|
14 Jun 09 - 10:31 PM (#2656569) Subject: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: theman Ok 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. This has NEVER been an issue before. I personally do not like this at all. What do you think of this? |
|
14 Jun 09 - 10:31 PM (#2656570) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: theman This is a BS thread |
|
14 Jun 09 - 11:36 PM (#2656584) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: Stilly River Sage Considering that it is discussing the removal of songs from a video site, it could be considered a music discussion. Have you gone looking for specific songs that are now missing? Is there a "sorry, this was removed" message in place for those removed? SRS |
|
14 Jun 09 - 11:41 PM (#2656586) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: Big Mick no it isn't. This qualifies under general music. If there are copyright issues, that means thelegitimate owners are having their legal property rights violated. While I certainly understand why folks who are used to getting something for nothing wouldn't be happy, I wouldn't want my property stolen or misappropriated. Why should Google profit from my product without me getting my piece. I'll get the old cap and wellies. Been around long enough to know where this is headed. All the best, Mick |
|
15 Jun 09 - 12:23 AM (#2656599) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: theman Also they have removed audio from videos for the same reason |
|
15 Jun 09 - 12:34 AM (#2656601) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: theman The music that they used wasn't stolen if the person who made the video used an artist's music as a background and in the description of that video they said, "I do not own or claim this song as my own", then usually it would be fine. But no they will remove the audio or the video if the recording company finds that video and reports it. |
|
15 Jun 09 - 02:23 AM (#2656628) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: Joe Offer If you took my car for a drive and pasted a sticker on it that said "I do not own or claim this car as my own," would that make it legal for you to use my car without my permission? Copyright holders have a legal right to control and charge for the use of their possessions. Sometimes I think they overdo it, but generally that's their right. I really like being able to listen to music on Youtube and other places on the Internet, and it often motivates me to buy music. BUT if the copyright holder doesn't want somebody giving it away for free, it's their right to control it. -Joe- |
|
15 Jun 09 - 02:51 AM (#2656641) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: VirginiaTam But would that apply to a video of a singer performing a copyright song in a sing around session? What about recordings of school choirs performing or people giving music lessons or showing their growing prowess on various instruments? This is such a contentious topic. Joe's analogy is interesting, but it may be a little shooting in the foot for original artists because more exposure may mean more purchases of CDs and attendance to concerts. It could be free publicity. Youtube videos are not a commercial product for the poster are they? I have been approached to provide background audio to video photo compilation project. I will not be paid and neither does the videographer plan to profit by it. A hobby to do something with photos taken while he was a truck driver in the US. Does this mean we need to get permission for me to sing and play music still under copyright and for him to post the finished video on youtube? |
|
15 Jun 09 - 03:57 AM (#2656669) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: Murray MacLeod Joe, your analogy doesn't stand up imo. The analogy is more like : if you were a builder of custom cars, and somebody took the car without express permission and drove it all over America with a sticker saying "I do not own this car but you can buy an exactly similar car from Joe Offer Custom Cars phone 555-9999". You would make more from the advertising than you lost by the appropriation of one car ... |
|
15 Jun 09 - 04:23 AM (#2656684) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: Will Fly If Google is being a little more draconian with YouTube stuff than before, then perhaps its because they've been involved in a fairly tense legal stand-off with Viacom - and numerous other cases in Europe. Viacom claimed that Google was not doing enough to police the copyright issues, etc., etc. You can use all the arguments you want but, in the end, if you've posted someone else's intellectual property without their permission, then that person is entitled to have your posting removed. There's always been an assumption on the part of many, many people that because something is on the internet, the normal laws of ownership and copyright don't apply. But they do - just as much as anywhere else. The net is more diffuse, and is just so much more difficult to police. |
|
