Publishing Cult - Please read rules of Conduct From Youtube

by lovelylil 32 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  lovelylil

  I got an email back with a reply from Youtube about our discussion on the other thread. They enclosed these conduct rules with the bolded areas that may apply to your videos. Youtube says that posters of videos need to get consent from third parties regarding material they post. Did you get Rick's consent to use material from his website?

  Did you get consent from those on the conference calls to use their responses for your youtube videos?

  ** Youtube also gave me a suggestion which I will let Rick know to tell those on the conference calls to make this statement; I agree to have my comments recorded on this conference call ONLY for the purposes of being used by the six screens website, but do not consent to have my comments used for any other purposes .

  6. Your Content and Conduct

  1. As a YouTube account holder you may submit Content to the Service, including videos and user comments. You understand that YouTube does not guarantee any confidentiality with respect to any Content you submit.
  2. You shall be solely responsible for your own Content and the consequences of submitting and publishing your Content on the Service. You affirm, represent, and warrant that you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to publish Content you submit; and you license to YouTube all patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights in and to such Content for publication on the Service pursuant to these Terms of Service.
  3. For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in video Content you submit to the Service terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your videos from the Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of your videos that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in user comments you submit are perpetual and irrevocable.
  4. You further agree that Content you submit to the Service will not contain third party copyrighted material, or material that is subject to other third party proprietary rights, unless you have permission from the rightful owner of the material or you are otherwise legally entitled to post the material and to grant YouTube all of the license rights granted herein.
  5. You further agree that you will not submit to the Service any Content or other material that is contrary to the YouTube Community Guidelines, currently found at http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines, which may be updated from time to time, or contrary to applicable local, national, and international laws and regulations.
  6. YouTube does not endorse any Content submitted to the Service by any user or other licensor, or any opinion, recommendation, or advice expressed therein, and YouTube expressly disclaims any and all liability in connection with Content. YouTube does not permit copyright infringing activities and infringement of intellectual property rights on the Service, and YouTube will remove all Content if properly notified that such Content infringes on another's intellectual property rights. YouTube reserves the right to remove Content without prior notice.
• 

  VampireDCLXV

  Source: http://www.videomaker.com/article/14261/

  ---

  The most common YouTube Video copyright infringement involves using songs in without permission of the copyright holder that cannot be claimed as "Fair Use".

  In May 2008, Viacom brought a $1 billion lawsuit against YouTube for allegedly failing to protect the rights of copyright owners. The most common cases of copyright infringement involve using songs in a film or video without permission of the copyright holder, or placing segments of movies or music videos on websites where it is easy for the public to download them. Such actions have cost studios millions of dollars in royalties. Therefore, the giants of the entertainment industry have begun cracking down on websites such as YouTube.

  YouTube, in response to these accusations, started to remove videos that may use segments of music or film without the copyright owner's permission. Accounts posting such videos have also been suspended. Fan videos that incorporate a celebrity picture slideshow using a song as the primary audio track and videos of musicians playing covers of famous songs are common examples of videos that have been deleted from YouTube as a result of alleged copyright infringement.

  Besides the removal of the video and suspension of the account, penalties for such actions can be extreme. If a music company believes that posting such videos is music piracy, it can file suit and be awarded up to $150, 000 per song. On the criminal side, jail time in federal prison is also a possibility for anyone convicted. Because of these harsh penalties - even though only a remote possibility - it is extremely important to protect yourself from any allegations of copyright infringement. Copyright violations are equivalent to theft, both legally and morally. Proving there is no infringement can take time and effort. Why risk the penalties?

  If your work is for educational purposes, then use of copyrighted material falls under the "Fair Use" provision, which allows reasonable use of copyrighted work, without permission, for research, criticism, or education. A notice at the beginning or end of your production giving credit to copyright owners for their work is usually sufficient. Be aware, however, that not citing sources, or attempting to pass off copyrighted material as your own work, is not considered "fair use." It is plagiarism and can result in harsh penalties.

  Works with expired copyrights are considered to be in the "public domain" and can be used without fear of liability of infringement. The major catch in this provision is that copyrights have very long terms before expiry. For example, any sound recording published in the United States after March 1989 will not be available to the public until March 2049 at the earliest. As of January 2009, the only sound recordings that are automatically available in the public domain are those published before 1923, and those published between February 15, 1972 and March 1989 without a copyright. All other recordings may be in the public domain, but further investigation would be required.

  Both "fair use" and "public domain" are gray areas, making it difficult to ensure that you are not infringing the rights of others. The safest action to take is to get permission (usually a written contract, known as a license) from the copyright owner of any material being used in your video production.

  The music labels commonly hold the copyrights for sound recordings. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is a major blanket organization that works with many major labels and is an excellent resource for you to obtain a license to use music as part of your production. Licensing agencies can aid in procuring a license. Examples of licensing agencies include The Harry Fox Agency, American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), Broadcast Music Incorporated (BMI) and Sound Exchange. Most licensing agencies are blanket agencies that cover many labels. To get licenses for just one or two songs, however, it is usually easiest to contact the individual label.

