For anyone who's interested, you can watch the old Electric Company (where this clip came from) series on Hulu, where Sesame Workshop—the fine folks who make educational programming for kids—is getting some payment out of it. O:-)
A lot the rights to these films are confusing, which is why (a) they haven't been pulled from youtube in the first place and (b) they aren't available to buy/watch through conventional channels.
Expired licenses, bankrupt companies, shared productions and other factors all lead to a lot of material existing into a nebulous grey area that isn't public domain but at the same time won't raise any flags if you post it on youtube.
Take the example of Charles Fries Productions that @nweathington gives. Not only do they not have the time or people to chase Youtube infractions, they have not existed for 18 years.
First they changed their name to Fries Entertainment in 1985, then went out of business in 1996. Apparently the material produced went to Polygram, then to MGM. But the last time any of the Spider-Man films were released was on UK VHS from MIA in 2000. How it ended up with them I don't know. Sublicensing? Existing contracts? They too are out of business now, so they can't get it pulled from Youtube either. It's entirely possible that if there is an entity who has the rights to the CFP Spider-Man, they may not even know it.
Part of the overall problem is that our copyright laws are outdated. Despite past efforts of copyright reform, lawmakers simply can't (or won't) keep up with technology, and when they do pass legislation, it’s usually for the benefit of the big corporations and their lobbyists. We need major reform to the US copyright laws, but I doubt we'll ever get it.
you can watch the old Electric Company (where this clip came from) series on Hulu, where Sesame Workshop—the fine folks who make educational programming for kids—is getting some payment out of it. O:-)
Sesame Workshop—the fine folks who make educational programming for kids already gets my tax dollars. That's how I saw if for free the first 100 times it aired on television. I'm happy to let them get money from Hulu though. One more or less viewer won't change that payment, and I don't have to watch the whole episode to see just the clip I wanted to by using Youtube/Google's free service - Yay Youtube again :)
you can watch the old Electric Company (where this clip came from) series on Hulu, where Sesame Workshop—the fine folks who make educational programming for kids—is getting some payment out of it. O:-)
Sesame Workshop—the fine folks who make educational programming for kids already gets my tax dollars. That's how I saw if for free the first 100 times it aired on television. I'm happy to let them get money from Hulu though. One more or less viewer won't change that payment, and I don't have to watch the whole episode to see just the clip I wanted to by using Youtube/Google's free service - Yay Youtube again :)
You know, YouTube to me is a lot like Fantagraphics. They host a lot of great original content, with a wide range of variety from pure entertainment to highly educational. And I follow a number of those channels. But they make a lot of money off the ads attached to illegally posted material, much like Fantagraphics was able to stay afloat for many years mainly on the back of their Eros Comix “adult” division. I’ve got nothing against porn, but I find Fantagraphics’ air of superiority (not as much these days, but it was very evident not that long ago) over mainstream publishers hypocritical at best. I would love for YouTube to get to the point where they can succeed solely on the basis of original content and really crack down on illegal posting. But I don't think that will ever happen, because I highly doubt they would give up that revenue stream. Yay YouTube.
Oh, and Hulu allows you to skip around in an episode, so you don't have to watch an entire episode if all you want to see is the Spidey bits. They even have little screen shots laid out so you can jump to the spot you want. I went through about a month ago and rewatched all the Letterman cartoons with my kids. Didn't take very long to get through them all.
My Chromecast doesn't cast regular Hulu and I don't subscribe to Hulu Plus. It's available exactly the way I want to watch it on Youtube. Therefore, I watch it on Youtube for free right on my television.
Technically, nweathington, by quoting the post above you without explicit written permission, you're in violation of copyright laws. It's simply an unenforced law. "Fair Use" provisions muddy the waters a bit here, but only a bit. You quoted the earlier post (copyrighted, per the Berne Convention) in its entirety, which is one strike against you, and the case law on internet forum commentary just isn't very substantial, so you've got no precedent on your side. If I decided to sue you, I could win. But because most judges still demonstrate some common sense, you'd likely not lose, but if you got a very persnickety judge who stuck to the letter of the law and was not unreasonably ingenerous with the fair use provisions, you could easily owe me something on the order of $30,000.
But you don't, because it's American copyright law is not only unenforced in many places, but it is nearly impossible to obey it. Thomas Aquinas himself concurred that a law that was unenforced (or by its nature unenforceable) had no binding force. I'm not suggesting that you can go around downloading thousands of movies for free, but I am certainly suggesting that there is a great deal of gray space around the edges, where moral people can only make prudential judgments, rather than categorical claims.
