On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 00:37:20 +0200, David Meade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/10/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I don't agree with Devlon that a video transcode constitutes a >> derrivative >> work (IANAL!!!). Just as a xerox of a photo is a "copy" not a >> derrivative >> work... It's a bad copy, but still a copy. IMO. >> > This from the champion of interactive bloggy video? ;) If I have an > interactive sprite track and someone transcodes that mov file to a flash > file, all that interactivity is gone ... it's a significant change to the > media isn't it? First: I don't think I deserve the honour of being called champion of interactive bloggy video. :o) Secondly: This is the problem is trying to be general in an area where there are no generalities. In the case you describe significant qualities of how the work works have changed. You have changed one form (an interactive video) to another form (a regular video). This is not identical to the types of transcoding I should have made clear I was talking about (changing regular video in one file format to regular video in another file format). -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. 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/