  Licenses can be requested using a simple letter to the copyright owner asking for authority to use the copyrighted material. The letter should incorporate a complete explanation of the work to be used and how you will use it. Include a place in the letter for the owner to sign and send back a response.

  Contributing editor Attorney Mark Levy specializes in intellectual property law. Saba Siddiqui is a senior in high school and a legal intern for Mark Levy. She plans to attend law school after university.

  Editor's Note

  Since Mr. Levy's story was first posted, as of late September 2009, Google (owner of YouTube) has now changed its rules regarding copyright. Google will begin to allow copyright content to remain up unless the copyright owner objects. This new decision comes in most part from a popular viral wedding dance video that has become Sony Music's 8th most popular song. Read more about the changes in our blo…

  ---

  V665
• 

  PublishingCult

  Key word: Copyrighted

  http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

  One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

  Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

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

  You could make your own video refuting my criticism and feel free to use any of my posted content in doing so . . . :)

  Due credit was given to Sex Screens and all callers gave their first names and their anonymity is in their own hands. Rick can insist you must not use these recordings, HE WHO SECRETLY RECORDED HIS COMMITTEE MEETINGS THEN PUT THEM ON THE INTERNET FOR ALL TO HEAR AND I AM SURE HE DID NOT GET THE PERMISSION OF THE ELDERS PRESENT TO DO SO, but once he puts that stuff online, it's fair game for fair use.
• 

  lovelylil

  Music is different than someone's own voice. That is why youtube told me to make that statement above. Copyrighted material is only one thing listed above. what do you think "third party rights" means? Also, are you the proper owner of the content on the six screens website?? No Rick Fearon is.

  I don't think you guys understand everything involved here. Just saying, Youtube obviously had a problem with this because they told me to protect my rights I should make the statement that I do not give permission for anyone else to use my comments in any way. Now, they could have given me a more definate answer they said IF I would have actually devulged all the information to them including the actual youtube videos made and made a formal complaint about misuse of material, which I chose not to do.

  That is ONLY becuase It was NOT MY comments used in your little video productions. However, I am putting you on notice that you are NEVER to use my comments in that way, or I will make a complaint. And Rick and those others who use the conference call, so that we do not have that outlet ruined for us; just use the above statement youtube gave me to say to make sure our rights are not violated.
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  Youtube isn't privvy to the entirety of the situation, only to your emailed description of it. They aren't lawyers giving you legal advice because they haven't examined the situation in full detail.

  Brief quotes for educational purposes fall under FAIR USE. It is only copyright infringement if he uses large portions of material WITHOUT CREDITING the source. Since he BOTH uses small snippets AND credits the Six Screens site as his source, HE HAS DONE NO WRONG.

  If you don't want your voice to be used in such a manner, DON'T LET YOURSELF BE RECORDED AND PUBLICLY PUT ON THE INTERNET.

  You won't win this battle, Lilly. You are wrong ethically AND legally. Let it go.
• 

  WontLeave

  Anyone who's ever seen Loose Change and Screw Loose Change understands there is very broad latitude given when making political, social, or religious commentary. Many video responses are made point-by-point, showing the original video in its entirety with commentary and rebuttal edited in.

  Anyone who frequents forums like this has seen entire Watchtower articles posted along with commentary. Trust me; if there was anything the Society could do to get those posts removed, it would.

  How much copyrighted Watchtower material does Rick use on his website with absolute legal immunity?
• 

  lovelylil

  How is it unethical to tell someone NOT to use my comments for their own purposes when I only gave permission to one party to record me?

  What educational purpose was achieved by making videos to make fun of and degrade another person?? Hmmm, not sure about that.

  Yes, youtube only heard my side. I will gladly fill them in on everything but that would mean filing a formal complaint. Since my comments were not used this time, I will not do that. But will if I have to in the future I will.

  But perhaps Rick or any of the commentors whose comments were used in the youtube videos would like to formally complain? If so that is not imoral nor unethical.
• 

  PublishingCult

  But perhaps Rick or any of the commentors whose comments were used in the youtube videos would like to formally complain? If so that is not imoral nor unethical.

  Doesn't matter how you couch it, miss; you have for yourself a double standard for freedom of speech and you would deny me mine because it makes you uncomfortable, while insisting upon yours in order to say whatever it is you want to say without fear of criticism.
• 

  shamus100

  I have no comment but just wanted lovelyill to know that you had a PM.
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  I didn't mean you are being unethical. I mean your complaint against PC has a weak (IMO nonexistent) ethical basis.

  He can use small portions of your (and everyone else on Six Screens recordings) comments under the fair use clause. They are in the public domain. You can't stop him.

  You could get youtube to pull the video because youtube would rather piss off a single poster than get involved in any sort of legal action. They would be doing it to save hassle and money, not because you are right.

  What educational purpose was achieved by making videos to make fun of and degrade another person?

  They are educational because they are used to teach viewers what a bigoted and intellectually lazy call in show Rick has put on. There was some humor but many of the best teachers use humor to make their point.

  Seriously, can't you just let it go?

  You're a Christian right? Forgiveness. Quit judging. All that stuff Jesus taught.