If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegram)   High schoolers making music video to promote school spirit learn lesson in copyright law instead   (telegram.com) divider line 91
    More: Obvious, St. Peter-Marian, Algonquin, St. Peter, YouTube, music videos, Owl City, private schools, Brennan Boesch  
•       •       •

10509 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Mar 2013 at 2:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



91 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-11 09:55:19 PM
Idiotic move by the copyright holder.  I am curious as to why a rinky-dink Regional High School (a combined district) "was looking for an innovative way to market itself to prospective students...".  Do students in Mass. often attend HS's in other regions and states?
 
2013-03-11 10:01:32 PM
I don't think the megacorps understand (or accept) the concept of fair use.  their attitude seems to be 'f*ck you - pay me!'
 
2013-03-11 10:48:01 PM

Old Man Winter: Idiotic move by the copyright holder.  I am curious as to why a rinky-dink Regional High School (a combined district) "was looking for an innovative way to market itself to prospective students...".  Do students in Mass. often attend HS's in other regions and states?


Most likely this was a bot doing it. It obviously falls within fair use
 
2013-03-11 11:54:44 PM
They'll go after a video like this yet all that Harlem Shake dreck is left alone

/america fark yeah
 
2013-03-12 12:12:02 AM
I'm guessing the PR and copyright departments for Universal Music Group don't share notes very often
 
2013-03-12 01:39:29 AM

Nickster79: I'm guessing the PR and copyright departments for Universal Music Group don't share notes very often


As ArkAngel pointed out, most of this is done with bots that parse the description and auto-flag things. Some bots even "listen" to the sound file and compare it to track signatures within a database. Sometimes a human looks at it, sometimes not, but YouTube takes stuff down based on bulk files they receive not from the copyright holders themselves, but from third parties they pay to enforce their copyrights.

These third parties get paid (or at least demonstrate their effectiveness) based on the number of infringing materials they flag and get removed. They have an incentive to flag anything that could possibly be construed as an infringement.

To me, it's like a speed camera. No human being saw the infraction being committed, but yet the person is guilty until proven innocent. However, on the plus side, the school wasn't paying YouTube to host the video, and they are not facing any criminal or civil liability, unlike the traffic camera situation. At least, not at this time.

They haven't lost any money, and there's always Vimeo or DailyMotion.
 
2013-03-12 01:41:21 AM
ox45tallboy:
As ArkAngel pointed out, most of this is done with bots that parse the description and auto-flag things. Some bots even "listen" to the sound file and compare it to track signatures within a database.

10 min with an open source sound editor and you can side step a lot of the automation fairly easily.  even a n00b like me can do it.
 
2013-03-12 02:24:37 AM

Weaver95: 10 min with an open source sound editor and you can side step a lot of the automation fairly easily. even a n00b like me can do it.


But most people can't. I agree that it is easy, but most people just simply can't do it. Besides, they also want as many views as possible, so the idea is to get people to see it with keywords that will probably include both the name of the song and the most popular performer of the song. Sharing the links around are great, but you also gain popularity when your keywords match up with people looking for the original song - as in, "let's see what these high schoolers did with it".
 
2013-03-12 02:49:20 AM
You can dispute those claims and have your video back in no time..  But hey why do it the right way when you can run to the nearest news camera
 
2013-03-12 02:56:36 AM
Algonquin is one of my favorite words. It must have been tremendously fun to speak indian. So many of their words are fun to say.
 
2013-03-12 02:58:05 AM
What lesson? That fair use is effectively dead? Well, I suppose they had to learn sometime.
 
2013-03-12 03:02:31 AM

evilmousse: Algonquin is one of my favorite words. It must have been tremendously fun to speak indian. So many of their words are fun to say.


It was seriously bothering me where I knew it from... I think it's GTA4.
 
2013-03-12 03:04:04 AM

untaken_name: What lesson? That fair use is effectively dead? Well, I suppose they had to learn sometime.


Fair Use is for the courts to decide! Lawyers for everyone!
 
2013-03-12 03:04:31 AM

Weaver95: I don't think the megacorps understand (or accept) the concept of fair use.  their attitude seems to be 'f*ck you - pay me!'


Their best response to fair use is to ignore it and try and change the public's perception of rights.  Thousands of people bend over without a fight for every story you hear about someone making a fuss.
 
2013-03-12 03:12:47 AM

Weaver95: I don't think the megacorps understand (or accept) the concept of fair use.  their attitude seems to be 'f*ck you - pay me!'


Free-to-use and free-to-use copyrights ftw. F*ck the corporations.
 
