[videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive
Sadly, yes. Grab a copy of Darknet by J.D. Lasica. It's the textbook for the future if you're into this space. The world we live in now, is quirky. Here's hoping it will evolve. ER ericrice.com :: audioblog.com :: castella.jp --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Wong Teck Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > even if we help to promote the song also violating the copyright? > > On 12/3/05, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > "if i do a video > > blog in my car and the radio has a song on is that a copy rite isue??" > > > > *Actually, you violate copyright when you have a song playing on the radio > > in your car while doing a vlog. You violate copyright when you film in a bar > > and an annoying bothersome boombox is playing in the background.* > > ** > > *You won't have any problems just vlogging such stuff. However, if you > > wanted to turn your vlogs into some sort of theatrical release, you would > > have all sorts of copyright conflicts.* > > ** > > > > Randolfe (Randy) Wicker > > > > Videographer, Writer, Activist > > Advisor: The Immortality Institute > > Hoboken, NJ > > http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/ > > 201-656-3280 > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message - > > *From:* Randy Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > *To:* videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > *Sent:* Friday, December 02, 2005 6:41 AM > > *Subject:* RE: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive > > > > if that is the case, then what happens when sony gets mad at me for > > smashing > > one of there tvs and calling it crap. would that be a trade mark issue?? > > if > > im wearing a nike shirt does that make my video a tm issue?? if i do a > > video > > blog in my car and the radio has a song on is that a copy rite isue?? > > > > i think it should be like this she bought the doll. its hers. > > > > i liked the video > > > > randy > > averrycoollifeblog.blogspot.com > > > > > > >From: "Bill Streeter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > >To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > >Subject: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive > > >Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:38:34 - > > > > > >I don't think the issue with Barbie is copyright. I think it's a trade > > >mark issue. And trademarks a quite a bit different than copyright > > >under the law. Under copyright (which is registered with the Library > > >of Congress, in the US--although it needn't be to be legal) you own it > > >no matter what unless you overtly give it up. > > > > > >Trademarks are different. Trademarks need to be protected to remain > > >your property. So if someone starts to use your Trademark and you > > >don't do due diligence to stop it, then the Trademark can cease to be > > >your trademark and become a generic mark that anyone can use. Thus > > >explains why companies so jealously guard against infringement of > > >their trademark. Because under law if they don't they can loose them. > > > > > >So no doubt this was an issue of not just copyright but also of > > >trademark. > > > > > >Bill Streeter > > >LO-FI SAINT LOUIS > > >www.lofistl.com > > > > > >--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > I concede the point. I didn't know that infringement of Barbie's > > >copyright would be the real issue. But, even on that level, I wonder > > >if an argument couldn't be made for setting up some site in China or > > >somewhere that was really free of "copyright" constraints. > > > > > > > > I understand people deserve to be paid for their work and what they > > >own, etc. However, in this case, there was no financial gain being > > >made. Barbie was being used to make a political statement (against > > >men in my opinion) and therefore should be a legitimate target for > > >parody like any celebrity. > > > > > > > > > > > > Randolfe (Randy) Wicker > > > > > > > > Videographer, Writer, Activist > > > > Advisor: The Immortality Institute > > > > Hoboken, NJ > > > > http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/ > > > > 201-656-3280 > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive
even if we help to promote the song also violating the copyright?On 12/3/05, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: "if i do a video blog in my car and the radio has a song on is that a copy rite isue??" Actually, you violate copyright when you have a song playing on the radio in your car while doing a vlog. You violate copyright when you film in a bar and an annoying bothersome boombox is playing in the background. You won't have any problems just vlogging such stuff. However, if you wanted to turn your vlogs into some sort of theatrical release, you would have all sorts of copyright conflicts. Randolfe (Randy) Wicker Videographer, Writer, ActivistAdvisor: The Immortality InstituteHoboken, NJhttp://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/201-656-3280 - Original Message - From: Randy Mann To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 6:41 AM Subject: RE: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive if that is the case, then what happens when sony gets mad at