|
How useful of you to tell people to not use fair use. Just don't use any transformative works at all. Stifle that creativity and allow people who make money off fraudulent claims to run rampant with no repercussion.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
MisterBibs posted:The quick fix is simply to stop using other people's poo poo for your own poo poo (nope, don't care about Fair Use), and that way infractions become blatant errors (Brad and Midnight Reviews come to mind) instead of cases of people using someone else's poo poo for their own poo poo, and being upset when the original owners flag things you made with other people's poo poo. I never realized United States copyright law was so simple!
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 06:29
|
|
those meanies who own the stuff I'm using without paying for it are being mean for me using their stuff without paying for it
|
Annointed posted:How useful of you to tell people to not use fair use. So far, ranting about Fair Use has done precisely dick to prevent all the issues people are having that are singularly based on using other people's poo poo without permission. You (general you) can review X without putting X directly in your content. Make that step. Or get flagged into oblivion, and nothing of value is lost. vvv And yet their usage of other's content without permission, Fair Use or not, gets regularly flagged. That's a big neon sign hinting that'd it'd be a lot better things differently and stop kvetching about Fair Use. It's obviously not working. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:So far, ranting about Fair Use has done precisely dick to prevent all the issues people are having that are singularly based on using other people's poo poo without permission. Because they're using other people's work under Fair Use.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:So far, ranting about Fair Use has done precisely dick to prevent all the issues people are having that are singularly based on using other people's poo poo without permission. Did you miss the top of last page that gave two examples of videos being taken down for using seconds of something else as a mere illustration of something? There's a difference between saying "reviews shouldn't just be a voice over over 90% of the work you're 'reviewing'" and saying "reviews shouldn't show anything at all about the thing being reviewed whatsoever". Review shows have been showing brief clips of the things they're reviewing literally since review shows have been a thing, that's not an internet critic thing; show me one review show off the internet that doesn't even show clips of the thing being reviewed. That's standard. Saying "your product is worthless if you show anything at all from the thing that you are reviewing, however short, and so it doesn't matter if it gets taken down" is either a stupid opinion or stupid internet hyperbole.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Idran posted:Did you miss the top of last page that gave two examples of videos being taken down for using seconds of something else as a mere illustration of something? There's a difference between saying "reviews shouldn't just be a voice over over 90% of the work you're 'reviewing'" and saying "reviews shouldn't show anything at all about the thing being reviewed whatsoever". Review shows have been showing brief clips of the things they're reviewing literally since review shows have been a thing, that's not an internet critic thing; show me one review show off the internet that doesn't even show clips of the thing being reviewed. That's standard. Part of the bullshit too is that things don't even always get pulled down. I linked to I Hate Everythings video and a fake company is illegally claiming his video and making money off it and if you google for said company nothing but results of many spurious claims they've made on peoples material comes up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
"Someone filed a cease and desist against 'Siskel & Ebert & the Movies' for showing trailer clips and it got them cancelled? That's their own fault really, they should've known better. What kind of worthless show would do that, we didn't lose anything of value."
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Annointed posted:Stifle that creativity and allow people who make money off fraudulent claims to run rampant with no repercussion. Well that's already happening now, so what's the next step? MisterBibs posted:So far, ranting about Fair Use has done precisely dick to prevent all the issues people are having that are singularly based on using other people's poo poo without permission. Guys! Whining about how your videos are getting taken down over nothing isn't working! Stop making a living and go do something else now! It's so simple, god, do I have to be the only person around here to point out the complete obvious for everybody too lazy to even think?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
SatansBestBuddy posted:Guys! Whining about how your videos are getting taken down over nothing isn't working! Stop making a living and go do something else now! Let's be fair; he's not saying don't make videos. He's just saying don't do something that review shows have been doing for literally decades.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:So far, ranting about Fair Use has done precisely dick to prevent all the issues people are having that are singularly based on using other people's poo poo without permission. I too believe that the best response to companies being unreasonable and illegally abusing people is to capitulate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
Idran posted:Did you miss the top of last page that gave two examples of videos being taken down for using seconds of something else as a mere illustration of something? No, I didn't miss the videos with other people's poo poo in it being taken down for using other people's poo poo in it. A second or hours is immaterial. Stop using other people's poo poo without permission, because it gets your content flagged and deleted and it takes the bottom out of any hashtag of the moment you'll invent. You're not defending Fair Use, you're defending your continued use of other people's stuff without paying for it / permission to use it. Can your reviews support themselves without using other people's poo poo? If yes, great. If not, there's no system that'll work for you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:You're not defending Fair Use, you're defending your continued use of other people's stuff without paying for it / permission to use it. That is literally what fair use is. It is the legally defined times when using other people's stuff is okay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:That is literally what fair use is. It is the legally defined times when using other people's stuff is okay. And how is that belief working for those whose content is being flagged/removed/whatever? Clearly, the folks using other people's poo poo without permission are not the people to listen to about using other people's poo poo without permission. I get it, original content is hard, and its easier to talk over other people's content. But you'd think by now, folks would realize that that has consequences.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
.
BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Dec 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:And how is that belief working for those whose content is being flagged/removed/whatever? Clearly, the folks using other people's poo poo without permission are not the people to listen to about using other people's poo poo without permission. Miracle of Sound got content ID strikes against his channel for unauthorized use of material from Miracle of Sound. Clearly he needed to be more original than his past self.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
Oh and if somebody wanted internet reviews of bad books, I'm doing a critical reading of Patrick Rothfuss's The Name of the Wind on these very forums! Avert your eyes, misterbibs, as I quote other people's books extensively!
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I get it, original content is hard, and its easier to talk over other people's content. ... you don't actually know what criticism is, do you? MisterBibs posted:the folks using other people's poo poo without permission are not the people to listen to about using other people's poo poo without permission. oh poo poo people are using poo poo without permission, that is a completely unprecedented idea here, on the internet, where memes are always entirely original ideas using original pictures and never screencaps from tv shows and movies with funny text slapped on top
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
SatansBestBuddy posted:... you don't actually know what criticism is, do you? Just watch him try to explain how quoting a book is different than quoting a video. Once you say that borrowing other people's content for your own purposes is unacceptable, all and any reviews and academic works must be thrown into the bonfire of vanities.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
Well...uh...if anyone would like to see it I used my expertise as a Professional Internet Queer and Expert at Watching Gay Movies to put together a list of recommendations of the best movie to watch as your first queer movie! If I can help anyone avoid having their first queer movie be something crappy like FOOD OF LOVE, my work here is done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 09:01
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Just watch him try to explain how quoting a book is different than quoting a video. Once you say that borrowing other people's content for your own purposes is unacceptable, all and any reviews and academic works must be thrown into the bonfire of vanities. Idran posted:"Someone filed a cease and desist against 'Siskel & Ebert & the Movies' for showing trailer clips and it got them cancelled? That's their own fault really, they should've known better. What kind of worthless show would do that, we didn't lose anything of value." If so, does that mean that only press outlets are allowed to comment or critique on films? Is it possible for the average person on Youtube to request a press kit and make a review using the footage provided to them? If that's the case, isn't that kind of limiting?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 09:01
|
|
|
Max Wilco posted:In the case of movies reviews on TV news segments or review shows like Siskel and Ebert, aren't the clips usually provided by studio as part of a press kit? Actually Angry joe and jim sterling have both had videos flagged for using the very clips provided to them by the studio explicitly as a part of a press kit. In this case it was Squarenix getting mad at what their videos said. So in this case they even had permission, but I'm sure that's still their fault for using something someone else made. Even though it was made with the explicit purpose of being used in press videos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 09:12
|
|
|
SatansBestBuddy posted:... you don't actually know what criticism is, do you? Sure, I do. At least when Joel talked over the movies, they didn't call themselves critics. And they got the rights to the movies they talked over. You don't mean to imply that making jokes over bad movies to be critical reviews, do you? SatansBestBuddy posted:oh poo poo people are using poo poo without permission, that is a completely unprecedented idea here, on the internet, where memes are always entirely original ideas using original pictures and never screencaps from tv shows and movies with funny text slapped on top You've got a good point, YouTube's system (and the previous failure of copyright violation-tolerant platforms like Blip) is another facet of things dismantling the "But it's The Internet!" argument. The system is maturing, and using other people's poo poo without permission is being treated accordingly, where once it was ignored. Max Wilco posted:In the case of movies reviews on TV news segments or review shows like Siskel and Ebert, aren't the clips usually provided by studio as part of a press kit? Plus, S&E had a "clips from X used with permission by Studio Y" thing in the credits, if I remember correctly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
.
BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Dec 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Again, trying to "talk tough" when you admit you don't understand the issue is ridiculous. I understand the issue. People using other people's content without permission are running into issues resulting from using other people's content without permission. The solution is simple, make your content without using other's content you do not have permission to use.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:You don't mean to imply that making jokes over bad movies to be critical reviews, do you? What about all the stuff that isn't this but still gets hit by strikes just as much? MisterBibs posted:I understand the issue. People using other people's content without permission are running into issues resulting from using other people's content without permission. Good god you are obtuse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I understand the issue. People using other people's content without permission are running into issues resulting from using other people's content without permission. Hey did you make your Avatar from scratch? If not, you should be sued.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
Andrast posted:What about all the stuff that isn't this but still gets hit by strikes just as much? Like what? There's stuff that uses stuff without permission (in one way or another, but always in the end using something they shouldn't), or exceptions that prove the rule like Brad's midnight reviews being flagged.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
You ever hear of Incomptech? Kevin MacCleod? He allows people to use his music. For free. No charge. Just a credit. That's all. And for a while, videos with his music were getting flagged like crazy, despite that being the very reason for his existence. YouTube has a broken system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
.
BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Dec 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:You ever hear of Incomptech? Kevin MacCleod? He allows people to use his music. For free. No charge. Just a credit. That's all. And for a while, videos with his music were getting flagged like crazy, despite that being the very reason for his existence. So they aren't being flagged anymore, the error corrected? BravestOfTheLamps posted:You're not arguing in good faith because you're defining critical work as a parasitic field. The types of content we're discussing are inherently and unarguably parasitic. We're dealing with a cottage industry born of lax copyright enforcement having to deal with actual enforcement. The platform that let them get away with it for a while is gone, so they have to return to a platform that won't. Either you'll figure out a way to make your own stuff without others, or you'll get flagged/whatever'd over and over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
It was fixed, but it shows how broken YouTube is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:The types of content we're discussing are inherently and unarguably parasitic. We're dealing with a cottage industry born of lax copyright enforcement having to deal with actual enforcement. The platform that let them get away with it for a while is gone, so they have to return to a platform that won't. Congratulations on not engaging with his actual point at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
.
BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Dec 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 10:12
|
|
|
OldMemes posted:Doug probably isn't the best to be leader of it - he comes across as nice but awakard out of character. Angry Joe is good at stuff like this, but he'd probably do it in character (I like Joe much better as himself, he seems like a chill, down to earth, but goofy kinda guy). Uh, no. I love Joe but he did a video on this exact subject a little over 2 years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQfHdasuWtI There is a lot that can be said about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Because something is flagged as a copyright violation, it is a copyright violation, and not being flagged anymore means that it's not. You are equating all uses of other people's content as the same. Yes? Don't use stuff that isn't yours. No, your use of other people's stuff is not more or less tolerable than someone else's. Don't kvetch when your content is flagged, if you used someone else's stuff. You have only yourself to blame. The lightning might not hit you for the fifth time if you'd just stop climbing trees with a steel pipe during every thunderstorm. BravestOfTheLamps posted:You are arguing in bad faith, which is why you will be unable to answer how quoting books is different from quoting videos in a satisfying manner, or even explain why critical literature is able to exist at all. Critical literature is not a copy of the original literature with wacky jokes and riffs in the margins, which is the stuff that's being flagged on YouTube. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 10:47 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 10:43
|
|
|
I just don't get why you are so blunt. You don't have any tolerance for nuance and that's really sad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
I didn't realize we were arguing with MisterBibs. It's like talking to a particularly obtuse brick wall.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 11:03
|
|
|
.
BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Dec 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 11:12
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:The types of content we're discussing are inherently and unarguably parasitic. We're dealing with a cottage industry born of lax copyright enforcement having to deal with actual enforcement. The platform that let them get away with it for a while is gone, so they have to return to a platform that won't. I think what everyone is arguing is that video hosting has given rise to a different type or style of review that still falls under fair use. The argument is that rather than crafting something that conforms to a broken system, the system should be fixed to better discern what qualifies as fair use, and what doesn't. You argument that the use of any copyrighted material constitutes as theft, and that's technically correct; if you use footage of a film in your YouTube video, and that video is monetized, then technically, you are profiting off of someone's work. However, under the terms of fair use, the review is transformative, and alters it from the original material, so that it becomes something else. Even though you're using a clip from a movie in a review, it's not the same as actually watching the movie. It's not the same as just uploading an entire film to Youtube and enabling ad revenue. You could argue that with, say, the Nostalgia Critic, his style of editing skirts the line, where he essentially shows you a abridged version of the movie. On the other hand, with Movie Nights, the clips are shown mostly out-of-order, and it doesn't replicate what it is actually like to watch the film. Say I decided to make a review of a video game, and I used footage to demonstrate how buggy it is. After I put up the video, the developer issues a take-down notice, and the argument is that I used copyrighted material in my review. So does that mean I have to get permission from the developer to reinstate my video? If so, what does that entail? Am I still allowed to use footage showing how buggy the game is, or will they only allow me to show some clips and not others. Here's another question: If I use copyrighted material in a video, but the video is not monetized, does it have a better standing opposed to a video that is monetized? If my video game review isn't monetized, then does that mean that I'm free to use copyrighted material? That's where the Patreon system really seems to work in circumventing that problem. If content creators can be supported directly by their viewers, they don't have to monetize their videos, and thus, they do not directly profit from any copyrighted material that might be used in their videos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 11:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
As others have said, the actual quality of the criticism or humor or whatever doesn't matter, transformative use in this sense is covered under fair use. Also, you've been provided with multiple instances where YouTube's content ID system has been used to just outright steal the ad revenue of others where the claimant had no rights to the claimed material or where one's own work was somehow claimed under content ID. You're not arguing in good faith. I've never used SA's ignore function before, but there's a first time for everything, Christ.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 11:19
|
|
