On 9/6/05, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Adrian Miles makes some interesting points. However, most of his arguments evolve from the assumption that most vloggers have dreams of going on to commercial distribution.
Copyright still doesn't have any different application between commercial and non-commercial use.
I agree with Adrain regarding serious commercial syndication. Some things people don't realize is that you can't even sing "Happy Birthday" without paying a pretty high licensing fee. It is "shared knowledge" among filmmakers and documentary makers that one avoids having "Happy Birthday" sung in any of their scenes.
Yes, and some people, like me, put the tune of Happy Birthday, as it was in the original public domain version, up with a Happy Birthday message and know the recipient will get that it's HB, even though the music is actually "Good Morning to You." And dare Warner Bros. to litigate. But we know that WB has the right to do so.
I have had personal experience in this regard. There is a documentary making the rounds called "Based on a True Story". It has even gotten an award or two at film festivals. At the core of this documentary is the filmmakers futile effort to get the fellow who robbed the bank in "Dog Day Afternoon" to agree to be interviewed for a set price.
I'm not familiar with this, but if he robbed a bank (and was guilty), then he is considered to have placed himself in the public eye. Celebrities, politicians, and criminals are considered to have waived certain of their privacy rights as a result of their actions. While the core of the documentary is that the filmmakers are trying to get the guy to agree to an interview, they do not need to get a release form to film/display him-- he no longer has the same "private citizen" protections.
However, I am assured by people working on a documentary on a related theme that "Based on a True Story" would never pass muster for commercial broadcast by a cable or television station or even for general theatrical release.
That would likely be because of the commercial interests of the cable/TV stations, more than anything else. Really, if it were an hour long film about how he pulled it off, including photos and footage of him, but with a dramatic re-enactment, I'm sure the studios would not care that he didn't have a release.
However, the average vlogger is unlikely to ever get into trouble for stuff he/she vlogs for free.
I doubt that. You would be surprised at what the mega-corps will do in order to squash a growing medium/private voice.
When all is said and done, I really don't think an ordinary vlogger really has to worry about this "licensing" nonsense. That is one of the nice things about the netherworld vlogosphere that we inhabit.
Boy, are you wrong about that. The RIAA cares enough to sue an 11 year old kid for just downloading music to listen to in her own home (which they did 2 years ago). I have no doubt that they will happily come kick my ass for using thirty seconds of copyrighted music in a videoblog entry. They really ARE that petty!
--Stephanie
--
Stephanie Bryant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com
Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com
--
Stephanie Bryant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com
Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com
SPONSORED LINKS
| Individual | Fireant | Explains |
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.
