YouTube and Copyright

Forums › Online streaming services › YouTube and Copyright

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

483 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 286

Trusted

Reply # 1523504 31-Mar-2016 18:50

networkn: Heh, I don't see any compelling evidence in your argument. How would you replace the current system?

Let's play devil's advocate:

1. I dig a ditch for you and charge you for the time and effort it took to dig the ditch.

2. I have an idea and I can charge everyone for a hundred years.

Rikkitic

Glurp
8689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3991

Subscriber

Reply # 1523513 31-Mar-2016 19:24

2 people support this post

networkn:

Heh, I don't see any compelling evidence in your argument. How would you replace the current system?

That would require an essay that I don't feel up to composing at this moment, but I can easily offer a couple of samplers. First, I don't think any form of copyright should extend beyond the lifetime of the individual. Plumbers, joiners, factory workers, software programmers, business executives, all who want to leave a legacy for their children are expected to build up savings, make investments, buy property, engage in other activities to create wealth that can be passed on. There is no good reason why creative content producers should be treated any differently. I don't actually see why they should even expect to receive royalties for a lifetime, but I am willing to bend a little on that.

Second, the enforcement mafia needs to be put out of a job. Individuals and small businesses ought to be able to play a radio in the background without being threatened with prosecution. The YouTube examples in this thread should not be an issue. These kinds of things are fundamentally different from copying films and music to resell at a profit.

Films in particular are expensive to make. But they either make their money back from initial cinema release and DVD sales, or they get written off. There is almost never substantial income after the first few years. So why cling so tenaciously to the 'rights' forever and ever? After an initial period they should go into the public domain, with maybe certain specific exceptions.

The whole notion of 'intellectual property' is slightly ludicrous as it currently exists, and it needs to be redefined and brought back to earth. A song is a song. A film is a film. These things may (or may not) be exalted and represent unique and wonderful qualities, but ultimately they are still just products of human endeavour. I think the push to monetise everything and extract maximum possible profit has created a distorted perspective that needs readjusting. In other words, Hollywood & company, lighten up.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage

TwoSeven

1271 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 136

Reply # 1523518 31-Mar-2016 19:27

mattwnz:

macuser:

Copyright isn't a scam and is really useful for retaining an income as a creative.

That is an interesting statement, because I would have thought that for many copyright works, after the works have been done, there is no further income from those works. There are exceptions such as things that can be easily duplicated, like recordings and printed works, and some IP. But if you create an artwork that you sell, you do still have copyright, but there is no future earning you can make from that work. Any profit (or loss) is made by the person reselling the work in the future. I believe in copyright but think it should expire after a period of time, the same with trademarks.

The answer to the artwork question is yes, you do. Not only that, other rights apply - for example, you can sell an artwork on the condition it isn't displayed in a public place (such as a gallery) or that prints are not made (Reproduction rights) etc.

Copyright has an expiration date - the duration depends on the item but in general it has been 50 years since around 1980 or so.

Note that IP refers to the result of an individual creative thought - it contains a bunch of rights including copyright. Copyright is automatically applied but it is a good idea to use a copyright notice. IP is not automatic and needs to be registered. IPONZ is a good site to find out more.

Software Engineer

gzt

10310 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1582

Reply # 1523535 31-Mar-2016 20:18

Some years ago an nz artist used distorted corporate logos to comment on the relationship between NZ and those corporations. Iirc a fair number of them invoked copyright and had works removed from a gallery. Copyright should not prevent this kind of reference.

macuser

2101 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 513

Reply # 1523541 31-Mar-2016 20:31

mattwnz:
macuser:

Copyright isn't a scam and is really useful for retaining an income as a creative.

That is an interesting statement, because I would have thought that for many copyright works, after the works have been done, there is no further income from those works. There are exceptions such as things that can be easily duplicated, like recordings and printed works, and some IP. But if you create an artwork that you sell, you do still have copyright, but there is no future earning you can make from that work. Any profit (or loss) is made by the person reselling the work in the future. I believe in copyright but think it should expire after a period of time, the same with trademarks.

What happens is that in photography and video production, content creators hold onto their copyright and thus control of the work, granting a client license to use the works within specific conditions, alternatively a client can buy out the copyright for a fee additional to the creative fee. A license would specify specific usage (eg print campaign, advertising, billboard, internet), usage license term (eg 6 months or 3 years), geographic location (eg Australasia). In New Zealand by default a commissioner will retain copyright (consider a commissioner a client, not nessecarily paying money, but offering something in return for a commission or at the very least saying they will) unless you contract out of that (contracting out of it basically means the creative will have a clause in their terms and conditions that will transfer the copyright back to the creative) - this is opposite to many other western country's who give copyright automatically to the creator.

