Quote:
Originally Posted by nuggetsyl
This leads me to my title. There are is a new site(s) that are taking videos from youtube and uploading them to their own site(s). It is being done without permission from the owners of those videos, and frankly its wrong.
|
Wrong or not, you need to distinguish between stealing (which implies that the original is now unavailable to its owner, and which is a criminal act) and infringement (which does not deprive the owner of the content, merely the opportunity to use it exclusively, and which is not necessarily criminal).
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuggetsyl
While FIRST events are open to the public and anyone can record them this does not mean you can then take the videos they (the owners) recorded and use them as your own. It would be different if you (the video stealers) were using "Fair Use" (Examples of fair use are works used for news reporting, criticism, comment, scientific research, teaching, and parody.), But this is not what happening. The videos are being used completely unedited just to promote their own site(s).
|
How are you certain it's not
fair use/
fair dealing? Legally speaking, in the United States, the only way to be sure that something is fair use is to litigate. Precedents can be a good guide to the way courts are likely to rule, however U.S. and Canadian law is relatively undeveloped with regard to the fine details. From the other thread, which appears to be relevant, here's what I posted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
Given the need to manage the content centrally (to make an archive consistent in function and appearance), uploading with a single account used only for that purpose is a good compromise [from a usability point of view, though that may cause intellectual property concerns]. Definitely include an explicit credit to the original source, preferably including a link outside the video (so that if the embedding breaks, the content can still be found, and so that the source is clearly acknowledged).
...
That approach, writ large, underlies the Internet Archive's efforts to archive the entire public Internet at relatively frequent intervals. Their argument is that the value of having (what amounts to) a set of cultural artifacts frozen in time and archived by a neutral party outweighs the personal intellectual property rights of their creators, so long as the content is used for limited purposes that are justifiable under United States fair use law.
You might make similar arguments for this archive, though they might be somewhat weaker given the limited scope of WatchFIRSTNow.
|
The approach to I referred could be the basis of a claim of
transformativeness, which is a strong argument in favour of fair use (though not sufficient alone).
If the other site (or WatchFIRSTNow, if that's indeed the site to which you refer) were to make an explicit assertion of fair use, and specify the grounds, I think we'd be more able to assess their intentions. (Note that the lack of such a declaration could be read as ignorance, malice or a desire to keep their arguments in reserve in case of legal proceedings.)
For completeness, I should also point out that it could be fair use/fair dealing, and
still be wrong, because of other moral considerations. If those are at issue, let's lay them out and discuss them.