'Copyright, Creative Commons and Fair Use'

[LEVLHED]

This thread was split from this thread (http://vjforums.com/showthread.php?t=27836)...

VJ Forums/VJ Central does not in any way condone the use of copyrighted material.

[Kyle]

Yea what he said. Sony Pictures (http://www.sonypictures.com/corp/tos.html)don't like people who sample without permission.


all copyrights, trademarks, service marks, trade names and all other intellectual property or property rights therein are proprietary to SPE and are owned by SPE and/or its licensors and content providers, and are protected by applicable domestic and international copyright laws. Unless expressly permitted in writing by SPE, you shall not copy, capture, reproduce, perform, transfer, sell, license, modify, manipulate, create derivative works from or based upon, republish, upload, edit, post, transmit, publicly display, frame, link, distribute, or exploit in whole or in part the Site, the Site Content or Site Code, or otherwise use the Site, Site Content or Site Code on any other web site, other networked computer environment, or in any medium now known or hereafter developed (each, an "Unauthorized Use").
Any Unauthorized Use constitutes an infringement of the copyrights and other proprietary rights of SPE and/or its licensors and content providers and constitutes a violation of these TOS. Any violation of copyright laws may be subject to severe civil and criminal penalties.

[vjpixylight]

so who do I contact to get permission? It's easy to say, ooo you can't use that it's copyrighted...
But how to get fair use of what is copyrighted is a whole different ball of wax. As Artists, we can make use of "Fair Use" (http://www.cybertelecom.org/ip/fair.htm)(or in my case, James D. Fair Use:))
But has anyone here on these forums ever explored how to get paid use of copyrighted materials from a movie? If so come forward and let us know how??
Till then, I will go under the assumption that I can recontextualize a movie clip under "James D. Fair Use"(in my case) and if there is a question of Fair Use, let the courts decide...

[Kyle]

You can try asking one of these fine retailers where they get permission.

http://images.publicradio.org/content/2005/09/26/20050926_dvd_gettyid53138139_18.jpg

[vjpixylight]

retailers buy a license to play dvd's(in order to promote sales of such..
I'm not retailing movies, I'm remixing them;)

[evomedia]

Pixy there is plenty of places to get permission, you can contact the company for a start and ask, getting permission is hardly impossible its just that if your looking at hollywood or major corporately owned material then the cost is too expensive. Secondly the copyright holder will often have a clause saying you cannot re edit or recontexualise there work, thats their choice pixy so you wont get permission.

You can winge but thats what the creators often want and its not your place to complain unless your the copyright holder. After all its their work, they created it, who are you to say whether their descision is right or wrong?

Pixy if you make your own footage then you can let who ever you like re use it, you can create whatever restriction you want, but if your using other peoples work then you should learn to respect other artists wishes, they are jjust trying to make a living and their copyright is their only defense.

Your hardly promoting their movie if your only concern is getting footage for no cost, without even asking them, they wont view it as promoting their work, just copyright infringement...

If you want to remix a movie then why not just email the studio, company, director, distributers and say you would like to remix the movie?

All i hear is just use what you like... but why not simply ask first?

I know a few VJ collective who have been given permission to remix a film by the studio so hardly impossible

[vjpixylight]

That's all good Evo, if I were simply remixing the whole 2 hours of a hollywood movie. What if I just want 10 seconds of the video only, and if I take 10 seconds of the movie to remix,(use) for non profit. How much is that worth, and who is the judge of what it is worth? I can come up with a fair $$ amount, but it probably won't match what the movie company would want.
I understand that remaking 2 hours of Shriek by putting a serpia filter on it and then selling the reconstituted movie might be upsetting to hollywood, but where does fair use draw the line? What if you want to protest a hollywood movie by remixing it? Am I not allowed to protest say, "The Thorn" because their is inconsistency in the material presented?

[vjpixylight]

For instance is this illegal, and if so, why has not something been done about it?
http://www.vimeo.com/2809991

[vjpixylight]

Mickey doesn't look so flattering here...
http://www.vimeo.com/3693299
Is this copyright infringement?

[evomedia]

Thats not what I'm saying pixy, the point is that the arguement always is based on views that are not tested, do you know how much your clips would cost if cleared? have you enquired? have you just asked the studio? have you made any attempt beyond presuming? do you even know who clears clips?

There is no business sense in argueing vj's can use whatever they want, charge for sets commerical but feel that the copyright somehow only applies to other people, if you do any commercial work then your in a totally different boat if it went to court compared to a youtube video that is not commercial, they will ask did you make any attempt to clear the clips?

Regardless of the law, what about trying to arrange a call with a studios pr or marketing department, try and sell the idea of creating a buzz or would it be possible to create an artistic homage of your favorite clips if you provide them a list of what you would like to use, maybe explain its not for profit and ask if they can they maybe help out. Surely its better to try first before just ignoring the copyright/performance issues.

Its the no effort put in but still feel its ok to winge about it thats my issue, if a vj is using copyrighted clip commercially its going to be an impossible defense saying its art if caught. Fair enough... but complaining about copyright without ever actually trying to work within it isn't really helping VJ's with possible solutions. Maybe giving a more creative approach to clearing footage is more useful.

There are commercial film makers, animators and studios that do clear clips legally so to say its impossible is really saying I can't be arsed to find out or even try. Adverts often have samples of films, they clear those, so someone can give permission, its entirely possible with the right approach you could talk to the copyright holders and sell them a concept, get them involved with a cause, or show them potential benefits. What about just writing to the director and explain what you want to do?

