IP, Copyright, and YouTube

[mus]

Because they don't want to risk the .000000000000000001% chance that somebody somewhere will now think of Doritos as "The brand of chips butt rapers like". It's their logo, they own it, they have a right to decide in what context it is used by an outside party.

Which is exactly what we find ridiculous. If your product becomes successful enough to be an everyday item, you should accept the fact that your logo is more than your intellectual property.

Hell, even calling it an intellectual property once it's been sold is ridiculous.

The reality is, they just want to make money, either through suing, or forcing you to pay them without blurring it out.



But, I will now refer to Dorito's this way... lol... if anyone asks me if I'm hungry for anything, I will say "The brand of chips butt rapers like"

 

[directorik]

To me the issue isn’t so much whether or not someone takes anything
out of context. It’s the right of the trademark or copyright owner to
control their property.

I can see that mussonman doesn’t feel they have that right - I fully
respect your views and opinion. And when you own something you can
offer it to everyone for everything.

The reality is, they just want to make money, either through suing, or forcing you to pay them without blurring it out.

You say that as if it’s a bad thing. I agree with you - it IS about
making money. Again while I fully respect your opinion and your stand
on this issue there are some people who hold a different view. I believe
the law should protect those who wish to control their property and
make money while allow someone else to freely distribute their product
with no money or usage restrictions.

I would oppose any law that keeps you from offering your property for
free or for anyone to use in any context. I guess what I don't understand
is your objection of someone else wanting protection of their property.
Even if the reason they want to protect their property seems ridiculous
to you. If Doritos or Coke want to control how their product is used in
film, TV, theater, literature, print that doesn't seem ridiculous to me.

But then I just want to make money, too.

 

[TanadrineStudios]

The thing is that copyright law kinda rests on pudding and can really be skewed by interpretation... this is why it gives so many people so many headaches.

In my mind, the idea of copyright is kind of like Taxes:

"impractical/unenforceable" side of it: You find a dollar on the ground. You pick it up and don't report it in your taxes. You committed a a crime by not reporting it... but no one cares because of the "materiality" of it (too small to make an impact, pursuing the issue would be way more costly and time consuming than it is worth).

the "serious" side of it: You purposely hide about a few thousand bucks in order to stay under a tax bracket to benefit from lower tax rates. Big no no, this will land you in jail, guaranteed.

now apply this to copyright...

(not so serious) So... maybe you're shooting a video and you happen to have a bookshelf in the background where some of the titles could possibly be read if someone squints really hard. It is highly doubtful anyone will care, not really a problem. We're surrounded by branded products, no one can expect you to eliminate everything from your environment... but you are expected to use your best judgement and common sense. If you are concerned about it, use a post-production tool to blur out names/brand labels.

(Serious)Let's say that you want to depict a scene of someone puking from alcohol poisoning and you decide to open the scene with a big closeup of a beer bottle (to help convey the message)... you'd better be sure to make a custom label of a FAKE brand, as the moment that video gets remotely popular you can bet on the fact the owners of that brand will have a problem with it.

There's other factors to consider as well concerning the "safety level" of copyright. For example, let's say you're reviewing a product: it is far less likely someone will have a copyright issue if you review it positively than negatively. If doing a "negative" review of a product, be fair and respectful about your criticisms and it has a better chance to avoid any issues.

One big idea that people tend to forget is that copyright isn't just to protect people's money... it is to protect their image and reputation as well. It is never ok to put something in your content that implies that some brand, company, or whatever actively supports your production... because your production may not reflect their values!


The big rule of thumb: Be sensitive and aware. Sometimes "small" or "not-so-serious" things can blow up in your face in ways you wouldn't expect. If you simply keep yourself aware that this is a law and follow it to a reasonable degree, then the worst that can happen is that someone asks you to take down or modify your content, or pay them royalties. (Example: Disney's Lion King... when Timone sings "the lion sleeps tonight", Disney didn't compensate the original artist for using their song, even though Disney's own crew recreated the song. Disney was fined a pretty penny for doing this!)

 

[Zensteve]

The thing is that copyright law kinda rests on pudding and can really be skewed by interpretation...

No, it's pretty straight-forward.

 

[2001 Productions]

There's nothing stopping you from giving someone that permission, for a work of yours.

All they have to do is ask; all you have to do is say, "sure".

I'm not sure why you should be able to grant permission to others to use my films, mind you.

A fair point, Steve. And if the choice comes down to one or the other of Sonnyboo's extremes, I'm solidly in the "no" column.