Indeed, it seems to me that YouTube goes quite a bit beyond what it is morally obligated to do, scrubbing not only every kind of copyrighted content, but also scrubbing off items which would clearly fall under fair use, and even totally uncopyrighted material, invariably without giving the affected users warning or the opportunity for protest. If anything, it should be protested against for shutting down the innocent as part of an overzealous anti-piracy policy. Certainly, it does far more than Mr. Aquinas would demand of it.
And, incidentally, it is not illegal to stream or even obtain an illegal copy of copyrighted material under American law. It is illegal to make or distribute such copies. So, no, in no sense whatsoever are YouTube viewers violating copyright law.
However, by quoting me in your post without my written consent, you might be. Ironic, yes?
I would love for YouTube to get to the point where they can succeed solely on the basis of original content and really crack down on illegal posting. But I don't think that will ever happen, because I highly doubt they would give up that revenue stream. Yay YouTube.
Many movie production companies, music labels, and artists will put their material on youtube so fans can enjoy it. Some tv shows and channels also do that to promote their works. There are thousands of original video channels on Youtube. RedLetter Media is one of my favorites. Marvel Entertainment has an excellent Youtube channel. There are thousands of copyright holders who are making their original content available on Youtube. It is an excellent platform for this endeavor.
Did it ever occur to you that many artists and labels are aware that their "stuff" is on youtube and just allow it to be there? Or are happy to receive the revenue from the ads on there? Strictly from a marketing point of view, it's free publicity, plus for a lot of the songs you'll often find an iTunes link to go and buy the song which you've got to think generates some purchases, and, if you wish you can have it pulled at anytime because Google is a big company that respects copyright law - as I've mentioned previously. I have little doubt you experienced any problems issuing a take-down notice to Youtube and that it was responded to without haste. I've known kids that have made videos using copyrighted songs and were immediately notified by Youtube, but they didn't have to take down the video. They could keep it up as long as they understood Youtube was going to display ads on the video, which was a deal already worked out in advance with that record label.
ABCTV On Demand even makes full shows available on Youtube for a $1.99 fee. So they have other delivery methods. They can't be ALL BAD...
You seem to want everyone to stop using Youtube because you've drawn a moral equivalent from using their service to stealing from unwilling artists who don't know any better. Let me point out that if a visual artist who's work has been made into publicly available video is not aware that it could end up on Youtube then they are off the charts ignorant and in need of immediate help. I don;t feel it is my duty to provide that help, but you are welcome to campaign the opposite of that all you like.
Of course, I'm quoting you in a message thread in an interaction with you, responding to your statement with a statement of my own which you will surely see. I'm not posting your quote on my Facebook page or in a book, etc. Not quite the same thing. Besides, you quoted me too, so that makes us even. ;) And I think I already pointed out that US copyright laws are in great need of reform, so I’m not arguing against you on that point.
And, yes, I am aware that music labels and artists post their material on YouTube. I frequent many of those channels. And I’m not saying people should stop using YouTube. In fact, I said I watch a lot of original content on YouTube (and to me original content includes music posted by the artist or their label, movie clips posted by the studio which produced it, as well as a vlog posted by some random guy). I wish YouTube would put all their focus there. I think it’s an excellent way for individuals to display their work, earn money from it (not much in most cases, but still), while maintaining creative control over that work. I welcome fans who post links to that original content they enjoy in hopes of drawing more eyes to it. But I make a distinction between what is legally posted and what is not.
You believe YouTube is going beyond their moral obligation. I believe they’re only doing what is financially expedient and no more than the minimum that is required of them by law.
As for artists not knowing better, I don’t think there are any professional artists (or photographers, filmmakers, etc.) in this day and age who don’t realize their work could end up on YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr, etc. In many cases, they want the work they post on their Tumblr (for instance) shared, as long as they are cited as the creator of that work. It does them no good for their work to be shared if no one seeing it knows they created it. Unfortunately, the people who share that work tend to neglect that aspect, and few people want to take the time to track back through repost after repost to find the original source of the post, assuming that trail is even there. And, again, most working professional artists simply don't have the time to monitor the entirety of the Internet. So I do feel obligated to help those artists, and I would appreciate them to do the same for me.
Of course. I agree on that point, and I appreciate your reasoning behind your strict adherence to this dogmatic stance due to your integrity, but going back to the 1978 tv movie "Spider Man Strikes Back" you may not have noticed that the full credits are included in the video not only at the beginning, but at the end at around the 1:29:45 mark, so credit is included in the work.
