Jump to content

copyright on Web and EUroparl - just fyi


Recommended Posts

Intellectual property: Infringements of copyright on the internet come to the fore on Monday (July 5)when MEPs debate a report on enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market. A resolution agreed in the Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee states that "the enormous growth of unauthorised file sharing of copyrighted works and recorded performances is an increasing problem for the European economy". MEPs will vote on Thursday on the resolution which will set out their recommendations for dealing with the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

Now Youtube?.....

June 8 2011 - more copyright happenings.... Youtube's "new" copyright statement

 

In upload: "User grants only YouTube a licence to the content via the Terms of Service." and second option to tick is for Creative Commons.

 

Video watchers will have seen that Bing and AOL have been taking youtube videos and selling banner advertising on them.

 

Maybe one of our lawyers could peruse:

http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_notice?gl=GB&hl=en-GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now Youtube?.....

June 8 2011 - more copyright happenings.... Youtube's "new" copyright statement

 

In upload: "User grants only YouTube a licence to the content via the Terms of Service." and second option to tick is for Creative Commons.

 

Erm..can you explain that in English?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now Youtube?.....

June 8 2011 - more copyright happenings.... Youtube's "new" copyright statement

 

In upload: "User grants only YouTube a licence to the content via the Terms of Service." and second option to tick is for Creative Commons.

 

Erm..can you explain that in English?

LDT retains the copyright but allows Youtube a non-exclusive licence to use it. you can restrict under private, and unlisted

 

plus:

I see (ref the "new" c-right tab) that after uploading to youtube and when item is live, going to edit your videos STILL allows a further restriction on use and copyright (controlled by the uploader) under embedding and syndication towards the very bottom of the details page.

It only shows an arrow next to word so you have to open up to be aware. Only recently got told about it. Stops AOl et al and TV stations lifting your stuff without paying... your Web-hit playing e.g. of that well known fugue "Cucumber run" !

Let's see how long it stays there.

 

 

that help? - maybe a little discussion by the masses at Brightlingsea would be useful to hear views...........maybe Abel Magwitch's lawyer could be persuaded...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Now Youtube?.....

June 8 2011 - more copyright happenings.... Youtube's "new" copyright statement

 

In upload: "User grants only YouTube a licence to the content via the Terms of Service." and second option to tick is for Creative Commons.

 

Video watchers will have seen that Bing and AOL have been taking youtube videos and selling banner advertising on them.

 

Maybe one of our lawyers could peruse:

http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_notice?gl=GB&hl=en-GB

 

 

Latest from the global copyright ”Wotcher!”s

[our bolding below]

 

“This is what Google has just announced (mid-June /11

 

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/knocking-down-barriers-to-knowledge.html

 

see "search by image"

 

Google image file search - you upload images to google. Getty have bought

PicScout and Corbis bought TinEye. Now Google have moved on image sourcing and

management.

 

Quote below from Google:

 

 

"11. Content license from you

 

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which

you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting

or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide,

royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate,

publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you

submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the

sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services

and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of

those Services.

 

11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such

Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom

Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use

such Content in connection with the provision of those services.

 

11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to

provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content

over various public networks and in various media; and (B) make such changes to

your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical

requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that

this license shall permit Google to take these actions.

11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and

authority necessary to grant the above license."

Ends

 

 

And from NBC a little earlier on who owns youtube:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15196982/

And the Google Books settlement (think photos on covers and inside PLUS embedded videos & music:

Comment (among many) followed by Judge Chin’s rejection of Google copyright theft.

http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/03/22/judge-rejects-google-books-settlement-make-it-opt-in/

and if u are still reading:

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/c/denny_chin/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

In the pipeline

to "strengthen the position of performers in the audiovisual industry by providing a clearer legal basis for the international use of audiovisual works, both in traditional media and in digital networks. Such an instrument would also contribute to safeguarding the rights of performers against the unauthorized use of their performances in audiovisual media, such as television, film and video.

 

http://www.wipo.int//pressroom/en/articles/2011/article_0018.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use Vimeo, partly because YouTube never seems to upload my stuff.

 

Vimeo has a section where you can choose your type of licensing. Here's a 'learn more' link they give:

 

'learn more'

 

 

I go with:

 

Attribution-NoDerivs

Oops, the images didn't show up next to the dots.... I guess they're under copyright or something!

I pay for the 'pro' or whatever level*, so I'm not sure if it's all the same if you choose the free level.

*of vimeo dot com, that is.

Edited by bellowbelle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use Vimeo, partly because YouTube never seems to upload my stuff.

 

Vimeo has a section where you can choose your type of licensing. Here's a 'learn more' link they give:

 

'learn more'

 

 

I go with:

 

Attribution-NoDerivs

Oops, the images didn't show up next to the dots.... I guess they're under copyright or something!