2013-03-12 03:15:07 AM
That kid with the guitar looks kinda like a young, less farked-up Sylvester Stallone
 
2013-03-12 03:17:55 AM
Oh, socialism.
Oh wait.
Screw intelligent content, the song ain't all that.
Screw everything! Let's kill off an homage to the creator of the song because somehow, someway, it affects total sales of the product!

/i wouldn't buy the original
//Ever!
 
2013-03-12 03:23:27 AM
How can using an entire recording in this way be considered "fair use"?
 
2013-03-12 03:29:12 AM
"It does sound like fair use. They're not trying to profit from the video or the performance of the song."

Not enough to qualify for fair use.  I wish all of the energy (hate) directed by thieves that are interested in stealing movies and music from artists were more directed against business model patents.  Something good might be accomplished in the intellectual properties arena.
 
2013-03-12 03:30:57 AM

orbister: How can using an entire recording in this way be considered "fair use"?


Thank you for not being an idiot poster.  This thread needs more common sense.
 
2013-03-12 03:32:20 AM
ox45tallboy: "They haven't lost any money, and there's always Vimeo or DailyMotion."

Sure. And if the mobile application you spent months writing doesn't get accepted to the Apple App Store, there's always Blackberry's App World.
 
2013-03-12 03:35:06 AM

orbister: How can using an entire recording in this way be considered "fair use"?


Because it's a school that isn't attempting to make money from it. It doesn't curtail the profits reasonably expected by the owner, and it doesn't substantially impair the value of the song.

Now, before you jump down my throat, please note that I am only providing one possible reason for how it could be considered fair use (as you requested), not claiming authoritatively that this particular case is absolutely fair use. My opinion is that it is, but I'm no internet lawyer. I've read some law for personal reasons but not copyright law. I could probably code plead it out if I had to, though.
 
2013-03-12 03:37:18 AM
Youtube being such a pushover for every petty demand of corporations is one of the reasons we all need a new video site to use. One that pretends it doesn't check its email often, and just didn't get that demand to remove a video.
 
2013-03-12 03:38:14 AM
Google makes money off of ads on YouTube. Wouldn't that make it then not fall under fair use?
 
2013-03-12 03:39:05 AM
And high school kids are all about stealing content.

/Nice.
 
2013-03-12 03:40:53 AM
Dunno about the US of A, but here in Oz, schools (and some other educational facilities) usually have a blanket licence with ARIA/AMCOS etc for use of licenced music in school-approved performances. It covers performance (e.g. song-and-dance stage show), recording of such performances (video and/or audio), and the reproduction and sale of such recordings (e.g. DVDs of the show sold to students/parents, etc). Not sure about uploading them to Youtube, though.
 
2013-03-12 03:43:58 AM

ol' gormsby: Dunno about the US of A, but here in Oz, schools (and some other educational facilities) usually have a blanket licence with ARIA/AMCOS etc for use of licenced music in school-approved performances. It covers performance (e.g. song-and-dance stage show), recording of such performances (video and/or audio), and the reproduction and sale of such recordings (e.g. DVDs of the show sold to students/parents, etc). Not sure about uploading them to Youtube, though.



Good luck to you on your career shift!

/Sincerely hope it works out for you.
 
2013-03-12 03:45:56 AM

Nickster79: I'm guessing the PR and copyright departments for Universal Music Group don't share notes very often


They usually never do even without bots. The only company I've ever seen that seems to get that you can protect copyright and not be a dick about it is Jack Daniel's.
 
2013-03-12 03:51:39 AM
i3.ytimg.com

"I'm being sued by three Aryan Scorpions for infringing upon the song Big City Nights note for note. Have you even HEARD of that song before?!"
 
2013-03-12 04:01:30 AM

XplodedSynapses: ol' gormsby: Dunno about the US of A, but here in Oz, schools (and some other educational facilities) usually have a blanket licence with ARIA/AMCOS etc for use of licenced music in school-approved performances. It covers performance (e.g. song-and-dance stage show), recording of such performances (video and/or audio), and the reproduction and sale of such recordings (e.g. DVDs of the show sold to students/parents, etc). Not sure about uploading them to Youtube, though.


Good luck to you on your career shift!

/Sincerely hope it works out for you.


Thanks - It's more like a second job - I made almost AUD$10K in the last 18 months filming and editing school kids prancing around on stage. Some pretty impressive talent there, too.
 
2013-03-12 04:03:49 AM

ol' gormsby: Thanks - It's more like a second job - I made almost AUD$10K in the last 18 months filming and editing school kids prancing around on stage. Some pretty impressive talent there, too.


www.thelostogle.com
 
2013-03-12 04:07:17 AM

orbister: How can using an entire recording in this way be considered "fair use"?