me for smashing one of there tvs and calling it crap. would that be a trade mark issue?? if im wearing a nike shirt does that make my video a tm issue?? if i do a video blog in my car and the radio has a song on is that a copy rite isue??i think it should be like this she bought the doll. its hers.i liked the videorandyaverrycoollifeblog.blogspot.com>From: "Bill Streeter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com>Subject: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive>Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:38:34 ->>I don't think the issue with Barbie is copyright. I think it's a trade>mark issue. And trademarks a quite a bit different than copyright>under the law. Under copyright (which is registered with the Library>of Congress, in the US--although it needn't be to be legal) you own it>no matter what unless you overtly give it up.>>Trademarks are different. Trademarks need to be protected to remain>your property. So if someone starts to use your Trademark and you>don't do due diligence to stop it, then the Trademark can cease to be>your trademark and become a generic mark that anyone can use. Thus>explains why companies so jealously guard against infringement of>their trademark. Because under law if they don't they can loose them.>>So no doubt this was an issue of not just copyright but also of>trademark.>>Bill Streeter>LO-FI SAINT LOUIS>www.lofistl.com>>--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>wrote:> >> > I concede the point. I didn't know that infringement of Barbie's>copyright would be the real issue. But, even on that level, I wonder>if an argument couldn't be made for setting up some site in China or>somewhere that was really free of "copyright" constraints.> >> > I understand people deserve to be paid for their work and what they>own, etc. However, in this case, there was no financial gain being>made. Barbie was being used to make a political statement (against>men in my opinion) and therefore should be a legitimate target for>parody like any celebrity.> >> >> > Randolfe (Randy) Wicker> >> > Videographer, Writer, Activist> > Advisor: The Immortality Institute> > Hoboken, NJ> > http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/ > > 201-656-3280> >> >> > - Original Message -> > From: Steve Watkins> > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 5:58 PM> > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive> >> >> > Archive.org's aims to capture history do not mean they can afford to> > pretend their are no laws that may affect the content they can legally> > host.> >> > The internet would be very different today if all the laws in all> > countries were always followed to the letter. Clearly that doesnt> > happen, but responsible sites that dont want to lose all their money> > in court have to do some sort of risk assessment. In a case where> > theres already been legal action against a very similar type of video,> > I think its easy to see why they may of decided it wasnt worth it.> >> > A possible justification could go along the lines of 'would you rather> > us ditch a small part of history or have us lose the entire archive> > due to the cost of fighting lawsuits'?> >> > Of course
Re: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive
"if i do a video blog in my car and the radio has a song on is that a copy rite isue??" Actually, you violate copyright when you have a song playing on the radio in your car while doing a vlog. You violate copyright when you film in a bar and an annoying bothersome boombox is playing in the background. You won't have any problems just vlogging such stuff. However, if you wanted to turn your vlogs into some sort of theatrical release, you would have all sorts of copyright conflicts. Randolfe (Randy) Wicker Videographer, Writer, ActivistAdvisor: The Immortality InstituteHoboken, NJhttp://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/201-656-3280 - Original Message - From: Randy Mann To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 6:41 AM Subject: RE: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive if that is the case, then what happens when sony gets mad at me for smashing one of there tvs and calling it crap. would that be a trade mark issue?? if im wearing a nike shirt does that make my video a tm issue?? if i do a video blog in my car and the radio has a song on is that a copy rite isue??i think it should be like this she bought the doll. its hers.i liked the videorandyaverrycoollifeblog.blogspot.com>From: "Bill Streeter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com>Subject: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive>Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:38:34 ->>I don't think the issue with Barbie is copyright. I think it's a trade>mark issue. And trademarks a quite a bit different than copyright>under the law. Under copyright (which is registered with the Library>of Congress, in the US--although it needn't be to be legal) you own it>no matter what unless you overtly give it up.>>Trademarks are different. Trademarks need to be protected to remain>your property. So if someone starts to use your Trademark and you>don't do due diligence to stop it, then the Trademark can cease to be>your trademark and become a generic mark that anyone can use. Thus>explains why companies so jealously guard against infringement of>their trademark. Because under law if they don't they can loose them.