Copyright Infringement

[Bunky Snowbear]

Ok, it's contentious and I respect people's different opinions, but has anyone had any experience trying to claim fair use for a machinima video they uploaded on Vimeo or YouTube? I've noticed that I'm not the only one using well known songs in my SL videos. Vimeo have recently become quite strict with their Content ID policy, which is disappointing for me because I make fan films, tributes that celebrate classic films. 

Vimeo have let me post such films in recent time but it looks like I won't be able to post the one I've spent the last year making :(

Has anyone sought permission to use copyrighted music?

Has anyone appealed a video block under Fair Use?

 

Cheers.

 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Bunky Snowbear wrote:

Ok, it's contentious and I respect people's different opinions, but has anyone had any experience trying to claim fair use for a machinima video they uploaded on Vimeo or YouTube? I've noticed that I'm not the only one using well known songs in my SL videos. Vimeo have recently become quite strict with their Content ID policy, which is disappointing for me because I make fan films, tributes that celebrate classic films. 

Vimeo have let me post such films in recent time but it looks like I won't be able to post the one I've spent the last year making

Has anyone sought permission to use copyrighted music?

Has anyone appealed a video block under Fair Use?

 

Cheers.

 

---

How is it Fair Use to use copyright protected music that you do not own nor have you created in a video? You are using someone elses work without permission.. What would be your appeal under Fair Use?

ETA: Just found this little tidbit...

"Section 107 of the Copyright Law allows for the "fair use" of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research."

So, what would a Machinima fall under? How about none of those...

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Bunky Snowbear wrote:

Ok, it's contentious and I respect people's different opinions, but has anyone had any experience trying to claim fair use for a machinima video they uploaded on Vimeo or YouTube? I've noticed that I'm not the only one using well known songs in my SL videos. Vimeo have recently become quite strict with their Content ID policy, which is disappointing for me because I make fan films, tributes that celebrate classic films. 

Vimeo have let me post such films in recent time but it looks like I won't be able to post the one I've spent the last year making

Has anyone sought permission to use copyrighted music?

Has anyone appealed a video block under Fair Use?

 

Cheers.

 

---

How is it Fair Use to use copyright protected music that you do not own nor have you created in a video? You are using someone elses work without permission.. What would be your appeal under Fair Use?

ETA: Just found this little tidbit...

"Section 107 of the Copyright Law allows for the "fair use" of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research."

So, what would a Machinima fall under? How about none of those...

---

I believe you've oversimplified things a bit too much... there's good reason why Fair Use was established as a legal precedent.

Have you even seen any of Bunky's videos?  I'm no lawyer, but it only takes a bit of common sense to realize that, if any movie studio were actually stupid enough to sue him for copywrite infringement, he'd stand a very good chance of establishing quite an adequate Fair Use defense.

The problem is, neither You Tube nor Vimeo are required to consider Fair Use when deciding what they will allow to be placed on their servers and, as such, both have written their respective TOS's without any consideration or even mention of it whatsoever.  This sort of thing is exactly what makes such video sites much more restrictive than that which constitutes actual copywrite law.

@Bunky:  Because of what I just wrote, my suggestion to you is to either find a less restrictive site or host it yourself.

...Dres

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Bunky Snowbear wrote:

Ok, it's contentious and I respect people's different opinions, but has anyone had any experience trying to claim fair use for a machinima video they uploaded on Vimeo or YouTube? I've noticed that I'm not the only one using well known songs in my SL videos. Vimeo have recently become quite strict with their Content ID policy, which is disappointing for me because I make fan films, tributes that celebrate classic films. 

Vimeo have let me post such films in recent time but it looks like I won't be able to post the one I've spent the last year making

Has anyone sought permission to use copyrighted music?

Has anyone appealed a video block under Fair Use?

 

Cheers.

 

---

How is it Fair Use to use copyright protected music that you do not own nor have you created in a video? You are using someone elses work without permission.. What would be your appeal under Fair Use?

ETA: Just found this little tidbit...

"Section 107 of the Copyright Law allows for the "fair use" of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research."

So, what would a Machinima fall under? How about none of those...

---

I believe you've oversimplified things a bit too much... there's good reason why Fair Use was established as a legal precedent.

