The Forum & Copyright queries & discussion

[Pete Thomas]

This thread is for discussion of our Copyright rules and Guidelines article

 

[MikeMorrell]

[ADMIN NOTE: I am reorganising these posts, so have moved from main announcment to a separate thread]


I manage a couple of Facebook and Twitter accounts so I'm aware of the copyright issues for images and videos. Sharing (deep) links to specific webpages is so common that I'd assumed this wouldn't be an issue. So I was surprised to discover that it can be - as in the case of ITV who's terms & conditions include the statement 'You may not "deep-link" to pages beyond the home page without our express permission'. According to Wikipedia, legal protests about deep links (= links to anywhere other than the home page) have been largely ineffective. But no-one wants to get involved in these kind of legal challenges. I suspect that these kind of terms & conditions particularly apply to media outlets (TV, newspapers, news sites, etc.)

So I think Pete and the mods are taking the right stand here: check the copyright and terms & conditions before posting. As someone mentioned, it's the minefield of the 21st century.

Mike

 

[ProfJames]

Yeah yeah yeah! Images are more protected by copyright and legislation than mpegs and jpegs. I have already said that I agree with Pete's decisions. My point was wanting to know how to check in accordance with the mods and Pete on this site. I am still no clearer as to what it is you mods check. You must all be "budding" lawyers with experience in these matters.

Assumption is something that I tolerate but let me state again...........I agree with Pete's actions. I applaud his ethics, morals and scruples. It is just so frustrating when assumption has to be the victor

 

[Jeanette]

My point was wanting to know how to check in accordance with the mods and Pete on this site.

I think Pete clarified this

I am still no clearer as to what it is you mods check. You must all be "budding" lawyers with experience in these matters.

Not budding lawyers at all, for reference I check for a copyright C or any other watermark. Also now I am looking for a web address on the post. I have gone as far as the website an image has come from to see if there are copyright notices. It is though taking up a lot of my time.

Interestingly I found this article this morning. Which worries me more as it means even pictures without any markings could cause us a big problem.

Until I read the above I would have said the odd image here and there shouldn't cause us a problem but now I'm not so sure. Also we seem to be having more and more posts with these sorts of pictures and I only see this growing as more people join in the fun.



Jx

 

[ProfJames]

I think Pete clarified this



Not budding lawyers at all, for reference I check for a copyright C or any other watermark. Also now I am looking for a web address on the post. I have gone as far as the website an image has come from to see if there are copyright notices. It is though taking up a lot of my time.

Interestingly I found this article this morning. Which worries me more as it means even pictures without any markings could cause us a big problem.

Until I read the above I would have said the odd image here and there shouldn't cause us a problem but now I'm not so sure. Also we seem to be having more and more posts with these sorts of pictures and I only see this growing as more people join in the fun.



Jx

Thank you for your clarifications Jeanette.

As for concerns...........I understand Pete's motives. But to have concerns over legal issues as a small internet based forum targeted at saxophonists/musicians is taking the concern completely out of proportion. Especially as any profits go towards charitable projects. Let's keep things in proportion. How often do you see Facebook, Twitter, etc being sued for breach of copyright? Those sites may be bigger than us............

 

[Jeanette]

Thank you for your clarifications Jeanette.

As for concerns...........I understand Pete's motives. But to have concerns over legal issues as a small internet based forum targeted at saxophonists/musicians is taking the concern completely out of proportion. Especially as any profits go towards charitable projects. Let's keep things in proportion. How often do you see Facebook, Twitter, etc being sued for breach of copyright? Those sites may be bigger than us............

Did you read the article I linked to?

Small sites are being targeted and they are being asked not to talk about it so how can we know how wide this is?

Jx

 

[Pete Thomas]

How often do you see Facebook, Twitter, etc being sued for breach of copyright? Those sites may be bigger than us............

Read the article Jeanette linked to, just because you don't hear about such actions doesn't mean they aren't happening.

However in many cases fear of legal action is not necessarily my main motive in wanting, as far as possible, to avoid copyright infringements.

