> I think Jay is right from the creators' perspective, but I would like > to look at this from a different angle, namely the relationship > between a video maker and the subject. When I ask for permission to > photograph someone without a written release, I usually explain why I > am taking the video and what it will be used for. Often it is > implicitly understood. Neither I nor my subjects have had any > problems with this. However, if someone grabs that same material and > re-edits it or embeds it in another site, then it interferes with the > trust between me and my subject.
i hear you. you are perfectly laying out the crux of the question. If you replace "video/photograph" with "text", does this change the argument? Why? If I interview you for a newspaper, there is never any issue if someone else uses that quote for another text work. its just understood that my interview becomes part of the larger conversation. As John said, if im just ripping off parts of your video because Im lazy, bad news. Just like if I plagerize by stealing your text as my own. But if Im using parts of your video to build on a bigger conversation, why are the rules different for video and text? remember, the majority of videoblogs is not TV or movies. it is moments, commentary, and conversations. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