Have you even seen any of Bunky's videos?  I'm no lawyer, but it only takes a bit of common sense to realize that, if any movie studio were actually stupid enough to sue him for copywrite infringement, he'd stand a very good chance of establishing quite an adequate Fair Use defense.

The problem is, neither You Tube nor Vimeo are required to consider Fair Use when deciding what they will allow to be placed on their servers and, as such, both have written their respective TOS's without any consideration or even mention of it whatsoever.  This sort of thing is exactly what makes such video sites much more restrictive than that which constitutes actual copywrite law.

@Bunky:  Because of what I just wrote, my suggestion to you is to either find a less restrictive site or host it yourself.

...Dres

---

No, i haven't watched any till you mentined it. However, as fun as they are, they still use copyrighted music without permission. If Fox, Paramount, Sony, Marvel and all the rest have to pay thousands for the music to be in their films, why should anyone posting on Vimeo or YouTube be exempt? The law is the law.. Would you be happy if someone  used your music in a movie without permission? I wouldn't be.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Bunky Snowbear wrote:

Ok, it's contentious and I respect people's different opinions, but has anyone had any experience trying to claim fair use for a machinima video they uploaded on Vimeo or YouTube? I've noticed that I'm not the only one using well known songs in my SL videos. Vimeo have recently become quite strict with their Content ID policy, which is disappointing for me because I make fan films, tributes that celebrate classic films. 

Vimeo have let me post such films in recent time but it looks like I won't be able to post the one I've spent the last year making

Has anyone sought permission to use copyrighted music?

Has anyone appealed a video block under Fair Use?

 

Cheers.

 

---

How is it Fair Use to use copyright protected music that you do not own nor have you created in a video? You are using someone elses work without permission.. What would be your appeal under Fair Use?

ETA: Just found this little tidbit...

"Section 107 of the Copyright Law allows for the "fair use" of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research."

So, what would a Machinima fall under? How about none of those...

---

I believe you've oversimplified things a bit too much... there's good reason why Fair Use was established as a legal precedent.

Have you even seen any of Bunky's videos?  I'm no lawyer, but it only takes a bit of common sense to realize that, if any movie studio were actually stupid enough to sue him for copywrite infringement, he'd stand a very good chance of establishing quite an adequate Fair Use defense.

The problem is, neither You Tube nor Vimeo are required to consider Fair Use when deciding what they will allow to be placed on their servers and, as such, both have written their respective TOS's without any consideration or even mention of it whatsoever.  This sort of thing is exactly what makes such video sites much more restrictive than that which constitutes actual copywrite law.

@Bunky:  Because of what I just wrote, my suggestion to you is to either find a less restrictive site or host it yourself.

...Dres

---

No, i haven't watched any till you mentined it. However, as fun as they are, they still use copyrighted music without permission. If Fox, Paramount, Sony, Marvel and all the rest have to pay thousands for the music to be in their films, why should anyone posting on Vimeo or YouTube be exempt? The law is the law.. Would you be happy if someone used your music in a movie without permission? I wouldn't be.

---

You're right, the law is the law.  And, luckily, the law is considerably more lenient than you, Vimeo or You Tube, when it comes to Fair Use.

...Dres

[Bunky Snowbear]

Try this. These are the considerations for fair use...

 

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.
2. The nature of the copyrighted work.
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Shades of grey there.

[Bunky Snowbear]

Would you be happy if someone  used your music in a movie without permission? I wouldn't be.

 

I would be happy. I'd be flattered, as long as they weren't profiting from it. An obscure machinima video made for a small online community that attracted a few hundred views would hardly be a threat. Better to have the music out there being listened to than fading into obscurity IMO. Some copyright holders are lenient on not for profit fan films as they help keep the original product alive. That is why many copyright holders allow some of their music to be uploaded onto YouTube without permission. And they also get a cut of the sites advertising revenue.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Bunky Snowbear wrote:

Ok, it's contentious.......

 

---

You are certainly correct about this.

You Tube, Vimeo, etc, etc, etc are certainly hot beds for CopyRight infringement.  Worse than anything people complain about in Second Life.  They also have rules that may appear to be more restrictive than what the law requires just like Linden Lab does (e.g., the Skill Game Policy) and they are within their rights to do so.  For the purpose of using their services, their rules become your law.