[vjpixylight]

YouTube - A Fair(y) Use Tale


I have emailed Disney about this, and got no response...(apparently they only deal with lawyers..)
If I where to pay for a cleared clip, I would want the actual film clip, and they didn't have a response...
...so I have to go with this for my reasoning to use film clips:)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/business/media/24crank.html

[evomedia]

That article still says though

Disney’s view is starkly different: any unauthorized use of Disney property is stealing. Still, the company picks its battles carefully. While it closely monitors the Web for infractions, Disney will not discuss how it evaluates potential cases of copyright infringement and declined to comment on the “Crank That” videos.

As for the disney video, I posted it orginally on vjforums, out of interest the creator is a stanford professor who bought a movie theatre and feel copyright restricts his creativity, largely because he couldn't screen films for free. He has recieved massive backlash from regular film makers over many of his views as well as priase from others. It highlights an issue agreed, but copyright is also their for a reason.

I still say that the message of the film is that copyright is unfair to the non-copyright holder, which I just think is false. Its never the copyright holders who people side with even though its their work.

[vjpixylight]

I guess what I am saying, in regards to this post, Is that no one here can really say if it is illegal or not to use video / movie clips, because no one here knows how seandell plans to use them.
There are plenty of legit ways to use video / movie clips as pointed out by the video's I've posted..

[evomedia]

I guess what I am saying, in regards to this post, Is that no one here can really say if it is illegal or not to use video / movie clips, because no one here knows how seandell plans to use them

I can say its 100% illegal in regards to commercial vjing pixy, fair use cannot be commercial. Also fair use does not relate outside the US, there is no fair use law anywhere else in the world and even fair use doesn't cover most vj use.

So argueing vj's have fair use rights is not really helpful, just because companies are not pursuing vj's does not make it legal. Not knowing how to clear them is different from saying its legal. Saying its fair use will not stand up in a courtroom... Legal or Illegal is different from your not likely to get caught or punished, its still illegal.

So lets just be honest, you think people should use them because the risk is so small and they should do want they like, pointless argueing its legal, when everyone knows its copyright infringement, its in the copyright notice if you read them, no unauthourised copying in full or even in part. There is always performance clauses, commercial use messages... we break them all,

Will I get caught...probably not, but legal...no

[vjpixylight]

not sure what you mean by commercial VJing?? I didn't read anything about commercial VJ clips wanted..
Also, seandell was asking where he might buy clips, and or DL them.
Also, where do you get the notion fair use cannot be commercial?
Just go to any of those clips I posted links to, and show me where there are no commercial exploitation..
If remixing in this way didn't have commercial value, we would be seeing it.
Thanks for the story about that Stanford professor. Do you have another link to it?

[asterix]

For instance is this illegal, and if so, why has not something been done about it?


Pixxy lets face it, the big boys aren't concentrating on every little abuse of their copyrighted material. Take for example file sharing sites like pirate bay - they're waiting until they're big enough to a)sue them for big $$ and b) make a public example of them. If they went after every little one they'd go broke in the process and end up no-where because you chop one down - 100 more take their place.

My point is they can only ask vimeo/youtube to take to movie down but even thats a full time job for a few dozen staff at least to police properly.

Same goes with vjing with C material - yeah you'll get away with it - until you play it at a large and profitable festival and be the big one they've been waiting to screw.

There is no 'fair use' unless you adhere to the original copy-right holders conditions for use of the content. They invest millions in even a 'brown paper' budget flick these days, and it's our right to take it - why?

You are right however - why aren't we discussing 'how' is it possible to do so legally and with consent? But at the end of the day direct sharing/dissemination of C material is still a liability vjf is still probably best to do without.

[deqn]

this subject itches me a lot too and I'm happy to read a discussion that involves both sides and gives their honest motivations :)

the way i feel things is there are two parallel worlds that we live in. the one where people go in to exploit and thus profit and another one where people go in to create. and there are laws like the copyright one to keep the balance and the society ending into one of the extremes and falling apart.

on theory the copyright law (before all amendments) is to protect creators from being exploited but that was around 16th century in uk. disney and all nowadays corporations are dealing with culture for pure honest profit - and they use copyright to protect their interest, not to protect culture.
but so they prosecute (through this law or other means) only people that harm their interest. they will prosecute only if they feel they would have been able exploit your exploitation of their intellectual property.

so if you are vjing or remixing videos with the motivation to exploit or help someone to exploit culture you are definitely in their world and will have to play by these rules.

then the second world comes in - where people's motivation is to create culture. creating even the smallest idea is always a remix, it's a mix of references to some public/shared understanding between you and your audience... just like disney can't create anything of interest without remixing references to public/social values -sometimes whole fairytales, sometimes just the kids' love for toy robots of the fear of cockroaches.

the fair user tries to keep the balance between privatizing social references and the freedom to remix them. corporations use it in their interest too. because if you remix some of their property, not profit from it, and this causes a buzz amongst their audience - it's just like doing some marketing work for them for free. it also creates some new culture that is public and later can be exploited too. the Crank Thatremix and youtube as whole fall in that position, and that's why they survive. youtube now do tries to make profit and so all media companies want to exploit it too. but they are not after the people that post on youtube, they are after youtube's profits only. and i think that's why i've never heard of a vj being prosecuted because they have been mixing copyrighted material on a free festival somewhere in the forest. but once these vjs and festivals start charging and get sponsors it switches to the other world.

again technically, these festivals are always on land that is covered by the copyright and fair use laws. but the only person that says if it was legal use or was infringement is the judge in the court. and by law it is totally legal to use any material until that judgement. so don't be afraid using anything you feel is fair to be used. the fear factor is the one that helps exploit culture much more than and law can help.

last thing - it is not true that fair use doesn't exist out of the states. in many countries in europe the fair use covers much more use. and in the most of the rest world copyright is very different concept and so the law is used only in cases when the states presure the country with sanctions unless it gets rid of someone that harms their profit. the reason thepiratebay is in sweden is because there's no law there that makes facilitating of distribution of copyright material illegal.

anyway, why not leave the legal matter to people that enjoy using it and play with what we like more :D

[vjpixylight]

my point with posting those vids, is that by using Fair Use, these videos make an extremely entertaining use of icon's that would only see the light of day under "Fair Use". Copyright only serves to stiffle creativeness like this, and, at the end of the day, keeps art only in the hands of the rich.