15 Jun 09 - 04:40 AM (#2656698) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: George Papavgeris No Murray - that would be wrong (patronising, too). Because Joe may not be geared for appropriate production, and you'd be making claims on his behalf which he might not be able to meet and therefore damage his reputation. You would also be inviting unsolicited calls to his number. You'd be in a heap of trouble. There is no way to dress this bear so that it looks like Goldilocks. When you buy the CD, the DVD or the download, you buy that particular physical/digital manifestation of the song or film, not the copyright. Furthermore, you buy it for personal use only and you are explicitly forbidden from renting it/playing it/showing it in public, whether for monetary gain or not. Next time you watch a DVD or buy a CD, read those sentences at the start; there is nothing equivocal about those statements, they have been honed to perfection by generations of lawyers. Joe's example stands, and is a very good way of describing the situation. VT, whether this is "shooting in the foot" or not will always depend on the circumstances of the individual artist, his/her level of recognition among the public etc. Michael Jackson does not need to be "advertised" any more through unauthorised use of his music - no, what he wants/deserves is the revenue from sales of CDs/DVDs. In any case, that would be a decision for the artists themselves. You cannot unilaterally take that decision away from the artist. As to the background music for the compilation you are considering: If it is for personal use it would probably not matter. But if it is to be shown in public/displayed/put on youTube, then the "proper" way to do it is either licence your product through the appropriate authorities (MCPS in the UK) or to request a waiver by the owners of the copyright. There are a couple of videos on youTube featuring songs of mine in the background; the people that made them asked for my permission, and I gave it freely, I had no reason to withhold it, indeed the free advertising is beneficial - to me. theman, you say "this has NEVER been an issue before". This is incorrect - it has always been an issue, but it simply took some time for enforcement to catch up with technology. I will give you another example: Someone builds a warehouse and stores food in it. But for a few days there are no locks on the door - the local hardware store was out of locks and had to order them. The warehouse owner takes the risk however and stores his food there for a few days, unlocked. The news spreads by word of mouth however, and by the end of the week much of the food is taken away from the warehouse - perhaps by people who are hungry, but also by people who then resell that food for profit. In either case it is theft. At the end of the week the locks go into the doors and the warehouse is secured. People complain that the can no longer get their free food from the warehouse, and claim the right to do so, because this hade "never" been an issue before. Well, guess what - they are wrong. |
|
15 Jun 09 - 11:43 AM (#2656967) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: VirginiaTam Nods to JO, EF and YP. OK I get it, but I still believe that struggling unknowns would benefit from having their stuff posted to youtube. Guess I am worried that if I sing a song in a session and someone films and posts to youtube, giving credit of the performance to me, can the original artist (or production company) legally come after me, simply because I chose this copyright song? And thinking about the playing personally owned music in public. It means at a picnic in the park, one cannot have CD playing out loud or even sing a copyright song because the public may hear? And what of thumping car stereos? What about cover bands? Do they have to get permission to perform covers? Very tetchy topic indeed. Extremely difficult to enforce and worrying to someone like me who just wants to sing without hurting anyone or breaking laws. |
|
15 Jun 09 - 11:52 AM (#2656970) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: Will Fly VT - in theory, yes, we can all be "done" for not paying a copyright fee when we sing a song "in public". I remember in my jazz days, playing in hotels, that the hotel manager would often bring a PRS form in for us to fill in with the titles of all the songs we'd performed for the dance - so that the hotel could pay, by the way - not us. We used to make them up - couldn't be bothered to fill them in properly. However, the reality is slightly different from your scenario. There's a significant difference in posting your own version of a song on YouTube and you actually posting someone else's performance without their permission - particularly if you post a commercial clip which could reasonably expect to be sold and make money. The law is an ass sometimes, but not that much of an ass! |
|
15 Jun 09 - 11:52 AM (#2656971) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: Uncle_DaveO VirginiaTam said: This is such a contentious topic. Joe's analogy is interesting, but it may be a little shooting in the foot for original artists because more exposure may mean more purchases of CDs and attendance to concerts. It could be free publicity. Youtube videos are not a commercial product for the poster are they? There are two misconceptions there: A. Joe's analogy is interesting, but it may be a little shooting in the foot for original artists because more exposure may mean more purchases of CDs and attendance to concerts. It could be free publicity. "May" and "may be" and "could be". That's an argument about the (un?)wisdom of the copyright-holder exercising his right, but it has nothing to do with the legal fact that (s)he has those rights, and has the sole discretion in the matter. and B. Youtube videos are not a commercial product for the poster are they? That's irrelevant. Whether there's "commercial product" or "profit" are not involved. Contrary to folklore or what some might think of as common sense, the owner of copyright has the right to be protected from his property being sold or given away for free. Dave Oesterreich |
