YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: jeffp
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 05:18 PM

I was thinking of swung, but I forgot about port. A bit of port in every girl can result in a girl in every port, eh? (Nudge nudge, wink wink)

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: Skivee
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 05:09 PM

I'm sorry , JeffP.
I don't know if the "word with multiple meanings" is supposed to be "Girl", "Port", "word", or "swung".
Is it bertter to have a girl in every port, or to have every port in a girl?
And another thing; Is it better to split infinitives, or to not split infinitives?
xxxx
St. Skivee (Ms., ABS, Bi-curious)

PS Do these slop pants make my ass look fat, or is it the cupcakes?

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: jeffp
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 04:48 PM

And here I thought you had a girl in every port. Didn't know it was because you swung that way. Oops, another word with multiple meanings.

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: Skivee
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 04:43 PM

Teehee. You are correct again. I am a serving woman...a charlady. As such, I am insultable on the basis of being female, a menial laborer, a member of the lower classes; that is to say, not part of your aristocratic ilk. All these things show me as deserving contenpt.
Wow. There's so much I could learn about myself if I would only give your wise words a chance.
Teehee
xxxx
St. Skivee (Ms.)

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: Skivee
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 04:33 PM

Rifleman, I stand corrected. You are correct, There is only one correct use for the word "Issue". All other definitions are stupid. You have set me straight. I bow before your supreme word-smithery. Teehee
You have shown the light of truth and right-thinking on my unworthy comment.
"I'm fully aware of mulitple means for words, only too aware..."
You are right, having many meanings of the same word is a detestable imposition on the big brains of the English speaking world such as yourself by the forces of evil and modernist pop culture. Some might say that this sort of thing is an example of the richness and pliability that makes English such an adaptable language. But clearly they are wrong.
Teehee. You're right. you're so right.
Teehee
I bet a lot of folks think you are a funny guy, too.
Teehee.
xxxx
St. Skivee

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 04:26 PM

Oh and one other thing, Skivee I may have been wrong about your gender..

it seems......

"Noun: skivvy ski-vee
Usage: British

A female domestic servant who does all kinds of menial work
- slavey [British]
Verb: skivvy ski-vee
Usage: British

Do menial domestic work"

back to the servant's quarters with you *LOL*

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 04:04 PM

"From: Skivee - PM
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 09:31 PM

Rifleman, old boy, the word "issue" has many meanings.
In no particular order, it can mean an utterence of a periodical, the fruit of one's loins, the fruit of a collective people's loins, a point of contention, a talking point, as well as more arcane uses.
This is certainly not the first time you have heard words that have many meanings. Even a dictionary for children will contain more than one meaning for a given word where appropriate.
You may chose to use only the one meaning, but don't be surprised if learned people go ahead with other applications.

You assumptions merely amuse me, Skivee 'old boy' I'm fully aware of mulitple means for words, only too aware...sorry I'm laughing AT you far too hard to continue this....*LOL*

St. Skivee the patron saint of patronising prats. *LOL*

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: SSlug at Home
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 03:23 PM

Hasn't there been a problem since March, which is specific to the UK?
Google's licence from the PRS lapsed because Google could not agree a fee with PRS for the next twelve months. Google started to block UK users from seeing and hearing music on Youtube, thus staying inside the law. I thought it applied only to 'official' videos so you can still see and hear your favourite artist(s)performing live, courtesy of somebody's cell phone camera!

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:52 PM

I really wish someone (Richard Bridge perhaps) would write a "Layman's Guide to Copyright Laws concerning Audio and Video Recording, in the UK and the US, with particular reference to Youtube " and stick it up on the net so that all future copyright enquiries could be directed there.

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: GUEST,tom bliss
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 04:10 AM

I can vouch for that! :-)

t

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: GUEST,Bruce Michael Baillie
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 03:51 AM

Personally if I ever put anything on Youtube that I haven't written myself I always credit the original author, it's only fair to do so

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 03:01 AM

s

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:51 AM

. . . amongst many other issue.

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:40 AM

One issue resulted from the 'meeting' of the duchess and head waiter.

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 10:07 PM

The stream issues from a gorge-
The postal service issued a new stamp
Steam issues from the kettle
The new CD was issued today
Joe made an issue of free speech
Pus issued from the sore

One of those words we could hardly do without.

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: Skivee
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 09:31 PM

Rifleman, old boy, the word "issue" has many meanings.
In no particular order, it can mean an utterence of a periodical, the fruit of one's loins, the fruit of a collective people's loins, a point of contention, a talking point, as well as more arcane uses.
This is certainly not the first time you have heard words that have many meanings. Even a dictionary for children will contain more than one meaning for a given word where appropriate.
You may chose to use only the one meaning, but don't be surprised if learned people go ahead with other applications.

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: JedMarum
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 01:43 PM

you're using the wrong dictionary!