But I do acknowledge that a new world has emerged/is emerging in the wake of the Internet, and to think that business as usual can be reasonably enforced is a bit unrealistic. The USA has become such a litigious environment that damn near everyone in America is - at some point - either a defendant, a plaintiff, or a lawyer. That's just an absurd, Kafkaesque world that cannot and should not endure.

When I was a kid in school, I would cut photos out of National Geographic magazine to illustrate my research papers. In fact, I was encouraged to do so by my teachers. Even though I never claimed to have shot the photos myself, it still technically qualified as copyright infringement. And, who knows, today I might even be prosecuted for plagiarism. The prevalent media have changed, and so the legal tolerances may be wise to follow suit.

On a related note, I recently heard an interview with the author of a book on patents, who explained how the patent system has evolved over the years such that ideas can now be patented, whether or not the applicant has actually created a prototype, or even intends to do so. The author explained how entire industries exist which subsist solely on patenting ideas, then suing anyone who invents a product that actually performs that function, even though they may be the first to do so.

I bring this up because his point was that potential inventors and entrepreneurs live in a world of fear now, and innovation is often abandoned in favor of safer, less beneficial products. And that's not an environment which fosters progress.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

Youtube once sent me a "warning" for using copyrighted music in my trailer -- music that I have full clearance to use!

 

[TanadrineStudios]

No, it's pretty straight-forward.

This is straightforward? ... though, you can get a kind of "abridged" but incomplete version here (which I recommend reading).

The context in which the text applies isn't always that simple, either.

You have a casual conversation with a co-worker about a movie you are working on... they give you a suggestion and you decide that it is a good idea. If you followed copyright by the book, you are heavily infringing on their copyright by using their idea in your movie, even though they willingly gave you this information. They have to say specifically "yes, it is okay to use my idea about your movie for your movie". There are of course exceptions to this, but just providing an example.

You shoot video in a building. Are you really going to have the resources to ask the architects, furniture manufacturers, etc etc for permission to shoot content? Probably not, even if you are a big budget producer in most cases, but copyright says you have to do this. Approaching the building/store owner is, in my opinion, usually more than enough.

Google earth is another good example. You can see images of cars and buildings using their software...do you think google got permission from every business/location in the world to use pictures of their property? Doubt it.

That's why I say there is an impractical and practical side to it. Be careful about it... but don't throw out practicality just to follow copyright by the book... just have a solid definition of "practical" in your mind that won't get you in trouble.

 

[don patterson]

I have been burned by copyright theft... my past work (copyrighted music) has not only been stolen and used without my permission, but foreign companies like radio active records (Great Britain) made lots of money off of my work and I never saw a dime. Wasn't until 2008, that a company in Germany/Greece stepped forward to purchase the rights to make a limited edition for collectors. Guess the music was still popular in Europe after 35 years.

radio active records was also sued by the Hendrix estate... radio active lost and radio active sold their warehouses filled with stuff and disappeared into the wood work...

I do not mind if someone seeks free use of my work, (if they ask first with contract), for free distribution. I have allowed it many times with my art work and film work and archived material. I am not rich and famous. I am someone who never expects to be. Anyone that works on any of my projects knows up front, on paper, where I am with money and the sharing of such in every project -- I just expect the same. I have messed up many times in attempting to try something new, call it stumbling ignorance, but I would never steal, purposely mislead or take advantage of another or their work (talent). I also do a lot of work for free, for those that have helped me with projects and those that have a great idea but not the equipment, know how or finances to make it happen.

The bottom line is... don't steal someone else's work. Be up front. Always have everything on paper and signed. Everything. Never hesitate to do something for free for someone else... you just never know. Sometimes the favor gets returned many times over.

For those that need music, there are a lot of musicians that will help you in any way possible to get their music heard... just be honest, up front and fair. I have made a lot of free music videos for bands (even won some national awards for them), and those musicians (many became friends) have returned the favor many times over. No money ever crossed hands but a lot of creative work was created.

Another example, I have made free commercials for commercial haunted houses... and they allowed me to use their sets and talent in exchange on other projects...

Need art work for a set? Go to the nearest art college. Artists love to show off their work. They will love it if their name comes up in the credits.

Barter. Trade. Be creative! Need a book or CD cover in your movie? Make the cover yourself? Use a printer cut and paste. Do not steal, purposely mislead or take advantage of another or their work (talent)... it will come back to haunt you in the end.

Been busy, probably way over my head right now with projects... long days and editing nights. Have not visited web sites I really enjoy visiting the past two months. Then I saw this thread. Had to put in my humble two cents. Will renew my membership here on indietalk, when I get back to normal work load and life style...