[evomedia]

my point with posting those vids, is that by using Fair Use, these videos make an extremely entertaining use of icon's that would only see the light of day under "Fair Use". Copyright only serves to stiffle creativeness like this, and, at the end of the day, keeps art only in the hands of the rich.

Problem is pixy copyright isn't just about hollywood and disney, I own copyright on my work, now I'm not a major studio, and my content is how I make a living. My Copyright is not about stiffling YOUR creativity, its about protecting MY content which is the same as my living. Easy for non creators so say its their creative rights, when they are taking the money out of the real creators pocket. Yes disney may be able to afford it, but how on earth do you draw the line?

So you feel its against YOUR creativity, I spent years making orginal content but I simply don't want to share with you or anyone, its my work, it earns me the money I have to pay bills with. Why should I care about other peoples creativity when they steal my content, I can choose to sell it IF i wish, I can give it away IF i wish, but I don't think its your inate right to steal my work against mywishes. As a creator I expressley do not wish it to be used, copied or remixed... thats my choice, what right do you have to ignore my wishes when your using my hard work? What if I spend 5 years making an AV set that I plan to make 100% of my living from, then someone rips it and plays it out themselves? it was my creativity to make it not theirs, and potentially makes 5 years investment worthless.... its ok to say its fair use for the people who stole it, god forbid I somehow crushed their creativity but sorry I don't want people using it.

If other vj's just rip all my work off in the names of their creativity? Its still the work that I earn a living from, all that will happen is I'll be undercut, because they have had no expenses in its production.

If I want to have remixes done I can release what I want to see remixed, but I don't agree you or anyone has right to use my work without even asking me. Just because corporations have more money the argument is the same, my problem is that the samplers view is they have rights to everything, but fail to see that they may really be damaging the real creators.

Take this as an example of why I'm not with the concept of across the board sampling, I'm a graphic designer, I have a portfolio, its that which dictates my salary when applying for jobs, 2 years ago, I found my work in a cv another designer had submitted, turns out most of the work he was passing off as his own was stolen from other designers. Now why is copyright bad for creators in that scenario? Most copyright is there to protect the content creators because 99% of sampling is nothing to do with creativity, a rare few may add something, but most rips are because people want something for nothing, only a rare few actually add something worthwhile.

[Liquidmetro]

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use

1.What is fair use?
In copyright law, there is a concept of fair use, also known as; free use, fair dealing, or fair practice.
Fair use sets out certain actions that may be carried out, but would not normally be regarded as an infringement of the work.
The idea behind this is that if copyright laws are too restrictive, it may stifle free speech, news reporting, or result in disproportionate penalties for inconsequential or accidental inclusion.

2.What does fair use allow?
Under fair use rules, it may be possible to use quotations or excerpts, where the work has been made available to the public, (i.e. published). Provided that:
oThe use is deemed acceptable under the terms of fair dealing.
oThat the quoted material is justified, and no more than is necessary is included.
oThat the source of the quoted material is mentioned, along with the name of the author.

3.Typical free uses of work include:
oInclusion for the purpose of news reporting.
oIncidental inclusion.
oNational laws typically allow limited private and educational use.

4.What is incidental inclusion?
This is where part of a work is unintentionally included. A typical examples of this would be a case where holiday movie inadvertently captured part of a copyright work, such as some background music, or a poster that just happened to on a wall in the background.

5.Points to keep in mind...
The actual specifics of what is acceptable will be governed by national laws, and although broadly similar, actual provision will vary from country to country.
Cases dealing with fair dealing can be complex, as decisions are based on individual circumstances and judgements. This can be a very difficult area of copyright law.
To avoid problems, if you are in any doubt, you are advised to always get the permission of the owner, prior to use.

Also see derivative works:
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p22_derivative_works

[vjpixylight]

I see your point Evo, but at the same time is your work iconic enuf to rip off?
I don't see how fair use would even apply here.
Fair use is intended to take iconic media into a different place. to re-order the thoughts of what is being sold to the masses.
Are you saying that your copyrighted work does that?

[Liquidmetro]

I see your point Evo, but at the same time is your work iconic enuf to rip off?
I don't see how fair use would even apply here.
Fair use is intended to take iconic media into a different place. to re-order the thoughts of what is being sold to the masses.
Are you saying that your copyrighted work does that?

If the author chooses to protect via copyright, then whether or not it has iconic status is irrelevant.

Fair use is not 'intended to take iconic media into a different place':
The idea behind this is that if copyright laws are too restrictive, it may stifle free speech, news reporting, or result in disproportionate penalties for inconsequential or accidental inclusion.

I am looking forward to see if we can figure out how fair use applies in certain VJ situations. So far we are clear with creative commons licencing, purchased loops etc, but need to drill down further.