Where the big problems arise is enforcement.  Some Copyright owners are very strict in their enforcement.  On the other hand others are lax, some even encouraging people to upload content.  These two different attitudes have created a lot of confusion for people.

For example, on the one side you have the Eagles who for several years would not even allow any of their music to be hosted on You Tube.  As fast as you could upload their song it would be taken down.  Even if it was just a video of you playing the song.  The Eagles are very strict about licensing their music.  There was this incident on the David Letterman Show where David wanted the band to play an Eagles song and a discussion arose over whether they even could.  The Eagles are so restrictive they don't even want their Fans taking pictures during their concerts.  LINK.  It is all about them "protecting" their image.**

On the other extreme you have the Grateful Dead who not only encourage taping of their performances but have encouraged their Fans to share it.  But here's the catch.  They still own the copyright to their works.  And they could change their mind and decide they want it all taken down.  And if they did it would all come down.  However what they would not be able to do is sue any one who had uploaded the music prior to their change in thinking.

So the problem for us is twofold.  First there is knowing who does or doesn't allow their music to be used and under what terms. The thing is that when it comes to the Law you can not just randomly use anyone's music.  Fair Use does not apply in your situation.  All four points you posted have to be taken together.  You can not leave any of them out when determining Fair Use.  There are not quite the amount of shades of grey that you may think in those points.  Actually when you dig a bit deeper you will find that the Courts have been fairly specific about how they apply.  Fair use applies to use for educational purposes, for commentary and discussion.  Your Videos are none of those.

Second is knowing YouTube's, etc, Terms of Service and as I stated above they are totally within their rights to be more restrictive than what the Law allows.

Bottom line is that if you want to know if you are in compliance you are going to need to do some research on the Music you are using.

And just for fun, here are a couple of other interesting links.  First is about a guy who had a Video taken down for music infringement. LINK.  Second is a very good general discussion of the topic. LINK

 

**This past Summer I saw Mike Love and his Cover Band (aka "The Beach Boys") where I live. I got to talking with one of the News photographers who was covering the event.  He told me that initially that Mike Love did not want any Media allowed.  The only photos they wanted used by the news services were the ones they provided.  A compromise was reached which as I understood it included among other things that the Band would still maintain editorial control.  For instance, if Mike had tripped on stage and one of the news photographers caught it, the Band would have had the right to refuse to allow it to be posted on the Web or printed. 

 

eta to add the Links the forum ate.

[Dresden Ceriano]

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Perrie.

 

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

Fair Use does not apply in your situation.  All four points you posted have to be taken together.  You can not leave any of them out when determining Fair Use.  There are not quite the amount of shades of grey that you may think in those points.  Actually when you dig a bit deeper you will find that the Courts have been fairly specific about how they apply. 

Fair use applies to use for educational purposes, for commentary and discussion. 

Your Videos are none of those.

---

Like I said, I'm no lawyer, so I could be entirely mistaken... but I honestly believe that a good argument could be made that Bunky's uses of such content in his videos fall into the category of parody, which is definitely a type of commentary and is usually considered to be fair use, as long as all the other criteria are met.

...Dres

[Perrie Juran]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Perrie.

 

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

Fair Use does not apply in your situation.  All four points you posted have to be taken together.  You can not leave any of them out when determining Fair Use.  There are not quite the amount of shades of grey that you may think in those points.  Actually when you dig a bit deeper you will find that the Courts have been fairly specific about how they apply. 

Fair use applies to use for educational purposes, for commentary and discussion. 

Your Videos are none of those.

---

Like I said, I'm no lawyer, so I could be entirely mistaken... but I honestly believe that a good argument could be made that Bunky's uses of such content in his videos fall into the category of parody, which is definitely a type of commentary and is usually considered to be fair use, as long as all the other criteria are met.

...Dres

---

If he was doing a parody of the song, ala Wierd Al.  But he is not doing a parody of the song.**

Point Six, Limitations:

" For example, fair use will not apply when a copyrighted song is used in its entirety as a sound track for a newly created video simply because the music evokes a desired mood rather than to change its meaning..."

The meaning of the song (sound track) was not altered.  Granted he did not use the entire soundtrack but the "substantial part" may apply here.

But like you, I am not a Lawyer. 

