----
Now that you can embed YouTube and MySpace video content on Gather, some people people are up in arms about how this is 'stealing' and/or 'violating copyright'.
You have a right to embed video content! Don't let anyone tell you differently. THIS IS NOT 'STEALING'. You are not neccessarily violating someone's rights by embedding content - sites such as YouTube have precautions in place to protect copyright holders.
In many cases, the artists WANT you to share and spread their content - and they have officially sanctioned YouTube Channels. Please do not fall into this latest outbreak of the copyright witch hunt - know what your rights are, and how to embed appropriatly - then by all means, embed videos and enjoy!
Here is a simple guide to the embed issue as I understand it. Please understand that I am no expert in internet law, but I researched this and this is my understanding of the issue that I am presenting to you as an alternative to panic:
Embedding from Official Artist or User Channels
If you are embedding a video from an artist's official channel and they allow embeds THEY ARE IN EFFECT GRANTING YOU THE RIGHT TO EMBED THE VIDEO. They WANT you to embed it, because it gives their music exposure. Go for it! Enjoy, share, tell all your friends. YouTube allows you to disable the embed functions on videos that you do not wish to share - if they didn't want it to be shared, they would have chosen this option. If you are sharing a funny video that some guy named Bob made and he has the embed function turned on, he likewise is saying 'hey buddy, please share my funny video with the internets!' Go ahead, it's fun!
Fair Use Rights: What are they?
Fair Use use means that you have the right to post a video clip and provide content or commentary on it in order to review or express an opinion on the subject matter. Posting a video clip by your favorite artist and telling why this is your favorite music video falls under this category.
This is the same rule that allows book reviewers to quote sections of a book while they are reviewing it.
Burden of Complaint:
When this becomes somewhat hairy is when say, someone makes a fan video using a clip from a show and background music from a popular song - neither of which they own the copyright to. Should you then share that video? When you embed it, are you responsible for any copyright violations that might be taking place? In short, No.
The obligation falls on the original holder of the copyright content to contact YouTube and ask that it be removed. Also, the above example may also fall under a section of Fair Use called Transformative Works which allows for parodies, satires, and deviative works up to a point.
What Shouldn't I Embed:
There are some things you shouldn't embed - they include:
- full length movies
- full length television shows
- anything that violates the terms of service of the site you are embedding on
How to Credit Embedded Works:
Be sure to state who the creator and/or music artist is, the same as you would attribute any other content that is not your own. If you want to be nice, include a link back to their official YouTube channel or website so that others can discover more about the artist. The important part here is to make sure that others know that the work isn't your own - this should be obvious in most cases, but it's better to credit to avoid any confusion.
Also, check this out the following guidlines to embedding rights from the Blog Herald:
1. Don’t Embed Clearly Infringing Material: Lengthy clips of popular television shows and movies, meaning the length goes beyond what might be considered fair use, should not be embedded.
2. Embed from Official Channels: Many major rightsholders, including CBS, have official YouTube channels that allow embedding.
3. Stick to Popular Amateur Clips: Since the majority of the most popular clips on YouTube are amateur-made, it is probably best to stick to those. In most of these cases, the rightsholder is the one who posted the clip to begin with.
4. Say Something About It: Generally, transformative use is much more highly protected than non-transformative use. Rather than simply posting the clip, say something about it. Offer some commentary or criticism regarding the clip or discuss an issue that relates to it.
5. When in Doubt, Link Don’t Embed: If you are unsure about a video clip, consider linking to it rather than embedding it directly.
And to make this official - here's an embedded video from my favorite band, The Elected.
In the end, Internet Law is a new and nebulous field. The opinions expressed above are my interpretation of what I've read - I may be wrong, you may be right. Do I think the copyright police are going to burst into my home for posting a George Carlin video on Gather? No. Do I think we should just chill about this and worry about more important issues like the economy, enviromnent, and this unwinnable war? Yes. Do I think you are entitled to your opinion? Of course. Do I think you should go on the witch hunt about it? Of course not.
Let those who want to embed, embed in peace - and those who don't want to - well, it'll only take you a second to hit the back button and skip viewing the 'questionable content'. Quietly.