I pay for the 'pro' or whatever level*, so I'm not sure if it's all the same if you choose the free level.

*of vimeo dot com, that is.

 

Not too happy with creative commons. Looks good but developed by people who have full time jobs, usually in academe and pensions etc etc. (Lawrence Lessig, with whom some of us "had words" at Oxford when IPV6 was first being discussed/promoted......

(look him up on wiki and guesstimate his income) I wonder who wrote the wiki entry.

 

These licences (old spelling problems -- noun: a licence, verb to license..hmmmmm) do not put bread on the table or pay diesel for those performers who struggle around in campervans and old cars trying to scratch a living from their art and selling their discounted CDs.

 

Don't want to get into more commentary on this but that 'such as exceptions and limitations to copyright law like fair dealing.' phrase is part of US usage which led to Google rights grab. Can you really opt out of a burglary? Judge Chin decided that Google had burgled.....

 

Just try doing the same with Coca-Cola or Macdos and the like and see what happens. Or see what happens when you pick up a shirt or dress you fancy in Harrods and walk out without paying.

 

If a rightsholder wants to charge Macdo a million dollars to use a jingle and allow schoolkids and amateur players to pay thruppence or nothing then he can licenSe them with an appropriate licenCe to do so.

The same goes for Google going on about out of print books - anyone can now scan in their old books and sell em digitally (add max of 30 to 50 quid to convert into any e-reader format). You don;t need Amazon or Google to find or sell you Fly Fishing by J R Hartley.. you can buy it from him and he will get most of the money (paypal can have its three or four percent!!). Or his relatives will for 70 years after his death.

 

Hurrah for JK Rowling screwing publishers and distributors and only allowing her new e-offering to be bought from HER site. She too can now sell for thruppence or nowt to primary school kids and charge Mr Grossfinger a 100 quid. That is the true power for creative commoners such as writers, composers, peformers especially those starting their careers...

have to halt.......!

 

A mate has just had a terrible PC virus from Spotify (to which his son subscribed him as a birthday prezzie).

Edited by Kautilya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did not mean to over-simplify or sound know-it-all, because I certainly don't.

 

There does seem to be a bit of (unjust) 'might-makes-right' even in the realm of intellectual works, which would usually, assumedly, be more on the end of progress and freedom.

 

And, there are things that can jar the likes of a paper/ephemera dealer, such as finding (just an hour ago) my nifty little 1918 publication, 'Army Song Book U.S.' -- complete with cartoon illustrations -- completely digitized and available online via Google Books. Definitely devalues the paper.

 

However, in some weird instances, that could actually enhance the chance of a sale. (Slightly off-topic but 'for instance' -- I am glad I got a NookColor ereader, but it has only intensified my preference for hard-copy books. I love the NColor for my own PDFs, email, gallery, crossword puzzles, etc... and some light reading, stuff I wouldn't want to bother to have on paper for keeps. Other than that, I want a REAL book.)

 

The one most important lesson I personally received, re copyrights, was to not lock yourself out of your own house, figuratively speaking. I knew a songwriter who said, years ago re some of his songs, that he could no longer perform his own stuff some places, due to ASCAP. Royalty configurations or something.... I dunno. It wasn't something he'd intended to do. THAT, to me, was very weird. I think it has been the impetus for me to be on guard whenever the law is staring me in the face!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not too happy with creative commons. Looks good but developed by people who have full time jobs, usually in academe and pensions etc etc. (Lawrence Lessig, with whom some of us "had words" at Oxford when IPV6 was first being discussed/promoted......

(look him up on wiki and guesstimate his income) I wonder who wrote the wiki entry.

 

You think Creative Commons was made by rich people? Try all of copyright.

 

Don't want to get into more commentary on this but that 'such as exceptions and limitations to copyright law like fair dealing.' phrase is part of US usage which led to Google rights grab. Can you really opt out of a burglary? Judge Chin decided that Google had burgled.....

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this... "fair dealing" is strictly a UK thing. US has "fair use", but that's not the same.

 

If a rightsholder wants to charge Macdo a million dollars to use a jingle and allow schoolkids and amateur players to pay thruppence or nothing then he can licenSe them with an appropriate licenCe to do so.

 

It's nice to imagine that's how it would be. But the only "rightsholder" MacDonalds is likely to negotiate with is the multi-billion dollar record corporation that holds the rights as part of the artist's contract. Not only that, but the record company is going to tell MacDonalds which songs they ought to use, depending on which artists they want to make popular.

 

The same goes for Google going on about out of print books - anyone can now scan in their old books and sell em digitally (add max of 30 to 50 quid to convert into any e-reader format). You don;t need Amazon or Google to find or sell you Fly Fishing by J R Hartley.. you can buy it from him and he will get most of the money (paypal can have its three or four percent!!). Or his relatives will for 70 years after his death.