>>So no doubt this was an issue of not just copyright but also of>trademark.>>Bill Streeter>LO-FI SAINT LOUIS>www.lofistl.com>>--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>wrote:> >> > I concede the point. I didn't know that infringement of Barbie's>copyright would be the real issue. But, even on that level, I wonder>if an argument couldn't be made for setting up some site in China or>somewhere that was really free of "copyright" constraints.> >> > I understand people deserve to be paid for their work and what they>own, etc. However, in this case, there was no financial gain being>made. Barbie was being used to make a political statement (against>men in my opinion) and therefore should be a legitimate target for>parody like any celebrity.> >> >> > Randolfe (Randy) Wicker> >> > Videographer, Writer, Activist> > Advisor: The Immortality Institute> > Hoboken, NJ> > http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/> > 201-656-3280> >> >> > - Original Message -> > From: Steve Watkins> > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 5:58 PM> > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive> >> >> > Archive.org's aims to capture history do not mean they can afford to> > pretend their are no laws that may affect the content they can legally> > host.> >> > The internet would be very different today if all the laws in all> > countries were always followed to the letter. Clearly that doesnt> > happen, but responsible sites that dont want to lose all their money> > in court have to do some sort of risk assessment. In a case where> > theres already been legal action against a very similar type of video,> > I think its easy to see why they may of decided it wasnt worth it.> >> > A possible justification could go along the lines of 'would you rather> > us ditch a small part of history or have us lose the entire archive> > due to the cost of fighting lawsuits'?> >> > Of course all this is just speculation, I have no idea why that video> > actually was removed or the though processes behind t
Re: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive
On 12/2/05, Randy Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: if that is the case, then what happens when sony gets mad at me for smashing one of there tvs and calling it crap. would that be a trade mark issue?? No, although depending on your characterization if it as "crap" it may be slander or defamation if your comments are factually untrue. if im wearing a nike shirt does that make my video a tm issue?Depends on if a viewer of your video would construe that video to have been made or approved of by Nike as some sort of official communication. if i do a video blog in my car and the radio has a song on is that a copy rite isue??Yes it is. | i think it should be like this she bought the doll. its hers.Yeah unfortunately the law doesn't necessarily take "common sense" into account. -m i liked the video randy averrycoollifeblog.blogspot.com >From: "Bill Streeter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com >To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive >Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:38:34 - > >I don't think the issue with Barbie is copyright. I think it's a trade >mark issue. And trademarks a quite a bit different than copyright >under the law. Under copyright (which is registered with the Library >of Congress, in the US--although it needn't be to be legal) you own it >no matter what unless you overtly give it up. > >Trademarks are different. Trademarks need to be protected to remain >your property. So if someone starts to use your Trademark and you >don't do due diligence to stop it, then the Trademark can cease to be >your trademark and become a generic mark that anyone can use. Thus >explains why companies so jealously guard against infringement of >their trademark. Because under law if they don't they can loose them. > >So no doubt this was an issue of not just copyright but also of >trademark. > >Bill Streeter >LO-FI SAINT LOUIS >www.lofistl.com > >--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > > > > I concede the point. I didn't know that infringement of Barbie's >copyright would be the real issue. But, even on that level, I wonder >if an argument couldn't be made for setting up some site in China or >somewhere that was really free of "copyright" constraints. > > > > I understand people deserve to be paid for their work and what they >own, etc. However, in this case, there was no financial gain being >made. Barbie was being used to make a political statement (against >men in my opinion) and therefore should be a legitimate target for >parody like any celebrity. > > > > > > Randolfe (Randy) Wicker > > > > Videographer, Writer, Activist > > Advisor: The Immortality Institute > > Hoboken, NJ > > http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/ > > 201-656-3280 > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: Steve Watkins > > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 5:58 PM > > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive > > > > > > Archive.org's aims to capture history do not mean they can afford to > > pretend their