**Note:  Wierd Al generally gets permission he states because of professional courtesy.  But because his songs are used commercially,

"It’s interesting that Weird Al always seeks the official blessing of artists before parodying songs, even though it would seem that the fair use doctrine protects his work, and he obviously releases songs regardless of whether the artist actually likes it. Apparently Al’s lawyers believe that it’s his commercial use of parodies that may undercut his protection."  LINK

[Dresden Ceriano]

Point taken.  It seems only a court ruling would actually be decisive on the matter... which is a totally different issue than is a video site's TOS restrictions.

I can assure you that I do take IP infringement very seriously... my only objective here was to point out that fair use is a legitimate defense and that the issue wasn't quite as black and white as Drake was trying to suggest.  Nevertheless, I do appreciate his hard stance on the subject, because, in all honestly, that is usually my default position and, at least for myself, I'd be very leery of doing anything which might call something such as this into question.

Take, for example, the image which I created for Strawberry Singh's Book Cover Meme...

I was very conflicted as to whether or not I was actually going to submit it and post it online for all to see, simply because it was based on a copywritten work... and I didn't use anyone else's imagery but my own.  Never would I've ever used any image, in whole or part, taken directly from the cover of any addition of Margaret Mitchell's novel.

As such, I would never produce a video using copywritten music, I'm just unsure that Bunky's doing so wouldn't be legally covered by fair use.

...Dres

[Perrie Juran]

 

I wonder what their legal dept went through for this.

Personally I'd see no trouble with your book cover.  In fact I think it's awesome.

The Wind Done Gone did get published after the Court of Appeals vacated the injunction against it's publication, but an out of Court settlement was arrived at after the ruling.

I do actually have some professional background on this subject and it certainly can get very interesting at times.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

Personally I'd see no trouble with your book cover.  In fact I think it's awesome.

---

Thanks, Perrie... I was rather proud of it myself.  It's very rare that I come up with ideas which I believe are worthy of sharing with anyone besides my sister, Grimmie, who posed for that photo... at my request.

 

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

I do actually have some professional background on this subject and it certainly can get very interesting at times.

---

I know you have and I admire your knowledge of the subject.  But I must point out that, the actual articles, to which links you've provided point, are rather dated.  Having read the more recent comments on those articles (plus, following subsiquent links), it seems as though YouTube has changed their method of dealing with Content ID disputes.

Regardless, where your provided links have led me, have opened my eyes to a greater understanding of the issues involved and the troubles which can arise from those issues... which I find extremely interesting.

Thank you ...Dres

[Perrie Juran]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

Personally I'd see no trouble with your book cover.  In fact I think it's awesome.

---

Thanks, Perrie... I was rather proud of it myself.  It's very rare that I come up with ideas which I believe are worthy of sharing with anyone besides my sister, Grimmie, who posed for that photo... at my request.

 

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

I do actually have some professional background on this subject and it certainly can get very interesting at times.

---

I know you have and I admire your knowledge of the subject.  But I must point out that, the actual articles, to which links you've provided point, are rather dated.  Having read the more recent comments on those articles (plus, following subsiquent links), it seems as though YouTube has changed their method of dealing with Content ID disputes.

Regardless, where your provided links have led me, have opened my eyes to a greater understanding of the issues involved and the troubles which can arise from those issues... which I find extremely interesting.

Thank you ...Dres

---

I probably should find some more recent material.  The Lady Gaga / Wierd Al dispute was pretty recent. 

The Center For Media And Social Impact is one of the best resources I know.  University Berkeley Center For Law And Technolgy is another good resource but harder to search through.

I will admit I'm not as up to date as I used to be. 

Right now I'm more interested in Net Neutrality and trying to wrap my head around it so I can speak inteligently about it.  I'm not doing as good a job as I'd like.

[Dresden Ceriano]

Just wing it, sweety... what the hell do you think I'm doing?... lol.

...Dres

[Perrie Juran]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

Just wing it, sweety... what the hell do you think I'm doing?... lol.

...Dres

---

Thanks. 

It had been a while since I took a close look at what YouTube was doing so I took a little time this morning.

Here are some helpfule links for anyone interested:

A GUIDE TO YOU TUBE REMOVALS  by the Electronic Frontier Foundation

HOW CONTENT ID WORKS  by Google/YouTube

[Bunky Snowbear]

Thanks for all your replies. The subject certainly generates some passionate responses.