;-)

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 11:24 AM

"the word issue means a particular copy of a newspaper, magazine or other periodical and nothing more"

I stand by what I said

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: JedMarum
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 09:34 AM

It is not the permission of the performer that is required for posting on Youtube, it is the permission of the author/composer (presumably owner of the copy right) of the song. I am sure that permission is required to republish a song on video, and you cannot just pay the license fees. Youtube is video and laws that cover publishing of video recordings are different from laws that cover publishing of audio recordings.

I know US and UK laws differ somewhat in regard to republishing an audio recording - in the US I can obtain a mechanical license fee and pay the fee and composer's permission is not required - but I believe Richard Bridge said that it is different in the UK, where Permission is required. In any case - that licensing law does not cover video. I believe you'll find that in US and in UK permission from the composer of a work that is performed within a video - is required for distribution of the video.

And of course permission and licensing for posting video of unpublished works at Youtube or anywhere else is always required.

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 01:48 AM

"As far as I know, nobody can get sued for recording another artist's compositions without their express prior permission, and as long as the appropriate royalties are paid then there is bugger all the composer can do about it."

One exception to that is this: the songwriter/composer holds 'first recording rights'. Unless they are waived, NO ONE else can record the song. The instance you give pertains to published/released songs.

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 05:03 PM

I think it is quite important to distinguish between "courtesy" and "legality".

As far as I know, nobody can get sued for recording another artist's compositions without their express prior permission, and as long as the appropriate royalties are paid then there is bugger all the composer can do about it.

Or a meringue ? (Billy Connolly joke for the non- Scots ...)

It would however be a gross discourtesy to the composer to embark on such a course of action, but that is all it would be, just discourtesy. Or a meringue again ?

I personally think the whole YouTube thing requires a rethink on the part of the legislators and the copyright owners.

I believe that a small annual subscription to view the music videos on the site wouldn't be a bad idea, and out of this fee composers could receive an emolument proportional to the number of times the video had been viewed.

Still awaiting Richard Bridge on the "copyright of performance " issue (sic)...

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: JedMarum
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 03:50 PM

Ooops me again above. I keep dropping my cookies!

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 01:01 PM

Alice - sounds like we're in agreement. As I said, I've had people post things without my permission. In all of those cases I would have granted permission if they'd asked - so in all those cases I made contact with them, told it was OK to post and asked that they correctly credit the clips (in some cases they already had).

But it does surprise me that some people will use an artist's work without permission and think that it is ok. That is a problem we need to work to correct.

Thanks Mick. I'm not sure I'm using both sides of the brain well, but I'm working at it! ;-)

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: Alice
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 01:00 PM

um....
dream on, spaw

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 12:58 PM

Alice, if you would please come to my place and offer up some "exposure" I can assure you that I will not have you arrested and I will pay! Could I get a few pictures too?

Spaw

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 12:53 PM

For me, as it appears for Alice, a very real danger is the encouragement of THE IDEA that the artist has no control or right to determine how his/her work is used. Personally I could care less if artists give away their work for whatever reason. As long as they are in control of the fruits of their labor, it is their choice. But we should be completely, absolutely, and finally, intolerant of any encouragement of the idea that is OK to steal our product. There is no reason to pretty it up.

My dear buddy Jed manages it the best. And he is the best example of how to manage both sides of the brain when it comes to making a living as an artist.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: Alice
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 12:33 PM

Jed, I carefully choose when I donate my work, too.
Having control over what you distribute on youtube and other media is important. It can be a good promotional tool, but the problem here is having people use an artist's work without permission and think that it is ok.

Alice

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: GUEST,tom bliss
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 12:28 PM

the worst offender in my book is thesession.org.

its not possible to input a composers name.

this ebndorses the veiw among many tune players that the composer is irrelevant.

many, myself included, are happy for our tunes to be used gratis in free-entry sessions, but not in paid gigs or recordings.

I've also asked prs to consider a 'creative-commons'-type option when we register a work, to allow free use in free sessions and singarounds.

watch this space (also for a special cheaper licence for free-entry gatherings - on which my lips must be, for now, sealed).

tom

Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues'
From: JedMarum
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 12:17 PM

Not a bad suggestion, Tom. Youtube does warn posters that they are responsible for following the copyright law - and they provide good info on that means.

But a field that forces the poster to credit the owner of the copyright might help enforce the rules a bit better.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: JedMarum
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 12:15 PM

Three of the definitions listed in the most recent issue of my dictionary for the word "issue" are these:

a point in question or a matter that is in dispute, as between contending parties in an action at law.

a point, matter, or dispute, the decision of which is of special or public importance: the political issues.

a point the decision of which determines a matter: The real issue in the strike was the right to bargain collectively.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: JedMarum
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 12:10 PM

Alice you're correct that sometimes the notion that "you get the exposure" in lieu of pay is not a good deal for the artist. As one who must choose his "give away" opportunities carefully, I do just that; I choose carefully which of those opportunities really are worthwhile.