----
EDITED TO ADD:
Some other informed opinions on this subject - thanks to everyone who debated this constructively and cleared up some issues:
Kevin V writes:
Laura,
Some of this information is very valuable for members to be aware of. However, it is also important to make some distinctions in this matter:
1) Embedding content CAN be stealing...so a blanket statement that it isn't is incorrect.
2) The guidelines you have provided above are derived from YouTube, and may not applicable for other sites where embedded content can be found.
While YouTube has a copyright reporting process, that doesn't mean that everything published to YouTube is free of copyright restrictions or is posted legally. The responsibility/burden of proof typically lies with the original YouTube publisher however, so videos published and used on Gather can usually be done without legal repercussions. However using stolen merchandise, whether you are aware it's stolen or not, is still doing a disservice to the original copyright holder.
Rick S writes:
The following is an incorrect definition of Fair Use:
"Posting a video clip by your favorite artist and telling why this is your favorite music video falls under this category."
Fair use involves using PART of a work for purposes of criticism and review. A song is not considered "part" of an album for purposes of fair use. It is considered a complete work.
Posting a complete song or music video without the permission of the artist is a violation, and you are misinforming your audience by implying that it is permissible under a fair use defense.
By the way, the law does not specify exactly how much of a work can be excerpted. That is left for the judge to interpret, but most copyright information sources I've seen set a guideline of around 10% or the work. For a 3-minute song, that means it would be permissible to include a 18-second clip in your review.
Janna R writes:
"The obligation falls on the original holder of the copyright content to contact YouTube and ask that it be removed."
"The responsibility/burden of proof typically lies with the original YouTube publisher however, so videos published and used on Gather can usually be done without legal repercussions."
It will be interesting to see what happens with the Viacom vs. Google/YouTube case. From what I can tell, it has the potential to change everything.
"...the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) may prove less of a legal shield for Web companies than it has in the past. Enacted in 1998, the law essentially protects Web sites from liability for their users' actions (BusinessWeek.com, 5/28/08), provided they remove illegal material once they are formally notified of its appearance on their site. The protections in the DMCA are among the main reasons sites across the Web—from social networks to media sites including BusinessWeek.com (MHP)—can solicit an array of user contributions...."
from this article: Viacom vs. YouTube: Beyond Privacy--As Viacom is granted access to YouTube user records, a bigger threat to user-generated sites emerges: The law is increasingly siding with rights owners. There's a lot about this billion-dollar lawsuit online. It's probably worth keeping an eye on.
DBD writes:
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(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.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 97 ( 3 removed by Laura Cushing )
I hope ALOT of members read it!
http://friendsofdanh.gather.com.
Our goal is to help you further your exposure and to support other gather members.
Some of this information is very valuable for members to be aware of. However, it is also important to make some distinctions in this matter:
1) Embedding content CAN be stealing...so a blanket statement that it isn't is incorrect.
2) The guidelines you have provided above are derived from YouTube, and may not applicable for other sites where embedded content can be found.
While YouTube has a copyright reporting process, that doesn't mean that everything published to YouTube is free of copyright restrictions or is posted legally. The responsibility/burden of proof typically lies with the original YouTube publisher however, so videos published and used on Gather can usually be done without legal repercussions. However using stolen merchandise, whether you are aware it's stolen or not, is still doing a disservice to the original copyright holder.
Have a magical day...
Angel
IMEEME. SO CAN'T USE THIS ONE, ACCORDING TO KEVIN???
The way I see it - the responsibility lies with the copyright holder to request content be removed from YouTube if it is a problem. It doesn't seem like the end user has any obligation to assure that the content is copyright free, etc.
If someone is concerned about such on a moral basis, they could easily just stick to embedding things from official artist channels- which are obviously meant to be shared with the grace of said artist.
I don't consider it a morality issue as no one is getting hurt - I'd rather save my moral quandaries for unjust wars and people kicking puppies and things that matter than whether or not I can post a funny video without making the baby Jesus cry. ;)
The funny thing is that no actual copyright holders are involved in this debate - it'd be different if someone said "hey, that's my video- I didn't want it shared, please take it down". Or if it was an issue of actually making a false claim, saying 'Watch my band in this amazing video we shot' when it was really someone else's band.
