11 ms·

What's to settle? Google's INTERNAL use of copyrighted material is within the legal bounds. For instance, you are free to add a copyrighted song to a family va

What's to settle? Google's INTERNAL use of copyrighted material is within the legal bounds. For instance, you are free to add a copyrighted song to a family vacation slideshow only intended/accessible to your family offline. IF your son leaks the said video,are you to blame?

sjg007 8y ago
Nope it's not.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jstanley 8y ago
By that logic, are you free to show copyrighted films you torrented to all your friends and family as long as the event is not open to the general public?
- rjbwork 8y ago
  Legally? No. In practice? Yes. The MPAA et. al don't seem to be prosecuting simple downloaders anymore.
- trothamel 8y ago
  No, but you are allowed to show copyrighted films you bought to your family and friends as long as the event is not open to the general public. Doesn't this hinge around if Google legally acquired the film in the first place? Assuming they did that, wouldn't the only other violation be if it was distributed?
  - Kerrick 8y ago
    Those blu-ray discs come with a license specifically calling out that you're allowed "home use" -- the videographer in the news story did not give Google a "home use" license.
- Kalium 8y ago
  No, because the torrenting means you took part in public distribution of protected material. The act of showing it privately, on the other hand, is fine.
maxxxxx 8y ago
That seems a little odd. Google can show copyrighted material to tens of thousands of employees because it's "internal"? Can Walmart employees share material to their hundreds of thousands coworkers?
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  And if it was truly okay, why did they need to "remind the executive of their copyright policy" (never mind the law...)?
TelAvivHacker 8y ago
Thanks for clearing this up, Internet Lawyer! I'm glad we have experts like you to explain this to us.
pjc50 8y ago
No, technically you need a license for every single copy made; it's just almost never enforced. You also need a license to play music at the workplace, and the PRS or equivalent will chase you endlessly about it.
belorn 8y ago
This is local copyright law in Sweden but its very likely similar to the US since its all based on common international agreements. Here you are allowed to show owned copyright material to family and close friends[0]. Schools are not allowed show bought copyrighted meterial to students, a bar can not play bought songs to customers, and indeed a company can not play bought music to employees. Its goes even beyond this in that the same goes to play public radio in speakers, and its demanded that companies pay "public performance royalties" if they do. Its general known that restaurants and stores really do pay this cost, through large companies with many employees has been reluctant. Schools are also so cash striped that teachers often openly claim that they could not do their job if they had to stay within the legal constraint of copyright. During the direct connect ages, some groups claimed that they were within the legal line because they stayed small enough to be within the "family and close friends" exception, through I doubt any such group actually succeeded in that defense. [0]close friends are undefined in law but usually agreed as less than 5 people.
- protomyth 8y ago
  I was part of a summer program (USA) in the early 90's and the university lawyer told us that under no circumstances may we show any movies to the children (e.g. Movie Night) without prior approval and some sort of payment. Dances were actually easier because the DJ knew what was needed for the public performance.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    There is a whole business around clearinghouses for licensing content for public performance. DJs obviously already have all their ducks in line, generally. As an example, if you're a church and you want to be able to play movies, you can go through CVLI: http://us.cvli.com/ http://us.cvli.com/
DanBC 8y ago
Google was making commercial use of copyright material without the correct permissions. That's a pretty clear infringement, and the rights holder can sue for losses. > you are free to add a copyrighted song to a family vacation slideshow only intended/accessible to your family offline. I'd question whether you can in fact do this. Obviously the rights holders aren't going to sue, but even so the law probably doesn't allow this. (It doesn't in the UK, even if we ignore the format-shifting).
- kbenson 8y ago
  Is it the commercial part that makes it infringement, or does that just make it clear infringement? I was under the impression as long as it's non-commercial use it's mostly allowed, but I'm not sure how that works out if for example I play something on a large screen in a public park. Is that infringing? If so, is it because it's shown to a lot of people, or because the reputational benefit of doing so may have some commercial ramifications and it's argued under that aspect?
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    Interestingly, this article on performing rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_rights seems to suggest "public" performance is any amount of people outside your close circle of family and friends. Which would seem to suggest that any internal workplace transmission would constitute a "public" performance of a copyrighted work.
    - gowld 8y ago
      My CEO said my company is a family.
      - bigiain 8y ago
        Yep - CEOs misleading employees is about as common as copyright infringement on YouTube...
  - 8y ago
romanovcode 8y ago
> IF your son leaks the said video,are you to blame? Yes. That's the whole point.
dahart 8y ago
> Google's INTERNAL use of copyrighted material is within the legal bounds. No, there is no such exception in US copyright law. Internal use of material falls under the same rules as anything public facing. > you are free to add a copyrighted song to a family vacation slideshow only intended/accessible to your family offline That's murky. It is not automatically legal. It is probably illegal if you're including your extended family and intend for them to copy & save your slideshow. > IF your son leaks the said video,are you to blame? Yes, if your son is less than 18 years old, you are legally responsible for his copyright violations. You can get sued for it, and some people have been. Maybe you missed the rash of RIAA lawsuits a few years ago? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_group_efforts_against_file_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_group_efforts_against_fi...
- krona 8y ago
  Next you're going to tell us that singing Happy Birthday to your child is legally murky and probably unwise.
  - dahart 8y ago
    Hehe, well I might have, but Happy Birthday is now pretty safe, the US copyright was successfully challenged in court and the EU copyright expired. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyright_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyrigh...
  - spyhi 8y ago
    It isn't anymore, if it ever was. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/happy-birthday-is-public-domain-former-owner-warnerchapell-to-pay-14m/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/happy-birthday-i...
  - crystaln 8y ago
    Happy Birthday is in the public domain now. As of a few years ago though, it was indeed legally murky though perhaps not unwise as long as performed in your basement with the lights out, and all in attendance are trusted and sworn to secrecy.
gaius 8y ago
It’s still a commercial usage
anigbrowl 8y ago
You don't seem to grasp the difference between personal and commercial use.
- bigiain 8y ago
  Can you point to a section of copyright law that makes that distinction?