This is done to increase revenue as it allows you to increase the invoice to match the clients needs as a day rate would be the same regardless of the client being Nike brand or a small "mom and pop" outfit.

At the end of a license term, or if a client wants to increase the scope of their usage (eg wants to use it for longer, or in the UK as well as Australasia) they will be required to pay usage fees to renew or extend.

In New Zealand photographers and less likely to do so as it is very competitive, but with commercial video, acting talent etc, licensing forms a large part of the invoice.

The reasons why a creative would want to hold copyright are wider than just the financial benefit though, and can include wanting to control how and when the works are displayed - (if you're Louis CK you don't want people to see a video recording of your performance early as they won't come to see your show - or if you are an exhibition artist perhaps you want to have your exhibition first), to wanting to protect the subject in the works (I have had a photo of mine used without permission by Elite Daily, who were derogatory about the person in the photo)

roobarb

483 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 286

Trusted

Reply # 1523544 31-Mar-2016 20:40

TwoSeven:in general it has been 50 years since around 1980 or so.

TPP says life time of author plus 70 years.

... and will keep on increasing so that Disney does not lose Mickey Mouse.

But of course cannot be retrospective to cover Sleeping Beauty or Cinderella that Disney shamelessly ripped off.

Lastman

209 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 57

Reply # 1523545 31-Mar-2016 20:41

As mentioned, the high volume of flagged material is likely the work of bots. There have been a lot of big channels given strikes lately and even they struggle to get explanations from administrators. It's just so huge to manage.

There is certainly still a lot of copyrighted content there. I watch all the British comedies from You Tube. Posters use windows and so forth to fool the bots.

tdgeek

13888 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2520

Trusted

Reply # 1523559 31-Mar-2016 21:07

roobarb:

Consider the number of threads on this site dedicated to bypassing Netflix or BBC region enforcement.

Personally, I am on the side of Netflix and the BBC. They are the provider, they get to set the terms and conditions.

Which are provided by the rights holders, aka rights owners. NF etc are wholesalers.

tdgeek

13888 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2520

Trusted

Reply # 1523562 31-Mar-2016 21:11

gzt: Some years ago an nz artist used distorted corporate logos to comment on the relationship between NZ and those corporations. Iirc a fair number of them invoked copyright and had works removed from a gallery. Copyright should not prevent this kind of reference.

Easy. Obtain permission from the content owner

Linuxluver

5265 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1142

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1523622 31-Mar-2016 23:02

gzt: Make it private or link only? Does that eliminate the need to take it down or will it still be removed in that scenario after getting the notice?

They don't make you take it down. But each time someone watched your video the copyright squatter / pirate gets the money. No thanks. Not interested.

I delete the videos.

____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet.

Linuxluver

5265 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1142

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1523623 31-Mar-2016 23:05

tdgeek:

gzt: Some years ago an nz artist used distorted corporate logos to comment on the relationship between NZ and those corporations. Iirc a fair number of them invoked copyright and had works removed from a gallery. Copyright should not prevent this kind of reference.

Easy. Obtain permission from the content owner

"Easy" .......and who is the content owner? Not always clear.

____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet.

gzt

10310 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1582

Reply # 1523632 31-Mar-2016 23:42

tdgeek:
gzt: Some years ago an nz artist used distorted corporate logos to comment on the relationship between NZ and those corporations. Iirc a fair number of them invoked copyright and had works removed from a gallery. Copyright should not prevent this kind of reference.

Easy. Obtain permission from the content owner

I recalled some details and located some reference articles.

Actually permission was not required. The works were not removed from the gallery. Te Papa withdrew three works from the exhibition based on legal advice.

Then a few years later exhibited the works again. Presumably they got new legal advice. No legal action was taken by copyright holders.

Legal opinion: http://www.findlaw.com/12international/countries/nz/articles/620.html

Artist bio: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shigeyuki_Kihara

Rikkitic

Glurp
8689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3991

Subscriber

Reply # 1523765 1-Apr-2016 09:42

It should not have been an issue in the first place. That is the argument I am making.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage

Lias

3501 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1967

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1524346 1-Apr-2016 22:44

2 people support this post

networkn:

Heh, I don't see any compelling evidence in your argument. How would you replace the current system?

Short term, like patents.. 5-10 years.

Incredibly strong fair use rights for non commercial purposes. Parody, analysis, translation, media shifting, library use, background music in the video of a kid dancing, remixing music tracks and uploading to youtube, etc etc.

Information wants to be free. The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

Finch

2635 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 185

Reply # 1524347 1-Apr-2016 23:00

Uhhhh this is a massive pain in the ass

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6