[evomedia]

Two debates goin on, Fair use and copyright

My issue is that the term fair use is becoming an excuse for people to sample anything, I can find footage on p2p, I've no idea if its copyrighted, stock footage, who made it, what it was called even. I've seen VJ's with thousands of samples, even been along side 2 VJs with the same samples, they just trawl p2p and download anything thats video and will happily say its fair use. Now I know YOU may create something worthwhile, but in reality I see very few VJ's putting in the time to really use fair use as a legitimate excuse. They just play it out straight, no alteration because everyone says do what you like no one gets caught.

Number of clips is far more important to many new VJ's, so with people here keep saying its ok no one gets done for copyright, its far from easy for them to make a distinction based on fair usage. Fair usage seems to mean everythings fair game these days, I simply dont see people drawing a line over what they sample.

[vjpixylight]

If the author chooses to protect via copyright, then whether or not it has iconic status is irrelevant.

Fair use is not 'intended to take iconic media into a different place':
The idea behind this is that if copyright laws are too restrictive, it may stifle free speech, news reporting, or result in disproportionate penalties for inconsequential or accidental inclusion.

I am looking forward to see if we can figure out how fair use applies in certain VJ situations. So far we are clear with creative commons licencing, purchased loops etc, but need to drill down further.

by different places, I would say that opening up restrictive use of copyright is indeed a different place, as is fair use in regards to freedom of speech.

Copyright owners have a way to restrict the use of their copyrighted material, it's called a "Cease and Desist Order".

here (http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm#test) is a more informative approach to "Fair Use". For VJ situations, the idea of the good faith fair use defense is a starting point... (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/504.html)

[vjpixylight]

Two debates goin on, Fair use and copyright

My issue is that the term fair use is becoming an excuse for people to sample anything, I can find footage on p2p, I've no idea if its copyrighted, stock footage, who made it, what it was called even. I've seen VJ's with thousands of samples, even been along side 2 VJs with the same samples, they just trawl p2p and download anything thats video and will happily say its fair use. Now I know YOU may create something worthwhile, but in reality I see very few VJ's putting in the time to really use fair use as a legitimate excuse. They just play it out straight, no alteration because everyone says do what you like no one gets caught.

Number of clips is far more important to many new VJ's, so with people here keep saying its ok no one gets done for copyright, its far from easy for them to make a distinction based on fair usage. Fair usage seems to mean everythings fair game these days, I simply dont see people drawing a line over what they sample.

This might be true, but it then becomes a judgement call. If these new VJ's use Fair Use of anything they can find, does that make them better VJ's than original content producing VJ's? I think not. They might be able to undercut the original content producing VJ's, but they hardly have a leg to stand on when it comes to releasing any of their VJ shows. In the short term they might seem to be getting something for nothing, but in the long run do they?
If you can't sell your work(because it isn't yours) then what good is it really?

[Liquidmetro]

I agree evo. I do still use others clips and have them organised on my HDD with the original authors name and title etc.

VJ_Loops_Community -> 384x288 PJPEG -> Analog Recycling VJ Loops II -> AR_8BIT_1.mov (good example as I'm sure these are among the first to be donwloaded!!
VJ_Loops_Purchased ->
VJ_Loops_Liquidmetro ->

When I build my sets to play out they remain in this location so I can easily recall a set and what clips I used. The set file (.md8) is minimal size and I keep them logged in the event name folder with logo's, DJ set times etc and named by event name and date.

All the clips are on the creative commons licences or similar.

I would like to share my original clips, but there is something stopping me. The creative commons licencing. I would want to use Attribution Share Alike, to allow people to remix, alter adapt and perform, but how do I stop someone colourising them as mentioned earlier and then selling them? I can't use the non-commercial one as we all get paid for performing (well if not you should).....tricky. I might borrow the Analog Recycling licence info under fair use :D

Could we move half of the thread to a new one 'Copyright, Creative Commons and Fair Use' and have a redirect link from the bottom of the original thread???

[Liquidmetro]

Thanks LEVLHED :up:

[vjpixylight]

Problem is pixy copyright isn't just about hollywood and disney, I own copyright on my work, now I'm not a major studio, and my content is how I make a living. My Copyright is not about stiffling YOUR creativity, its about protecting MY content which is the same as my living. Easy for non creators so say its their creative rights, when they are taking the money out of the real creators pocket. Yes disney may be able to afford it, but how on earth do you draw the line?

So you feel its against YOUR creativity, I spent years making orginal content but I simply don't want to share with you or anyone, its my work, it earns me the money I have to pay bills with. Why should I care about other peoples creativity when they steal my content, I can choose to sell it IF i wish, I can give it away IF i wish, but I don't think its your inate right to steal my work against mywishes. As a creator I expressley do not wish it to be used, copied or remixed... thats my choice, what right do you have to ignore my wishes when your using my hard work? What if I spend 5 years making an AV set that I plan to make 100% of my living from, then someone rips it and plays it out themselves? it was my creativity to make it not theirs, and potentially makes 5 years investment worthless.... its ok to say its fair use for the people who stole it, god forbid I somehow crushed their creativity but sorry I don't want people using it.

If other vj's just rip all my work off in the names of their creativity? Its still the work that I earn a living from, all that will happen is I'll be undercut, because they have had no expenses in its production.

If I want to have remixes done I can release what I want to see remixed, but I don't agree you or anyone has right to use my work without even asking me. Just because corporations have more money the argument is the same, my problem is that the samplers view is they have rights to everything, but fail to see that they may really be damaging the real creators.

