I think the creative commons licenses actually do a really good job of outlining vloggers rights and what we expect.
Maybe we should concentrate on where they fail to reflect what we expect and then maybe see about getting them updated or possibly proposing a creative commons videoblogger's license to encourage fair and proper use and discourage misuse. Am I right in that most videobloggers allow non-commercial use as long as it contains attribution. Maybe that's a good place to start. It does represent many of the points I mentioned originally, but it does also allow for transcoding and/or rehosting interestingly enough... as long as it is for non-commercial purposes. I really think moving forward we owe it to new players like Network2.tv to give a clear outline of what they can do without asking our individual permission because ultimately such intermediaries can really help us. Where would the vlogosphere be without revlogging, guides, directories and search engines? The thing is I think Creative Commons is advanced enough and implimented in a widespread enough fassion in things like RSS, media RSS and microstandards that we can really start using it. -Mike On 1/5/07, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is a great discussion and I'm pleased it's occurring as a result > of the MyHeavy.com incident. As with many ethical questions that > involve both legal and social criteria, one can use the `reasonable > person' concept to assess the situation. For example, it's clearly > wrong (and illegal) for me to sell for commercial profit someone > else's CC licensed video that states no commercial reuse. But can I > resell that video for fund-raising for a non-profit? The reasonable > person would say no. Can I repackage it and distribute it if it's a > very small part of the total video content of a commercially sold > aggregation? The reasonable person would say no. The responsibility > is on the aggregator, collector, or re-distributor to get permission > for re-use and cannot be placed on the creator. Copyright law (and > ethics) states that the creator owns his material for some period > (too long, probably). For any business to assume they can profit in > any way from the work of someone else, no matter how small, is > illegal and unethical. It doesn't matter how easily co-opting > someone else's work is, the assumption has to be that you don't do > it. If I were to enter my neighbor's house without permission and > take something and the cops showed up to arrest me, how well would my > defense work if it was merely, "the door was open and there was no > sign saying I couldn't help myself." It wouldn't. The culturally > understood norm is that what's not yours is not yours and you must > get permission to use it. To put the responsibility on the creator > to blacklist everyone he doesn't want to grant access is too onerous, > it's too costly. > > -David > > --- In [email protected], "Bill Cammack" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Steve Watkins" <steve@> > wrote: > > > > > > So ideally the starting point should be that everyone knows, and > > > should assume, that they have very limited rights to your work, > unless > > > they see a creative commons license that gives them extra rights. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Steve Elbows > > > > + 1,000! :D > > > > -- > > Bill C. > > http://ems.blip.tv > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
