I got warned for copyright violation: How to post video for fair use purpose?

[cfimages]

[quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”][quote=“cfimages”]You didn’t “get” me at all. In fact, your own quote says some will enter public domain in 2019 which is hardly never.
[/quote]

But before 2019, it will be extended again. That prick, Sonny Bono (no wonder Cher divorced him) will rise from the grave with the Sonny Boner Copyright Extension Act, Part II, of 2018. Just wait and see.[/quote]

That’s just your guess. It has no basis in the reality of copyright at this stage.

[quote]But your source is not particularly accurate. James Joyce “Ulysses” for one, had its copyright expire in June last year.

My source is accurate. Multiple sources available with a little bit of Googling. Here is Wikipedia’s word on the issue:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_in_pu … ted_States

It’s true that James Joyce “Ulysses” entered the public domain in 2012…in his native Ireland. Not in the USA.[/quote]

Even the Wiki link gives a time for out of copyright. With regard to Joyce, the 1934 version is in copyright but the original 1922 version isn’t.

[quote]Based on the Copyright Act of 1976, any works produced now will see their copyright expire 70 years after the creators death, unless it’s renewed.

Much more complicated than that. Here is the mind-boggling mess that is US copyright law, if you want to wade through it:

copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm[/quote]

Only as complicated as any law which is why copyright lawyers exist. For the layman wanting a general guideline, your link there is pretty simple and easy to understand.

[quote]You can bet that of the thousands and thousands of individuals who hold copyright to their own works, the vast majority will not be renewed and will thus expire.

There are many thousands of such works, presently locked up by copyright. These are known as “orphaned copyrights.” You cannot get permission to publish any of this stuff since no living rights’ holder can be contacted.

Have a good day.
DB[/quote]

Even if the rights holder were contactable, they’d still be under copyright. Once the copyright period passes, they should transition into public domain like anything else.

What is it you have against people being paid for work they create? If you want to use something that someone else owns, what makes you think you can just take it without permission?

[Taiwan_Student]

@cfimages

Even if the rights holder were contactable, they’d still be under copyright. Once the copyright period passes, they should transition into public domain like anything else.

I don’t think so. I think that the copyright holder is the “owner” of a piece of property. I believe that he can sell it to someone or even give it to the public domain.
There was a big hub-bub a while a go. A political satire website called Jib Jab made a music parody of This Land is Your Land. The “copyright” owners, Ludlow Music company leaned on them to take down this parody. EFF took them on as a client to defend the right to satirize and parody almost anything that we Americans used to hold dear.
Ludlow responded by leaning on the internet providers to cut them off.
The case progressed and eventually it ended with a copy of the sheet music with the words “To public Domain Written right on it from Woody Himself.”
(If I remembered correctly)
But the bottom line is they were charging for sometime for something that they had no right to charge for. I wrote EFF asking if people had or are going to sue for wrongful collection of fees. They replied that no one contacted them.

People, school and organizations paid to use that song… They should get every red cent back and if that happened to me, I’d have every show goer, parent, fan or member e-mail them until I got my $ back. Then I’d put it into the victory party budget.

It probably happen too long ago, some should have got a copyright trol to recover those fees for charity.

Dogs Breakfast, I support and understand your copyright arguments. In other areas like abortion… I’m not sure. Those woman who had abortions should be able to talk about their new feelings and their feeling of guilt if any. To preach going to jail would be wrong. To preach about a regretted decision or lifestyle with forgiveness and understand is a different story. If that is what the women were actually preaching going to jail, then they should be called on it.

Subtitling songs like I did actually was proving to help the cause of copyright holders… A New Jersey Anime club, for example ran fan subtitling rings with the gentlemans agreement that if a title became commercial available they would stop such work. Not only did it open up the world of Anime to many American fans, it spawned conventions and yes… Licensing Shows and even created money making professional subtitling/voice dubbing companies.
I was there… I saw it… though only the tail end.
My subtitling of a funny song owned by universal music about a boy who breaks a vase then ends up burning down his house would do nothing to hurt the owners. It would promote Taiwanese music. It would also let universal see if there is an overseas market for a regional piece of work. It’s already on the web and a license copy exist in every homes’ KTV machine. I don’t don’t think any of my US friends would want to buy the song sight unseen.

Terry, for the record. I actually buy the things I like or need. OK at a steep discount but… I’ve been turned off by geographical DRM restriction that cause me unnecessary hell. Trying to shove money into someones hand who doesn’t want it just because of where you live is more of a hassle than just downloading it. It has not and never will stop me but they may push me to join the darkside.

[cfimages]

[quote=“Taiwan_Student”][quote=“cfimages”]
Even if the rights holder were contactable, they’d still be under copyright. Once the copyright period passes, they should transition into public domain like anything else.

[/quote]

I don’t think so. I think that the copyright holder is the “owner” of a piece of property. I believe that he can sell it to someone or even give it to the public domain. [/quote]

Copyright still expires at the same time, regardless of who owns it.