Wishing Youtube would change the way they do things is one thing, but something else is getting upset when a comic book fan posts a link here to a youtube video of The Amazing Spider-Man (1977) which has been available to view for over 3 years without being taken down.
No, I did not notice the credits were included, because I did not watch it. Not that that makes it any more legal. And when creators post things on their Tumblr (or whatever), they're generally only posting an image or a clip, not a full movie. But I was referring to the Internet at large, not these specific posts.
I'm not angry or outraged about these links specifically. I hope you didn’t read that into my comments, for that was not my intention. And I hope no one thinks I’m piously wagging my finger at them for posting the links or for viewing them. I am worried, however, about the nonchalant attitude towards intellectual property that seems to be prevalent among Internet users in general and where it could lead, and I feel that certain things need pointing out. That’s all.
Part of me agrees with you that there's probably no harm in watching Spider-Man Strikes Back through a YouTube link, since no one who has a stake in it seemingly cares. But the way I see it, assumptions like this are a slippery slope that lead to other assumptions which can and do harm others. And even if people don’t agree with me, I think discussing it will help people make more informed, conscientious decisions.
And I’m not saying people should stop using YouTube. In fact, I said I watch a lot of original content on YouTube... I wish YouTube would put all their focus there.
Lord Nivel Weathington VII ;) wants less youtube Spiderman and more cat videos.
And I’m not saying people should stop using YouTube. In fact, I said I watch a lot of original content on YouTube... I wish YouTube would put all their focus there.
Lord Nivel Weathington VII ;) wants less youtube Spiderman and more cat videos.
Oooooooh, I’m a lord now! I'm moving up in the world!
I get land with the title, right? Isn’t that how it works? Or have they stopped doing that?
And the cat videos are strictly for my wife and kids. I'm allergic to cats.
Comments
Expired licenses, bankrupt companies, shared productions and other factors all lead to a lot of material existing into a nebulous grey area that isn't public domain but at the same time won't raise any flags if you post it on youtube.
Take the example of Charles Fries Productions that @nweathington gives. Not only do they not have the time or people to chase Youtube infractions, they have not existed for 18 years.
First they changed their name to Fries Entertainment in 1985, then went out of business in 1996. Apparently the material produced went to Polygram, then to MGM. But the last time any of the Spider-Man films were released was on UK VHS from MIA in 2000. How it ended up with them I don't know. Sublicensing? Existing contracts? They too are out of business now, so they can't get it pulled from Youtube either. It's entirely possible that if there is an entity who has the rights to the CFP Spider-Man, they may not even know it.
Part of the overall problem is that our copyright laws are outdated. Despite past efforts of copyright reform, lawmakers simply can't (or won't) keep up with technology, and when they do pass legislation, it’s usually for the benefit of the big corporations and their lobbyists. We need major reform to the US copyright laws, but I doubt we'll ever get it.
Sesame Workshop—the fine folks who make educational programming for kids already gets my tax dollars. That's how I saw if for free the first 100 times it aired on television. I'm happy to let them get money from Hulu though. One more or less viewer won't change that payment, and I don't have to watch the whole episode to see just the clip I wanted to by using Youtube/Google's free service - Yay Youtube again :)
Yay Youtube!
Oh, and Hulu allows you to skip around in an episode, so you don't have to watch an entire episode if all you want to see is the Spidey bits. They even have little screen shots laid out so you can jump to the spot you want. I went through about a month ago and rewatched all the Letterman cartoons with my kids. Didn't take very long to get through them all.
Technically, nweathington, by quoting the post above you without explicit written permission, you're in violation of copyright laws. It's simply an unenforced law. "Fair Use" provisions muddy the waters a bit here, but only a bit. You quoted the earlier post (copyrighted, per the Berne Convention) in its entirety, which is one strike against you, and the case law on internet forum commentary just isn't very substantial, so you've got no precedent on your side. If I decided to sue you, I could win. But because most judges still demonstrate some common sense, you'd likely not lose, but if you got a very persnickety judge who stuck to the letter of the law and was not unreasonably ingenerous with the fair use provisions, you could easily owe me something on the order of $30,000.
But you don't, because it's American copyright law is not only unenforced in many places, but it is nearly impossible to obey it. Thomas Aquinas himself concurred that a law that was unenforced (or by its nature unenforceable) had no binding force. I'm not suggesting that you can go around downloading thousands of movies for free, but I am certainly suggesting that there is a great deal of gray space around the edges, where moral people can only make prudential judgments, rather than categorical claims.