I never assumed my video would qualify as fair use, but I was wondering if anyone has any experience making such a claim with Vimeo. I found the EFF guide very good. Despite my intentions, the best I can do is post my videos where I can and hope that they're not rejected. And if they make it but are later taken down, so be it. I just want my overseas SL buddies to be able to see them and make them laugh.

I have had some very mixed experiences in the past. I split my last film into three parts for YouTube. Part 2 and 3 had the audio disabled due to multiple Content ID matches, but after a few months the audio was restored and you can hear it in Australia, the UK and presumably other countries. Interestingly the YouTube information still tells me it's "blocked worldwide". It is "unavailable" on mobile devices though, at least on my devices. Who knows. It might disappear tommorow.

The trailer I uploaded the other day on YouTube uses the James Bond-Dr. No opening music. But the copyright owner must have a deal with YouTube and my video has been "monetized" and appears in all countries (except Germany) though with ads. A week earlier I posted the draft trailer on Vimeo for testing with no problems but a few days later I couldn't upload the final version. Maybe Vimeo ID matching software is paying special attention to my account?

Despite posting a dozen or so videos with matched content, I've never had a video taken down, though audio has been disabled on a few (but later restored). I'm either lucky, or copyright holders have reviewed my works (as they are notified via the Content ID system) and have considered them to be not a threat and have let them slide. I hope it's the latter. Either way, the whole experience has may me reconsider the style of machinima I make.

[Perrie Juran]

I think YouTubes system is really pretty fair.

It balances the difficulties people have discerning if something is OK to use against the rights of the copyright owners.

Otherwise researching who actually owns the content, their licences, etc could drive you nuts.

As an example, consider this about the LSL Wiki.  It was not owned or operated by Linden Lab.  When it looked like it was going to close people wanted Linden Lab to take it over.  But they couldn't.

"There have been several requests that Linden Lab take on the hosting of the LSL wiki. There are several problems with us doing this work. The primary problem is the question of ownership of the material. Since, to the best of our knowledge, there was never an explicit, consistent notice of ownership of this material throughout its creation, nor a clear assignment/license associated with contributing more material, it would seem the only safe way to license this content would be to contact every single contributor throughout the life of the wiki and get an explicit license or copyright assignment from them. Note that I said "safe", not "practical".

 

We're not in a position to go down that road...."      LINK

 

 

 

[LisaSpring]

Music is a work of art an artist creates. The maker of this music, song, art should have the rights to all commerical uses of it. It's up to them to decide how it is to be used and by whom.

Movie companies have to secure the rights or permission from the owners of the music to use it in a commercial products such as a movie or product commercial. You might say, well my viemo or youtube little movie is non-commercial. Actually it is since these are web sites and companies who profit from the content. 

You are basically taking someone elses product, a song, and you are deciding to expose it on youtube or vimeo where anyone can steal the content. You are deciding how the song will be used and where it will be on the web without asking the owner of that song if they are ok with your decisions. 

Fact is, it is not yours. You can buy the song and listen to it as much as you want. But taking it to make your little movies seem better is not right. If you want music in your videos, make it yourself. Buy a guitar, buy a keyboard... it's not hard. But yea it takes time and work... the same time and work the artist put in to create the songs you are stealing as 50% of your "creation."

You can sing the James Bond theme. Heck you can play it on a recorder. Or how bout making up your own theme? 

It's funny how so many people try to piggy back on others fame and talent and sucess. I'm really curious how people profit on cover songs in videos. I know to record a cover and release it you need a license. These licenses to do a cover are easy to get and cost less than $100 and you must pay a royalty for each cover song sale to the owner of the song... so what happens when a cover is on a video? Do these people get a lisence? Do the pay the owner of the song royalties on youtube views?

 

[LisaSpring]

Quote "Otherwise researching who actually owns the content, their licences, etc could drive you nuts."

It's actually easy. If you want to do a cover of a song you go here:

http://www.discmakers.com/products/preparingyourorder/limelight.asp

Limelight will look up who owns the rights to any song and tell you what you need to pay to get a license to do a cover of it. Or who to write to get permission to use it. 

[Bunky Snowbear]

Firstly, musicians rarely have control over the use of their music. It's the multi-national corporations that own the music, not the artist that created it. The artist often has opposing views on how their work should be shared.