For me the Youtube clips are well worthwhile. I do not earn at the level that I can afford a true advertising budget, but Youtube and few others make up for that. The clips there are not replacing the "product" I sell - they are giving samples, and providing access to links where I sell the product. It works. I've had 10s of thousands of play at Youtube and regular notes in on-line purchases saying that the buyer found the album through Youtube (or similar engines).

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 12:03 PM

Rifleman, I would take issue (matter, problem) with you on this. When we issue (matter, problem) pronouncements such as "the word issue means a particular copy of a newspaper, magazine or other periodical and nothing more", we can easily give the wrong impression, namely that we have issues (matters, problems) with such usage.

Not to mention that we could allow ourselves to get stressed at risk to ourselves, and we could easily depart from this earth without issue (matter, peoblem), if we are young and have no progeny.

They are all legitimate uses of the word. English is a rich language, why place false limits on it?

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: GUEST,tom bliss
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 11:59 AM

the point about the exposure issue (sorry rifleman, but that is the cooect word) is that it should be up to the copyright holder to decide if the exposure is worth a loss of immediate revenue or not - not a fan.

sometime it is, but not always.

there are two youtube montages that use my work without my prior permission. in neither case did the uploader quote me as the writer.

I was able to add my name in the comments (or someone did it for me) so I let them stand, but it would have been better it the system had required the poster to input my name. he might have decided to ask me first.

tom

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: Alice
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 11:39 AM

Artists and writers are often being told the lame excuse that "you get the exposure" instead of being paid for their work. You can't pay your mortgage with "exposure". There are 2 things I know about exposure... you can get arrested from it or die from it.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 11:34 AM

"For "issues" read matters, problems"

for me the word issue means a particular copy of a newspaper, magazine or other periodical and nothing more. I detest the word usage in any other context.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: GUEST,tom blss
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 10:57 AM

one thing youtube don't do, along with most other websites, is have a required field in the upload process for 'writer'. so if joe bloggs makes a cover of my song it will say, 'the violin by joe bloggs'

this is wrong. a 'composer' box would make uploaders stop and think, as well as help to promote the value of writers to people viewing the site.

I've asked prs to look into it.

tom in sunny scotland

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: JedMarum
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 09:47 AM

As someone who makes a living at music performance and songwriting, I have a keen interest in the way Youtube and similar performance distribution services operate.

As a listener and viewer of such services I am very happy to find such a huge library of material at my fingertips.

As a "producer" of such material I am happy to have Youtube provide access of my music to the world at-large. It is very much like free advertising.

It seems to me that Youtube is very good neighbor in regard to following copyright and publishing law. They seem to take my intellectual property rights seriously and they seem to have policies in place that make it possible for me to correct any issues that I find.

The artist in me wants everyone to be able to hear my songs. The business man in me wants to be sure that I do not loose the right to sell those works. It seems that Youtube satisfies both.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 09:15 AM

I wanna talk about the original premise of this thread:

'YouTube was taken over by google and now videos are being removed by the tens of thousands each day for issues dealing with copyrighted songs.'

Tens of thousands? I have done a little checking, and I don't find any evidence of this. Yes, videos are removed sometimes, but there's nothing about tens of thousands.

YouTube says it will remove a video if an authorized person protests. For tens of thousands of videos to go, a big staff would have to be dealing with a large number of people. Is there any evidence this is occurring?

I suspect this is just another rumor designed to get people upset. Coyote Waits....

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 03:41 AM

I look forward to reading your summing up later, Richard.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 03:33 AM

THere are several different jurisdictions and several different legal rights in play here and it will take some time to provide even a bare summary - so I won't do it now!

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: Will Fly
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 03:02 AM

To film or record someone's performance and publish it without their permission is a breach of copyright. To photograph someone and publish that photo in a paper is not quit the same - though there have been various actions in the courts with celebrities taking action to protect their privacy. The view seems to be that taking photos of "famous" people, for example, while they're on holiday, is not justified and is an invasion of privacy. Taking photos of those same people while they're going about their business of "being famous" appears to be justified - otherwise there would be no photographs in newspapers!

It's worth noting that the copyright laws in the UK and the US are different. We have a concept of "fair dealing" in the UK which allows all or parts of a work to be copied within certain limits, and with special licenses for educational use. The ERA licence, for example, allows HE institutions to record TV programmes, and the CLA licence allows parts of books and journals to be copied (for a price) for individual research. Note - money changes hands every time! And if you were an author who made his/her living from writing, that's the way you'd want it.