|
15 Jun 09 - 12:14 PM (#2656985) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: Rifleman (inactive) "Ok 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. This has NEVER been an issue before. I personally do not like this at all. What do you think of this?" Copyright has always been an issue and f a video infringes on said copyright, then it should be removed. I'm a working musician, and, apart from benefits for worthwhile causes, I DON'T play for free. "I do not own or claim this song as my own" this is one of the worst cop outs I've ever seen, and doesn't alter the fact that you or anyone else have no right to post copyrighted material you don't own. The old hippy-dippy "everything must be free, in the name of the people" was BS back then, and nothing has changed since. |
|
15 Jun 09 - 12:42 PM (#2657005) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: VirginiaTam I am not posting. I am not even recording what I sing and play. I am not even being paid to sing. I just go to sing around sessions, where people do record and then later post. Nothing I can do about that except not sing. |
|
15 Jun 09 - 12:58 PM (#2657017) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: GUEST "The music that they used wasn't stolen if the person who made the video used an artist's music as a background and in the description of that video they said, 'I do not own or claim this song as my own', then usually it would be fine" This just isn't true. The copyright holder is the only one who gets to say what can and can't be done with the work. You're saying that if I bootlegged a copy of a popular movie, e.g., Star Trek, and posted in to my website for people to download, that would be OK as long as I added a disclaimer that I didn't have permission? _Traditional_ folk music is open-source (see my blog entry on this from yesterday - The original open source music - but most contemporary singer-songwriter "folk music" isn't. Whether the artist might benefit from the increased exposure is irrelevant because that should be up to the artist to decide, not someone who copies his work. |
|
15 Jun 09 - 01:01 PM (#2657020) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: George Papavgeris Don't be despondent, VT. As Will Fly says, the subject is contentious at its extreme, but real life goes on. Currently, the onus for licencing live performances is on the Venue owner/manager, not the performer. It has brought significant unrest as to the likely status of singarounds, sessions and small folk clubs. The recent report on the workings of the licencing laws states clearly that they have gone too far, and recommends relaxing the law for venues of less than 200 audience, which should make it all right (er). But posting something that includes a copyrighted work on youTube's platform accessed by millions, is another thing altogether. |
|
15 Jun 09 - 01:06 PM (#2657026) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: bald headed step child VT, Your singing in a session is not the problem. The person who records and posts the recording is the one who would be in trouble. If you are not being paid for your performance, you don't owe the royalty, the club owner does, as that is who would profit. The main people they are going after are not people doing an interpretation of a song, it's the people using a recording of the original artist to make their video. Also, the people who buy a DVD, and then post the entire DVD on Youtube in little pieces. Both of which are theft. As for showing off growing prowess on your instrument, why in the world would that have to be done with a copyrighted song when there are MILLIONS of PD songs to choose from? |
|
15 Jun 09 - 01:09 PM (#2657027) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: Q (Frank Staplin) Up above, performances by school choirs, etc. were mentioned. From years ago, I remember decisions made by students and music teachers at our schools to perform certain pieces or musical plays. The school bought copyright songs and plays. Some were too expensive and had to be dropped from consideration. The school agreed to certain performance conditions and made payment for this material. If someone records the performance of a copyright composition and puts it on youtube or whatever, open to the public without charge, they are stealing from the copyright holder. Composers rights must be upheld. Paroles.net, Honking Duck, and other internet sites as well as youtube have violated these rights. We might have enjoyed the free pass, but that does not make it either right or legal. |
|
15 Jun 09 - 01:14 PM (#2657033) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: MMario Our local high school recorded one of their concerts as a "give away for a sports fund-raiser. (free to anyone donating x number of dollars or more. Theystill had to pay mechanical copyright (in addition to the copyright they purchased to perform the piece in the first place) for each copy of each number on the CD. |
