I have received emails, and messages about the subject of my previous blog post, and I have received requests on YouTube, that I return some of the videos I removed. One request tugged at my heart strings just a bit. I believe the person who made the request is a young person, and I had to reply and explain why I'm not allowed to return the video to YouTube ... the video that brought this young individual a lot of enjoyment.
I have read in eamails, the frustration and disappointments from my colleagues, and all of this makes me feel really badly ... it brings me down. And all of this also got me thinking about the larger picture of what's been going on with matters relating to copyright infringement, and I have to tell you, I'm feeling a little bit bullied at the moment. And I realized, others are feeling it too, so, I thought I'd share my thoughts on giving this matter some perspective.
We'll start by clarifying a few points ...
Do I think it's criminal to make copies of a film and sell them to others? Of course I do. Do I think it's wrong to steal another's work, for example a song, perform and record that song, and release it to the public as mine? I think that is most definitely wrong! Do I think it's wrong to enter videos into festivals without acquiring a festival license? I do. Do I feel the gaming industry has a right to prohibit machinima made with their game engines from being used commercially by outside parties? I feel very strongly that they have that right. Do I think it's criminal to make a video with the Sims2 game engine, edit an audio track into it, making sure to credit the owner of the music, and publish it to a website where no money is received on that video? Absolutely not, and I believe with all my heart that the claims of copyright against these kinds of videos is petty and bullying. And I will tell you why ...
The industry has a responsibility to its public ... to those who spend money on its products, concert tickets, movie tickets, CDs, DVDs, books, magazines, T-shirts, etc. The artists have a responsibility to their public too. When an artist or production company releases works to the public, they are doing so with the assumption that thes works will be used by that public ... art in galleries is used so that people will view it, music is used on the radio or through CDs and players so that people will hear it. These items are exploited by the industry to make money. They intend to make the money from you, the public. And when these items are released, published, and distributed, it is also assumed that the artists and production companies must give up a certain measure of control on what becomes of that material once it is placed in the hands and ownership of others.
For example, someone buys a book. They read the book and pass it on to someone else. They distributed that book, but they do not hold the copyright on that book. Or, after reading the book, they sell it to a used book store, who in turn sells it to another customer. Let's say that book was my book ... am I going to make a claim of copyright against the person who shared my book with others? Of course not, because I have a responsibility to my public. I understand that in publishing my book and allowing it to be distributed, others will share it or trade it or sell it. I understand that if the book does not circulate I will lose my audience. It's a give and take, but lately, the coperate level of it is doing all the taking, and not giving anything back.
But what if someone took my story and made a manuscript from it, submitted it to a publishing house as their work, and they make a profit from the book? Am I going to file a claim of copyright? Of course I am. Am I going to prosecute and sue for damages? Of course I am, and why? Because there ARE damages ... the sales of my book that were stolen can be collected against.
This is where we show some perspective ....
Let's use as an example my video that was removed from YouTube ...
The main song in the video was, "Croce Sang", written by me. The video also contained two snippets of music. One snippet, which was less than 26 seconds long, came from a Jim Croce song, and Jim Croce died 36 years ago. There are 1,120 results for Jim Croce on YouTube, as of this blog posting. How many of those do you think were posted by Jim Croce?
The other snippet, which was less than 3 seconds long (3 seconds, folks), was from the song, "We Built This City", by Starship, who no longer performs as a group, and the song was released 24 years ago. There are 2,830 results on YouTube for this song, as of this blog posting. And how many of those do you think were posted by the Band, Starship? Now, I only used less than 3 seconds of that song in my video. Does anyone really believe I'm going to make any kind of profit off of 3 seconds of music in a silly little Sims2 video? From a song that is a qurter of a century old? Are any of you starting to see how ridiculous this situation has become?
Now, let's add to this information the important fact that my video does not generate any income for myself or YouTube, nor does it prevent the original and full-blown versions of those songs from generating an income to the owners or copyright holders. In Jim's case, I don't think any amount of income it could hypothetically generate would do the man any good.
Let's also consider the music track used in Sims2 videos. These tracks are edited from the original, and quite often, the edited version is not complete, changed in some way from the original, and the quality of the audio does not equal the original. If I want a particular song in my personal collection, I promise you, I am not going to get that song off a Sims2 video uploaded to YouTube. But, a Sims2 video, most likely will "turn me on" to a song, and I will purchase that song, because a Sims2 video introduced it to me.
So, I ask you, where are the damages by someone who used a piece of music in their Sims2 video? And where is the logic in policing these types of videos, when these types of videos show no promise to make anyone any money?
To complicate this issue, YouTube is now allowing the copyright holder to exploit our videos. I don't believe I have ever read anywhere that copyright allows exploitation. And how is this exploitation being carried out? The copyright holder is now allowed to attach advertisement to the video which "allegedly" contains material that can be claimed as copyright infringement. And here's a more serious problem associated with that ...
I'll use the Sims2 as an example since that is the game engine I use for my videos. In the user agreement of a Sims2 game, you will find information that states you are not allowed to use the game or videos of the game commercially. When someone attaches advertisement to your video on YouTube, your video then becomes "used commercially".
From what I have read, copyright allows the copyright holder to force you to stop using their copyright material. It does not grant the copyright holder free use of your works, as in attaching their advertisement to your video. For those of you in this situation, I would advise you to check into this ... you don't want to have any problems with EA. (Electronic Arts)
So, what we are dealing with is not plagiarism, or earning a living off another's hard work. The issue is why is promoting the works of another where no damages are created being manipulated through copyright on a coperate level? And, as it is, we are allowed to spend our hard-earned income on buying material from the industry, but we aren't allowed to use it. This is definitely a bully's mentality.
No comments:
Post a Comment