Choo-Choo Bear: "It does sound like fair use. They're not trying to profit from the video or the performance of the song."

Not enough to qualify for fair use.  I wish all of the energy (hate) directed by thieves that are interested in stealing movies and music from artists were more directed against business model patents.  Something good might be accomplished in the intellectual properties arena.


I disagree.  There are a number of factors that go to determining if something is fair use.  The portion of the work being used is only one of them.

(1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2)the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3)the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Here, factors 1 and 4 would seem to favor the students.  This isn't the type of work that is going to effect the value or market of the copyrighted work.  It's not likely that people who want to listen to that song are going to watch this video instead of paying for the song.  It's a not for profit, non-commericial use, and is for both non-profit and educational purposes.

Factor 3 sides against them, but that's not determinative.

UsikFark: Fair Use is for the courts to decide! Lawyers for everyone!


Unfortunately, that is true.  There's no way to know if any particular use will fall within fair use without taking it to court.  Worse, most courts that have considered the issue have said that the DMCA does not require that rights holders make a determination about whether or not fair use applies before issuing a take down notice.  And most service providers aren't going to risk their safe-harbor protection just because someone asserts that a particular use is a fair use, when the rights holder disagrees.

If the students know the law, and have a sense of humor, they'll find another Universal song and make a (clearly protected) parody of it addressing the absurdity of the situation.
 
2013-03-12 04:09:10 AM
30,000 views. At what point does Youtube start eharing ad revenue?
 
2013-03-12 04:10:38 AM
f*ck Glee.  hate that damn show.
 
2013-03-12 04:12:58 AM
Copyright takedowns on Youtube are usually automated, something akin to spambots that don't care about false positives because penalties for false takedown claims are never enforced.
 
2013-03-12 04:37:49 AM
I love copyright law. It's the bestest law and should never ever be changed. It is perfect the way it is. And noone in RIAA or IIPA or any of the other great organizations should ever be dipped in tar and rolled in feathers before they were pushed onto a float and forgotten.
 
2013-03-12 04:43:35 AM
Well, since it was young students involved and nothing was really sold for profit, I think a life sentence at PMITA prison for everyone is a fair compensation.
 
2013-03-12 04:57:44 AM

spmkk: Sure. And if the mobile application you spent months writing doesn't get accepted to the Apple App Store, there's always Blackberry's App World.


Or the Ovi Store!
 
2013-03-12 05:14:03 AM

Talondel: (1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2)the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3)the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Here, factors 1 and 4 would seem to favor the students.  This isn't the type of work that is going to effect the value or market of the copyrighted work.  It's not likely that people who want to listen to that song are going to watch this video instead of paying for the song.  It's a not for profit, non-commericial use, and is for both non-profit and educational purposes.


Non-profit educational purposes entails that they are playing the song for actual education.  Like if they decided to sing the song in a music class to teach kids about music, or if they wanted to play a music video in a social studies class and asking the kids to critique the social commentary.   Fair use doesn't mean that if you're a school and you're not making money, you're immune from copyright laws.  In this case, the music is not being used as an educational tool.  It is being used as a promotional tool for advertising purposes. A marketing class should be aware of the basics of copyright and the differences.

Suppose, for instance, that Boy Scouts of America decides to create a series of educational videos, using music from Carly Rae Jepsen for the theme song.  Is that legal?  Should that be legal under fair use?

Suppose Jerry Falwell opens up a non-profit private school for Christian bigots, and he wants to advertise.  So he runs commercials for his school playing Carly Rae Jepsen in the background.  Should that be legal under fair use?

Suppose that a math teacher wants to inspire all his students with the movie "Pi," so he burns 100 copies on his DVD and hands them out to all the students.  He is not making any money off of it.  Is that legal under fair use?

Suppose the teacher doesn't want the students to have to pay for copies of "Animal Farm," so he xeroxes out the entire book so that the students will be able to jot down notes and highlight them.  Is that legal under fair use?

If a kid decides to host a file sharing network for copyrighted music with school resources, but doesn't intend to make any money off of it, should that be legal under fair use?

There are limits to what fair use can and cannot do, even for educational purposes.

Copyright is a lot like jaywalking.  Most of the time, no one is going to bother enforcing the law, so you're good.  But that usually relies on maintaining a low radar.  If you try to create a viral video for self-promotion (not education) and alert the media, then all bets are off.  And in this case, it's a private school, which means that they make more money by increased attendance.
 
2013-03-12 05:23:15 AM
Am i the only one who thought the song they did was from this?
 