Take this as an example of why I'm not with the concept of across the board sampling, I'm a graphic designer, I have a portfolio, its that which dictates my salary when applying for jobs, 2 years ago, I found my work in a cv another designer had submitted, turns out most of the work he was passing off as his own was stolen from other designers. Now why is copyright bad for creators in that scenario? Most copyright is there to protect the content creators because 99% of sampling is nothing to do with creativity, a rare few may add something, but most rips are because people want something for nothing, only a rare few actually add something worthwhile.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever lost work with other VJ's getting the job by using your content?

[deqn]

liquidmetro - to restrict someone for colouring your clips and then selling them you should use creative commons - attribution,non-commercial, share alike license. this makes sure that anyone using your clips has right to use or remix them but not to profit or help someone else profit (like use the clips on sponsored event or in tv ad) and so they can't sell them in any way. then when whatever they do with this clips (vj with them for example) they have no right to copyright this vj mix they made. they have to share alike - make it available for anyone to use for any non-commercial reasons.

releasing your clips under this license doesn't limit your ownership in any way. so you can still use them for any commercial event you like, sell them if you like as well. creative commons license is not a license that overrides the copyright, it's just gives legal clearance for your clips to be used for some cases without the user having to specially contact you for permission. it's like you have your clips copyrighted and you have granted permission to any non-commercial user in the world to use them for free.

i do publish my clips exactly under this license. i think it's the fairest one available. i like to give the freedom to the artists that create and remix for the culture, not for personal wealth. and for the ones that like to play the usual mutual exploitation game everything is the usual way, they have to pay lawyers and collect permission papers :banghead: ah and pay licenses.


evomedia, i totally agree that artists shouldn't starve and should be able to pay their bills. and that it is not fair anyone to spend 5 years creating something and than someone to rip it, sell it and take the benefits. but what do you loose if someone takes it and plays it somewhere to bring joy to some people and profits nothing out of it. if it was to be paid clearly this someone would not have bought it, and brought joy to that people so i see how society loses out of it? one showcase less doesn't change much but when everyone restricts any but for profit use, people end up just consuming blockbusters and celebrities and avoid independent productions like yours even more.

or do you think there's another way for the creatives to get the wealth they deserve without the side effects of suffocating public culture and monopolising distributors with lawyer armies?

[evomedia]

Not so much in VJing yet pixy, but had several dealings regarding copyright when talking graphics, I also know many designers and creators who have had work ripped off, so the problems are very real for creators.

As i said even had a designer send me his CV which had my own work in it lol, I've working in companies where getty have sued over uncleared content. Had work stollen by companies who ask for a visual then take that visual to a cheaper freelancer and just use it without any alteration.

I used to do illustration and know of an awful lot of people who have needed the protection of copyright. 15 years ago, oxford uni press were hiring illustrators not paying them and then just using the work but adding maybe a sun in the sky and claiming it was not the same so not subject to copyright.

If you experience a tenth of the copyright experience i've had to deal with you may look differently at the subject, as in my book copyright has only ever helped, the only one it didn't was the getty case, but the content had not been cleared and they paid the price....which was um....very very steep.

[vjpixylight]

I totally agree with you deqn, with the use of creative commons licensing.
I decided to do that with these (http://www.vimeo.com/groups/vjfilmclips) film clips, which have taken years to acumilate, and plenty of work to telecine and cutup into VJ clips.
I am doing this because I am more interested in seeing what can be made with them rather than how much money they could make me...

[Liquidmetro]

liquidmetro - to restrict someone for colouring your clips and then selling them you should use creative commons - attribution,non-commercial, share alike license. this makes sure that anyone using your clips has right to use or remix them but not to profit or help someone else profit (like use the clips on sponsored event or in tv ad) and so they can't sell them in any way. then when whatever they do with this clips (vj with them for example) they have no right to copyright this vj mix they made. they have to share alike - make it available for anyone to use for any non-commercial reasons.

releasing your clips under this license doesn't limit your ownership in any way. so you can still use them for any commercial event you like, sell them if you like as well. creative commons license is not a license that overrides the copyright, it's just gives legal clearance for your clips to be used for some cases without the user having to specially contact you for permission. it's like you have your clips copyrighted and you have granted permission to any non-commercial user in the world to use them for free.

i do publish my clips exactly under this license. i think it's the fairest one available. i like to give the freedom to the artists that create and remix for the culture, not for personal wealth. and for the ones that like to play the usual mutual exploitation game everything is the usual way, they have to pay lawyers and collect permission papers :banghead: ah and pay licenses.

I like the licence, but what happens when someone uses my clips at a gig they are being paid for...isn't that then commercial so breaching the licence? I don't mind people playing out with my stuff after I have chosen to share it, but don't want them to violate the terms of use.

[vjpixylight]

LM, you need to put that situation into context..
If a vj uses a clip that you have made with CC license, and is getting paid for the gig, what about the pay he/she gets for using their gear, the setup time, and all the clips that they may have made?
seems like using a 5 sec. clip within hours of playing and expecting more they they are making for the whole night is a bit unfair as well..

[Liquidmetro]

I understand that you are proportionally adjusting the VJ payment to cover all aspects that the VJ is hired for equipment, time, content etc etc. But black and white it is a breach as they are using them for a commercial purpose i.e. a paid performance.

I don't mind if they use 5 secs or a whole set based on my stuff - could be interesting to see it getting remixed and used differently.

If I release them I want to have the correct licence, not one that means they breach the terms if they are a paid VJ. The Creative Commons ones fall short of this.

If they put them on sale via a DVD or Website then that is a separate matter and would be a breach which I would act upon.

