In light of how many bloggers embed YouTube videos in their blogs, I decided to focus this week on YouTube’s current legal troubles.
Once again YouTube is under fire – this time from the National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA). The NMPA claims that songwriters (signed up with them) haven’t been receiving proper compensation for music which has appeared in YouTube videos. The biggest plaintiff, Viacom Inc, owns Paramount and MTV. Viacom will be suing YouTube for over 1 billion dollars, for allegedly posting over 160,000 of their videos without permission.
However, YouTube claims that it is complying by the law by “immediately taking down any clips found to be violating copyrights after receiving notification”. Their use of antipiracy software (such as audio-signature technology, that can detect a copy of licensed video) has helped a fair amount, but thousands of illegal videos are still available on the site.
Where all this is relevant to bloggers (and in fact to anyone who likes to incorporate YouTube videos into their site), is that content owners are not only targeting YouTube for copyright infringements, but are also after third party websites that link to infringing YouTube content. So you could be held responsible for even linking to a video which infringes on copyright. Although the chance is quite minimal that the content owners would really bother about suing someone for embedding a video on their blog, one has to remember that its not just about getting caught – linking to a video that is clearly infringing on copyright just looks bad as well.
These are things you should look out for when embedding a YouTube video on your site:
- don’t use anything that has a soundtrack which has clearly been used without permission (for example, a mash-up with a Madonna song in the background)
- same goes for movies – don’t link to videos where more than 10 seconds of a copyrighted movie appears – anymore than 10 seconds and its not fair use. See my post last week for more information on fair use.
- check out if there is a copyright notice or disclaimer at the end of the video – this can indicate whether or not the creators got permission for the owners of the work
All in all, one should be very careful about what you link to, especially if it’s from YouTube.
Showing posts with label intellectual-property. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intellectual-property. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Fair use in SA
I recently discovered a really great media law podcast called Legally Content, a must for anyone interested in intellectual property issues. Last week's topic was fair use. I suggest that you click on the above link to listen to the latest episode of Legally Content, before reading my discussion of fair dealing in SA.
Fair use, like Creative Commons, is another way to get around the totalitarian extremism of copyright. Fair use allows for the limited use of copyrighted materials (without the permission of the authors/owners), as long as four conditions are met:
- the derived work must be a “transformative use” of the original. In other words, something new must be made of the original work. This is why parodies (such as Weird Al Yankovich’s Madonna rip-off “Like a Surgeon”) fall under fair use.
- The nature of the copied work must be taken into account: autobiographies, documentaries etc are more likely to be legally copied (under fair use) than fictions, films etc.
- The effect on the monetary/market value of the copied work: the copying of the work must not diminish the market value of the work.
- No more than 10 percent of the original may be copied, and the heart of the work is off limits (the heart of a work is its main theme, eg: the twist at the end of a movie, the conclusion of a book)
If all these factors are met, then one may argue fair use.
In South Africa, our fair use policies are less clear and much less effective than those in America. In the South African Copyright Act of 1978, fair dealing (the South African derivative of fair use) is described in section 12(1) of Act 98. I quote:
“ Copyright shall not be infringed by any fair dealing with a literary or musical work
(a) for the purposes of research or private study by, or the personal or private use of, the person using the work;
(b) for the purposes of criticism or review of that work or of another work; or
(c) for the purpose of reporting current events
(i) in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical; or
(ii) by means of broadcasting or in a cinematograph film;
Provided that, in the case of paragraphs (b) and (c)(i), the source shall be mentioned, as well as the name of the author if it appears on the work. “
Notably, the above passage does not account for the use of film or radio snippets. Its pivotal for new media journalists to keep this in mind when creating multimedia packages for the internet. One may not legally use any film snippets, and permission must be gained to use music or snippets from literature.
Fair use, like Creative Commons, is another way to get around the totalitarian extremism of copyright. Fair use allows for the limited use of copyrighted materials (without the permission of the authors/owners), as long as four conditions are met:
- the derived work must be a “transformative use” of the original. In other words, something new must be made of the original work. This is why parodies (such as Weird Al Yankovich’s Madonna rip-off “Like a Surgeon”) fall under fair use.
- The nature of the copied work must be taken into account: autobiographies, documentaries etc are more likely to be legally copied (under fair use) than fictions, films etc.
- The effect on the monetary/market value of the copied work: the copying of the work must not diminish the market value of the work.
- No more than 10 percent of the original may be copied, and the heart of the work is off limits (the heart of a work is its main theme, eg: the twist at the end of a movie, the conclusion of a book)
If all these factors are met, then one may argue fair use.
In South Africa, our fair use policies are less clear and much less effective than those in America. In the South African Copyright Act of 1978, fair dealing (the South African derivative of fair use) is described in section 12(1) of Act 98. I quote:
“ Copyright shall not be infringed by any fair dealing with a literary or musical work
(a) for the purposes of research or private study by, or the personal or private use of, the person using the work;
(b) for the purposes of criticism or review of that work or of another work; or
(c) for the purpose of reporting current events
(i) in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical; or
(ii) by means of broadcasting or in a cinematograph film;
Provided that, in the case of paragraphs (b) and (c)(i), the source shall be mentioned, as well as the name of the author if it appears on the work. “
Notably, the above passage does not account for the use of film or radio snippets. Its pivotal for new media journalists to keep this in mind when creating multimedia packages for the internet. One may not legally use any film snippets, and permission must be gained to use music or snippets from literature.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Microsoft blows smoke at open source
As I mentioned in my previous blog, there are certain practical, legal and ethical considerations which must be taken into account when one is deciding whether to use open source (OS), as opposed to proprietary software.