2013-03-12 05:23:58 AM
images.mylot.com
 
2013-03-12 05:30:08 AM

untaken_name: orbister: How can using an entire recording in this way be considered "fair use"?

Because it's a school that isn't attempting to make money from it. It doesn't curtail the profits reasonably expected by the owner, and it doesn't substantially impair the value of the song


That may be fair, but it is not, as I understand it, "fair use". Fair use says that you can use extracts of copyrighted materials or even, in some cases, the whole thing, for teaching, research or criticism. It doesn't say that nice people and non-profits get a free ride.

Who would buy the track from iTunes when it's easy to download and save the audio from a Youtube video?
 
2013-03-12 05:30:41 AM

schrodinger: A marketing class should be aware of the basics of copyright and the differences.


Gee, it's almost like they were teaching the students how to market things in their marketing class.
 
2013-03-12 05:32:32 AM

orbister: untaken_name: orbister: How can using an entire recording in this way be considered "fair use"?

Because it's a school that isn't attempting to make money from it. It doesn't curtail the profits reasonably expected by the owner, and it doesn't substantially impair the value of the song

That may be fair, but it is not, as I understand it, "fair use". Fair use says that you can use extracts of copyrighted materials or even, in some cases, the whole thing, for teaching, research or criticism. It doesn't say that nice people and non-profits get a free ride.

Who would buy the track from iTunes when it's easy to download and save the audio from a Youtube video?


Did you miss the part where it was for a school class? That's what we call "teaching".
 
2013-03-12 05:49:36 AM
I'm going to guess this strictly a legal department move. If so, its another example of why the legal department should have to run everything past the marketing department.

Not that the marketing department is usually dumb also, but a good one would have told the lawyers to go get boned and found a way to promote the video and thus the original song and company.
 
2013-03-12 05:50:39 AM

Choo-Choo Bear: orbister: How can using an entire recording in this way be considered "fair use"?

Thank you for not being an idiot poster.  This thread needs more common sense.


You know what common sense is? Not taking down a video made by high school students that uses music in a noncommercial fashion.

Seeing as you seem to lack it, I would advise you to sit down and shut up. Grownups are busy talking, in case you hadn't noticed.
 
2013-03-12 05:55:38 AM

untaken_name: Did you miss the part where it was for a school class? That's what we call "teaching".


From the article:  "Kreuz said the school was looking for an innovative way to market itself to prospective students and promote school spirit. "

Therein lies the problem.  They're not doing this as a teaching tool, they're using this as a promotional tool.

Let's put it this way:  You're a theater teacher.  You teach your kids acting with scenes from "Grease."  Now, if your kids are only acting out scenes in the context of the classroom, there's no problem.  But if you're expect to do an actual production, where you advertise and promote the show, then you can expect to cough up royalties.  Even if you don't charge anything for tickets and you're not making any money off of it, it's still illegal.  That's how the law works.  That's how the law has always worked.

In some cases, the copyright holder might deny the right to use a work at any price.  For instance, if there's a touring production of "Grease" in your city, then they're not going to want a high school production to be showing at the same time.  In other cases, I've had friends who wanted to adapt screenplays to stage plays, and the copyright holder outright refused.  There are people who did their own stage productions of "Newsies" before "Newsies" became a stage musical.  That was technically illegal.

When I was still in school, they had strict rules against video taping any theatre production of a copyrighted work, even if you were part of the staff and it was purely for archival purposes.  Why?  Because they didn't have the license to tape the show, and they took copyright law seriously back then.  These days, audience members will take videos on their cell phone, and you can't stop them if you tried. That doesn't change the fact that what they're doing is technically illegal, regardless of whether or not you make a profit off of it.

Fortunately, copyright holders aren't likely to go after a mom who tapes her daughter in a high school play.  That does not, however, mean that it is legal.
 
2013-03-12 05:59:14 AM
Dear Universal.  I had never heard of Owl City or this song before this.    Granted, it is horrid dreck and reminds me an awful lot of that Friday Friday song but at least one more person has heard of your product.
 
2013-03-12 06:00:31 AM

schrodinger: untaken_name: Did you miss the part where it was for a school class? That's what we call "teaching".

From the article:  "Kreuz said the school was looking for an innovative way to market itself to prospective students and promote school spirit. "

Therein lies the problem.  They're not doing this as a teaching tool, they're using this as a promotional tool.

Let's put it this way:  You're a theater teacher.  You teach your kids acting with scenes from "Grease."  Now, if your kids are only acting out scenes in the context of the classroom, there's no problem.  But if you're expect to do an actual production, where you advertise and promote the show, then you can expect to cough up royalties.  Even if you don't charge anything for tickets and you're not making any money off of it, it's still illegal.  That's how the law works.  That's how the law has always worked.

