Fair Use for YouTube & MySpace Users

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A few years back, documentary filmmakers didn't know what copyrighted clips they could safely include in their films as a 'fair use'. Now there's a well-accepted set of 'best practices' that establishes rational, predictable rules. The same folks who brought rationality to the world of documentary filmmaking are about to work their magic in the user-generated online content space, including user-created videos on YouTube and user-created music on My Space. They said: 'Nonprofessional, online video now accounts for a sizeable portion of all broadband traffic, with much of the work weaving in copyrighted material ... A new culture is emerging — remix culture, an unpredictable mix of the witty, the vulgar, the politically and culturally critical, and the just plain improbable ... What's fair in online-video use of copyrighted material? The healthy growth of this new mode of expression is at risk of becoming a casualty of the efforts of copyright owners to limit wholesale redistribution of their content on sites like YouTube, and of videomakers' own uncertainties about the law.'"

Comments

Law?

[Odin_Tiger]

Isn't there a legal definition of what is and what is not fair use? Or is it so vague that we have to make up rules and hope the **AA's approve?

Re:Law?

[zarkill]

These guidelines tell you what to consider, but they don't explicitly quantify or define anything, so in the end you really are just guessing and hoping you don't get sued anyway.

For instance, who judges what the "purpose and character" of the use is? I might think my usage of a copyrighted work is educational and with good purpose, but the owner of the work might disagree. There's nothing outlining specifically what is and isn't a good purpose or character; only a couple of suggestions of things that might qualify.

Or how much of the "amount and substantiality" used is acceptable? The law doesn't say "you can use 10% but no more", so it's still a guessing game.

And it's not always possible to judge what the effect on a potential market will be. Some people say sharing music increases the market for that music, while the industry claims huge losses from the same act.

So these are things to take into consideration, but they aren't really answers. The only thing you can do is try to think about these guidelines and hope for the best.

Obligitory youtube link

[dknj]

Disney teaches copyright

dk-

the problem IS the law

[circletimessquare]

copyright law was originally intended to reward content creators for their work, to give them incentive to create content. however, copyright law has been hijacked by the economic middlemen, the distributors, such that the reward content creators get doesn't matter anymore (and is significantly reduced)

and we are supposed to respect this. why? why must we respect this?

copyright law has been inculcated and grown according to corporate interests nowadays and has morhped into something completely different form its original purpose. it's a cancer. and now it threatens to kill the public domain, making increasing incursions on what is considered free and fair use

hey, how about most everything is free and fair use, and fuck you to corporate-backed copyright law? is that crazy? who tells you that's crazy? the corporate-backed lawyers?

copyright law itself is the problem, the notion of intellectual property itself is the problem. it has been warped form its original purpose and has been corrupted. it's cancerous corporate growth fueled by the almighty buck, and now it threatens to kill the very creative centers that their money comes form in the first place

here's an idea dear corporate music and corporate video: you can extend the copyright on mickey mouse forever, and pump cash out of that icon forever. and you will get diminishing returns over the years. or you can let it go, and watch your "property" morph into a million stepchildren, one of which will be the next mickey mouse for you to pump money out of

in other words, if you relaxed on the stifling laws and their continued growth, and backed off a bit, you might be surprised to find the emergence of more properties for you to exploit. those properties come from somewhere: creative ferment. but right now your laws stifle and lay waste to that very same garden of creative ferment that your life blood runs from. and you are too oriented to the almighty covetous greedy buck, too shortsighted to see, that the continued cancerous growth of your laws (they certainly aren't the public's laws) is killing your future growth. you'd rather bleed fossil intellectual property assets then relax and let more modern and vital ones be born. because you bleed the creative commons dry with your laws. if you covetously protect your "property" from the public domain to the bitter end, you actually wind up with diminishing returns

the whole idea of intellectual property in the very first place was to provide for a comfortable and ratinoal boundary between private domain and public domain. but under the tutelage of legions of corporate lawyers and the thirst for more money, it has grown into a cancer, that frankly, needs to be broken before it gets fixed. because there is no incentive for corporate lawyers to respect the public domain

and so the public domain must go "illegal". copyright law and intellectual property has ceased to resemble anything moral or even financially sound anymore. all it does is kill our shared free public cultural riches for a set of diminished fossilized corporate private riches

ip law is corrupt and broken. don't respect it. it deserves to be broken. do your best to break it

Re:Whose Responsibility?

[bidule]

Google/YouTube hides under the fact that US copyright law puts the responsibility of reporting violation on the copyright holders.

How is that different from the non-eWorld? How does YouTube videos compare to fake Gucci bags or CDs?

If a second-hand CD store sells illegal copies, is it the store owner's fault? Same thing for stolen goods. If he bought them in good faith, you can't really put the blame on him.

An even closer example: should a flea market owner verify that every stall rented contains only genuine goods? Or should it be the copyright owner's job to pay someone to make the rounds.

You cannot ask for stricter controls because it is the Internet.

Re:Whose Responsibility?

[Opportunist]

YouTube just spits in the face of copyright holders

That's allright. Copyright holders spit in the face of their customers.

The problem is that the fronts have been entrenched to the point where meaningful discussion is near impossible by now. Both sides, the content industry and the content users, would rather see the other side sink than give them an inch, thinking that giving an inch leads to getting a mile taken.

And for a fact, both sides are right in that assumption.

Also, the content industry is quite wary of having copyright laws examined in the "light of recent development". It would invariably bring topics to the table like the length of copyright, which has today no longer the same reason to be near infinite that it was 200 years ago (when the better part of 5 years could pass between conception and publishing, especially in countries that had heavy censorship where you could wait 2 and more years for clearance from the censuring body alone).

The primary problem remains, that neither side actually wants "mutually acceptable" copyright terms.