IP, Copyright, and YouTube

[sonnyboo]

I just want to get a sense of how people feel about intellectual property and how the Internet/YouTube has changed things.

These concepts of ownership have become complicated by the ease of use and redistribution. This really isn't about 'right' or 'wrong', or even the legalities per se. I just want to gauge how people currently feel about it.

Personally, I believe in the copyright. I actively remove videos of mine that other people have uploaded. I lose money if a video I have ads on gets played on YouTube for free without ads. That's taking away my choice which is mine because I made the movie and I own it. These ideals are considered out of date, but since I can exercise my rights via YouTube, I do and often.

That doesn't mean I'm not open to hearing the opposite ideals.

 

[2001 Productions]

I'd respond to your poll, but neither of the choices reflects my own position.

I definitely disagree with the "yes" position -- if we surrender copyright protection altogether, artists will lose the ability to earn a living from their efforts -- especially smaller, unknown artists.

As far as the "no" position, I agree with it. However, I do believe the "fair use" laws are overdue for a revamp. An individual ought to be able to excerpt from a work - yes, even mine - for non-commercial purposes, as long as the entire work isn't appropriated and proper credit is attributed.

IMHO.

 

[Zensteve]

An individual ought to be able to excerpt from a work - yes, even mine - for non-commercial purposes, as long as the entire work isn't appropriated and proper credit is attributed.

There's nothing stopping you from giving someone that permission, for a work of yours.

All they have to do is ask; all you have to do is say, "sure".

I'm not sure why you should be able to grant permission to others to use my films, mind you.

 

[Sweetie]

If given the choice of no copyright and having copyright, I'd lean towards having copyright.

I don't think it's a perfect system, but it's not that bad. It's similar to real estate: You need to protect capital in order to have people to invest their money. The IP version is you need to protect in order for people to invest their time (or have other people invest their cash). Without the protections, the cash to make movies and other media would quickly disappear.

The problem with copyright arises when you combine it with the legal system, deep pockets and politics. It stops the little guy from being able to compete and gain the intended protection.

 

[directorik]

As an owner of several copyrights (as we ALL are) I want to control all the
rights to my work. I am very willing to assign the right to copy to most
people who would want it - but what I want is to know how my material
is being used.

I understand that some people don't feel that way about their work and
that is the freedom we all enjoy. and copyright holder who wants to grant
the right to copy in whole or in part is free to do that. However, since each
person is different I feel the laws should protect the most strict and not
the most lenient.

I know that if someone were to use an an excerpt from my work (with full
credit) to make a political, religious or social point I very much disagree with
I would not be happy to have my work used that way.

 

[MetalRenard]

I'd respond to your poll, but neither of the choices reflects my own position.

This.

I will be more than happy to let you use my work but I want you to ask me first. If you make money from it then I want a fair cut of what you make that's equivalent to what my work contributes to yours.

 

[Zensteve]

I will be more than happy to let you use my work but I want you to ask me first. If you make money from it then I want a fair cut of what you make that's equivalent to what my work contributes to yours.

There's nothing stopping you from having that arrangement now, though.

They ask for permission; you & they agree on terms.

how the Internet/YouTube has changed things.

Proved that people will assume pesky laws don't apply to them if, statistically, they won't get caught.

 

[mus]

I see "yes" has no votes so far. Lol

 

[directorik]

I will be more than happy to let you use my work but I want you to ask me first. If you make money from it then I want a fair cut of what you make that's equivalent to what my work contributes to yours.

And right now, the copyright laws are on your side. No one can use your
work without your permission. If the "fair use" part was changed to
allow more use without permission would you be in support of that?

In this day more and more people are not only using the copyrighted
work of others without permission but they are outright stealing the
work which causes the owners to lose money. I'm sure very few people
are making money off of someone else's intellectual property. For me
it is less about money than about my rights to my work. You clearly
feel the same way yet you won't vote "No" on this poll. I find that
fascinating.

 

[mus]

I hate seeing a youtube video with ads on it that has an unlicensed song in it... people are making money on that

 

[NickClapper]

I think we all believe in copyright laws but I would agree with those who express a wish for greater flexibility.

It's very frustrating, as an indie film producer, having to make sure that there are no logos, book covers, modern paintings...etc in shot. I kind of think that there should be a distinction between creative copyright and commercial copyright, so that I can have a character drink a can of Coke without either self-consciously concealing the logo or creating a new can.

I guess that's not really what the question was asking, but that's kind of how I feel about the copyright/intellectual property situation.

 

[DeJager]

I agree. I believe in copyright laws and that we definitely need to respect them.

 

[mus]

Yeah, I agree... logos and merchandise... that's ridiculous! Most people drink Coca-Cola... not COCOA-Cola...


There's a difference between having a poster of your favorite video-game in the background, and stealing that video-game and selling it as though you created it.

 

[DeJager]

I hate seeing a youtube video with ads on it that has an unlicensed song in it... people are making money on that

Typically the reason why it has ads on it is because of the copyright holder. The copyright holder gets the money from the ads, not the individual who posted the video with that song that they don't own.

 

[directorik]

I kind of think that there should be a distinction between creative copyright and commercial copyright, so that I can have a character drink a can of Coke without either self-consciously concealing the logo or creating a new can.

I understand the frustration - I often face it personally. I also understand that if I spent
years and a lot of money designing a logo or trademark that is immediately recognizable
I would like some control over my creation. I also understand that when the trademark
or copyright is owned by a large (and wealthy) corporation we, as artists, have less empathy.

BTW - in your example the law leans towards you. If your character is using the can of Coke
in the way the owner intends, its use may not need to be cleared.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Yeah, I agree... logos and merchandise... that's ridiculous! Most people drink Coca-Cola... not COCOA-Cola...


There's a difference between having a poster of your favorite video-game in the background, and stealing that video-game and selling it as though you created it.

Devil's Advocate:
So suppose the main character in a film is butt raping pre-teens while he strangles kittens and poops on the flag, and there is a bag of Doritos visible on the table. Don't you think the people who own the trademark on that Doritos logo might be a bit upset about that....

 

[mus]

Devil's Advocate:
So suppose the main character in a film is butt raping pre-teens while he strangles kittens and poops on the flag, and there is a bag of Doritos visible on the table. Don't you think the people who own the trademark on that Doritos logo might be a bit upset about that....

What kind of sick individual would make the distinction that the reason this guy is butt-raping pre-teens has anything to do with a widely popular bag of chips, that is present in most peoples' lives?

 

[mus]

Any why don't they get upset if their product is SAID, not heard? I've heard many references to products in movies that never showed those products.

What if the butt-raper screams out "I'm only doing this because I ate Dorito's! I'm sorry! Dorito's made me do it! It's only because of Frito-Lay, the division of Pepsi-Co, Inc. that I am butt-raping you! It causes this sick desire to butt-rape!"

 

[Dreadylocks]

I hate seeing a youtube video with ads on it that has an unlicensed song in it... people are making money on that

Actually, youtube won't let you monetize your videos if anything on your channel has copyrighted material. When you see ads on videos with copyrighted songs, that ad revenue is going to the owners of the IP, not the uploader of the video.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

What kind of sick individual would make the distinction that the reason this guy is butt-raping pre-teens has anything to do with a widely popular bag of chips, that is present in most peoples' lives?

Because they don't want to risk the .000000000000000001% chance that somebody somewhere will now think of Doritos as "The brand of chips butt rapers like". It's their logo, they own it, they have a right to decide in what context it is used by an outside party.