In some cases, the copyright holder might deny the right to use a work at any price.  For instance, if there's a touring production of "Grease" in your city, then they're not going to want a high school production to be showing at the same time.  In other cases, I've had friends who wanted to adapt screenplays to stage plays, and the copyright holder outright refused.  There are people who did their own stage productions of "Newsies" before "Newsies" became a stage musical.  That was technically illegal.

When I was still in school, they had strict rules against video taping any theatre production of a copyrighted work, even if you were part of the staff and it was purely for archival purposes.  Why?  Because they didn't have the license to tape the show, and they took copyright law seriously back then.  These days, audience members will take videos on their cell phone, and you can't stop them if you tried. That doesn't change the fact that what they're doing is technically illegal, regardless of whether or not you make a profit off of it.

Fortunately, copyright holders aren't likely to go after a mom wh ...


Uh, it's a marketing class. A class in how to market things. The students in the class are learning how to market things, because it's a marketing class. That is what the class is supposed to teach them and it is what they are learning. Checkmate.
 
2013-03-12 06:01:36 AM

Pichu0102: You know what common sense is? Not taking down a video made by high school students that uses music in a noncommercial fashion.


If the the high school students decided to use school computers for tormenting copyrighted music for non-commercial use, would that be legal?

What if they burned copyrighted music to CDs and handed them out to prospective students who were thinking about attending their school?
 
2013-03-12 06:04:48 AM

Weaver95: I don't think the megacorps understand (or accept) the concept of fair use.  their attitude seems to be 'f*ck you - pay me!'


It seems to be the norm. Going full "thermonuclear war" on everything. A friend of mine had his photograph used without permission by some big corporation, and when he  asked for a compensation, they retaliated with an insulting offer and 20+ pages of legalize crap he had to agree to just to get paid.
 
2013-03-12 06:05:33 AM

Spanky_McFarksalot: Not that the marketing department is usually dumb also, but a good one would have told the lawyers to go get boned and found a way to promote the video and thus the original song and company.


No, a good one would have had an original song written for the purpose instead of hijacking a commercial tune.
 
2013-03-12 06:05:34 AM

schrodinger: Pichu0102: You know what common sense is? Not taking down a video made by high school students that uses music in a noncommercial fashion.

If the the high school students decided to use school computers for tormenting copyrighted music for non-commercial use, would that be legal?

What if they burned copyrighted music to CDs and handed them out to prospective students who were thinking about attending their school?


What if they murdered people? What if we judged things based on what happened and not what could have happened?
 
2013-03-12 06:08:16 AM

MacWizard: No, a good one would have had an original song written for the purpose instead of hijacking a commercial tune.


huh?
 
2013-03-12 06:15:42 AM

untaken_name: Uh, it's a marketing class. A class in how to market things. The students in the class are learning how to market things, because it's a marketing class. That is what the class is supposed to teach them and it is what they are learning. Checkmate.


By that logic, it should be okay for a weight lifting class to hand out steroids to all the students, because steroids will help all the students become better weight lifters and therefore it's all for educational purposes.

Sorry, but rules are rules.  Sometimes, the rules might be bypassed for educational purposes to make things simpler for the students.  i.e., novice gymnasts don't start off with an official balance beam, because it would be far too dangerous.  But you should at least make sure that your students know what the rules are in the first place.

Saying that this is for educational purposes only works in the context of the classroom.  Once it leaves the classroom, all bets are off.  For instance, schools are required to pay royalties if they put on an actual production and advertise it to the public.  This is true even when all the actors are enrolled in an acting class.  You might think you're the first person ever to think of this amazing loophole of, "I'll say it's for a class and then I don't have to pay!", but you're really not.

Let's say that a private school known for an anti-gay curriculum decides to market themselves with songs by Elton John.  Does Elton John have a right to say, "Hey, I don't want you to use my songs to promote your school" and take the video down?
 
2013-03-12 06:15:44 AM

untaken_name: Did you miss the part where it was for a school class? That's what we call "teaching".


Did you miss the part where they made the whole of a copyrighted song publically available on Youtube, and din't just use it in a class? That's what we call "not teaching".
 
2013-03-12 06:18:25 AM

schrodinger: In some cases, the copyright holder might deny the right to use a work at any price.


I don't know if it is still the case, but it used to be impossible to get a licence for an amateur production of "The Rocky Horror Show". Didn't stop a college theatre group I knew from doing it, and charging for tickets, but they would have been in deeeeeeep doo-doo had Richard O'Brien found out.
 
