0
c10edges

One Riser Release on Cutaway Video

Recommended Posts

Quote

Below is an example from wikipedia. I know, that doesnt make it fact, but it is a similar situation. Where the poster did not intend to make a profit yet a judge still said it didnt qualify as fair use:

"But a non-profit educational website that reproduces whole articles from technical magazines will probably be found to infringe if the publisher can demonstrate that the website affects the market for the magazine, even though the website itself is non-commercial.
Free Republic, LLC, owner of the political website freerepublic.com, was found liable for copyright infringement in L.A. Times v. Free Republic for reproducing and archiving full-text versions of plaintiffs' news articles even though the judge found the website minimally commercial. She held that "while defendants' do not necessarily 'exploit' the articles for commercial gain, their posting to the Free Republic site allows defendants and other visitors to avoid paying the 'customary price' charged for the works." "


So, i would interpret this in this situation as, although we are claiming fair use under education, by reproducing the video on YouTube, or even this site, where profits are made, it would be an infringement.

If I am wrong in my assumption it is due to my legal ignorance, just trying to connect the dots. ;)



Well, what occurred to me as I was quickly researching this topic (to be able to discuss it intelligently here) - and this is consistent with what you just copied & pasted (Hey! Did you violate a copyright?? :P)- was that one way to screw yourself out of the fair use exception is to re-publish a copyrighted work in its entirety, rather than just an excerpt. The video is short, but it's been re-posted in its entirety. Still a grey area in this instance, but it's not a slam dunk either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah gotcha.

And for the record I claim fair use of my copying and pasting that section because i only copied an excerpt and it was for educational purposes. ;)

"If this post needs to be moderated I would prefer it to be completly removed and not edited and butchered into a disney movie" - DorkZone Hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Ah gotcha.

And for the record I claim fair use of my copying and pasting that section because i only copied an excerpt and it was for educational purposes. ;)



In addition, and possibly as important according to the copied excerpt, it is unlikely that this use will result in any detectable decrease in any value to Wikipedia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

. . . SUBSEQUENTLY receives a "counter-notice and restore" demand from the original poster, the host must (a) promptly notify the alleged copyright owner of the dispute and (b) replace/restore the disputed material within two weeks, UNLESS the matter is referred to court . . .


I believe you, but this still sound wrong to me. How could the government REQUIRE Youtube to put a video back up? Can't Youtube (google, now) remove a video for any reason whatsoever, including because someone had erroneously complained a copyright violation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

. . . SUBSEQUENTLY receives a "counter-notice and restore" demand from the original poster, the host must (a) promptly notify the alleged copyright owner of the dispute and (b) replace/restore the disputed material within two weeks, UNLESS the matter is referred to court . . .


I believe you, but this still sound wrong to me. How could the government REQUIRE Youtube to put a video back up? Can't Youtube (google, now) remove a video for any reason whatsoever, including because someone had erroneously complained a copyright violation?



The best answer I can give you is that it works both ways. The DCMA (a) requires the host to take down the contested material if it receives a complaint of copyright violation from a claimed copyright owner; and the DCMA also (b) requires the host to restore the material (unless a lawsuit is filed) not less than 10 nor more than 14 days after receiving a "counter-notice" from the material poster that the material (for whatever reason) does not violate a copyright. Congress's intent seems to have been to strike a balancing act. But yes, you're right: the Act does certainly infringe upon the host's right to do as it pleases with material once it is posted on its site.

This allows - some say invites - people on both sides of the issue to abuse the "notice" and "counter-notice" provisions of the Act. Here's a legal article discussing this problem with the law. The article is wordy and technical, but it's a pretty good analysis if one has the patience to read it through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0