On the practical side, one is likely to consider first what is cheaper and what is more trustworthy. Due to the very murky legal and ethical issues surrounding OS, many people feel safer going with the products of the software giants (Microsoft and gang).
How ethical is it to use OS?
OS software has come under fire for apparent copyright infringements. Microsoft recently took a stab at Linux by claiming that the OS hub had violated no less than 230 of its patents. This means possible negative consequences for businesses running OS software, as rumours spread that penalties would have to be paid if Microsoft pursued the case.
In light of the questionable legality of OS it may seem like the more sound option to run proprietary software, but one must remember that OS has huge benefits too: it empowers users by allowing access to the source code, which promotes innovation and freedom.
It has also been argued that OS forces big business to focus more on the customer’s needs. As OS programmers build upon, manipulate etc. software to suit their own needs, they are driving a new trend – the needs of the user shape the evolution of the software.
Brad Silverberg of Cnet perspectives says that
“Open source is forcing entrepreneurs and investors to think in new ways about a new set of problems. While it has taken away some of the low-hanging fruit, it's my belief that open source will help drive a focus on improved solutions for customers--particularly in underserved markets--and that unique intellectual property will play a critical role in fuelling this new engine for innovation”.
In fact, it has also been argued that the very companies which openly oppose OS, also benefit from it. “Piracy” of intellectual property often results in innovation and a more dynamic, vibrant industry.
In short, we need to strike a balance between open source and proprietary software. As TalkBack discusses in a recent article, intellecual property and open source can complement eachother.
On the practical side, one is likely to consider first what is cheaper and what is more trustworthy. Due to the very murky legal and ethical issues surrounding OS, many people feel safer going with the products of the software giants (Microsoft and gang).
How ethical is it to use OS?
OS software has come under fire for apparent copyright infringements. Microsoft recently took a stab at Linux by claiming that the OS hub had violated no less than 230 of its patents. This means possible negative consequences for businesses running OS software, as rumours spread that penalties would have to be paid if Microsoft pursued the case.
In light of the questionable legality of OS it may seem like the more sound option to run proprietary software, but one must remember that OS has huge benefits too: it empowers users by allowing access to the source code, which promotes innovation and freedom.
It has also been argued that OS forces big business to focus more on the customer’s needs. As OS programmers build upon, manipulate etc. software to suit their own needs, they are driving a new trend – the needs of the user shape the evolution of the software.
Brad Silverberg of Cnet perspectives says that
“Open source is forcing entrepreneurs and investors to think in new ways about a new set of problems. While it has taken away some of the low-hanging fruit, it's my belief that open source will help drive a focus on improved solutions for customers--particularly in underserved markets--and that unique intellectual property will play a critical role in fuelling this new engine for innovation”.
In fact, it has also been argued that the very companies which openly oppose OS, also benefit from it. “Piracy” of intellectual property often results in innovation and a more dynamic, vibrant industry.
In short, we need to strike a balance between open source and proprietary software. As TalkBack discusses in a recent article, intellecual property and open source can complement eachother.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Open source - all doors open?
In light of the current patents scandal between Microsoft and leading open source vendors, I’ve decided to focus this week’s blog on open source: what it is, what it promises, and what the legal and ethical issues are. According to the open source wiki, open source refers to “the source code of software that is made available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent intellectual property restrictions. This allows users to create user-generated software content through incremental individual effort or through collaboration.”
The Open Source Definition points out that in order for software to be categorised as open source, it must comply with the following criteria:
- Free Redistribution: open source is about altruism and the evolution of software, not about making fast cash.
- Source Code: the program must include source code in the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program, or there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code.
- Derived Works are allowed, but the license may insist on the integrity of the author's source code.
- No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups.
- No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor – eg: commercial, or genetic research.
- License Must Not Restrict Other Software.
- License Must Be Technology-Neutral: no provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.
The open source wiki discusses how the open source model also extends into the decision making processes: input from various agenda’s is encouraged, which contrasts with centralized models of development which dominate commercial companies.
For online journalists, open source can be an invaluable tool, both on a material, technical level, and as an inspiration towards more altruistic, “open” journalism (of the citizen journalism style perhaps).
Amongst its major accomplishments are its role in helping to free the human genome, its thwarting of Netscape’s monopoly on the net, and its ability to help people in countries with restricted access (such as China) to get around censorship.
However, in light of the current debates going on about open source and patent violation, there are certain difficult questions pertaining to intellectual property rights and ownership. As a journalist it's important to keep track of any legal and ethical issues related to our media production, so I’ll discuss these issues in depth in next week's blog.
The Open Source Definition points out that in order for software to be categorised as open source, it must comply with the following criteria:
- Free Redistribution: open source is about altruism and the evolution of software, not about making fast cash.
- Source Code: the program must include source code in the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program, or there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code.
- Derived Works are allowed, but the license may insist on the integrity of the author's source code.
- No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups.
- No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor – eg: commercial, or genetic research.
- License Must Not Restrict Other Software.
- License Must Be Technology-Neutral: no provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.
The open source wiki discusses how the open source model also extends into the decision making processes: input from various agenda’s is encouraged, which contrasts with centralized models of development which dominate commercial companies.
For online journalists, open source can be an invaluable tool, both on a material, technical level, and as an inspiration towards more altruistic, “open” journalism (of the citizen journalism style perhaps).
Amongst its major accomplishments are its role in helping to free the human genome, its thwarting of Netscape’s monopoly on the net, and its ability to help people in countries with restricted access (such as China) to get around censorship.
However, in light of the current debates going on about open source and patent violation, there are certain difficult questions pertaining to intellectual property rights and ownership. As a journalist it's important to keep track of any legal and ethical issues related to our media production, so I’ll discuss these issues in depth in next week's blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