are no laws that may affect the content they can legally > > host. > > > > The internet would be very different today if all the laws in all > > countries were always followed to the letter. Clearly that doesnt > > happen, but responsible sites that dont want to lose all their money > > in court have to do some sort of risk assessment. In a case where > > theres already been legal action against a very similar type of video, > > I think its easy to see why they may of decided it wasnt worth it. > > > > A possible justification could go along the lines of 'would you rather > > us ditch a small part of history or have us lose the entire archive > > due to the cost of fighting lawsuits'? > > > > Of course all this is just speculation, I have no idea why that video > > actually was removed or the though processes behind the decision. > > > > Steve of Elbows > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Is this the "Internet Archive" that claims to be capturing "the > > history of our day?" Aren't sexual issues part of that history? > > > It is really outrageous that they took your vlog off. And, I say > > that, as someone who doesn't fully agree with your viewpoint. > &g
RE: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive
if that is the case, then what happens when sony gets mad at me for smashing one of there tvs and calling it crap. would that be a trade mark issue?? if im wearing a nike shirt does that make my video a tm issue?? if i do a video blog in my car and the radio has a song on is that a copy rite isue?? i think it should be like this she bought the doll. its hers. i liked the video randy averrycoollifeblog.blogspot.com >From: "Bill Streeter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com >To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive >Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:38:34 - > >I don't think the issue with Barbie is copyright. I think it's a trade >mark issue. And trademarks a quite a bit different than copyright >under the law. Under copyright (which is registered with the Library >of Congress, in the US--although it needn't be to be legal) you own it >no matter what unless you overtly give it up. > >Trademarks are different. Trademarks need to be protected to remain >your property. So if someone starts to use your Trademark and you >don't do due diligence to stop it, then the Trademark can cease to be >your trademark and become a generic mark that anyone can use. Thus >explains why companies so jealously guard against infringement of >their trademark. Because under law if they don't they can loose them. > >So no doubt this was an issue of not just copyright but also of >trademark. > >Bill Streeter >LO-FI SAINT LOUIS >www.lofistl.com > >--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > > > > I concede the point. I didn't know that infringement of Barbie's >copyright would be the real issue. But, even on that level, I wonder >if an argument couldn't be made for setting up some site in China or >somewhere that was really free of "copyright" constraints. > > > > I understand people deserve to be paid for their work and what they >own, etc. However, in this case, there was no financial gain being >made. Barbie was being used to make a political statement (against >men in my opinion) and therefore should be a legitimate target for >parody like any celebrity. > > > > > > Randolfe (Randy) Wicker > > > > Videographer, Writer, Activist > > Advisor: The Immortality Institute > > Hoboken, NJ > > http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/ > > 201-656-3280 > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: Steve Watkins > > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 5:58 PM > > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive > > > > > > Archive.org's aims to capture history do not mean they can afford to > > pretend their are no laws that may affect the content they can legally > > host. > > > > The internet would be very different today if all the laws in all > > countries were always followed to the letter. Clearly that doesnt > > happen, but responsible sites that dont want to lose all their money > > in court have to do some sort of risk assessment. In a case where > > theres already been legal action against a very similar type of video, > > I think its easy to see why they may of decided it wasnt worth it. > > > > A possible justification could go along the lines of 'would you rather > > us ditch a small part of history or have us lose the entire archive > > due to the cost of fighting lawsuits'? > > > > Of course all this is just speculation, I have no idea why that video > > actually was removed or the though processes behind the decision. > > > > Steve of Elbows > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Is this the "Internet Archive" that claims to be capturing "the > > history of our day?" Aren't sexual issues part of that history? > > > It is really outrageous that they took your vlog off. And, I say > > that, as someone who doesn't fully agree with your viewpoint. > > > > > > Actually, I watched this vlog and I felt it treated men unfairly. > > It made me mad. That is good. Something that provokes you and > > challenges you to think is good whether you like it or not. > > > > > > Randolfe (Randy) Wicker > > > > > > Videographer, Writer, Activist > > > Advisor: The Immortality Institute > > > Hoboken, NJ >
[videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive
I don't think the issue with Barbie is copyright. I think it's a trade mark issue. And trademarks a quite a bit different than copyright under the law. Under copyright (which is registered with the Library of Congress, in the US--although it needn't be to be legal) you own it no matter what unless you overtly give it up. Trademarks are different. Trademarks need to be protected to remain your property. So if someone starts to use your Trademark and you don't do due diligence to stop it, then the Trademark can cease to be your trademark and become a generic mark that anyone can use. Thus explains why companies so jealously guard against infringement of their trademark. Because under law if they don't they can loose them. So no doubt this was an issue of not just copyright but also of trademark. Bill Streeter LO-FI SAINT LOUIS www.lofistl.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I concede the point. I didn't know that infringement of Barbie's copyright would be the real issue. But, even on that level, I wonder if an argument couldn't be made for setting up some site in China or somewhere that was really free of "copyright" constraints. > > I understand people deserve to be paid for their work and what they own, etc. However, in this case, there was no financial gain being made. Barbie was being used to make a political statement (against men in my opinion) and therefore should be a legitimate target for parody like any celebrity. > > > Randolfe (Randy) Wicker > > Videographer, Writer, Activist > Advisor: The Immortality Institute > Hoboken, NJ > http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/ > 201-656-3280 > > > - Original Message - > From: Steve Watkins > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 5:58 PM > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive > > > Archive.org's aims to capture history do not mean they can afford to > pretend their are no laws that may affect the content they can legally > host. > > The internet would be very different today if all the laws in all > countries were always followed to the letter. Clearly that doesnt > happen, but responsible sites that dont want to lose all their money > in court have to do some sort of risk assessment. In a case where > theres already been legal action against a very similar type of video, > I think its easy to see why they may of decided it wasnt worth it. > > A possible justification could go along the lines of 'would you rather > us ditch a small part of history or have us lose the entire archive > due to the cost of fighting lawsuits'? > > Of course all this is just speculation, I have no idea why that video > actually was removed or the though processes behind the decision. > > Steve of Elbows > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Is this the "Internet Archive" that claims to be capturing "the > history of our day?" Aren't sexual issues part of that history? > > It is really outrageous that they took your vlog off. And, I say > that, as someone who doesn't fully agree with your viewpoint. > > > > Actually, I watched this vlog and I felt it treated men unfairly. > It made me mad. That is good. Something that provokes you and > challenges you to think is good whether you like it or not. > > > > Randolfe (Randy) Wicker > > > > Videographer, Writer, Activist > > Advisor: The Immortality Institute > > Hoboken, NJ > > http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/ > > 201-656-3280 > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: Aimee Buyea > > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 5:09 PM > > Subject: [videoblogging] my video got taken off archive > > > > > > well i guess my work on gender issues is a little too > > provocative. > > > > > > "Dear Patron: > > > > You recently uploaded an item to one of our > > collections. Curators had > > to remove it, possibly due to one of the following > > reasons: > > > > -Rights status unclear > > -Rights status appears inappropriate for our > > collections > > -Inappropriate content (eg, pornography) > > -Uploader requested the removal > > -Item content was empty or broken > > > > Although we appre
Re: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive
Fair Use related to Copyright Law, not Trademark Law. - Andreas On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:49:35 +0100, Joan Khoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would think that it would be fair use. But Mattel seems lawsuit-happy > so I > wouldn't risk it. It really turned me off Barbies to read up on all those > lawsuits. They seem to have a lousy sense of humour. > Joan > > > > > > On 12/1/05, Michael Ridley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I'm not an IP attorney but I wonder if using Barbie dolls in stop motion >> is really a trademark infringement...I would think not. Especially in >> light >> of the MCA case, but even more generally...I'm not at all sure that that >> would be infringing. I have a pretty good understanding of US copyright >> law, but I guess my trademark knowledge is a little spotty in this area. >> I'd be interested to hear from anyone who does have an IP law >> background. >> >> In any case, including a Peaches track would be a non-starter (from a >> copyright distribution perspective). >> -- http://www.solitude.dk/> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life. http://us.click.yahoo.com/KIlPFB/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM ~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive
I would think that it would be fair use. But Mattel seems lawsuit-happy so I wouldn't risk it. It really turned me off Barbies to read up on all those lawsuits. They seem to have a lousy sense of humour. Joan On 12/1/05, Michael Ridley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm not an IP attorney but I wonder if using Barbie dolls in stop motion is really a trademark infringement...I would think not. Especially in light of the MCA case, but even more generally...I'm not at all sure that that would be infringing. I have a pretty good understanding of US copyright law, but I guess my trademark knowledge is a little spotty in this area. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who does have an IP law background. In any case, including a Peaches track would be a non-starter (from a copyright distribution perspective). YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive
I'm not an IP attorney but I wonder if using Barbie dolls in stop motion is really a trademark infringement...I would think not. Especially in light of the MCA case, but even more generally...I'm not at all sure that that would be infringing. I have a pretty good understanding of US copyright law, but I guess my trademark knowledge is a little spotty in this area. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who does have an IP law background. In any case, including a Peaches track would be a non-starter (from a copyright distribution perspective).-mOn 12/1/05, Lucas Gonze < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There are three issues -- That Peaches number is definitely unauthorized. The sexual content is going to piss some people off. Barbie is a fiercely protected trademark. The Peaches issue is a good enough reason to bounce it, add in the other two issues and it's an obvious choice. SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Typepad Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service . -- -mhttp://www.secretelite.com/michael SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Typepad Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive
Archive.org will pull content which may be a copyright issue based on protest. (Specific proof / discourse not required)On 12/1/05, Lucas Gonze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There are three issues -- That Peaches number is definitely unauthorized. The sexual content is going to piss some people off. Barbie is a fiercely protected trademark. The Peaches issue is a good enough reason to bounce it, add in the other two issues and it's an obvious choice. SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Typepad Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Typepad Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive
There are three issues -- That Peaches number is definitely unauthorized. The sexual content is going to piss some people off. Barbie is a fiercely protected trademark. The Peaches issue is a good enough reason to bounce it, add in the other two issues and it's an obvious choice. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Most low income households are not online. Help bridge the digital divide today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/I258zB/QnQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM ~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive
I concede the point. I didn't know that infringement of Barbie's copyright would be the real issue. But, even on that level, I wonder if an argument couldn't be made for setting up some site in China or somewhere that was really free of "copyright" constraints. I understand people deserve to be paid for their work and what they own, etc. However, in this case, there was no financial gain being made. Barbie was being used to make a political statement (against men in my opinion) and therefore should be a legitimate target for parody like any celebrity. Randolfe (Randy) Wicker Videographer, Writer, ActivistAdvisor: The Immortality InstituteHoboken, NJhttp://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/201-656-3280 - Original Message - From: Steve Watkins To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 5:58 PM Subject: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive Archive.org's aims to capture history do not mean they can afford topretend their are no laws that may affect the content they can legallyhost. The internet would be very different today if all the laws in allcountries were always followed to the letter. Clearly that doesnthappen, but responsible sites that dont want to lose all their moneyin court have to do some sort of risk assessment. In a case wheretheres already been legal action against a very similar type of video,I think its easy to see why they may of decided it wasnt worth it.A possible justification could go along the lines of 'would you ratherus ditch a small part of history or have us lose the entire archivedue to the cost of fighting lawsuits'?Of course all this is just speculation, I have no idea why that videoactually was removed or the though processes behind the decision.Steve of Elbows--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:>> Is this the "Internet Archive" that claims to be capturing "thehistory of our day?" Aren't sexual issues part of that history?