Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on May 08, 2016, 03:37:59 PMSo basically many of you believe in unfettered free speech so long as you don't disagree with what the person is saying. When they say something you find disagreeable, then it's bring out the loopholes and point of view statements. There are hundreds if not thousands of YouTube channels that game play footage on them. Many copy footage from other channels. They aren't being banned. Fair use is fair use. So long as they don't try to profit from it or claim it as original, then it's usable. She did neither.I would like to see those people banned as well. Nobody should get away with breaking rules.I don't disagree with her general sentiments at all, just a few examples that she cites to support them (mostly because of them being taken out of context, IE Hitman).
So basically many of you believe in unfettered free speech so long as you don't disagree with what the person is saying. When they say something you find disagreeable, then it's bring out the loopholes and point of view statements. There are hundreds if not thousands of YouTube channels that game play footage on them. Many copy footage from other channels. They aren't being banned. Fair use is fair use. So long as they don't try to profit from it or claim it as original, then it's usable. She did neither.
So basically many of you believe in unfettered free speech so long as you don't disagree with what the person is saying. When they say something you find disagreeable, then it's bring out the loopholes and point of view statements.
There are hundreds if not thousands of YouTube channels that game play footage on them. Many copy footage from other channels. They aren't being banned. Fair use is fair use. So long as they don't try to profit from it or claim it as original, then it's usable. She did neither.
Our contention lies with the fact that she has been dishonestly plagiarizing content from other users without crediting them for several years now.
Quote from: LC on May 08, 2016, 03:40:50 PMOnly not at all. If someone has uploaded footage of themselves playing a game that isn't stolen content. If someone is giving a talk on the industry or offering their opinions on the industry they are not stealing content. Reviews are also not stolen content. Using other people gameplay or videos with their authorization isn't stolen content. Using a third party tool to rip videos from youtube (something that is against the ToS) and then reuploading them inter the pretense that they were made by you is.by this logic, anita hasn't stolen anythingyou're really stretching here, LC
Only not at all. If someone has uploaded footage of themselves playing a game that isn't stolen content. If someone is giving a talk on the industry or offering their opinions on the industry they are not stealing content. Reviews are also not stolen content. Using other people gameplay or videos with their authorization isn't stolen content. Using a third party tool to rip videos from youtube (something that is against the ToS) and then reuploading them inter the pretense that they were made by you is.
i disagree with her toxic feminazi ideology, so that justifies banning her channel under faulty grounds
Taking someone else's video and claiming it as your own is content theft, there's not really any way around it.
The possibility of her videos somehow containing other people's work and she is profiting off of it without their consent is "faulty grounds" and has to do with a conflicting ideology?
Quotei disagree with her toxic feminazi ideology, so that justifies banning her channel under faulty groundsThe possibility of her videos somehow containing other people's work and she is profiting off of it without their consent is "faulty grounds" and has to do with a conflicting ideology?
I'm not sure why people are bringing up copyright when it isn't even relevant.The terms of service specifically mention that you are not allowed to use another users video without their permission and that's all that really matters. Copyright doesn't even play into it.
One of myriad examples: Music Video Sins. He uploads videos that he presumably took directly from YouTube, and without comment of the channel that originally uploaded it, uses it in a satirical, fair use role.
Without delving into the depths of fair use law, I can assure you that of the four major principles that decide whether something is eligible for use, "giving credit" isn't one of them.https://www.teachingcopyright.org/handout/fair-use-faq(read below)QuoteWhether a use is fair will depend on the specific facts of the use. Note that attribution has little to do with fair use; unlike plagiarism, copyright infringement (or non-infringement) doesn't depend on whether you give credit to the source from which you copied. Fair use is decided by courts on a case-by-case basis after balancing the four factors listed in section 107 of the Copyright Act.
Whether a use is fair will depend on the specific facts of the use. Note that attribution has little to do with fair use; unlike plagiarism, copyright infringement (or non-infringement) doesn't depend on whether you give credit to the source from which you copied. Fair use is decided by courts on a case-by-case basis after balancing the four factors listed in section 107 of the Copyright Act.
Other factors that sometimes weigh in the analysis of the first fair use factor include whether the use in question is a reasonable and customary practice and whether the putative fair user has acted in bad faith or denied credit to the author of the copyrighted work.
Is the copyrighted material factual in nature or creative? (More fair use latitude is accorded to factual works.)
Is the portion copied the “heart” of the work? (Even a quantitatively small portion of a work may weigh against fair use if it is the most important or commercially valuable part of it.)
Is it difficult or perhaps impossible to locate the copyright holder or are there other significant obstacles to seeking permission? Is the expense of seeking permission greater than the value of the permission sought? (Where there is no cost-effective way to obtain permission, that fact will weigh in favor of a finding of fair use, which can be seen in part as a means for remedying market failure.)
Is this the first time this instructor has photocopied this excerpt for course use, or has photocopying of the same material been repeated from term to term without permission? (Repeated use without permission will tend to weigh against fair use.)
Let's Play videos are typically not protected by fair play because they're not transformative, they're for-profit, and they use a substantial amount of licensed content. Your example is terrible, especially considering how controversial Nintendo's treatment of Let's Play content is.