2013-03-12 06:22:54 AM

untaken_name: Uh, it's a marketing class. A class in how to market things. The students in the class are learning how to market things, because it's a marketing class. That is what the class is supposed to teach them and it is what they are learning.


Which still does not give them the right to distribute copyrighted material, and more than a film studies class is allowed to put copyrighted films on Youtube or an english literature class is allowed to set up torrents of copyrighted books.

I've used copyrighted work (by Nick Park) in publicity for a non-profit. I wrote to the copyright holders and asked nicely; they said "sure, that will be fifty quid", I sent them a cheque and everyone was happy. This marketing class seems to have learned a valuable lesson in how not to do it.
 
2013-03-12 06:27:31 AM

untaken_name: Uh, it's a marketing class. A class in how to market things. The students in the class are learning how to market things, because it's a marketing class. That is what the class is supposed to teach them and it is what they are learning. Checkmate.


This is simply not a defense.  What if they taught a class on BitTorrent and in that class distributed illegal discographies of artists?  Hell, what if they had a class on self defense and in it they found a hobo and murdered him?  "Fair use" does not mean "if people are learning from your actions you can ignore  all the laws."
 
2013-03-12 06:28:14 AM

orbister: schrodinger: In some cases, the copyright holder might deny the right to use a work at any price.

I don't know if it is still the case, but it used to be impossible to get a licence for an amateur production of "The Rocky Horror Show". Didn't stop a college theatre group I knew from doing it, and charging for tickets, but they would have been in deeeeeeep doo-doo had Richard O'Brien found out.


That was probably many decades ago.  AFAIK, Rocky Horror is now available for license.  I know of several local productions from reputable organizations.

Les Miserables is an interesting example.  The show went on for 30 years, and wasn't available for local productions.  However, at some point, they decided to make a "high school edition" available, where only high schools were eligible.  I suppose because no one from the "theater" crowd would bother attending unless they had kids in the production.
 
2013-03-12 06:46:07 AM
Anyway, I've posted videos with copyrighted materials on youtube before.   On some occasions, I received copyright notice.  Video goes down.  Life moves on.  It's really not a big deal.  I don't whine and cry about how I'm not doing it for a profit.

Heck, there's even a way to bypass this.  Just post the video online with no sound, then have people use a site like youtubedoubler so that they can have it play the Owl City song in the background.

Is it inconvenient?  Sure.  But if you're truly doing this for purely educational purposes, then you should be willing to deal with the hassle.
 
2013-03-12 06:48:13 AM
I guess that was one way to make me find out the this band and this song actually existed.
 
2013-03-12 07:03:02 AM

Spanky_McFarksalot: MacWizard: No, a good one would have had an original song written for the purpose instead of hijacking a commercial tune.

huh?


Is it really that hard to comprehend?

It's a marketing class. They should have had the kids write a song (or get a music class to write a song) instead of using a song that was already released commercially.
 
2013-03-12 07:05:57 AM
Oh, I see your confusion. It was a reading comprehension fail on my part. I didn't realize you were talking about YouTube instead of the school.
 
2013-03-12 07:06:43 AM
This thread is filled with the most godawful analogies and slippery slope arguments I've ever seen.

"What if a concert performer says 'I'm gonna teach you a song' before a paid performance, does that cover him or her under fair use?"

"So a TV show streaming business can show many of the South Park episodes royalty free because they often 'learned something today', right?"

"What if a kid in school kills another kid in school with the shard of a broken CD, does he get off due to fair use then, huh?"

Now being that the school in question was a private school, basically making an ad, no they're probably not covered, but a lot of people in this thread are tossing the Fair Use baby right out with the bathwater, and communicating their reasoning very poorly.
 
2013-03-12 07:08:02 AM
FTA: "I'm surprised that any music company is even attempting to do this kind of pull-down," said William L. Boesch, an attorney with Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Coen. Boesch specializes in intellectual property law. "It does sound like fair use. They're not trying to profit from the video or the performance of the song."

Really?  You're surprised?  It would be one thing to say "I disagree with the decision, but it's a common occurrence "  But to express surprise suggests that your law firm has been sitting under a rock for the last decade or so and therefore has nothing of value to add on the subject.

It would be like talking to someone from ACLU who is shocked to hear that people are getting patted down by TSA.  This is literally a daily occurrence  and it's your job to know about this.  If you do not know about this, then you are not doing your job.