sjg007 8y ago

Nope it's not.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jstanley 8y ago

By that logic, are you free to show copyrighted films you torrented to all your friends and family as long as the event is not open to the general public?

rjbwork 8y ago
Legally? No. In practice? Yes. The MPAA et. al don't seem to be prosecuting simple downloaders anymore.
trothamel 8y ago
No, but you are allowed to show copyrighted films you bought to your family and friends as long as the event is not open to the general public. Doesn't this hinge around if Google legally acquired the film in the first place? Assuming they did that, wouldn't the only other violation be if it was distributed?
- Kerrick 8y ago
  Those blu-ray discs come with a license specifically calling out that you're allowed "home use" -- the videographer in the news story did not give Google a "home use" license.
Kalium 8y ago
No, because the torrenting means you took part in public distribution of protected material. The act of showing it privately, on the other hand, is fine.

maxxxxx 8y ago

That seems a little odd. Google can show copyrighted material to tens of thousands of employees because it's "internal"? Can Walmart employees share material to their hundreds of thousands coworkers?

FireBeyond 8y ago
And if it was truly okay, why did they need to "remind the executive of their copyright policy" (never mind the law...)?

TelAvivHacker 8y ago

Thanks for clearing this up, Internet Lawyer! I'm glad we have experts like you to explain this to us.

pjc50 8y ago

No, technically you need a license for every single copy made; it's just almost never enforced. You also need a license to play music at the workplace, and the PRS or equivalent will chase you endlessly about it.

