Page 2 of 2

Re: Looks like some "borrowed" xjet footage

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:16 am
by John_Edward
RCModelReviews wrote:
John_Edward wrote:"Second…you have personally taken video of my turbine aircraft, posted it on youtube, which your making money from, without asking my permission?"

Uh... he chose to fly knowing that I was there (in a public place at a public event) so what's the problem?

Also, he's included some of my videos of *other people's* planes -- so his excuse is null and void in that regard.

Also, I wouldn't have minded one bit -- if he had asked and hadn't deliberately cropped out the watermark.

I wonder how the legal sides are.
Are crash compilations legally allowed under fair use..?
Do you have to ask everyone, is crediting in the end enough, how long can the clips be etc

Well from YT's perspective, I don't think they'd consider it "fair use". Just try using 5 seconds of BMG music and see what happens to your video :-)

Yeah, his excuse is not legally valid, only morally, only for that clip, and only if he had left the watermark there.
As the same thing applies the other way around, morally you should have asked him if you could upload the video of his plane quite embarrassingly catching fire.
But that isn't the point here, posting the video without credits was stupid, and removing watermarks is extremely idiotic and rude.

And fair use is just as fair as a judge says it is.
If you are willing to go legal on his ass, then you can get anything taken down, unless there is a prior case saying it truely is fair use.
Yes, you have the right to take down an uncredited, non watermarked video, and I think it is perfectly reasonable.
And yes, you would have the right to take it down even if it had credits, watermarks and links.
But as it is only profitable for you not to, then you would be the ass here if you did.

tl;dr: If you are fully credited and presented in a favourable way let them be, and both parties benefit.
If they act like assholes, punish them for being idiots :)

Just as a last clarification, in case English being my secondary language has left a different impression:
You had the right to defend your uncredited videos being used without permission, he was an idiot, and I would have done the same.
But I do enjoy crash compilations, an I hope people make more of them without stealing and dismissing the original creator.

Re: Looks like some "borrowed" xjet footage

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:57 am
by Hallmark

These posts are very interesting and open a number of doors about what is copyright and what is not. Bruce said,
RCModelReviews wrote:Uh... he chose to fly knowing that I was there (in a public place at a public event) so what's the problem?

Bruce to the best of my knowledge if you're filming in a public place with your camera or one that you have exclusive use of at the time and you're not employed to film this event for another body, then you happen to capture any event (again in a public place), you're the copyright owner. If there is incidental content like a live performance of a well known band, you're entitled to claim ownership of all that you have incidentally captured as long as in doing so you have not set out to defraud another of an overriding copyright title (say by knowing in advance this would occur and seeking to sell copies for profit). So filming at the field and capturing an impromptu live performance from U2 would entitle you to show the video as you deem fit. U2 could object, but unless they could prove you acted maliciously to capture the footage I'd suggest they would be hard pressed to prove such a claim.

In essence YouTube and other social network type sites have been subjected to copyright claims because they are the medium that carries the alleged infringement. Where - in my opinion - it should be the person uploading the material who is held to account. If you remember NAPSTER, this company allowed a program to circulate that used many computers to form a live network and database of music, video and software. They were sued persistently and became the test case for this sort of situation. After years of court battles they were deemed liable as many artists were losing revenue due to saw royalty payments being avoided. In essence YT are likely to be sued before the person uploading the material because it is easier to sue one entity rather than the millions that would otherwise be needed to prosecute each offender individually.

Simply crediting work to others is not sufficient according to the current paradigm either... If indeed it were simply okay to include credits with copyrighted material then we could use a song, reference it and that would be allowed to be kept in the uploaded content. I have a video that cannot be played on iPhone or iPad and it says the owner of the content had disallowed it. I am the owner and I used a Creedence song in it. I have never forbade its use on any device, yet apparently the song owner's title to the track overrides my title to the vision... I feel that because record companies are trigger happy when they feel their dollar is being taken away (let's face it putting a flight with FPV gear to a Creedence song won't sell anything to any one and in reality may encourage some to go to iTunes and buy it), they make entities like YT pay for breaches instead of the user - who is the actual person infringing copyright.

I am not 100% sure, but if Bruce asked in the appropriate format for details of the member who used his film extracts he could indeed claim royalties for each time it has been viewed. Privacy legislation is fairly similar in most Western countries and this detail should be available as the person concerned initially published it in the public arena ergo had forgone any right to claim privacy. This may be mitigated by the now private listing or not - that is ambiguous and somewhat out of my field of knowledge.

That is my two cents worth...

Re: Looks like some "borrowed" xjet footage

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:36 am
by RCModelReviews
My perspective is simple.

Those who attend the jet rallies know that I am there filming the models that fly -- if they don't want to be filmed, they can opt not to attend.

I'm not just there to film the rallies -- I spend significant effort mowing grass, preparing the venue, providing support and engineering services to those who attend (I've provided "free of charge" everything from header-tanks through rapairs to undercarriage oleos and much more to the many jet pilots who attend the meetings -- all at my own cost).

If someone feels so strongly that they don't want to attend a jet rally because they might be "filmed" and I might make a small amount of money by posting those videos to YouTube (as small compensation for the time and effort I expend on preparing the venue and supplying support services) then they're free not to attend.

However, if they do attend, I reserve the right to film their models (in all their glory or distress) and post those videos to YouTube.

Nobody else seems to have an issue with my making that video (indeed, many ask for the original footage so they can edit up their own clips for posterity or for their own YouTube channels -- which I gladly provide).

Interestingly enough, only two of all the jet fliers who've ever taken advantage of all the hard work I put in to preparing the venue and providing this engineering and "spares" during these meetings has ever offered any kind of compensation for my efforts (one gave me an ARF model, the other gave me some beer). The rest seem happy to enjoy what I offer with scant regard for the costs in time and money involved.

Fair enough -- but to gripe about the fact that (at no cost to them) I've filmed their models flying in a public place is a bit rich.

Also note that in this case, they've used my video that I took of *other people's* models. How they can grizzle about that defies logic.

Still, it takes all types to make a world I guess.

I've not filed a take-down notice on this video -- but it seems the uploader has opted to make it private... their choice.