 

Don't need Google to find it? Well, I'm a lot more likely to find it on Google than I am on concertina.net. And when I do, I can still buy it from Hartley!

 

Hurrah for JK Rowling screwing publishers and distributors and only allowing her new e-offering to be bought from HER site. She too can now sell for thruppence or nowt to primary school kids and charge Mr Grossfinger a 100 quid. That is the true power for creative commoners such as writers, composers, peformers especially those starting their careers...

have to halt.......!

 

This I can get on board with. Except the part where she still has to pay royalties to her publisher. =(

 

A mate has just had a terrible PC virus from Spotify (to which his son subscribed him as a birthday prezzie).

 

I don't know much about that... I'm told Spotify doesn't work for us Amerikosy. But I hope he gets better!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You think Creative Commons was made by rich people? Try all of copyright.

 

Don't want to get into more commentary on this but that 'such as exceptions and limitations to copyright law like fair dealing.' phrase is part of US usage which led to Google rights grab. Can you really opt out of a burglary? Judge Chin decided that Google had burgled.....

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this... "fair dealing" is strictly a UK thing. US has "fair use", but that's not the same.

 

If a rightsholder wants to charge Macdo a million dollars to use a jingle and allow schoolkids and amateur players to pay thruppence or nothing then he can licenSe them with an appropriate licenCe to do so.

 

It's nice to imagine that's how it would be. But the only "rightsholder" MacDonalds is likely to negotiate with is the multi-billion dollar record corporation that holds the rights as part of the artist's contract. Not only that, but the record company is going to tell MacDonalds which songs they ought to use, depending on which artists they want to make popular.

 

The same goes for Google going on about out of print books - anyone can now scan in their old books and sell em digitally (add max of 30 to 50 quid to convert into any e-reader format). You don;t need Amazon or Google to find or sell you Fly Fishing by J R Hartley.. you can buy it from him and he will get most of the money (paypal can have its three or four percent!!). Or his relatives will for 70 years after his death.

 

Don't need Google to find it? Well, I'm a lot more likely to find it on Google than I am on concertina.net. And when I do, I can still buy it from Hartley!

 

Hurrah for JK Rowling screwing publishers and distributors and only allowing her new e-offering to be bought from HER site. She too can now sell for thruppence or nowt to primary school kids and charge Mr Grossfinger a 100 quid. That is the true power for creative commoners such as writers, composers, peformers especially those starting their careers...

have to halt.......!

 

This I can get on board with. Except the part where she still has to pay royalties to her publisher. =(

 

 

Just to clarify - the quote on fair dealing is from Creative Commons own text - Creative Commons is registered in Massachusetts.

Lawrence Lessig was a prime mover.

 

"Our licenses do not affect freedoms that the law grants to users of creative works otherwise protected by copyright, such as exceptions and limitations to copyright law like fair dealing."

 

It is not a UK thing.

 

The fair use concept came into existence in the UK in certain areas and meant, grosso modo, you could quote just one or maybe two paras without seeking permissions (a licence) and attributing them to the original source. It was primarily for the newspaper/news agency business. That is why you will still see snippets in newspapers on Monday morning of stories the opposition beat them with over the weekend.

Those who have had to check material for legal issues would also have checked to make sure that very limited fair use was kept to - believe me. :ph34r:

 

The point on JK Rowling about royalties may well be the case for her earlier books with Bloomsbury - depending what rights she licensed to them. I suspect she/her lawyers kept electronic rights on any new books for her new e-operation.

 

BB -if Google has nicked and is flogging the 1918 book - you have them by the S&Cs -- threaten them with court and get some money off them for theft. Judge Chin will back you. Some authors are preparing cases against Google outside the US.

 

See Lamartiniere vs Google case last year. 300k Euro fine and 10k euroa a day till they removed the digitised book.

http://www.web-libre.org/breves/Google-Books,11586.html

 

See (you have his permission LoL) Hoffman claiming back 27,000 sterling:

http://www.epuk.org/The-Curve/491/enforcing-your-copyright

 

Remember on your distributors point: digital allows creators to slash down the role of middlemen. Dont mind em getting 10 per cent but not the 90 per cent that gets taken along the chain.

 

The point was not about buying from or through Google (which gets a cut on sales which is why google books has selling links).

it is that there are many search engines out there.........

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/top_100_alternative_search_engines.php

 

I do not use Google....... or its gmail because it monitors all your email and searches.

Do NOT give away your intellectual property rights - full stop. License them out for limited periods.

That is why your comment does not quite convey what I was trying to suggest;:

"rightsholder" MacDonalds is likely to negotiate with is the multi-billion dollar record corporation that holds the rights as part of the artist's contract.

