8 ms·

Wow. Many thoughts arose: - Is this more, less, or equivalently legal (copyright-wise) to just posting the youtube videos on youtube in the first place? It see

by angusgr 15y ago

Wow. Many thoughts arose: - Is this more, less, or equivalently legal (copyright-wise) to just posting the youtube videos on youtube in the first place? It seems like the act of compositing them in this way would be significant, but maybe not? - The normalisation of audio could use some work. SwitchCam seems to do something (the youtube volume on each clip was different for me), but it didn't quite work. - I'd be really interested to know how automated this is, and how much human curation is required to get it right. - Presumably, the next step is stitching the multiple videos together to make 3d models, allowing you to pan to places between the various camera operators. :)

antimatter15 15y ago
Courts ruling on fair use are supposed to take into account "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". Automated copyright detection schemes in YouTube may try to do some semblance of fair use by allowing snippets of copyrighted content under 30 seconds.
- cleverjake 15y ago
  Honest question - does the copyright still cover a live work when the original recording was permitted in the first place?
  - brettwelch 15y ago
    Yes it does. Just because the recording was permitted doesn't mean that the recorder has the rights to publish or replay the recording. Another example: owning a DVD does not mean you can then stream the DVD over Justin.tv. The thing about rights is that infringement must be claimed by the rightsholder for any action to be taken. Once a rightsholder claims infringement then the content/stream/video must be shut down or removed, and if the site or person continues to infringe, THEN action can be taken. This is one of the good things about the DMCA and the reason YouTube, Soundcloud and even justin.tv can continue to operate. It is also exactly what the much maligned SOPA bill is trying to change - for the worse. btw, you should sign a petition against that bill on votizen or similar. They climbin in yo' windows, snatching your youtubes up.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  just a sidenote - if bittorrent software ensure that no peer-to-peer interaction exceeds 30 sec. for any given title, would MPAA/RIAA/etc... still be able to claim "illegal dowload"?
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    YouTube are just doing a first pass filter. They're not saying that 30s of a work is legally allowed.
  - Natsu 15y ago
    When they take into account fair use, they take the entire case into account, rather than following any hard and fast rules saying that using X% is "fair." In other words, no, there's pretty much no way they'd buy any attempt to game the system so transparently. That's why you need a lawyer.
  - aidenn0 15y ago
    No, the courts take context into account. So for example, it might be perfectly legal to post 2 sentences from a book on your blog, if 10,000 blog posters conspired to post a different 2 sentences to share the whole book, that would be clearly illegal. Furthermore, the law is interpreted by Judges, who are people, not machines, and they tend to take a very harsh stance against people who try to game the system.
brettwelch 15y ago
Thanks! - I'm no lawyer, but the advice we've received is that we're good on the legal side. - You're on the money re: audio. It's miles better than it was 1 month ago, but we're still not 100% yet. - There is a human curation step (~5% of the process), but that is mostly for removing really crappy videos. Searching/Synching/Sequencing is automatic. - I dunno about next step(!), but i agree the idea is super interesting :)
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  You may be on the legal side, but I'd argue so were Amazon and Google when it came to letting the users stream their own music from their own "cloud" accounts. That didn't seem to stop the music labels from "demanding" getting paid again for the streaming, too. So you should watch your back and don't give in to them, especially if you know you're on the legal side.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  This certainly looks like a tortuous infringement in the UK (and I'd posit Europe). I didn't get a "only in the US" notice on YouTube though. I can't see how this is possibly "fair use" - it's the complete work of music and the visual design of the set, choreography and show that is being reproduced in full in a commercial way. Unless the uploaders bought a license with their ticket to reproduce and distribute online and allow derivative works of those reproductions ... Would be fascinated to read the letter from your IP lawyer justifying this?
  - shinratdr 15y ago
    It's an embed. Supposed rights holders can easily contact Youtube with a DMCA request and they will take it down. What is the problem exactly?
    - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
      >Supposed rights holders can easily contact Youtube with a DMCA request and they will take it down. // This is largely irrelevant to the question of infringement and puts the onus on the owner to spot those infringing. Just because there's a ready way in which you can complain doesn't mean that the unlawful activity is somehow made lawful. Note I'm making no comment here wrt the soundness or morality of said law.