[quote]There was a big hub-bub a while a go. A political satire website called Jib Jab made a music parody of This Land is Your Land. The “copyright” owners, Ludlow Music company leaned on them to take down this parody. EFF took them on as a client to defend the right to satirize and parody almost anything that we Americans used to hold dear.
Ludlow responded by leaning on the internet providers to cut them off.
The case progressed and eventually it ended with a copy of the sheet music with the words “To public Domain Written right on it from Woody Himself.”
(If I remembered correctly)
But the bottom line is they were charging for sometime for something that they had no right to charge for. I wrote EFF asking if people had or are going to sue for wrongful collection of fees. They replied that no one contacted them.

People, school and organizations paid to use that song… They should get every red cent back and if that happened to me, I’d have every show goer, parent, fan or member e-mail them until I got my $ back. Then I’d put it into the victory party budget.

It probably happen too long ago, some should have got a copyright trol to recover those fees for charity.[/quote]

That’s more a lack of understanding of copyright law rather than a failing in the law. The US Supreme Court long ago ruled on parody and satire with regards to copyright and the copyright act is quite specific about what is and isn’t allowed. If people don’t understand that, that doesn’t mean there’s a problem with the copyright law.

[Jack_Burton]

@Dog's_Breakfast

[quote=“Jack Burton”][quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]a copyright troll insisted that he owned the copyright on the noises being made by the birds. Only in America do birds need a lawyer.

it’s pretty clear he cannot obtain a copyright for that. all you need to do is ask for the copyright document (or number). don’t need a lawyer for that.[/quote]

First off, the copyright system no longer works that way. Anything you publish is automatically copyrighted. [/quote]

I was being a little facetious with the asking for copyright proof, but still, that will throw some people off. Nevertheless, it is clear there is no way a person can copyright noises made by birds (as you have described them) per se (Ie categorically any natural sound by made birds).

again, fair use is not black and white. yes, it’s stronger when it implicates 1st amendment rights (e.g. parody, satire, criticism), the point with the OP is that he should not have expected to be able to cite fair use or for educational purposes “for his student” when uploading to a site like facebook where it could be disseminated to a larger audience (unless he limits his posts to “friends only” or something).

[Hamletintaiwan]

@Jack Burton

[quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”][quote=“Jack Burton”][quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]a copyright troll insisted that he owned the copyright on the noises being made by the birds. Only in America do birds need a lawyer.

it’s pretty clear he cannot obtain a copyright for that. all you need to do is ask for the copyright document (or number). don’t need a lawyer for that.[/quote]

First off, the copyright system no longer works that way. Anything you publish is automatically copyrighted. [/quote]

I was being a little facetious with the asking for copyright proof, but still, that will throw some people off. Nevertheless, it is clear there is no way a person can copyright noises made by birds (as you have described them) per se (Ie categorically any natural sound by made birds).

again, fair use is not black and white. yes, it’s stronger when it implicates 1st amendment rights (e.g. parody, satire, criticism), the point with the OP is that he should not have expected to be able to cite fair use or for educational purposes “for his student” when uploading to a site like facebook where it could be disseminated to a larger audience (unless he limits his posts to “friends only” or something).[/quote]

I am a little confused here.
If you record something or take a picture of something, the copyright is yours right? Therefore, you own the right for the recording of birds’ noises. Of course you can go and record the same species of bird with your own equipment.

Anyhow, my brother is running a website offering royalty free sound-files for many years now. http://www.tonarchiv.de/
You can use them in all your works and creations except republishing as stand alone files.

Anyhow, I find it very difficult to figure out why some of my youtube videos are excluded from being monetized. They just tell you that they need more prove that I have all the rights. Emailing them and asking for a more detailed explanation went completely fruitless.

[Jack_Burton]

[quote=“Hamletintaiwan”]I am a little confused here.
If you record something or take a picture of something, the copyright is yours right? Therefore, you own the right for the recording of birds’ noises. Of course you can go and record the same species of bird with your own equipment.

Anyhow, my brother is running a website offering royalty free sound-files for many years now. http://www.tonarchiv.de/
You can use them in all your works and creations except republishing as stand alone files.

Anyhow, I find it very difficult to figure out why some of my youtube videos are excluded from being monetized. They just tell you that they need more prove that I have all the rights. Emailing them and asking for a more detailed explanation went completely fruitless.[/quote]

1. this analogy is that you take a photo of the Pyramids, and then try and stop other people taking photos of the Pyramids on copyright grounds. that’s just plain absurd. Likewise, that person above does not hold a monopoly on all bird noise recordings per se.

2. as for youtube and monetization, i can’t comment without knowing the details, nature of the video, etc. not surprised they will not respond (they probably are prohibited by their company for giving what amounts to legal advice).

[Taiwan_Student]

Heard this on the radio about a week ago. The x big internet providers in the US are starting a new x strikes and you are not out exactly, but slowed down.

Starting (did not hear the date) the x big internet providers will start notifying copyrighted material shared on line, especially on the peer to peer networks. Each time you are detected you will be notified. The first x number of notifications are educational. Then next few will ask you to click a notice of understaning. After your limit has been reached, your connection will be slowed down or suspended.
If I remember correctly there is an appeal process that will cost you money. If you are cleared you money would be returned.