people I really like and link to 'em because
I want 'em to know I've pirated their stuff.
One thing I did was to subscribe to http://emusic.comf or a couple months
(was
Those are all good ideas.
I think you have to consider hobbyist or non-commercial videoblogging
like public access television. The way public access used to work
here, and probably still does, is that you apply for a show, you get a
time slot, you make your show, you bring it in on VHS, and at
The biggest problem with all this is if and when a vlogger who pirates
decides to take the leap into more mainstream / oldstream distribution,
rights (or lack thereof) to your materials come under intense scrutiny. Much
of my best work is eliminated from the running because of copyright
This isn't true (as I understand it). You could do this for a radio station
or streaming on the web, but you could not do this with ASCAP songs that are
immediately down loadable ... my understanding anyway
On 1/31/07, Peter Leppik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could, at least in theory, buy
I wouldn't use copyrighted music without permission on a commercial
work but I have and will continue to use it on my personal stuff
because I think it should be allowed. I'm clear that it's not allowed
but I kind of feel like it's such bullshit that people should make a
stand. Copyright affords
Interesting - thanks. I have always tended to agree with this, but
have started to feel lost in terms of what other people feel is right
and wrong, and it's not something I live and breathe. Jan put what I
thought was an amazing recording on fauxpress.blogspot.com yesterday
I totally agree with Michael on this and, in fact, though I have only read
part of it, much of this philosophy is behind Lawrence Lessig's excellent
book Free Culture.
Incidentally, in more cases than you think, it is actually legal to
integrate copyrighted material in your work, but independent
Den 01.02.2007 kl. 06:30 skrev Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
here's the exact wording:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by
the author or licensor.
No, Jay. The human-readable version is watered down to the point
Thanks for the clarification. I find the wording of that to be a bit
odd though - I read it as saying that the stuff labelled (ii) is only
applicable if you mention the 3rd parties to be attributed in your
copyright notice? And that the requirement to include a URL is only
valid if that URI
Den 01.02.2007 kl. 09:54 skrev Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thanks for the clarification. I find the wording of that to be a bit
odd though - I read it as saying that the stuff labelled (ii) is only
applicable if you mention the 3rd parties to be attributed in your
copyright notice?
The
I found a guy at http://www.fingertipsmusic.com who picks three
legal download songs (not just CC) that he likes every week.
There's an email mailing list and an RSS feed, and a list of past
picks on the site. Some good songs on there - lots of different stuff.
I'm a terrible repeat
RE: what Jay wrote about breaking the habit of using commercial
music... This discussion of using commercial music has changed a lot
from 2 years ago on this group, when from what I remember it mostly
seemed to revolve around whether or not you'd get busted for using it.
I don't worry
Jose Gonzales might care that you're using his music in your video no
matter how few people watch your stuff. But he might not. You can
get in touch with him and ask him. But that's probably too much
work. Since there's so much music out there you can use under CC
license from artists who
It depends sometimes at least for me, I use CC music but sometimes
you just wanna use X song from Y artist because well, I like it and
it fits the mood I am trying to conveybecause it's known
etcbut I am trying hard to get away from commerical music because
I believe in what CC stands
Yeah thats a huge part of the reason why many people will want to use
non-cc material.
Music, TV shows, films and books that are well known become a huge
part of popular culture, and so become part fo the language and
framework in which people communicate with and relate to eachother.
Depending
This particular part of the equation will only change if people start
making media which has less-restrictive rights than copyright, part of
their everyday lives. I would guess this has only happened to a very
limited extent so far,
Sorry I didnt word that bit clearly. I meant people
It's funny, I have changed my reaction to what you said about six
times! But yeah, you're right. Using that resource and promoting
those who choose a different path from the regular system is a Good
Thing in my book, even if I don't feel passionately political about
it in my bones. And I
Thanks, I got it totally wrong, cheers for the clarification.
Maybe I will now realise that my fixation with trying to understand
all the wording and small detail of these licenses is not very useful
compared to Jay and otehrs suggestions to do something.
If I manage to sort my dysfunctional
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jose Gonzales might care that you're using his music in your video no
matter how few people watch your stuff. But he might not. You can
get in touch with him and ask him. But that's probably too much
work. Since
No, Jay. The human-readable version is watered down to the point where it
doesn't make any sense. The exact wording is in the actual license at
URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode section 4.b:
so is the human readable license not true?
Huge fan of music.podshow.com. But it could be clearer. They don't
tell you what license the material is published under. I sent them
an email one time asking for clarification. I asked, can I use this
in a video that will have advertising associated with it? They said
something
Ryanne,
What terms are you claiming under mangatune?
I hope you're not using the 'commercial but poor' classification as
your basis for that usage. The last time I went to look for new music
at mangatune, there was a clarification on that classification.
I've been cutting my own music as of
You could, at least in theory, buy an ASCAP license. ASCAP is the
organization which grants blanket music licenses to radio stations,
night clubs, etc. This would allow you to legally use just about any
recording in your podcast or vlog.
The only problem is that ASCAP is really intended
Thanks for Magnatune,
their licence seems fairly reasonable for educators
wanting to develop projects. Plus they contribute work
to ccMixter.
Thanks for sharing,
Nicolas
Gromik Nicolas
Tohoku University
Sendai, Japan
fax=81-22-7647
sorry for my ignorance, but what exactly does giving
proper attribution mean when dealing with a film?
Does that mean including the source at the end of the
film?
Some state feed back to the artist? is that the same
as above?
Not sure on this one.
Thanks,
Nicolas
Gromik
sorry for my ignorance, but what exactly does giving
proper attribution mean when dealing with a film?
Does that mean including the source at the end of the
film?