 

[ProfJames]

Before I read that article from Jeanette I had already stated that it is "images" that are being followed more than clips such a mpeg and jpeg (does the forum check every music clip posted?). I still get involved in licensing issues with software and other media. In that way I feel that I am writing with a little knowledge.

I have responded to further questions and statements that have been written today and feel that the forum is in fear of anything that is written or reported. I understand those fears but still believe they are getting blown out of proportion. That is my opinion however and I fully comply/agree/concur/empathise with all of your actions to ensure the longevity and reputation of the forum.

 

[jonf]

Hmm.

Copyright is not a problem of the 21st century, under English law it goes back to the 17th. So it has essentially always been there, it's just that modern technology makes it easier to breach someone's rights.

Copyright, as the name implies, is a right - it doesn't have to be registered, and an item doesn't have to bear the c symbol to be subject to copyright. It belongs to the individual who created it (although there is some arcane legal bobbins about it having to have been produced with modicum of skill and care).

There are instances of people seeking damages for use of copyright items on sites such as this, particularly from image libraries. Some well used images are made available for re-use, but many aren't.

 

[kevgermany]

I was on an intellectual property course at work recently. One of the points they made is that copyright belongs to the author of any work, unless explicitly assigned to someone else. And.... There is no legal requirement for the copyright symbol, or an declaration that a work is copyright. It's automatic.

 

[ProfJames]

I was on an intellectual property course at work recently. One of the points they made is that copyright belongs to the author of any work, unless explicitly assigned to someone else. And.... There is no legal requirement for the copyright symbol, or an declaration that a work is copyright. It's automatic.

Correct.

 

[kevgermany]

Prof. Beware of little knowledge. Effectively everything you post from another site is copyright. And that means some poor fool has to check for infringements, or risk getting sued as well as the original poster. Given the heavy handed way the music and film industry are pursuing infringements, is it fair for forum posters to expose us to these risks?

Given the work it creates for us, I'm very tempted to simply delete everything that isn't clearly legit. And the earlier post about deep linking is another worry.

One other point that was made on the course that's pertinent here. The enforcers often just want money, legal action is too much hassle. So they go in with licencing demands with the threat of legal action. These cases are usually kept confidential between owner and infringer. It's only when these negotiations over licencing break down that things become public.

 

[ProfJames]

Prof. Beware of little knowledge. Effectively everything you post from another site is copyright. And that means some poor fool has to check for infringements, or risk getting sued as well as the original poster. Given the heavy handed way the music and film industry are pursuing infringements, is it fair for forum posters to expose us to these risks?

Given the work it creates for us, I'm very tempted to simply delete everything that isn't clearly legit. And the earlier post about deep linking is another worry.

One other point that was made on the course that's pertinent here. The enforcers often just want money, legal action is too much hassle. So they go in with licencing demands with the threat of legal action. These cases are usually kept confidential between owner and infringer. It's only when these negotiations over licencing break down that things become public.

Thank you for the warning. Where have you been all my life? This is now becoming condescending. I specifically wrote "a little knowledge". Why are you aiming all comments at me? I simply question procedures and motives. I don't have to agree but I can certainly understand.

If the postings are a risk to both yourself and the forum then simply ban them. Interesting course that you attended which covers a number of issues with sweeping statements. It would appear that deep linking is a constant worry so I would propose banning all links.

Comments expected.............

 

[Pete Thomas]

(does the forum check every music clip posted?)

No, nor do we check every image or video.

What happened to spark this discussion was the removal of some very obvious infringements. Those are the ones we bother about.

We don't do this due to being self appointed copyright vigilantes, or because we believe the copyright laws are beneficial in all cases, or because we live in constant fear of being sued.

I regret that we can't give any better guidelines than we have, ie don't post anything with a watermark or copyright notice or something is obviously protected.

What we (currently) don't do (much as we'd love to) is remove every picture taken by Mrs Trellis on her iPhone of a cat doing something stupid.

We would also ask people to do a quick check on the source of any material (if possible and feasible) to look for any copyright notices, but obviously neither we as mods or you as members can dedicate an enormous amount of time and research over a picture of a cat.