 

[jax_rox]

I think it's all a matter of perspective.

Let's say for example you go into marketing next year and are instrumental in creating a new brand and logo that within a year is a household name. You then spend the next 20+ years carefully crafting the brand, and managing your brand's image. You're now going to be pretty annoyed if someone takes that for granted and puts it in a 'butt rape' film.
You're also probably going to be annoyed if you see someone using your product for their personal gain.

And yet, 20+ years ago, you were lamenting the fact that you couldn't use big brands in your short films...

It's all well and good to play the victim and hard-done by, and in fact most of us agree that if it were our work, we'd certainly want the over-riding say of what happens with it, and believe we should have that right. Yet, we get annoyed when those more successful than us try to instill the exact same right.

I certainly find it fascinating.

 

[sonnyboo]

What kind of sick individual would make the distinction that the reason this guy is butt-raping pre-teens has anything to do with a widely popular bag of chips, that is present in most peoples' lives?

Isn't that a distinction the TRADEMARK holder should get to make?

 

[sonnyboo]

Any why don't they get upset if their product is SAID, not heard? I've heard many references to products in movies that never showed those products.

What if the butt-raper screams out "I'm only doing this because I ate Dorito's! I'm sorry! Dorito's made me do it! It's only because of Frito-Lay, the division of Pepsi-Co, Inc. that I am butt-raping you! It causes this sick desire to butt-rape!"

Because of freedom of SPEECH. You can SAY anything to a certain degree. SHOWING their TRADEMARKED logo and product gives the trademark holder a great deal more control over how that is seen and viewed.

It is about money in that someone who is NOT the owner, IE a filmmaker or YouTube psychopath, can make a video with their product and that MAY affect their ability to make money.

It's about the ownership of the Intellectual Property, which is not and exact science. It's hard to control a concept, especially one as broad as this. Yes, there is wiggle room to where a song playing genuinely on a radio as you pass by on the street is a bit extreme, but someone owns the copyright on the sheet music and someone else might own the one for the recording of the music.

This is not a black and white deal even from my point of view.

 

[TanadrineStudios]

This is not a black and white deal even from my point of view.

Yeah... and it really helps if you can just try to put yourself in someone else's shoes if you aren't sure. If still in doubt, take it out!

 

[Zensteve]

This is straightforward? ... though, you can get a kind of "abridged" but incomplete version here (which I recommend reading).

Yes. This really is not that difficult. The difficult part is enforcement; not what the law says.

You have a casual conversation with a co-worker about a movie you are working on... they give you a suggestion and you decide that it is a good idea. If you followed copyright by the book, you are heavily infringing on their copyright by using their idea in your movie,

You have not even read the links you provided.

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

102. Subject matter of copyright: In general - it's pretty much the overview.

In the "abridged" version, it's cleverly hidden in the section entitled What Is Not Protected By Copyright?.

You cannot copyright ideas.

They have to say specifically "yes, it is okay to use my idea about your movie for your movie". There are of course exceptions to this

You cannot copyright ideas.

You shoot video in a building. Are you really going to have the resources to ask the architects, furniture manufacturers, etc etc for permission to shoot content?

If I don't show the manufacturer's label on that sofa, it's impractical for them to sue over the design of their sofa. Unless I start doing extreme closeups of that sofa, dollying around it in slo-mo while moving that camera lens all over the surface of that sofa in excuciating detail... in which case it's no longer a generic sofa in the background, but a key player and an object of the film's scrutiny.

Likewise, that Honda Accord that plainly looks like a Honda Accord... maybe it's not. Unless you're going to remove all uncertainty & doubt by panning across the manufacturer's logo. Up until you do that, the car just resembles a Honda Accord. A lot.

The Mona Lisa's the Mona Lisa, though.

Google earth is another good example. You can see images of cars and buildings using their software...do you think google got permission from every business/location in the world to use pictures of their property? Doubt it.

You are aware that Google is tied up in many lawsuits over this, the world over, right?

Google's also been in copyright suits over their book-scanning thing. And video thing.

Just 'cos someone is doing something doesn't mean it's right, or legal.

 

[TanadrineStudios]

You cannot copyright ideas.

It is called "Trade Secrets" and patenting. Though technically you are correct, you can copyright some ideas (indirectly) by simply putting it on paper or other recorded medium and being able to prove that the idea was applied in some capacity.

You have not even read the links you provided.