Some state feed back to the artist? is that the same
as above?
Not sure on this one.
here's the exact wording:
I've been using OpSound. What I find most difficult about using sites
like Opsound and CCmixter is that most of the music is too dramatic or
techno to use in my short videos.
Don't know where I can find more light-hearted music though...
Diana
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman
With all this discussion of CC licence, I was
wondering, what do videoblogging members do when
adding music to films. Do you create your own? How do
you source your music? How do you refer music? Do you
abide by the law?
Personally, I use ccMixter material only, I can not
make my own music at the
With all this discussion of CC licence, I was
wondering, what do videoblogging members do when
adding music to films. Do you create your own? How do
you source your music? How do you refer music? Do you
abide by the law?
i have had to break a bad habit of using commercial music in my
For music I have used:
http://music.podshow.com/
and I have tried to create music too.
PodSafe has it very clear what to do when using music from their site.
-Lan
www.LanBui.com
On Jan 30, 2007, at 10:32 PM, Jay dedman wrote:
With all this discussion of CC licence, I
I've used Magnatune, giving credit as they require. But I get very tired of
the process of hunting for the right soundtrack.
--
best regards,
Deirdré Straughan
www.beginningwithi.com (personal)
www.tvblob.com (work)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006 20:50:14 +0200, Michael Verdi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So if I release work under creative commons share alike - people are
free to
use my work commercially only when they use the
On Wed, 24 May 2006 21:11:33 +0200, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can't by-sa be mixed with nc-sa?
Because the first stipulates that any new works must be released under a
by-sa license while the second stipulates that the new work must be
released under a nc-sa license.
As the CC
I would think the more restrictive includes both: by-nc-sa.
-- Enric
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006 21:11:33 +0200, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can't by-sa be mixed with nc-sa?
Because the first stipulates
No, it must be the *same* license.
- Andreas
On Wed, 24 May 2006 22:09:26 +0200, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would think the more restrictive includes both: by-nc-sa.
-- Enric
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006
Though it doesn't look like it should.
- Enric
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it must be the *same* license.
- Andreas
On Wed, 24 May 2006 22:09:26 +0200, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would think the more restrictive
What part of If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you *may*
distribute the resulting work *only* under a license identical to this
one is unclear to you (emphasis mine)?
And from the legal code:
You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally
Legal loophole: can a work have two licenses simultaneously?
Andreas Haugstrup wrote:
What part of "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you *may*
distribute the resulting work *only* under a license identical to this
one" is unclear to you (emphasis mine)?
And from the
Andreas Haugstrup wrote:
Normally, yes, but not in this care. The license says:
"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License,
a later version of this License with the same License
Just as it is the duty of all men to obey just laws, so it is the duty
of all men to disobey unjust laws.
-- Martin Luther King Jr.
;
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What part of If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you
*may*
On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:23:27 +0200, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Haugstrup wrote:
Normally, yes, but not in this care. The license says:
You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:23:27 +0200, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Haugstrup wrote:
Normally, yes, but not in this care. The license says:
You may distribute, publicly display, publicly
It didn't say "equal to" though. It said "contains the same".
In vernacular English it can go either way. Do you have a picture of
Lindsay Lohan and one of Keira Knightly on your website? Cool, my site contains
the sameones. (But I also have a picture of a decapitated
elephant.) And my
So is the sampling license the way to go for allowing remixing?
http://creativecommons.org/license/sampling?format=audio
-- Enric
-==-
http://www.cirne.com
http://www.cinegage.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it must be the
Legal licenses are written in legal vernacular. Since neither of us are
lawyers we get to use the human-readable description to guide us to the
right interpretation of same. It reads: If you alter, transform, or
build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a
Any license which is not a Share-Alike allows for easy re-use in one form
or another. It's up to each individual to choose which one is best for
them.
- Andreas
On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:45:02 +0200, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So is the sampling license the way to go for allowing
"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License,
a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this
License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same
The translations are identical (they give/retain the same rights), but
must be considered different licenses since they are adapted for each
jurisdiction.
Are we done nitpicking or do you have an actual point to get to?
- Andreas
On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:51:09 +0200, Charles HOPE [EMAIL
Andreas Haugstrup wrote:
The translations are identical (they give/retain the same rights), but
must be considered different licenses since they are adapted for each
jurisdiction.
Are we done nitpicking or do you have an actual point to get to?
Sure. If the 2nd phrase has any
okay - wow - this has gone far (but interesting) from what I was asking about so let me try again.The licence that I was talking about was BY-SA. I DO want to allow remixes and sampling. According to that license if you alter or make a derivitive work you must release it under the same license
So share would be a poor choice of words since it connotates
permission whereas the license restricts.
-- Enric
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any license which is not a Share-Alike allows for easy re-use in one
form
or another. It's up
That's not the way I read the License.
Attribution Share Alike (by-sa)
This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial
reasons, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical
terms. This license is often compared to open
Hello Charles,
I'm not sure what your point is. You can certainly make the argument that copyright law is
morally wrong, I don't agree it is, but even if you and others believe it is so what.
Are you advocating violating copyright law as some sort of protest?
The fact is that there are
Hello Will,On 5/15/06, wtrainbow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Charles,I'm not sure what your point is.You can certainly make the argument that copyright law ismorally wrong, I don't agree it is, but even if you and others believe it is so what.Are you advocating violating copyright law as
I've been a big fan of Negativland for years so I was pleased to see
an interview with one of the members of Negativland Mark Holser at
Minnesota Stories
(http://www.mnstories.com/archives/2006/05/negativlands_ma.html).
Watch it if you can, because Mark has an interesting take on CC and
98 matches
Mail list logo