Indeed, it seems to me that YouTube goes quite a bit beyond what it is morally obligated to do, scrubbing not only every kind of copyrighted content, but also scrubbing off items which would clearly fall under fair use, and even totally uncopyrighted material, invariably without giving the affected users warning or the opportunity for protest. If anything, it should be protested against for shutting down the innocent as part of an overzealous anti-piracy policy. Certainly, it does far more than Mr. Aquinas would demand of it.
And, incidentally, it is not illegal to stream or even obtain an illegal copy of copyrighted material under American law. It is illegal to make or distribute such copies. So, no, in no sense whatsoever are YouTube viewers violating copyright law.
However, by quoting me in your post without my written consent, you might be. Ironic, yes?
Many movie production companies, music labels, and artists will put their material on youtube so fans can enjoy it. Some tv shows and channels also do that to promote their works. There are thousands of original video channels on Youtube. RedLetter Media is one of my favorites. Marvel Entertainment has an excellent Youtube channel. There are thousands of copyright holders who are making their original content available on Youtube. It is an excellent platform for this endeavor.
Did it ever occur to you that many artists and labels are aware that their "stuff" is on youtube and just allow it to be there? Or are happy to receive the revenue from the ads on there? Strictly from a marketing point of view, it's free publicity, plus for a lot of the songs you'll often find an iTunes link to go and buy the song which you've got to think generates some purchases, and, if you wish you can have it pulled at anytime because Google is a big company that respects copyright law - as I've mentioned previously. I have little doubt you experienced any problems issuing a take-down notice to Youtube and that it was responded to without haste. I've known kids that have made videos using copyrighted songs and were immediately notified by Youtube, but they didn't have to take down the video. They could keep it up as long as they understood Youtube was going to display ads on the video, which was a deal already worked out in advance with that record label.
ABCTV On Demand even makes full shows available on Youtube for a $1.99 fee. So they have other delivery methods. They can't be ALL BAD...
You seem to want everyone to stop using Youtube because you've drawn a moral equivalent from using their service to stealing from unwilling artists who don't know any better. Let me point out that if a visual artist who's work has been made into publicly available video is not aware that it could end up on Youtube then they are off the charts ignorant and in need of immediate help. I don;t feel it is my duty to provide that help, but you are welcome to campaign the opposite of that all you like.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer.
And, yes, I am aware that music labels and artists post their material on YouTube. I frequent many of those channels. And I’m not saying people should stop using YouTube. In fact, I said I watch a lot of original content on YouTube (and to me original content includes music posted by the artist or their label, movie clips posted by the studio which produced it, as well as a vlog posted by some random guy). I wish YouTube would put all their focus there. I think it’s an excellent way for individuals to display their work, earn money from it (not much in most cases, but still), while maintaining creative control over that work. I welcome fans who post links to that original content they enjoy in hopes of drawing more eyes to it. But I make a distinction between what is legally posted and what is not.
You believe YouTube is going beyond their moral obligation. I believe they’re only doing what is financially expedient and no more than the minimum that is required of them by law.
As for artists not knowing better, I don’t think there are any professional artists (or photographers, filmmakers, etc.) in this day and age who don’t realize their work could end up on YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr, etc. In many cases, they want the work they post on their Tumblr (for instance) shared, as long as they are cited as the creator of that work. It does them no good for their work to be shared if no one seeing it knows they created it. Unfortunately, the people who share that work tend to neglect that aspect, and few people want to take the time to track back through repost after repost to find the original source of the post, assuming that trail is even there. And, again, most working professional artists simply don't have the time to monitor the entirety of the Internet. So I do feel obligated to help those artists, and I would appreciate them to do the same for me.
Wishing Youtube would change the way they do things is one thing, but something else is getting upset when a comic book fan posts a link here to a youtube video of The Amazing Spider-Man (1977) which has been available to view for over 3 years without being taken down.
I'm not angry or outraged about these links specifically. I hope you didn’t read that into my comments, for that was not my intention. And I hope no one thinks I’m piously wagging my finger at them for posting the links or for viewing them. I am worried, however, about the nonchalant attitude towards intellectual property that seems to be prevalent among Internet users in general and where it could lead, and I feel that certain things need pointing out. That’s all.
Part of me agrees with you that there's probably no harm in watching Spider-Man Strikes Back through a YouTube link, since no one who has a stake in it seemingly cares. But the way I see it, assumptions like this are a slippery slope that lead to other assumptions which can and do harm others. And even if people don’t agree with me, I think discussing it will help people make more informed, conscientious decisions.
I get land with the title, right? Isn’t that how it works? Or have they stopped doing that?
And the cat videos are strictly for my wife and kids. I'm allergic to cats.