by angusgr 15y ago

antimatter15 15y ago

Courts ruling on fair use are supposed to take into account "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". Automated copyright detection schemes in YouTube may try to do some semblance of fair use by allowing snippets of copyrighted content under 30 seconds.

cleverjake 15y ago
Honest question - does the copyright still cover a live work when the original recording was permitted in the first place?
- brettwelch 15y ago
  Yes it does. Just because the recording was permitted doesn't mean that the recorder has the rights to publish or replay the recording. Another example: owning a DVD does not mean you can then stream the DVD over Justin.tv. The thing about rights is that infringement must be claimed by the rightsholder for any action to be taken. Once a rightsholder claims infringement then the content/stream/video must be shut down or removed, and if the site or person continues to infringe, THEN action can be taken. This is one of the good things about the DMCA and the reason YouTube, Soundcloud and even justin.tv can continue to operate. It is also exactly what the much maligned SOPA bill is trying to change - for the worse. btw, you should sign a petition against that bill on votizen or similar. They climbin in yo' windows, snatching your youtubes up.
VladRussian 15y ago
just a sidenote - if bittorrent software ensure that no peer-to-peer interaction exceeds 30 sec. for any given title, would MPAA/RIAA/etc... still be able to claim "illegal dowload"?
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  YouTube are just doing a first pass filter. They're not saying that 30s of a work is legally allowed.
- Natsu 15y ago
  When they take into account fair use, they take the entire case into account, rather than following any hard and fast rules saying that using X% is "fair." In other words, no, there's pretty much no way they'd buy any attempt to game the system so transparently. That's why you need a lawyer.
- aidenn0 15y ago
  No, the courts take context into account. So for example, it might be perfectly legal to post 2 sentences from a book on your blog, if 10,000 blog posters conspired to post a different 2 sentences to share the whole book, that would be clearly illegal. Furthermore, the law is interpreted by Judges, who are people, not machines, and they tend to take a very harsh stance against people who try to game the system.

brettwelch 15y ago

Thanks! - I'm no lawyer, but the advice we've received is that we're good on the legal side. - You're on the money re: audio. It's miles better than it was 1 month ago, but we're still not 100% yet. - There is a human curation step (~5% of the process), but that is mostly for removing really crappy videos. Searching/Synching/Sequencing is automatic. - I dunno about next step(!), but i agree the idea is super interesting :)

nextparadigms 15y ago
You may be on the legal side, but I'd argue so were Amazon and Google when it came to letting the users stream their own music from their own "cloud" accounts. That didn't seem to stop the music labels from "demanding" getting paid again for the streaming, too. So you should watch your back and don't give in to them, especially if you know you're on the legal side.
pbhjpbhj 15y ago
This certainly looks like a tortuous infringement in the UK (and I'd posit Europe). I didn't get a "only in the US" notice on YouTube though. I can't see how this is possibly "fair use" - it's the complete work of music and the visual design of the set, choreography and show that is being reproduced in full in a commercial way. Unless the uploaders bought a license with their ticket to reproduce and distribute online and allow derivative works of those reproductions ... Would be fascinated to read the letter from your IP lawyer justifying this?
- shinratdr 15y ago
  It's an embed. Supposed rights holders can easily contact Youtube with a DMCA request and they will take it down. What is the problem exactly?
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    >Supposed rights holders can easily contact Youtube with a DMCA request and they will take it down. // This is largely irrelevant to the question of infringement and puts the onus on the owner to spot those infringing. Just because there's a ready way in which you can complain doesn't mean that the unlawful activity is somehow made lawful. Note I'm making no comment here wrt the soundness or morality of said law.