FTA: Copyright is an issue students at St. Peter-Marian shouldn't run into. Three days before Algonquin published its video, St. Peter-Marian published its own school-wide lip-sync video. Although they probably didn't need to due to their use of it, the school purchased a license for the music they chose, "Home," which was popularized by American Idol alumnae Phil Phillips. Then, they performed it themselves.

It looks like another school was able to buy a license.  Which demonstrates two things.  First, it really shouldn't be difficult for this school to do the same.  Second, if the studios make money when schools purchase the rights, then a school that decides against paying the rights is cutting into their profit margin.
 
2013-03-12 07:11:29 AM

neomunk: Now being that the school in question was a private school, basically making an ad, no they're probably not covered, but a lot of people in this thread are tossing the Fair Use baby right out with the bathwater, and communicating their reasoning very poorly.


No one in this thread is saying that fair use shouldn't be used as intended.  Not a single person.

If the school decides to use songs to help kids practice singing in music class, then go for it (They may still need to pay if they want to print sheet music, however).

If the school wants to deconstruct the music for analysis, then go for it.

The only argument is that people can't construe fair use for purely promotional purposes.  Which is the same position that you yourself agree with.
 
2013-03-12 07:16:25 AM

MacWizard: Is it really that hard to comprehend?

It's a marketing class. They should have had the kids write a song


whats hard to comprehend is that I wasn't talking about the class.
 
2013-03-12 07:24:27 AM

Weaver95: I don't think the megacorps understand (or accept) the concept of fair use.  their attitude seems to be 'f*ck you - pay me!'


I'm not sure this qualifies as fair use. And, "I'm not making money off of it," is not sufficient.
 
2013-03-12 07:30:02 AM

offacue: Dear Universal.  I had never heard of Owl City or this song before this.    Granted, it is horrid dreck and reminds me an awful lot of that Friday Friday song but at least one more person has heard of your product.


Neither had I. So from their perspective, pulling the video has helped them.
 
2013-03-12 07:30:10 AM

Spanky_McFarksalot: MacWizard: Is it really that hard to comprehend?

It's a marketing class. They should have had the kids write a song

whats hard to comprehend is that I wasn't talking about the class.


MacWizard: Oh, I see your confusion. It was a reading comprehension fail on my part. I didn't realize you were talking about YouTube instead of the school.

 
2013-03-12 07:32:27 AM

schrodinger: orbister: schrodinger: In some cases, the copyright holder might deny the right to use a work at any price.

I don't know if it is still the case, but it used to be impossible to get a licence for an amateur production of "The Rocky Horror Show". Didn't stop a college theatre group I knew from doing it, and charging for tickets, but they would have been in deeeeeeep doo-doo had Richard O'Brien found out.

That was probably many decades ago.  AFAIK, Rocky Horror is now available for license.  I know of several local productions from reputable organizations.

Les Miserables is an interesting example.  The show went on for 30 years, and wasn't available for local productions.  However, at some point, they decided to make a "high school edition" available, where only high schools were eligible.  I suppose because no one from the "theater" crowd would bother attending unless they had kids in the production.


We did Les Mis in high school, but couldn't afford (or couldn't get) rights to the musical, so we did the straight play.
 
2013-03-12 07:36:45 AM

MacWizard: MacWizard: Oh, I see your confusion. It was a reading comprehension fail on my part. I didn't realize you were talking about YouTube instead of the school.


I was thinking more of the record company, or whoever owns the song.

This seemed like the legal department making a decision to contact Youtube, when it could have easily been a good pr marketing move on the companies part.
 
2013-03-12 07:38:54 AM

vygramul: offacue: Dear Universal.  I had never heard of Owl City or this song before this.    Granted, it is horrid dreck and reminds me an awful lot of that Friday Friday song but at least one more person has heard of your product.

Neither had I. So from their perspective, pulling the video has helped them.


Except the only reason you heard of them is because of this article.

And the only reason you read the article was because the video got taken down.

Of course, it doesn't matter anyway.  If you're not the target audience, then you don't count.  And if you are the target audience, you probably would have already heard of them by now.
 
2013-03-12 07:40:11 AM

Old Man Winter: Idiotic move by the copyright holder.  I am curious as to why a rinky-dink Regional High School (a combined district) "was looking for an innovative way to market itself to prospective students...".  Do students in Mass. often attend HS's in other regions and states?


Our local h.s. did too. Different song. Had no problems. I thought it all started with http://vimeo.com/31628922
 
2013-03-12 07:43:57 AM

Spanky_McFarksalot: I was thinking more of the record company, or whoever owns the song.

This seemed like the legal department making a decision to contact Youtube, when it could have easily been a good pr marketing move on the companies part.