Embedding videos takes place all over the internet, and I'm all for it as long as no one's getting hurt. Who does it hurt when someone listens to a song or watches a video? Nothing is downloaded - if anything, you learn about a band or a song you didn't know about before and might go out and buy the album.
I say horray for the information age, bring it on. =)
--L
This is quite possibly the dumbest statement I have seen on gather regarding the encouragement of copyright violators. . .
So you're saying that even though You know that Video A is obviously copyrighted, because you are the "end user" it is fine to use it even though you are breaking a law?
Why make the artists have to track their work all over the internet? That isn't very fair to t he creating artist to have to go around all day long making sure no low life has stolen their stuff. It is no better than shop lifting from a store.
Sometimes I think I just reply to you for my own amusement. I already know what you're going to say. As someone on gather's payroll it is your prerogative to agree with them.
If you're going to make references to me through my tags, you might as well just call me out Laura, no need to be a wimp.
That really isn't correct. Members CAN be prosecuted or sued for using embedded content depending upon several variables, including: i) where the embed code was obtained, ii) whether the embed code was used for profit or personal gain; and iii) if there was a reasonable expectation that the video violated copyright or other laws...as well as the context in which the video was used.
Notice everyone else is discussing this RESPECTFULLY.
If you can't discuss things civilly, please don't.
-L
Is there such a thing as an unbiased view?
I agree that embedded video is a good thing - and I understand some of the points you are making. I just really don't think that there is a snowball's chance in heck that someone's going to sue someone over posting a video on Gather.
--L
If you have something to say, say it to the person's face.
Laura this is the exact thoughts of all the people who were sued for using Napster. It can't happen to me, so it is fine to do.
I tagged as was appropriate to the content.
Also... uh, not to make a bad joke about your icon choice but... 'to your face'? Heh.
This is streaming media- a completely different issue.
Because every time Gather introduces a new feature, the sky starts falling.
--L
There, I have been using the tag "things that make baby Jesus Cry" and if you search that tag, I am currently the only person to use that tag. You know what you meant by that.
"Also... uh, not to make a bad joke about your icon choice but... 'to your face'? Heh."
I could make plenty of bad jokes about your icon choice but you see I have better class than that.
For the 'animal end' folks;
If you don't like the embed feature... don't use it. But don't run around trying to tell everyone on the site that they're horrible people stealing content !!1! if they do choose to use it.
Maybe I got some things wrong in my post above as Kevin pointed out some things that I didn't know, but the main idea still stands - the majority of people who put stuff out there on sites such as YouTube WANT their content shared.
If a piece is violating copyright and the original owner of said copyright does want it removed, they can contact YouTube and have it taken down.
If you don't like embedding - don't embed.
If you don't like what people are embedding - don't watch it.
Quietly.
--L
1006 people on google must be stalking you then!
It's a common expression- get over yourself.
--L
Whether the media is downloaded or streamed isn't really relevant. If the video or song is commercially available, then distribution outside of normal channels can adversely affect the artist because it supplants the need to buy the original.
As I have said above, in MOST cases the member embedding a video that violates copyright doesn't bear the burden of responsibility for that action. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean they won't share the burden, if the original copyright holder decides to pursue the matter.
At the end of the day, members still need to be cautious and diligent in the content they use from other sites and how they are using it. Their actions can end up hurting the artist/performer. Keep in mind that some articles on Gather receive thousands of page views in a week. Thus, by embedding a video you can play a role in propagating an illegal act...in some cases.
Maybe I am expecting too much.
When you act like an adult I will treat you like one. Since you insist on this childish all-about me, I will treat you like a child.
Please leave now as you have added nothing to this discussion but annoyance. Any future comments you make on this article will be deleted.
Thanks.
--L
You're not adding much to the conversation, either.
I don't play the Gather-drama game, sorry. If you can't contribute constructively, please leave or I'm just going to delete any further comments from you.
--L
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(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.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
So embedding a video clip may or may not be right to do - it seems it is usually legal, if the person who made it had the right to the material he filmed and then wanted others to use/embed it.
In my mind, this still leaves the burden of the rightness of the decision on the person who wants to embed/use someone else's work.
Just my two cents...
Cristina
Thank you, Kevin! You're the fairest, smartest person on gather. You deserve to be a better place than gather, but I appreciate your being here.
