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  
•       •       •

10511 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 41 of 91 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report