Sadly, the record companies believe that takedown notices and lawsuits ARE a good marketing move, especially if children are involved.
 
2013-03-12 07:47:53 AM

schrodinger: vygramul: offacue: Dear Universal.  I had never heard of Owl City or this song before this.    Granted, it is horrid dreck and reminds me an awful lot of that Friday Friday song but at least one more person has heard of your product.

Neither had I. So from their perspective, pulling the video has helped them.

Except the only reason you heard of them is because of this article.

And the only reason you read the article was because the video got taken down.


Isn't that pretty much what I said?
 
2013-03-12 07:54:52 AM

ArkAngel: Most likely this was a bot doing it. It obviously falls within fair use


Then the bot needs to be programmed batter, no?
 
2013-03-12 07:56:57 AM
Holy shiat, I never knew there was a requirement that to be holier-than-thou you also had to include a terribly thought out analogy in your argument.  It's like when you're expecting a package in the mail and schnauzer.
 
2013-03-12 07:59:32 AM

vygramul: schrodinger: vygramul: offacue: Dear Universal.  I had never heard of Owl City or this song before this.    Granted, it is horrid dreck and reminds me an awful lot of that Friday Friday song but at least one more person has heard of your product.

Neither had I. So from their perspective, pulling the video has helped them.

Except the only reason you heard of them is because of this article.

And the only reason you read the article was because the video got taken down.

It
Isn't that pretty much what I said?


It is. My bad. I should sleep more.
 
2013-03-12 08:40:27 AM

schrodinger: vygramul: schrodinger: vygramul: offacue: Dear Universal.  I had never heard of Owl City or this song before this.    Granted, it is horrid dreck and reminds me an awful lot of that Friday Friday song but at least one more person has heard of your product.

Neither had I. So from their perspective, pulling the video has helped them.

Except the only reason you heard of them is because of this article.

And the only reason you read the article was because the video got taken down.

It
Isn't that pretty much what I said?

It is. My bad. I should sleep more.


S'ok. Happens to the best of us.
 
2013-03-12 09:08:36 AM
It's just a shame that YouTube is the ONLY site that hosts videos. If only there were some other way to get the video on the internet without their consent.
 
2013-03-12 10:35:10 AM
This old chestnut.
farm1.staticflickr.com
 
2013-03-12 11:02:16 AM
There is a simple solution for false flags by bots.  Hang the farker that takes the video down after it's been flagged improperly by a bot.  They'll make damned sure to verify the validity of the claim after you hang the first asshole.
 
2013-03-12 11:06:06 AM

Weaver95: I don't think the megacorps understand (or accept) the concept of fair use.  their attitude seems to be 'f*ck you - pay me!'


Its Bird-Shot lawyering. Blast away at the sky with enough lead, and you may hit one or two.
 
2013-03-12 11:30:00 AM

encyclopediaplushuman: Weaver95: I don't think the megacorps understand (or accept) the concept of fair use.  their attitude seems to be 'f*ck you - pay me!'

Free-to-use and free-to-use copyrights ftw. F*ck the corporations.


Oh, you two rabble rousers, you.
 
2013-03-12 12:15:52 PM

Pichu0102: Grownups are busy talking


Then perhaps the grownups should learn that private schools looking to market themselves are engaging in "for-profit" behavior.  Also, marrying a song with visual images creates a derivative work.

You sound pretty haughty for someone with no knowledge of intellectual property law.
 
2013-03-12 12:23:45 PM
When they uploaded it to Youtube, did they use Youtube's copyright, or did they upload it under Creative Commons?  Huuuuuge difference between the two.
 
2013-03-12 12:28:23 PM

MisterRonbo: 30,000 views. At what point does Youtube start eharing ad revenue?


If you're signed up as a partner, you can earn up to pennies on each ad view. Once your pennies reach $100 (I think that's the limit) then Youtube will start sharing with you.
 
2013-03-12 05:57:09 PM
They're "devastated" they had to take their video down? Seriously? Kids getting gunned down in schools, molested by teachers, but they take down a video and suddenly everyone is devastated. That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
 
2013-03-12 06:07:32 PM

fuligin: They're "devastated" they had to take their video down? Seriously? Kids getting gunned down in schools, molested by teachers, but they take down a video and suddenly everyone is devastated. That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.


FTA: Ober says the school has received offers from attorneys connected with the Algonquin community to help and have been asking Universal to reconsider.

It's also funny how they have lawyers willing to volunteer their time and ask Universal to reconsider, but they won't volunteer to actually put down some money and just pay the damn licensing fee, just like the other school managed to do.
 
Displayed 91 of 91 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report