Laura, I've read all these comments and you are the rudest person in the place.
If you read the comments properly and not with just 'who are my friends?' filter, you'd see I'm not the one being rude. The majority of people discussed things civilly - except for a few people who have remarkably similar icons who all made smarmy comments like the one you made above while adding nothing to the discussion whatsoever.
I think from now on I'm just going to remove anyone with an animal butt from this post since none of you seem capable of intelligent discussion. Any further comment from you (or anyone else showing an animal's posterior) will be deleted without being read.
Not being sucked into your Gather-drama.
--L
Do we need a time out chair in here?
Copyright infringement is SO not an issue on Gather... they don't care what you steal. Why should videos be any exception?
It's good that I'm not showing an "animal butt". Yes, that's the front end.
I wonder if we could embed a "play list" like I've seen on other sites. What it does is play a selection of songs and includes a link to a downloading site, such as iTunes, if a person wants to acquire a copy of a tune for their own.
Unless you are a copyright lawyer or have one on retainer that you have discussed this issue with, you have zero business telling people it is or is not OK to engage in potentially illegal activities. Your advise is flawed in its oversimplicity of copyright law, and you are willfully ignoring the fact that just because something is on the internet, it doesn't make it free.
For example, you point about "transformative use" might use a $10 word, but it is 100% wrong. According to copyright.gov, the official U.S. government copyright site, only the owner of copyright material has the legal right to create derivative work. Adding the words "OMG THIS VIDEO ROCKS" does not qualify under fair use as "critical commentary" by any stretch of the imagination.
EVERYONE should go to www.copyright.gov and get the facts regarding copyright. Do not accept what has been written in this thread as legal advice, because I guarantee Laura won't take the fall for you if you do get sued.
"Posting a video clip by your favorite artist and telling why this is your favorite music video falls under this category."
Fair use involves using PART of a work for purposes of criticism and review. A song is not considered "part" of an album for purposes of fair use. It is considered a complete work.
Posting a complete song or music video without the permission of the artist is a violation, and you are misinforming your audience by implying that it is permissible under a fair use defense.
By the way, the law does not specify exactly how much of a work can be excerpted. That is left for the judge to interpret, but most copyright information sources I've seen set a guideline of around 10% or the work. For a 3-minute song, that means it would be permissible to include a 3-second clip in your review.
Anyway, I'd really appreciate it, L, if you'd correct some of the innaccuracies above about fair use, and maybe consider changing the title of the article to something more accurate (Embedding is not ALWAYS theft, or whatever).
be it video clips,articles or direct quotes.but hey,maybe that is just me.people need to stop whining how this and that is stealing when they themselves borrow stuff from all over the net themselves.
Damn Crybabies
Anyway, I figure if you are going to post on the internet ANYthing, get over trying to control it and all. There are other more pressing matters, in my world, to address vs. this kind of fuss.
"The responsibility/burden of proof typically lies with the original YouTube publisher however, so videos published and used on Gather can usually be done without legal repercussions."
It will be interesting to see what happens with the Viacom vs. Google/YouTube case. From what I can tell, it has the potential to change everything.
"...the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) may prove less of a legal shield for Web companies than it has in the past. Enacted in 1998, the law essentially protects Web sites from liability for their users' actions (BusinessWeek.com, 5/28/08), provided they remove illegal material once they are formally notified of its appearance on their site. The protections in the DMCA are among the main reasons sites across the Web—from social networks to media sites including BusinessWeek.com (MHP)—can solicit an array of user contributions...."
from this article: Viacom vs. YouTube: Beyond Privacy--As Viacom is granted access to YouTube user records, a bigger threat to user-generated sites emerges: The law is increasingly siding with rights owners. There's a lot about this billion-dollar lawsuit online. It's probably worth keeping an eye on.
But it does seem that you are used as a mouth piece quite often Laura. Is that you're job or are you just naive like that.
Thanks for the friend request!
"Personally i feel anything that is put on the internet is public domain."
You may personally feel this way, but the law says something different. That law is there to protect writers and artists, which is why some of us would rather not see the law disregarded and disrespected.
--L
Can't Gather get any better representatives?
Thanks for the compliment! I love Chuck- he's awesome.
--L