It's interesting that some musicians are conspicuously absent from Spotify (music streaming site) and have not given permission for their music to be streamed - the Beatles being one group - and some tracks in compilations are unlinked for the same reason. It would seem that the stuff removed from YouTube is on behalf of those musicians/performers who feel strongly about their work being ripped off or mangled.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 02:46 AM

I have three songs on Youtube. I wrote 'em. I put them there (a good friend did with my permission). The videos--LOW budget--are also 'mine', bought and paid for. In this case there IS no copyright issue.

John Doe decides he likes a song and wants to re-do it. If he pays me the writer's share, John Doe and I have no issue. If he doesn't, then we do. And it's a legal issue.

As the publisher (gee, that sounds fancy) of the songs, I own 100% of the 'rights' to those songs. I did give a good friend the right to record and release a specific song with the caveat that if he made big bucks to send me some. I waived, in writing, any up-front fee from him. That's my right, also.

HOWEVER, had the song been the property of a real publishing house, then I have no right to waive ANY rights to do with the song. They 'belong' to the publisher.

Howzat?

AND, if any song of mine were to be used without my permission for Youtube, I'd be really pissed off, likely enough to seek legal advice (which I'd need because I'd be arrested for ripping the guy's throat out).

I write songs because I love writing songs, but I do NOT do it 'for free'. Ya like it enough to steal it, have the friggin' decency to pay the fee. (I have sent numerous CDs to people who couldn't really afford them. I have no problem with that. I have a serious problem if that person then duplicates a few for his friends. I ever find out that's happened and the legal authorities will be the least of that person's problems.)

I wish music COULD be free. I also like to eat. Capiche?

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 02:34 AM

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: Howard Jones - PM
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 02:31 PM

..."as you would own the copyright in your own performance" ...

this is an interesting one, and I would like to see Richard Bridge come in here and make an authoritative pronouncement.

If a professional entertainer is filmed without permission singing a traditional song, and is less than pleased with the subsequent filmed performance on YouTube , does he /she have the right to have the recording withdrawn on copyright issues?

If that is in fact the case, can we then assume that the papparazzi are infringing copyright by photographing celebrites and publishing their pictures in the paper without their permission ?

And Yorgos, you didn't include the ending to your analogy, which is that the people who took the bread told all their friends, "hey, that place sells great bread, you need to get some for yourself even if you have to pay for it".

Not that I am suggesting that it was morally right to take the bread in the first place, but sometimes, in the real world, one has to be pragmatic about these things.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 06:25 PM

I'm not actually using those instances as analogies. I am pointing out that the present way of giving priority to "intellectual property rights" rather than to "creative freedom" would historically have deprived us of our shared heritage of immeasurably great things. And I postulate that it is doing just that at present, and will continue to do so into the future.

That doesn't mean that there may not be particular circumstances where limits can reasonably be placed on "creative freedom" as against "intellectual property rights" - but my feeling is that we are in danger of getting the balance all wrong. We really are members one of another, building on what other people have done.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: Will Fly
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 05:53 PM

I don't think the analogy between literary borrowings/influences and the posting of videos on YouTube holds up. Of course authors have used and adapted others' ideas and stories to create their own fictions from time immemorial - after all, there are only a few original plot lines in the whole of literature - but this is simply not the same as taking a DVD, cutting out a bit of it and then posting the cut-out clip on YouTube without the DVD creator's permission. (And even in the literary world, authors have been sued by other authors for alleged plagiarism - the recent "The Da Vinci Code" legal wrangle was a case in point.)

The argument can go on for ever and ever - but the analogy doesn't hold true.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 05:19 PM

M of H is right on the Shakespeare thing. I studied both the Bard and Tudor Stuart drama in Uni and he was a great lifter of his contemporaries works.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 05:10 PM

For a start, any playwright who went around writing plays using existing material the way Shakespeare did would rapidly find themselves in court, or in jail.

They were all at it, ever since writing was invented, and probably before. Homer, he was another one.

As for folksong around the world and over the ages, top to bottom it's been made up of people singing and adapting songs and tunes made up by other people, with never a penny changing hands.

It's going to be a very much impoverished future with that kind of thing outlawed from now on.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 04:56 PM

For "issues" read matters, problems - that sort of thing. Why people have been brainwashed into using that hideous buzzword is beyond belief!

Now if you are referring to say the June 2009 issue of folk roots, then it is the correct use of the word, and the 5 minutes it take to read it well spent!

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 04:28 PM

I can't see that anything is being strangled. Only thievery.

Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 02:59 PM

Just imagine how much we would have lost if this kind of copyright issues had stifled performers and writers in the past?

For a start, we'd have hardly any of Shakespeare's plays, and no folk music or folk song.

It's a shame for the future, but at least we've still got the stuff in the past that wasn't strangled at birth by the big high wall of "intellectual property rights".

"There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me.
Sign was painted, said private property.
But on the back side it didn't say nothin'.
That side was made for you and me."