Secondly, yes the website hosting the video may profit, but only if a video receives a substantial amount of views. Mine might get a few hundred views, not millions. The webiste might make a cent or two from my films. YouTube's model of paying copyright holders a percentage of advertising profits from views is a good thing, a win-win if you like, but not all copyright owners have taken to it.

Thirdly, you cant "steal" the content from YouTube or Vimeo. You can't download a YouTube video or audio. You go to a torrent site to do that. If you held a voice recorder near the speakers you could. When you only get a third or so of a musical number at awful quality, why would you bother? Suggestions that my obscure Second Life tribute films are stealing the profits of Sony, Disney, their artists etc are ridiculous.

Fourth, no it's not mine, but it's more than "making my little movies seem better". I've bought the music and listen to it often and lovingly, with passion and respect for the artist. The music is integral to the work. It's a tribute. It comes out of respect and love for the artisitic creation, the film, the music, the genre. I'm not passing it off as my own creation. I'm not seeking fame and fortune from it. I'm not making money off it. I just want my Second Life friends to be able to see it. I'd have them around to watch it on my PC if I could but they live 15,000km away. Music should be out there, being listened to, inspiring people, or would you rather it sit in some dusty archive, forgotten...confined to history. George Lucas encouraged fan film makers to borrow Star Wars iconography. He even ran a fan film competition for a while. Lucas realised that having passionate fans sharing homemade concepts/content of the films only serves to keep it in the zeitgeist, keeping it alive while having zero impact on ticket sales, soundtrack sales, merchandise etc.

If I played a theme on a recorder (cute suggestion), I'd still be breaching copyright... technically.

Fact is, I admit I do breach copyright laws. I'll own that. I'm one of millions. Remove all copyright breaches from the internet and sites like YouTube etc would have to remove more than half their content. But you have to concede my crimes are in the "least concern" category. I have several little films that have been marked by YouTube, Vimeo etc as having unauthorised third party content, but YouTube, Vimeo and copyright holders (despite being notified) have allowed them to stay online. Why is that? Perhaps they don't consider my obscure, scarcely viewed machinima to be a problem or a threat. Second Life machinima has an extremely small audience. It just doesn't fly outside the SL community. None of my little films have been taken down, despite rights holders being notified of my activity. Perhaps they think the use is actually a positive thing, to get their product out there, and maybe someone will even buy some music because of it? Free publicity. My younger SL friends might be hearing the theme from The Great Escape for the first time, and they might think "That's a pretty catchy tune. I might actually watch that film one day". It introduces them to it and stays in their memory. Crazy thought, hey?

Piggybacking of other people's fame? Hardly. If I was taking credit for other people's work, or profiting from it, I would be piggybacking. But I'm not. It's fan film. It's loving tribute. It's not unauthorised exploitation of other's work for finacial gain, it's a hobby and it's harmless. Reasonable minded people that have seen my little films would agree with that. And if I can't upload a film, have a film taken down or receive a cease and desist letter, I'll respect the umpire's decision, even if I strongly disagree with it. But after four years and ten or so little fan films with not many views, no one has bothered. Go figure.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Bunky Snowbear wrote:

Firstly, musicians rarely have control over the use of their music. It's the multi-national corporations that own the music, not the artist that created it. The artist often has opposing views on how their work should be shared.

Perhaps you are too young to remember the "Parent Advisory" courtroom speeches of the mid 80's, where dozens of musicians testified against the use of these stickers on

their

music. Or how about the musicians that killed Napster, or the ones now that are pulling their music from Spotify?

Secondly, yes the website hosting the video may profit, but only if a video receives a substantial amount of views. Mine might get a few hundred views, not millions. The webiste might make a cent or two from my films. YouTube's model of paying copyright holders a percentage of advertising profits from views is a good thing, a win-win if you like, but not all copyright owners have taken to it.

So, if i rip Ezio from Assassins Creed and sell it on the MP, fully knowing i am breaking the law, but i only sell a couple of copies it's ok?

Thirdly, you cant "steal" the content from YouTube or Vimeo. You can't download a YouTube video or audio. You go to a torrent site to do that. If you held a voice recorder near the speakers you could. When you only get a third or so of a musical number at awful quality, why would you bother? Suggestions that my obscure Second Life tribute films are stealing the profits of Sony, Disney, their artists etc are ridiculous.