[vjpixylight]

AFAIK, Andy Warhol didn't own the rights to the Marilyn Monroe photo that made him an Icon.. he only colorized the photo and made millions...
http://www.webexhibits.org/colorart/marilyns.html

[deqn]

i was just digging around the net to find more out about how CC-BY-non-commercial-SA is applied if a vj gets paid for mixing using such licensed clips. the clearest comparison i found with if a teacher is covered by that license to use such clips in school. some think that because the teacher is paid and the school is paid to supply education, be it by taxes, it is not covered, and what is covered is only if money are not involved in the whole supply chain. others think that non-commercial should be understood as not-for-profit - that is it's ok to involve money but just to the extend to cover the costs. non-profit is well defined in most countries as they as subject to completely different legislation than commercial entities.

i personally understand it as not-for-profit and so don't mind vj to get paid and use these clips, as much as that vj does invest what he earns in more not-for-profit culture rather than luxury car.

the people discussing it on other forums agree that there is not a clear line how non-commercial in creative commons is defined. but is that not the case with most laws? it again comes down to the motivation of the creator and the sense of the judge. if my motivation is profit i can maybe find good lawyers and persuade the court that liquidmetro quoting me two posts above is infringement and not fair use :) but if my motivation is to support cultural development, i won't be after anyone that helps that cause, no matter if that helper infringes some laws. and i'll try to make it clear that i won't prosecute them to encourage them to use my clips with such motivation.

anyway, the creative commons has started to review the definition of their non-commercial use and may change it soon... but do you believe legal matter will ever replace

pixie - i think it is totally fair if a vj uses even 5 sec of clips licensed with CC share alike than the whole mix should be available with the same license. i think this is just the same logic as madonna dancing for 5 sec in her video and the rest showing brake dancers that are nothing but street culture and then she claiming copyright on the whole video. :D

[vjpixylight]

exactly deqn, Fair Use would also imply fair usage of payable rights if I was interpreting what the law is on these matters..
lets face it, Copyright law is as tricky as Tax law. Each case should be judge on a case by case review, and there should be nothing in copyright that says one size fits all...Black, White, and all those colorizations in between:)

[deqn]

i agree too pixy. when i use copyrighted material i always try to use common sense rather than social pressure. i'm very happy to use clips of little known movies, old and new, that are not well know but have touched me with the idea that someone watching will have seen it and it will i will send their mind in the movie's vibe and make them rethink it while their minds are most open. and that the clips i use will inspire someone else to dig this movie out when they get home next day and watch it. in both ways my using of the movie clips totally relies on the person seeing the movie before or after the night, and so it can only help to spread the message of the creators and even maybe sell few of their dvds. but than i get to like movies that usually promote sharing and compassion anyway so their authors are probably rather happy of their work being infringed that in any way.
just as example - one of the more popular movies i'd use clips from is "the fountain" - beautiful visuals with just as beautiful story. at a night another vj was using clips from the same movie so i was saying to my friend - look that's the fountain! we started chatting about it and two more people got talking with us and later the other vj and his friend too. so at least few people discovered it and got positive feedback from a firend, something they may never had a chat about otherwise. i'm sure this definitely will help next time they are in the dvd shop and wonder which title to choose.

amazingly in one of the links you've posted it was saying that fair use doesn't have to be non-commercial at all. it helps but if the reason to use it is considered fair, it will be under fair use even if you sell the result... but i believe even if the law clears some use, if this use harms the creators motivation to create (which not exactly as to profit) than it also harms the social culture as whole and in effect you are kicking your own chair. so not the law but your motivation is what makes it good copy or bad copy (http://www.goodcopybadcopy.net/) :D

[evomedia]

Discussing the fact you dont get paid much is not classed as 'not for profit ' and does not change the law, any infringement can be enforced, regardless of what you guys views are, the reasons simple, you do not have a leg to stand on if the copyright holder decides to make an example of you. There is no real defense as the copyright holder has all the rights not you. Its their work not yours.

You may see it as common sense or that you are not really making any profit or only used 5 minutes. But all that makes zero difference if the copyright holder wants to enforce his rights. If its someone elses work, they own the rights and do not wish you or anyone else to use it without their consent or viewed you made no effort to purchasing the rights, it will make no difference whatsoever to say its your creative right, or you dont get paid much. Its all in the rights holder hands... if they want to take it to court they will win.

Structures do exist to legitimately clear content, true for VJ's thats cost prohibitive, but that does not change the fact you could clear clips, so regardless of what you say in terms of the law, the fact will remain that you didn't follow the correct proceedure. If you can't afford it...don't use it. There is plenty of content that is affordable.

[deqn]

Evo, i would not agree the situation is as extreme as you present it. the US copyright law together with the fair use do allow in certain cases someone's work to be used without their agreement and even against their desire to not let anyone use it. most european laws do allow this to even greater extent. there are many cases where the the court have ruled against the copyright owner.

i totally agree that it is ridiculous for anyone to use your work to profit and harm your profit. but the fair use is not for such cases. it is for cases when someone uses your work to enrich society and it's culture without harming you. the copyright and all laws as a general are there to protect balance in a society, and protect individuals only when it's in the interest of that society (only in totalitarian regimes laws protect individuals from the society).

i do agree there's conflict of interests regarding the protection of intellectual property nowdays as a result of the copyright laws failing to preserve this balance. and i think not far from now the copyright laws will be changed. that's why it's important to discuss this and reach a sweet spot :)

what rules do you evo see as capable to protect your interest in creating culture for living, while protecting culture from being privatised and monopolised and so keep all artists that want to participate happy too?

