Home > All Posts > Individual Post
Post #1168

copyright

By contactmica | "contactmica" <contactmica@...> | contactmica
September 15, 2004 | Post #1168 | Topic #514

I was really impressed with the creative commons idea initially. Clearly with digital media and prevelance of sampling, the old way is not going to work. It makes sense that one should be able to determine the restrictions around the use of their material but ultimately becomes what all copyright law is - One Big Grey Area- especially were creativity and art are concerned. Enforcing any copyright law comes down to who has a better lawyer. If creative people ( and i mean the fringe - not the producers of mass/pop culture aka the ones that make the $$$) concerned themselves with what they are legally allowed to incroporate into their ideas and who might steal it from them - we'd be really screwed- we'd be allowing ourselves to be a cog in the machinery that is so rapidly homogenizing culture. Shoot, I could go on and on here, wasn't really prepared to make serious discourse right now, but i really want to push this discussion. Because I feel very strongly about this and it is such an important part of all we are discussing here. Its great to establish laws meant to protect the little guy (us) but these laws unfortunately work best when they are working against us. I know my take is perhaps defeatest, perhaps idealistic ? but I'd rather allow for appropriation of my work, that it may be a contribution to a larger whole that someone may take it as a stepping stone for their ideas, that it may become part of the cultural collateral, is worth the risk of a use I may be unhappy with. And besides I have an unlimited supply of ideas. Digital media makes it harder and harder to keep people from 'stealing' from each other - Ideally content makers should come to understand that this a part of the contemporary structure and to incorporate it into their practice. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup" < videoblog@s...> wrote: > I hope I didn't sound harsh. I really enjoyed the video, but I was > disappointed about the license that's all (now if you've actually violated > a sharealike license I would've been annoyed). > > You can read all about creative commons at <http://creativecommons.org/&gt; > > And you should be able to get educated on Fair Use in any book on media > law. When you are doing works like your revogs you can probably do a lot > and still be covered by Fair Use. > > We have a great chance for making people aware of what they can and can't > do in regards to copyrights because no many are videoblogging it's > possible to get the word out to everyone. If everyone is aware of their > rights (both as artists, consumers and artist/consumers) they will educate > new videobloggers as they emerge. It's important to get these things right > so we won't get percieved as 'thieves' the same way peer-to-peer music > downloaders are. > > When I get around to updating the about page on my website I will make > most of my content available under various creative commons licenses, and > I expect those licenses to be respected. They say 'some rights reserved' > not 'do whatever you'd like'. :o) > > - Andreas, who thinks copyright law is pretty good (it's the patent laws > that are broken beyond repair). > > On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:38:18 -0700, Shannon Noble <sn@n...> wrote: > > > Now that you pointed that out I will change it. At the time I was > > confused > > enough by the procedure of getting something online plus figuring out > > what > > the licensing meant....well I pushed a couple buttons. Yours too. I'll > > fix > > it if that's able. I don't quite understand the licensing concept > > anyways. > > > > > > On 9/14/04 10:35 AM, "Andreas Haugstrup" <videoblog@s...> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 10:51:44 -0700, Shannon Noble <sn@n...> wrote: > >> > >>> http://x.nnon.tv/blog/_archives/2004/9/11/138589.html > >>> > >>> Using footage from some of you here. > >> > >> I watched it when you put it on archive.org earlier. There I was > >> disappointed to see that you had chosen to make it available under the > >> NoDerivs license. Was that a mistake or why did you choose this? > >> > >> It just seems wrong to me that while you are counting on others to > >> provide > >> you footage, you don't want any to reuse your material. > >> > >> Remember that if you are using footage license with a sharealike license > >> you have to make your work available under the same license. This could > >> lead to some interesting problems where a movie is made up of clips with > >> different sharealike licenses... > >> > >> - Andreas > > > > --This is Vlog: http://x.nnon.tv/ > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > We have a great chance for making people aware of what they can and can't > do in regards to copyrights because no many are videoblogging it's > possible to get the word out to everyone. If everyone is aware of their > rights (both as artists, consumers and artist/consumers) they will educate > new videobloggers as they emerge. It's important to get these things right > so we won't get percieved as 'thieves' the same way peer-to-peer music > downloaders are. > > When I get around to updating the about page on my website I will make > most of my content available under various creative commons licenses, and > I expect those licenses to be respected. They say 'some rights reserved' > not 'do whatever you'd like'. :o) > > - Andreas, who thinks copyright law is pretty good (it's the patent laws > that are broken beyond repair). > > On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:38:18 -0700, Shannon Noble <sn@n...> wrote: > > > Now that you pointed that out I will change it. At the time I was > > confused > > enough by the procedure of getting something online plus figuring out > > what > > the licensing meant....well I pushed a couple buttons. Yours too. I'll > > fix > > it if that's able. I don't quite understand the licensing concept > > anyways. > > > > > > On 9/14/04 10:35 AM, "Andreas Haugstrup" <videoblog@s...> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 10:51:44 -0700, Shannon Noble <sn@n...> wrote: > >> > >>> http://x.nnon.tv/blog/_archives/2004/9/11/138589.html > >>> > >>> Using footage from some of you here. > >> > >> I watched it when you put it on archive.org earlier. There I was > >> disappointed to see that you had chosen to make it available under the > >> NoDerivs license. Was that a mistake or why did you choose this? > >> > >> It just seems wrong to me that while you are counting on others to > >> provide > >> you footage, you don't want any to reuse your material. > >> > >> Remember that if you are using footage license with a sharealike license > >> you have to make your work available under the same license. This could > >> lead to some interesting problems where a movie is made up of clips with > >> different sharealike licenses... > >> > >> - Andreas > > > > --This is Vlog: http://x.nnon.tv/ > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Personal: <http://www.solitude.dk&gt; > File Thingie - PHP File Manager <http://www.solitude.dk/filethingie/&gt;