Kitka wrote: > Thanks Paul, I agree with you too. In the media world, there IS such > a thing as a "cease and desist". I was talking with someone from the > CBC the other day (more about this subject at a later date) and he > told me about how someone was compiling a Top 100 songs list for a > major network.... he said that they got a cease and desist order from > Leonard Cohen (or some boring musician like that) and they couldn't > use him in the FLATTERING Top 100 show they were making.
Makes perfect sense to me. If Leonard Cohen wants to control how his work is used, he should have that choice. Whether the show was flattering or critical doesn't matter. Others may see this differently, but it's ultimately about artists being able to control how their work is used. > Similarly, videobloggers aren't going to instantly get sued for using > copywritten music/content... they will get a cease and desist order > and if they do not comply, they will then be fined or get a court order. I think it is incorrect to say 'copywritten' as a work you create has your copyright assigned to it. How you choose that work to be used is different from this. The music I can get from Magnatune still has a copyright held by the artist, but the *license* allows me to use it in certain ways. > That said, stop worrying so much about it. As long as we all know the > consequences, we can remove certain files from the Internet if they > are problematic. I mean, it's not like you can just call up U2 and > ask if you can use their music! Well, some of us are big believers in things like Creative Commons, which allow an artist to easily specify how their work can be used. U2 is a lost cause, they don't even have the rights to their music. (Look up Negativland for more on that one!) The hope is that from this point on, artists will realize they *can* have control of their art, and how it is used, and in 10 years, or 20, or whatever, the world of "what you can legally/safely use" is quite different. It's already happening, but we can help make it happen. > Personally, I wouldn't use copyrighted material if I were making money > off of it, but if it's all in good fun, I think it's fair to use it. > (I don't see many people complaining about the use of the Brokeback > Mountain song with all the homages like "Brokeback to the Future", etc.!) Again, it *is* ok to use "copyrighted" material, as long as you have the rights to do so. Getting those right can sometimes prove difficult. (See above.) Of course there is the issue of "what is commercial" as well. Are you making money from ads on your site? Affiliate programs? PayPal donation links? Who decides what "making money" consists of? (The courts?) As for complaining about people using the music from Brokeback mountain without permission (unless it's "fair use" ala parody, etc.) just point me at them, and I'll complain! ;) The reason I think all of this stuff is important is that I want to see videoblogging grow and grow, and pretty much explode, and I want to see it done without violating the rights of artists. I want to see it done in a way that steps around all that is wrong with the RIAA and MPAA and those that would see us crushed beneath their wheels (Whew, rant mode off...) Pete -- http://tinkernet.org/ videoblog for the future... Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