belorn 8y ago

This is local copyright law in Sweden but its very likely similar to the US since its all based on common international agreements. Here you are allowed to show owned copyright material to family and close friends[0]. Schools are not allowed show bought copyrighted meterial to students, a bar can not play bought songs to customers, and indeed a company can not play bought music to employees. Its goes even beyond this in that the same goes to play public radio in speakers, and its demanded that companies pay "public performance royalties" if they do. Its general known that restaurants and stores really do pay this cost, through large companies with many employees has been reluctant. Schools are also so cash striped that teachers often openly claim that they could not do their job if they had to stay within the legal constraint of copyright. During the direct connect ages, some groups claimed that they were within the legal line because they stayed small enough to be within the "family and close friends" exception, through I doubt any such group actually succeeded in that defense. [0]close friends are undefined in law but usually agreed as less than 5 people.

protomyth 8y ago
I was part of a summer program (USA) in the early 90's and the university lawyer told us that under no circumstances may we show any movies to the children (e.g. Movie Night) without prior approval and some sort of payment. Dances were actually easier because the DJ knew what was needed for the public performance.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  There is a whole business around clearinghouses for licensing content for public performance. DJs obviously already have all their ducks in line, generally. As an example, if you're a church and you want to be able to play movies, you can go through CVLI: http://us.cvli.com/ http://us.cvli.com/

DanBC 8y ago

Google was making commercial use of copyright material without the correct permissions. That's a pretty clear infringement, and the rights holder can sue for losses. > you are free to add a copyrighted song to a family vacation slideshow only intended/accessible to your family offline. I'd question whether you can in fact do this. Obviously the rights holders aren't going to sue, but even so the law probably doesn't allow this. (It doesn't in the UK, even if we ignore the format-shifting).

kbenson 8y ago
Is it the commercial part that makes it infringement, or does that just make it clear infringement? I was under the impression as long as it's non-commercial use it's mostly allowed, but I'm not sure how that works out if for example I play something on a large screen in a public park. Is that infringing? If so, is it because it's shown to a lot of people, or because the reputational benefit of doing so may have some commercial ramifications and it's argued under that aspect?
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Interestingly, this article on performing rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_rights seems to suggest "public" performance is any amount of people outside your close circle of family and friends. Which would seem to suggest that any internal workplace transmission would constitute a "public" performance of a copyrighted work.
  - gowld 8y ago
    My CEO said my company is a family.
    - bigiain 8y ago
      Yep - CEOs misleading employees is about as common as copyright infringement on YouTube...
- 8y ago

romanovcode 8y ago

> IF your son leaks the said video,are you to blame? Yes. That's the whole point.

dahart 8y ago

> Google's INTERNAL use of copyrighted material is within the legal bounds. No, there is no such exception in US copyright law. Internal use of material falls under the same rules as anything public facing. > you are free to add a copyrighted song to a family vacation slideshow only intended/accessible to your family offline That's murky. It is not automatically legal. It is probably illegal if you're including your extended family and intend for them to copy & save your slideshow. > IF your son leaks the said video,are you to blame? Yes, if your son is less than 18 years old, you are legally responsible for his copyright violations. You can get sued for it, and some people have been. Maybe you missed the rash of RIAA lawsuits a few years ago? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_group_efforts_against_file_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_group_efforts_against_fi...

krona 8y ago
Next you're going to tell us that singing Happy Birthday to your child is legally murky and probably unwise.
- dahart 8y ago
  Hehe, well I might have, but Happy Birthday is now pretty safe, the US copyright was successfully challenged in court and the EU copyright expired. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyright_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyrigh...
- spyhi 8y ago
  It isn't anymore, if it ever was. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/happy-birthday-is-public-domain-former-owner-warnerchapell-to-pay-14m/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/happy-birthday-i...
- crystaln 8y ago
  Happy Birthday is in the public domain now. As of a few years ago though, it was indeed legally murky though perhaps not unwise as long as performed in your basement with the lights out, and all in attendance are trusted and sworn to secrecy.

gaius 8y ago

It’s still a commercial usage

anigbrowl 8y ago

You don't seem to grasp the difference between personal and commercial use.

bigiain 8y ago
Can you point to a section of copyright law that makes that distinction?