No, I haven't. I went to college for 4 years and learned about copyright there. The idea of copyright is to provide GUIDELINES because that is all that can be possibly done to protect/impose people's rights on both sides. To view it in a strictly literal sense is silly, but that's just my opinion and shouldn't be taken as legal advice . Know that people/companies just don't want to get screwed or manipulated, that's the important thing to take away from those documents.

 

[Zensteve]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zensteve
You cannot copyright ideas.

It is called "Trade Secrets" and patenting. Though technically you are correct, you can copyright some ideas (indirectly) by simply putting it on paper or other recorded medium and being able to prove that the idea was applied in some capacity.

Why are you now trying to conflate patents with copyright?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zensteve
You have not even read the links you provided.

No, I haven't. I went to college for 4 years and learned about copyright there. The idea of copyright is to provide GUIDELINES because that is all that can be possibly done to protect/impose people's rights on both sides.

Laws are just guidelines? I don't even know where to begin with this. So I won't.

Later.

 

[TanadrineStudios]

Agree to disagree.

/signed.

 

[JoshL]

On one hand, I am 100% in favor of Copyright. The decision for my work to be free or even available should be MY decision, not the fans/random people on the internet/etc. Doubly so when someone else is making money off my work. If I said "go ahead" it's fine, but that decision is mine to make.

On the other hand, there exists many artforms that rely on willful copyright violation, going back to Dada collages in the 1930s. In the realm of music, it's hard to argue that Negativland aren't making new and creative works that rest almost entirely on stolen audio. Even on youtube, take a look at fan edits of favorite sequences from a movie or tv show. It's very much like a modern collage, and I think that should be encouraged, both as an expression of fandom and as an opportunity to developing (in that case) editing techniques.

Real world example: there exists a fan edit video of all the flashback sequences from Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, putting this history of Angel, Darla and Spike in chronological order. As a fan, it was neat to watch; a story told across several years of TV and two different programs. It's not what the creators intended, nor anything they would have done. It did not try to supplant the original work (in fact, it probably wouldn't have been very interesting if you weren't already familiar with it). It was a new work, created entirely from theft of the original work.

I think that's where I draw the line. If you are creating something new, rather than just monitizing something someone else did I think that should be encouraged. Money where my mouth is: a while back I found on youtube a song I had done (actually a cover for an official tribute cd) on a fan edit video for a Japanese film. More than anything I was flattered, even if the subject of the film (an inflatable adult doll comes to life) isn't anything I'm interested in or particularly wanted that song associated with. Could have had it yanked. Chose not to. I do appreciate that the choice was mine to make, but as I said, some violations should be encouraged.

 

[MetalRenard]

And right now, the copyright laws are on your side. No one can use your
work without your permission. If the "fair use" part was changed to
allow more use without permission would you be in support of that?

In this day more and more people are not only using the copyrighted
work of others without permission but they are outright stealing the
work which causes the owners to lose money. I'm sure very few people
are making money off of someone else's intellectual property. For me
it is less about money than about my rights to my work. You clearly
feel the same way yet you won't vote "No" on this poll. I find that
fascinating.

If fair use was expanded to included "not making a profit from" then maybe, so long as the artist is always credited. I associate "uploading without permission" with "not crediting" since they often go hand in hand.

The thing is, if someone uploads my work to Youtube, they're creating competition for my OWN videos with my music in them (I upload weekly and I have over a thousand subscribers) which draws views away from my videos which are monetized. Therefore, uploading my work without my consent is damaging.

As for not hitting "no", this is because the question doesn't encompass things like Non-profit organisations like charities or a kid playing along to one of my songs for fun in front of a camera. These things I wouldn't mind at all (the first I'd glady take part in, the 2nd I would feel honoured).

 

[2001 Productions]

If fair use was expanded to included "not making a profit from" then maybe, so long as the artist is always credited.

I used the phrase "non-commercial" instead. A use may not be intended for profit, but could still be commercial. For example, I recently was hired to create a video for a hospital that was to be entered into a national contest (it won, BTW ). They wanted to theme it on the old A-Team TV show. I refused to use the theme song until they obtained written permission (which they did).

Even though the video was not for profit, it still was a commercial use, which I don't think should be allowed under Fair Use.

As for not hitting "no", this is because the question doesn't encompass things like Non-profit organisations

Again, "Non-Profit" encompasses a wide range of organizations. Westboro Baptist Church is non-profit. How would you feel about them using your material without permission?

 

[Mike Peters]

I vote for copyright. it's allows me to get an income from my music. It would feels completely unfair if someone else could make easy money from my creative ideas.