Sure you can, there are hundreds of apps and tools hat can rip audio and video from YouTube. Hell all you have to do is set your audio recorder to record from your pipeline and you can do it.

Fourth, no it's not mine, but it's more than "making my little movies seem better". I've bought the music and listen to it often and lovingly, with passion and respect for the artist. The music is integral to the work. It's a tribute. It comes out of respect and love for the artisitic creation, the film, the music, the genre. I'm not passing it off as my own creation. I'm not seeking fame and fortune from it. I'm not making money off it. I just want my Second Life friends to be able to see it. I'd have them around to watch it on my PC if I could but they live 15,000km away. Music should be out there, being listened to, inspiring people, or would you rather it sit in some dusty archive, forgotten...confined to history. George Lucas encouraged fan film makers to borrow Star Wars iconography. He even ran a fan film competition for a while. Lucas realised that having passionate fans sharing homemade concepts/content of the films only serves to keep it in the zeitgeist, keeping it alive while having zero impact on ticket sales, soundtrack sales, merchandise etc.

Yes, Lucas said fan films were ok.. The music industry hasn't.  Put it on YouTube, keep it a private video and send the link to your friends.

If I played a theme on a recorder (cute suggestion), I'd still be breaching copyright... technically.

Fact is, I admit I do breach copyright laws. I'll own that. I'm one of millions. Remove all copyright breaches from the internet and sites like YouTube etc would have to remove more than half their content. But you have to concede my crimes are in the "least concern" category. I have several little films that have been marked by YouTube, Vimeo etc as having unauthorised third party content, but YouTube, Vimeo and copyright holders (despite being notified) have allowed them to stay online. Why is that? Perhaps they don't consider my obscure, scarcely viewed machinima to be a problem or a threat. Second Life machinima has an extremely small audience. It just doesn't fly outside the SL community. None of my little films have been taken down, despite rights holders being notified of my activity. Perhaps they think the use is actually a positive thing, to get their product out there, and maybe someone will even buy some music because of it? Free publicity. My younger SL friends might be hearing the theme from The Great Escape for the first time, and they might think "That's a pretty catchy tune. I might actually watch that film one day". It introduces them to it and stays in their memory. Crazy thought, hey?

Ever watch one of the really famous YouTubers when they are in the car? They turn the radio off. Why? Because it breaks the law to use the music without permission.

Piggybacking of other people's fame? Hardly. If I was taking credit for other people's work, or profiting from it, I would be piggybacking. But I'm not. It's fan film. It's loving tribute. It's not unauthorised exploitation of other's work for finacial gain, it's a hobby and it's harmless. Reasonable minded people that have seen my little films would agree with that. And if I can't upload a film, have a film taken down or receive a cease and desist letter, I'll respect the umpire's decision, even if I strongly disagree with it. But after four years and ten or so little fan films with not many views, no one has bothered. Go figure.

---

 

[Bunky Snowbear]

1. Sure, a few musos testified against the advisory stickers. Doesn't mean they were the licence holders of their recordings with any rights. And yes, some musicians have gone into bat for the record companies that own their music. Depends on the contract and influence they have with their company. Arguably, killing Napster didn't do wonders for Metallica. The few pulling their music from Spotify now are those that record under their own labels. Yes, some established musos have total control over their music and it's an increasing trend. The majority still don't.

2. Again, I don't make money from my hobby. I don't intend to and I don't want to. I'm not selling someone elses music. If a website chooses to host my video, they might make a few cents if they're lucky. YouTube hosts a few vids of mine and makes a few cents from ad revenue, which it rightfully shares with copyright holders. I don't get a cent, and that's fine with me. What's wrong with that? If I was in a position to profit from making a few obscure, harmless SL machinima films, I wouldn't be doing what I currently do.

3. Ok, you can rip audio and video from YouTube, but why rip half a poor quality song from one of my vids when you can rip the whole thing from a dedicated video on YouTube? Or get the whole album on P2P? You can also record music from the radio. No one in their right mind would rip half a song with sound effects through it to listen to later.

4. Thanks for the tip. I'm not familiar that YouTube function but I'll check it out. I was under the imperssion that private videos can only be viewed by the account holder.

5. I'm not a famous YouTuber. If I was, I'd turn the radio off too. As it stands, I have nothing to lose.