[evomedia]

Deqn, I agree their is an increasing pressure on copyright reform, and the vj is probably caught at the most extreme end, don't get me wrong I'd love to be able to use iconic footage legally, but copyright law isn't the issue fully, its no licensing types that suit the remixer, however those T&C's are the creators rights, it was their decision that that content specifically be used in a certain way. They could put in permissions to use it how you want, but they choose not too. Audio sampling lawsuits highlighted the same issue a good twenty years ago for the music biz, and audio copyright and licensing did change to a certain degree.

I know full well that chances of winning a copyright case is pretty slim if it came down to it. Your welcome to test it, try building your set out of disney footage and get someone to tip them off and see how you fair. I wouldn't like to be in that boat.

As it is copyright is not just a demon against creatives, after all there are hundreds of thousands of illustrators, designers, production studios, and publishers who work quite happily within the current law, its only home grown artists, Vj and those without the capital behind them who view it as restrictive. There has been thousands of cases where copyright has protected the small time creators like you or me, cases where big corps have felt the sting of the small fry creators when the case happens the other way round. Imagine if a major ad agency just used your work straight out as an advert, you'd be the first in court... the laws not just their to protect disney or hollywood, but you, me and every other content creator.

The point is that culture is privatised, if it wasn't there would not be any content creation companies for you to sample from... copyright is their to protect the people who actually make the work. Without it then it opens up the world to even more piracy (not remixing) but actual privacy.

When you say only in totalitarian regimes laws protect individuals from the society, thats not what I think at all, I want the law to protect ME, its nothing to do with protecting society, I made it.. its my work, if everyone just can use whatever they like of mine for free, kill my ability to earn from my skills, its simple, I'd have to stop producing commercially, same goes for all production, the cost of making something has to be recouped, and production is very very expensive. If you devalue that content the creators will no longer be able to support its production.

As it is I dont care about fair use, I could release it under CC, or even specify in the terms it has performance rights or can be manipulated, if I do not want those terms then I still fail to see why you have any right to ignore my express wishes in regards to my work. Thats why there even is a T&C's attached to footage, the creator made a descision, if they state no copying or manipulation they conciously made that choice.

You can't claim its fair use if I expressely state I do not wish it used in that way. The descision should always lay in the creators hands. If you don't agree you need to discuss it with the creator. I still think that people make zero effort in clearing content, or even attempt to do a deal with the owner. The idea of a remix can be a powerful PR tool for some so maybe attempt to sell them the idea... presuming its your right to I find shakey ground especially when the copyright holder specifically stated in the terms that the content not be used in that way.

The problem comes from those who think all culture should be free for the good of society, but then most of those have a job they live on, if your living is producing cultural work like art or design you need to have value attached to what you do else you would starve. Why would hollywood spend 100 million a film if society should then have it for free?

[sleepytom]

The thing is that you cannot easily clear clips for VJing. Re-editing and repetative use of short clips by VJs is not something that the major film studios have a suitable licence framework in place for. It is easy (if expensive) to get permission to publicly screen a whole film. It is also possible to licence exerpts for a film for use in a broadcast TV product such as a documentory. However it is much harder to get permission for VJ use as their is no established framework for negociating such useage.

Its a cop-out to say "Structures do exist to legitimately clear content, true for VJ's thats cost prohibitive, but that does not change the fact you could clear clips," as this simply isn't true - whilst there are structures to clear content for the majority of normal uses VJing is not a normal use of content and as such the current structures do not provide a suitable framework for the licencing of work for use by VJs.

Efforts to talk to studios in regard to this issue have not been very fruitful, the cost of paying the lawers to draw up a suitable licencing agreement is larger than the likely income from any such agreement and thus it is not econmically viable for studios to licence footage to VJs even if the studios wish to.

In the meantime enfringement of copyright become the only viable route for VJs who wish to use sampling as part of their performance. Whilst it is true that people who follow this route are breaking the law, that in itself doesn't really have any bearing on the creative / artisitic processes involoved in sampling.

Evo is clouding the issue i feel as the points he raises are not really related to VJing. Much of it is simply not the case for hollywood level productions anyway. The "creators" involved in a hollywood film DO NOT have control over the copyright. The copyright on most commercial productions is owned by the studios or design houses which employ the artists, copyright is not held by the artists themselves.


As it is copyright is not just a demon against creatives, after all there are hundreds of thousands of illustrators, designers, production studios, and publishers who work quite happily within the current law this is also not relevant to VJing as people working in more traditional mediums such as print or broadcast tv CAN use samples or images from films without too much trouble simply by getting rights to the images through the established channels for their medium. As they can license images for incorporation into their work there is not the same restriction on creativity that there is in mediums where there is no established licensing framework in place.

[evomedia]

In the meantime enfringement of copyright become the only viable route for VJs who wish to use sampling as part of their performance. Whilst it is true that people who follow this route are breaking the law, that in itself doesn't really have any bearing on the creative / artisitic processes involoved in sampling.

I totally agree tom, my problem is not really with sampling, its with people saying its ok legally because its fair use, currently it is illegal in regards to VJ's charging for sets without having rights to perform the content, I don't see why we always have to debate that.

I agree clearing content is highly improbable for VJ's, but I do not agree that somehow lack of money or not suitable licencing makes it legal

Yes there is no established licensing framework in place for those on a budget. Yes sampling is creative in certain hands, but legal no, and no one should say it is. The fact its near on impossible to legally clear it 'on a budget ' is not the same as people have the right to perform that material in the eyes of the law.

As it is, there must be a process to use a small part of a film as adverts do just that, its more that its too expensive as said.

