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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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:
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]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
52 matches
Mail list logo