|
15 Jun 09 - 01:50 PM (#2657057) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: JedMarum It is not the performance of a song in public that is an issue (assuming the song is published already) but the posting of a recording of that performance that can be a copyright infringement. Permission and/or mechanical licenses must be sorted out to republish a recording of copyright protected material. And of course that is important to the owner of the intellectual property. I have had this happen to me with Youtube on a surprising number of occasions. I have posted my own videos of me performing my own songs. No issues there. And I have posted one video of me singing someone else's song (Bill Staines). I ask for and obtained permission to do so. I posted proper credit info and links to Bill's website. BUT I have had people film me performing - sometimes my own songs, sometimes songs written by others. In some cases they asked for permission - and in others they did not. In truth, there are some of the videos that I wish they wouldn't post because the film quality was poor, the environment was bad - or the performance less then stellar - but I would never say no for any of these reasons. I just hope the videos wouldn't be noticed! And when people have asked my permission to republish MY songs or my performance of Public Domain songs I've always said YES and asked for the appropriate copyright and publishing info to be posted along with the video. BUT when I find these "bootleg" videos - that is someone republishing MY songs or my performance of Public Domain songs - I have always contacted them and asked them to post the appropriate copyright and publishing info. I do not ask them to remove the video and I can see no reason why I would do so. For me, the credit info that is specified by copyright and publishing is is important. I don't have any issues with it for my music - except as I said, matters of taste, and I would never voice those concerns. |
|
15 Jun 09 - 02:31 PM (#2657086) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: Howard Jones The post by Yorgos Papavgeris is slightly misleading - the licensing issues he refers to are to do with local authority licenses for the performance of music and other events. Copyright issues in the UK are dealt with by the Performing Rights Society. There are lengthy threads on here if you search. As a performer, you are covered by the PRS licence which the venue must have. In theory, a licence is required for other public places, hence the occasional shock-horror when PRS demands a licence for a radio played at work. If someone records your performance and then posts it, I don't think the owner of the copyright would have any comeback against you - they get their royalty from the PRS licence for the venue where you performed. They would have a claim against whoever posted it. I think you might also have a claim against the poster, as you would own the copyright in your own performance, but not copyright in the material. The fact that copying music has been going on for decades doesn't alter that it is wrong, both legally and morally. |
|
15 Jun 09 - 02:59 PM (#2657101) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: McGrath of Harlow 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." |
|
15 Jun 09 - 04:28 PM (#2657171) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: Q (Frank Staplin) I can't see that anything is being strangled. Only thievery. |
|
15 Jun 09 - 04:56 PM (#2657191) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: Bonzo3legs 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! |
|
15 Jun 09 - 05:10 PM (#2657205) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
15 Jun 09 - 05:19 PM (#2657212) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: VirginiaTam 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. |
|
15 Jun 09 - 05:53 PM (#2657235) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: Will Fly 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. |
|
15 Jun 09 - 06:25 PM (#2657252) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
16 Jun 09 - 02:34 AM (#2657445) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: Murray MacLeod 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. |
|
16 Jun 09 - 02:46 AM (#2657450) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: Peace 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? |
|
16 Jun 09 - 03:02 AM (#2657457) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: Will Fly 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. |
|
16 Jun 09 - 03:33 AM (#2657465) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: Richard Bridge 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! |
|
16 Jun 09 - 03:41 AM (#2657467) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: Murray MacLeod I look forward to reading your summing up later, Richard. |
|
16 Jun 09 - 09:15 AM (#2657652) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: GUEST,leeneia 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.... |
|
16 Jun 09 - 09:47 AM (#2657681) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: JedMarum 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. |
|
16 Jun 09 - 10:57 AM (#2657733) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: GUEST,tom blss 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 |