But lets face it, copyright clearence aint designed to help people earning next to no money, from a studios point of view they see no value in opening up their terms for the samplers, and until they see value in changing T&Cs they are unlikely to make any effort. VJ's are in a odd situation in that technically they are generally commercial entities but in reality are not generally profitable. I would say though I doubt a vast majority of vj's even do accounts , pax tax, or declare earnings, if it was me I wouldn't like to be flouting any laws if I was in that situation, as any investigation into are you non profit or commercial may lead many VJ's to a nasty experience with the tax man. Lack of accounts aint likely to do any favours in court.

[vjpixylight]

Evo, do you then support compulsory licensing plans? Do you think that this is the way forward?

[evomedia]

Actually pixy the compulsory license plan doesn't change the issues in this arguement, the proposal in current forms is about generating income from
p2p file downloads but thats unlikely to help VJ's, any compulsary license will still not include public performance rights or manupulation. It can't as the value of the work is often in the distribution deals, you'll not be able to screen films publically for free, that kills all box office and turns the film industry into bankrupt one, so I guarentee performance rights will be omitted. Its just aimed at charging p2p networks a compulsary license for every song or film they distribute, so still wont help samplers redistribute remixes, or allow public performance. Also I bet the compulsory license for distributers will still be costly and out of the league of a individual.

The rights to use work commercially will still involve paying additional rights.

[vjpixylight]

I'm glad that you would not then support the expansion of compulsory licensing plans If I understand you right.
Just one look at the hoops one must jump thru when performing a "cover" of copyrighted audio (http://cdbaby.net/dd-covers) (and this only deals within the US), and we can see how much trouble it would be.
Just think of going thru all of this to perform as a VJ, a cover of say "the yellow submarine".
Maybe a "Compulsory Fair Use License" could be hammered out to assure copyright holders that Fair Use of their works would be paid?
Maybe outlined similar to this plan... (http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/11/fixing-the-clear-mismatch-between-technology-and-copyright-law-6-ideas.ars)

[evomedia]

Still find it wierd that the compulsory license is largely being pushed forward by ex napster and kazaa people.

[vjpixylight]

The fact remains the same Evo, either a catch all plan(compulsory), or an adequate "Fair Use" plan, is going to have to be adopted. That is, if you want copyright reform to move forward..

[evomedia]

Honestly Pixy, neither system will help VJ's, the proceedure to arrange copyright clearance or performance rights for commercial usage is and always will be decided by the creator, fair use or a one capture all system is only designed to tackle non commercial use, personal backups or p2p distribution.

Neither of these reforms will impact at all on the problems VJ's suffer because:

1 We are commerical in the eyes of the law as we get paid
2 Public performance rights are not or ever will be covered in either license
3 Using samples in commercial work will always require different licensing as its dependant on too many factors

I agree the current price structure need to be addressed by dont think either proposal will make any difference to that side of things.

What you want is cheap sampling and performance rights that are easy to obtain, on say clips under 10 seconds, but don't see that coming anytime soon.

[sleepytom]

please stop saying "Creator" when you mean "Copyright Holder" the 2 are massivly different and the distiction is a very important one.

Moving forward could the answer not come from a PRS type scheme where venues have to pay a licence to display video work? Creators of video works could join the scheme and get a fair share of the revenue from licencing.

[vjpixylight]

...and the beat(er clip) goes on..
Without a fair working model, don't think that just because the industry can sue those using non cleared material for performance is going to stop sampling/fair use of copyrighted material anytime soon either mate, and we'll call it a day:)

[Liquidmetro]

As it is I dont care about fair use, I could release it under CC, or even specify in the terms it has performance rights or can be manipulated, if I do not want those terms then I still fail to see why you have any right to ignore my express wishes in regards to my work. Thats why there even is a T&C's attached to footage, the creator made a descision, if they state no copying or manipulation they conciously made that choice.

This sounds like a step forward for my specific issue related to my original clips I have produced. Adding T&C's to the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike licence (http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/) is the best way forward.

Now I just need to decide what I want to include:

- This work can be performed by VJ's for commercial purposes at live events. At these live events I do not expect attribution to be displayed live as part of the performance, only in any subsequent media produced as documentation of the event and distributed for free(?).

- This work cannot be remixed or resold for commercial gain in any format other than live performance(?).

Would that be comprehensive enough?

I just want VJ's to feel 100% comfortable that using my clips for paid 'commercial' VJing purposes is fine. They can't make 'profit' outside of the live performance however and if the live performance is recorded it cannot be sold for commercial gain without credit and my agreement.

Of course I may be getting carried away and worried over nothing.....my clips might be crap! :D

[evomedia]

I'm never expect sampling to stop pixy, just dont like the fair use arguement, when it doesn't help VJ's at all. And sorry tom didn't mean to confuse, on the whole 99% of copyright does not refer to hollywood or video and I'm used to talking in terms of creators rights.

As for you liquid, I'd be happy to see that attached to footage T&C's :)

Of course its always the same people on each side of the fence lol may swap sides in some future post

[Rovastar]

please stop saying "Creator" when you mean "Copyright Holder" the 2 are massivly different and the distiction is a very important one.

Moving forward could the answer not come from a PRS type scheme where venues have to pay a licence to display video work? Creators of video works could join the scheme and get a fair share of the revenue from licencing.

Yes 'Creator' and 'Copyright Holder' are different. It is something the Creative Commons people didn't understand either! :)

My biggest question to a PRS for video system is would any venues pay it? Personally I cannot see it. Many VJs do not need it. I wonder how you will get the ball rolling?