Quote from: Prime Kruphix on May 08, 2016, 03:50:23 PMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on May 08, 2016, 03:37:59 PMSo basically many of you believe in unfettered free speech so long as you don't disagree with what the person is saying. When they say something you find disagreeable, then it's bring out the loopholes and point of view statements. There are hundreds if not thousands of YouTube channels that game play footage on them. Many copy footage from other channels. They aren't being banned. Fair use is fair use. So long as they don't try to profit from it or claim it as original, then it's usable. She did neither.I would like to see those people banned as well. Nobody should get away with breaking rules.I don't disagree with her general sentiments at all, just a few examples that she cites to support them (mostly because of them being taken out of context, IE Hitman).Except it's not breaking any rules. It's the EXACT same thing as writing a paper. You CITE a source backing up your thesis. Don't pass it off as original content. You also can't take someone else's work and sell it as your own. She cited the work and she didn't try to sell it. So this is all a moot topic
She has not given credit to the author of the video. Doesn't disbar her, but doesn't help.
he has in fact credited the copyright owner.
Doesn't mean creative works (i.e. music, LPs, movies, etc) can't be used under fair use, but it's not as likely to qualify.
If it is reasonable to do so, one should seek to gain permission to use a work first.There is no reason for her to not seek permission in the first place.
By using someone else's let's play, she is taking the heart of the work.
fair use is a last resort protection
I really do wish that copyright was more clear-cut as a concept
such as crediting the source and attempting to get permission first, do very much help the case
Quote from: Prime Kruphix on May 08, 2016, 03:50:23 PMI would like to see those people banned as well. Nobody should get away with breaking rules."i want youtube to be devoid of content"unless you like shane dawson videos, i guess
I would like to see those people banned as well. Nobody should get away with breaking rules.
For example, YouTube cannot grant you the rights to use content that has already been uploaded to the site. If you wish to use someone else’s YouTube video, you may want to reach out to them via our messaging feature.
Irrelevant
No, he doesn't cite anybody at any time.
Her work is factual, not creative.
Sure there is; she has no obligation to do so.
No, she isn't, especially in the tiny clips she uses.
Nope
I do too, because then people like you wouldn't be completely wrong about it on here.
Those actions literally, legally, have absolutely zero bearing on fair use.
Sorry, you just don't know what you're talking about at all.
Quote from: Verbatim on May 08, 2016, 03:54:19 PMQuote from: Prime Kruphix on May 08, 2016, 03:50:23 PMI would like to see those people banned as well. Nobody should get away with breaking rules."i want youtube to be devoid of content"unless you like shane dawson videos, i guessVerbatim, please work with me here. Literally the only thing that I'm arguing is that she should acknowledge who she got her footage from if it isn't her own.
or is it not going to make a lick of difference, because fair use is fair use
Quote from: Prime Kruphix on May 08, 2016, 04:37:00 PMQuote from: Verbatim on May 08, 2016, 03:54:19 PMQuote from: Prime Kruphix on May 08, 2016, 03:50:23 PMI would like to see those people banned as well. Nobody should get away with breaking rules."i want youtube to be devoid of content"unless you like shane dawson videos, i guessVerbatim, please work with me here. Literally the only thing that I'm arguing is that she should acknowledge who she got her footage from if it isn't her own.or else she gets banned. so it's not a matter of "should" to you, it's a matter of obligationwhen i upload dark souls footage on my channel, should i be obliged to post the entire credits sequence in the description? is that going to save me from the copyright fairy?or is it not going to make a lick of difference, because fair use is fair use
Considering that Copyright isn't a black-and-white area, any bite for or against is relevant.
Turkey, the copyright owner. Not her.
]If it is reasonable to do so, one should seek to gain permission to use a work first.
So why even use a LPer's footage?
Having an alternative view
but don't tell me that I haven't put any effort into researching this subject.
Should you disclose that FROMsoftware is the owner of the property in some way, whether it be in the description or the video? Yeah.
Should/ought to implies obligation, among other things. I don't see the point in meandering in those words.
Still waiting on a single shred of evidence that Anita ever positively claimed someone else's footage as her own, because that's ultimately what the entire opposing argument hinges upon.
Whether the copyright owner's work is factual or creative is irrelevant; it's the use that matters.
Permission isn't necessary for fair use
Who cares? It doesn't matter.
It's not alternative; it's incorrect. She doesn't require permission or a citation.
I never did; I said you're wrong. Maybe you've put hours of effort into learning about this -- you're still wrong, and I encouraged you to learn more.
Have you read my source? I specifically made sure that it was from either a government or education source so that I could be sure of the information's authenticity.
Rule 3: Giving the Author Credit Doesn't Let You Off the HookSome people mistakenly believe that they can use any material as long as they properly give the author credit. Not true. Giving credit and fair use are completely separate concepts. Either you have the right to use another author's material under the fair use rule or you don't. The fact that you attribute the material to the other author doesn't change that.
Can I avoid infringement by crediting the source?No. Copyright infringement and plagiarism are two different things. Plagiarism is the misappropriation of another's work, passing it off as your own without indicating the source. It is possible to plagiarize a work without infringing the copyright—for example if you take another’s ideas without proper attribution, even though you do not copy the language, or you borrow from a work whose copyright has expired. Conversely, it is possible to infringe without plagiarizing. Properly citing the work you are copying does not avoid liability for infringement.
Note that attribution has little to do with fair use; unlike plagiarism, copyright infringement (or non-infringement) doesn't depend on whether you give credit to the source from which you copied. Fair use is decided by courts on a case-by-case basis after balancing the four factors listed in section 107 of the Copyright Act.
why? what would be the point?i have no qualms whatsoever with doing so, but why exactly should i be obliged toif i stated somewhere in the videos that i was playing a game that i made, then we'd have a problem
you can be obliged in a legal sense to do things that you shouldn't do in a moral sense, but w/e
It only mentions that if a work isn't transformative, isn't reasonable or customary, or is in bad faith, denial of credit (not lack thereof) may factor into the first facet of fair use. I've already provided a fair use walkthrough for this example.http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html
-snip Plagiarism/Copyright divide-
Feminist Frequency Youtube channel banned