|
16 Jun 09 - 11:34 AM (#2657766) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: Rifleman (inactive) "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. |
|
16 Jun 09 - 11:39 AM (#2657768) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: Alice 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. |
|
16 Jun 09 - 11:59 AM (#2657792) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: GUEST,tom bliss 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 |
|
16 Jun 09 - 12:03 PM (#2657795) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: George Papavgeris 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? |
|
16 Jun 09 - 12:10 PM (#2657802) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: JedMarum 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). |
|
16 Jun 09 - 12:15 PM (#2657805) Subject: RE: Youtube removes videos'copyright issues' From: JedMarum 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. |
|
16 Jun 09 - 12:17 PM (#2657807) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: JedMarum 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. |
|
16 Jun 09 - 12:28 PM (#2657817) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: GUEST,tom bliss 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 |
|
16 Jun 09 - 12:33 PM (#2657821) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: Alice 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 |
|
16 Jun 09 - 12:53 PM (#2657847) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: Big Mick 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 |
|
16 Jun 09 - 12:58 PM (#2657850) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: catspaw49 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 |
|
16 Jun 09 - 01:00 PM (#2657853) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: Alice um.... dream on, spaw |
|
16 Jun 09 - 01:01 PM (#2657854) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: GUEST 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! ;-) |
|
16 Jun 09 - 03:50 PM (#2657987) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: JedMarum Ooops me again above. I keep dropping my cookies! |
|
16 Jun 09 - 05:03 PM (#2658043) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: Murray MacLeod 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)... |
|
17 Jun 09 - 01:48 AM (#2658309) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: Peace "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. |
|
17 Jun 09 - 09:34 AM (#2658511) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: JedMarum 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. |
|
17 Jun 09 - 11:24 AM (#2658604) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: Rifleman (inactive) "the word issue means a particular copy of a newspaper, magazine or other periodical and nothing more" I stand by what I said |
|
17 Jun 09 - 01:43 PM (#2658707) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: JedMarum you're using the wrong dictionary! ;-) |
|
17 Jun 09 - 09:31 PM (#2659042) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: Skivee 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. |
|
17 Jun 09 - 10:07 PM (#2659067) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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. |
|
18 Jun 09 - 02:40 AM (#2659165) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: Peace One issue resulted from the 'meeting' of the duchess and head waiter. |
|
18 Jun 09 - 02:51 AM (#2659171) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: Peace . . . amongst many other issue. |
|
18 Jun 09 - 03:01 AM (#2659176) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: Peace s |
|
18 Jun 09 - 03:51 AM (#2659191) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: GUEST,Bruce Michael Baillie 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 |
|
18 Jun 09 - 04:10 AM (#2659197) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: GUEST,tom bliss I can vouch for that! :-) t |
|
18 Jun 09 - 02:52 PM (#2659572) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: Murray MacLeod 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. |
|
18 Jun 09 - 03:23 PM (#2659602) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: SSlug at Home 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! |
|
18 Jun 09 - 04:04 PM (#2659647) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: Rifleman (inactive) "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* |
|
18 Jun 09 - 04:26 PM (#2659660) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: Rifleman (inactive) 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* |
|
18 Jun 09 - 04:33 PM (#2659672) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: Skivee 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 |
|
18 Jun 09 - 04:43 PM (#2659689) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: Skivee 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.) |
|
18 Jun 09 - 04:48 PM (#2659697) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: jeffp 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. |
|
18 Jun 09 - 05:09 PM (#2659719) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: Skivee 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? |
|
18 Jun 09 - 05:18 PM (#2659733) Subject: RE: YouTube removes videos - 'copyright issues' From: jeffp 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) |