We also suggest that you don't get offended if something you post gets removed for copyright reasons, it is often an arbitrary decision that we cannot waste hours over doing the research and subsequently arguing about. Notwithstanding (no I'm not really a lawyer) if an image is removed wrongly due to you owning the rights to it or having evidence that it is in the public domain, that is a good case for objecting to its removal.

However our policy on blatant posting of copyright infringing material (where there is a watermark or other sign of ownership) then we have a moderator warning points system that is a bit like a yellow/red card. You get points that expire after a certain time, if points build up within that time to a certain level then you may find posting permissions change temporarily.

Our current policy in regard to video is that we do allow Youtube embeds, based on Youtube's policy of immediately identifying a lot of copyright material, and giving the rights holders the chance to have it removed or to monetise it with ads.Both Youtube (and now Soundcloud) do have some kind of agreement in place to pay royalties. For this reason we currently allow those.

 

[Pete Thomas]

(does the forum check every music clip posted?)

No, nor do we check every image or video.

What happened to spark this discussion was the removal of some very obvious infringements. Those are the ones we bother about.

We don't do this due to being self appointed copyright vigilantes, or because we believe the copyright laws are beneficial in all cases, or because we live in constant fear of being sued.

I regret that we can't give any better guidelines than we have, ie don't post anything with a watermark or copyright notice or something is obviously protected.

What we (currently) don't do (much as we'd love to) is remove every picture taken by Mrs Trellis on her iPhone of a cat doing something stupid.

We would also ask people to do a quick check on the source of any material (if possible and feasible) to look for any copyright notices, but obviously neither we as mods or you as members can dedicate an enormous amount of time and research over a picture of a cat.

We also suggest that you don't get offended if something you post gets removed for copyright reasons, it is often an arbitrary decision that we cannot waste hours over doing the research and subsequently arguing about. Notwithstanding (no I'm not really a lawyer) if an image is removed wrongly due to you owning the rights to it or having evidence that it is in the public domain, that is a good case for objecting to its removal.

However our policy on blatant posting of copyright infringing material (where there is a watermark or other sign of ownership) then we have a moderator warning points system that is a bit like a yellow/red card. You get points that expire after a certain time, if points build up within that time to a certain level then you may find posting permissions change temporarily.

Our current policy in regard to video is that we do allow Youtube embeds, based on Youtube's policy of immediately identifying a lot of copyright material, and giving the rights holders the chance to have it removed or to monetise it with ads.Both Youtube (and now Soundcloud) do have some kind of agreement in place to pay royalties. For this reason we currently allow those.

ADMIN EDIT: copied this post to the main copyright info thread:

http://cafesaxophone.com/threads/the-forum-copyright.13922/

 

[ProfJames]

Well done Pete. An explanation for all to read. Thank you.

 

[Veggie Dave]

I was on an intellectual property course at work recently. One of the points they made is that copyright belongs to the author of any work, unless explicitly assigned to someone else.

There's a very important little caveat to this - you can't legally give away your copyright, explicitly or otherwise, for free. I'm not sure it's relevant to this discussion, but as musicians/artists it's an important thing to know.

Copyright, such a simple subject.

 

[Jazzaferri]

I take the easy route.....if I am in the right frame of mind I post my own waffle

 

[Tiberius]

Ok, someone's going to have to help me here, sorry.

Soundcloud have removed the clip as.... the copyright to "Summertime" by Christelle Berthon owned by Ruf Records GmbH.

Now, obviously I didn't write Summertime, I purchased a backing tack from the website Jazzbacks, perhaps naively, I assumed this meant that I could record over it and post to places like soundcloud/youtube etc (sorry, obviously I know nothing about the music industry and how it works).

So, my question is how do I find out what songs I can do? Is there a list somewhere?

 

[Ivan]

Ok, someone's going to have to help me here, sorry.

Soundcloud have removed the clip as.... the copyright to "Summertime" by Christelle Berthon owned by Ruf Records GmbH.

Now, obviously I didn't write Summertime, I purchased a backing tack from the website Jazzbacks...

Doesn't seem right to me. @Pete Thomas is in the know

Try reposting with a different title?

Alternatively store your track in the cloud and post a link