If they say your 'stuff' is crap but they must have you IP in perpetuity, then it must have the potential to be valuable! So make em pay or tell them to bog off! If they say it wont make any money (as they usually say) then tell em they aint losing anything by not having the IP!

I apologise if I assumed u knew the JR Hartley reference was to a UK TV ad? It was about JR Hartley using the PHONE to ring around secondhand bookshops(no PC search engine!!) to find a book..... by JR Hartley! yes it was his... he can now scan it at home and flog it himself (but he never existed so he cant be dead....) as under previous author/publisher rights deals once the book was 'out of print' the rights reverted to the author... which is why in the "e-today" you must never.........!!

Edited by Kautilya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not a UK thing.

It sure ain't a US thing.

 

The point on JK Rowling about royalties may well be the case for her earlier books with Bloomsbury - depending what rights she licensed to them. I suspect she/her lawyers kept electronic rights on any new books for her new e-operation.

Bloomsbury, and also Scholastic. And apparently no new novels, but maybe whatever new material she produces can avoid the publishers' tax.

 

Do NOT give away your intellectual property rights - full stop. License them out for limited periods.

I understand your position. My counterproposal is that one should NOT spend one's time, money, and effort in trying to prevent people from singing songs. There are many ways to make money-- find one that doesn't involve pretending nobody else can sing it, since you sang it "first".

 

That is why your comment does not quite convey what I was trying to suggest;:

"rightsholder" MacDonalds is likely to negotiate with is the multi-billion dollar record corporation that holds the rights as part of the artist's contract.

If they say your 'stuff' is crap but they must have you IP in perpetuity, then it must have the potential to be valuable! So make em pay or tell them to bog off! If they say it wont make any money (as they usually say) then tell em they aint losing anything by not having the IP!

All right. But why would MacDonalds pay a million dollars to Kautilya for a one-time license to use your song in a commercial? Sony BMG Music Entertainment is about to release the next "Brindy Speeders" album, and they know if they can get MacDonalds to play twenty seconds of the first track over and over again on commercials all week, they can spend less on their advertising budget elsewhere. Is your song really the only one that can sell a burger?

 

I apologise if I assumed u knew the JR Hartley reference was to a UK TV ad? It was about JR Hartley using the PHONE to ring around secondhand bookshops(no PC search engine!!) to find a book..... by JR Hartley! yes it was his... he can now scan it at home and flog it himself (but he never existed so he cant be dead....) as under previous author/publisher rights deals once the book was 'out of print' the rights reverted to the author... which is why in the "e-today" you must never.........!!

Yeah, I don't have a television... or a united kingdom. So I'm unlikely to catch similar references.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

For those using Yahoo and thinking of upgrading to the New Mail being offered, there are sign-up clauses about

1.possible fees in the future

2. Scanning of all your content (as per Googlemail) and inability to opt out of ads, and your responsibility it seems to warn others with whom you communicate that they may also get targeted ads etc.

 

Clause k

Yahoo! Fees. Yahoo! reserves the right to charge fees for future use of or access to the Services, or other Yahoo! services and web sites, in Yahoo!'s sole discretion. If Yahoo! decides to charge fees, Yahoo! will provide you with prior notice.

 

Clause c ….By using the Services, you consent to allow Yahoo!’s automated systems to scan and analyze all incoming and outgoing communications content sent and received from your account (such as Mail and Messenger content including instant messages and SMS messages) including those stored in your account to, without limitation, provide personally relevant product features and content, to match and serve targeted advertising and for spam and malware detection and abuse protection. Unless expressly stated otherwise, you will not be allowed to opt out of this feature. If you consent to this ATOS and communicate with non-Yahoo! users using the Services, you are responsible for notifying those users about this feature.

 

http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/mail/atos.html

 

This is relevant for new EU laws to stop cookie tracking of individuals without their consent:

 

New European law on use of cookies looms

http://www.bizreport.com/2011/05/new-european-laws-on-use-of-cookies-loom.html

 

The legal terms section link above also has different statements for some different countries and regions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not too happy with creative commons. Looks good but developed by people who have full time jobs ....

So having a full time job excludes people from developing things? Must be where I went wrong :D. I'm happy with CC - all my rubbish is licenced 'non-commercial'.

 

And in case you listen to the concertina recordings at my site, remember that all recordings over 50 years old are no longer copyright. Its explained fairly simply here www.ipo.gov.uk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not too happy with creative commons. Looks good but developed by people who have full time jobs ....

And in case you listen to the concertina recordings at my site, remember that all recordings over 50 years old are no longer copyright. Its explained fairly simply here www.ipo.gov.uk

 

Would that it were so simple! We Americans have to go back to 1923 or so before we're "safe", and even then, it's not a guarantee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...