> It is really outrageous that they took your vlog off. And, I saythat, as someone who doesn't fully agree with your viewpoint. > > Actually, I watched this vlog and I felt it treated men unfairly. It made me mad. That is good. Something that provokes you andchallenges you to think is good whether you like it or not.> > Randolfe (Randy) Wicker> > Videographer, Writer, Activist> Advisor: The Immortality Institute> Hoboken, NJ> http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/> 201-656-3280> > > - Original Message - > From: Aimee Buyea > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 5:09 PM> Subject: [videoblogging] my video got taken off archive> > > well i guess my work on gender issues is a little too> provocative.> > > "Dear Patron:> > You recently uploaded an item to one of our> collections. Curators had> to remove it, possibly due to one of the following> reasons:> > -Rights status unclear> -Rights status appears inappropriate for our> collections> -Inappropriate content (eg, pornography)> -Uploader requested the removal> -Item content was empty or broken> > Although we appreciate your willingness to contribute,> we would like> to host only content that rightsholders will permit us> to host. Please> do not attempt to reupload this item. Thanks for your> understanding!> > -an Internet Archive curator"> > check it out!> aimee> http://onegirloneworld.blogspot.com/2005/11/warning-sites-linked-contain-adult.html> > > SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Typepad > Use > > >--> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > a.. Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.> > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms ofService. > > >--> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive
Archive.org's aims to capture history do not mean they can afford to pretend their are no laws that may affect the content they can legally host. The internet would be very different today if all the laws in all countries were always followed to the letter. Clearly that doesnt happen, but responsible sites that dont want to lose all their money in court have to do some sort of risk assessment. In a case where theres already been legal action against a very similar type of video, I think its easy to see why they may of decided it wasnt worth it. A possible justification could go along the lines of 'would you rather us ditch a small part of history or have us lose the entire archive due to the cost of fighting lawsuits'? Of course all this is just speculation, I have no idea why that video actually was removed or the though processes behind the decision. Steve of Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is this the "Internet Archive" that claims to be capturing "the history of our day?" Aren't sexual issues part of that history? > It is really outrageous that they took your vlog off. And, I say that, as someone who doesn't fully agree with your viewpoint. > > Actually, I watched this vlog and I felt it treated men unfairly. It made me mad. That is good. Something that provokes you and challenges you to think is good whether you like it or not. > > Randolfe (Randy) Wicker > > Videographer, Writer, Activist > Advisor: The Immortality Institute > Hoboken, NJ > http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/ > 201-656-3280 > > > - Original Message - > From: Aimee Buyea > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 5:09 PM > Subject: [videoblogging] my video got taken off archive > > > well i guess my work on gender issues is a little too > provocative. > > > "Dear Patron: > > You recently uploaded an item to one of our > collections. Curators had > to remove it, possibly due to one of the following > reasons: > > -Rights status unclear > -Rights status appears inappropriate for our > collections > -Inappropriate content (eg, pornography) > -Uploader requested the removal > -Item content was empty or broken > > Although we appreciate your willingness to contribute, > we would like > to host only content that rightsholders will permit us > to host. Please > do not attempt to reupload this item. Thanks for your > understanding! > > -an Internet Archive curator" > > check it out! > aimee > http://onegirloneworld.blogspot.com/2005/11/warning-sites-linked-contain-adult.html > > > SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Typepad > Use > > > -- > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > a.. Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > -- > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life. http://us.click.yahoo.com/KIlPFB/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM ~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive
I thought the viewpoint expressed implied that "all males" were so low that they resorted to weird rubber dolls, etc. I doubt one in a hundred men have even experimented with one of these things. Now, an interesting vlog would be opening a "doll house" whorehouse. Could they bust someone for "pimping" and renting out time with the doll he owned? Now, that would be "police action" worth filming :). Imagine someone being taken away in cuffs by one cop while another follows with the confiscated "doll" evidence under his/her arm. Randolfe (Randy) Wicker Videographer, Writer, ActivistAdvisor: The Immortality InstituteHoboken, NJhttp://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/201-656-3280 - Original Message - From: Enric To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 4:55 PM Subject: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Paul Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]...>wrote:>> Oh come on Randy It's only a Barbie doll with no clothes on!!> > Paul kThere's manufacturing consent and there's manufacturing dissent. ;)> On 30 Nov 2005, at 21:12, Randolfe Wicker wrote:> > > Is this the "Internet Archive" that claims to be capturing "the > > history of our day?" Aren't sexual issues part of that history?> > It is really outrageous that they took your vlog off. And, I say > > that, as someone who doesn't fully agree with your viewpoint. > >  > > Actually, I watched this vlog and I felt it treated menunfairly. It > > made me mad. That is good. Something that provokes you and > > challenges you to think is good whether you like it or not.> >  > > Randolfe (Randy) Wicker> >  > > Videographer, Writer, Activist> > Advisor: The Immortality Institute> > Hoboken, NJ> > http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/> > 201-656-3280> >  > >  > >> - Original Message -> >> From: Aimee Buyea> >> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 5:09 PM> >> Subject: [videoblogging] my video got taken off archive> >>> >> well i guess my work on gender issues is a little too> >> provocative.> >>> >>> >> "Dear Patron:> >>> >> You recently uploaded an item to one of our> >> collections. Curators had> >> to remove it, possibly due to one of the following> >> reasons:> >>> >> -Rights status unclear> >> -Rights status appears inappropriate for our> >> collections> >> -Inappropriate content (eg, pornography)> >> -Uploader requested the removal> >> -Item content was empty or broken> >>> >> Although we appreciate your willingness to contribute,> >> we would like> >> to host only content that rightsholders will permit us> >> to host. Please> >> do not attempt to reupload this item. Thanks for your> >> understanding!> >>> >> -an Internet Archive curator"> >>> >> check it out!> >> aimee> >> http://onegirloneworld.blogspot.com/2005/11/warning-sites-linked- > >> contain-adult.html> >>> >>> >> SPONSORED LINKS> >> Individual> >> Fireant> >> Typepad> >> Use> >>> >> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS> >>> >> ⪠ Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.> >>  > >> ⪠ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:> >>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>  > >> ⪠ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > >> Service.> >>> >>> >>> Do yourself a favour and Visit my Vlog> > http://pjkproductions.blogspot.com> > It's worth a laugh and work friendly.> SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Typepad Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Paul Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oh come on Randy It's only a Barbie doll with no clothes on!! > > Paul k There's manufacturing consent and there's manufacturing dissent. ;) > On 30 Nov 2005, at 21:12, Randolfe Wicker wrote: > > > Is this the "Internet Archive" that claims to be capturing "the > > history of our day?" Aren't sexual issues part of that history? > > It is really outrageous that they took your vlog off. And, I say > > that, as someone who doesn't fully agree with your viewpoint. > >  > > Actually, I watched this vlog and I felt it treated men unfairly. It > > made me mad. That is good. Something that provokes you and > > challenges you to think is good whether you like it or not. > >  > > Randolfe (Randy) Wicker > >  > > Videographer, Writer, Activist > > Advisor: The Immortality Institute > > Hoboken, NJ > > http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/ > > 201-656-3280 > >  > >  > >> - Original Message - > >> From: Aimee Buyea > >> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 5:09 PM > >> Subject: [videoblogging] my video got taken off archive > >> > >> well i guess my work on gender issues is a little too > >> provocative. > >> > >> > >> "Dear Patron: > >> > >> You recently uploaded an item to one of our > >> collections. Curators had > >> to remove it, possibly due to one of the following > >> reasons: > >> > >> -Rights status unclear > >> -Rights status appears inappropriate for our > >> collections > >> -Inappropriate content (eg, pornography) > >> -Uploader requested the removal > >> -Item content was empty or broken > >> > >> Although we appreciate your willingness to contribute, > >> we would like > >> to host only content that rightsholders will permit us > >> to host. Please > >> do not attempt to reupload this item. Thanks for your > >> understanding! > >> > >> -an Internet Archive curator" > >> > >> check it out! > >> aimee > >> http://onegirloneworld.blogspot.com/2005/11/warning-sites-linked- > >> contain-adult.html > >> > >> > >> SPONSORED LINKS > >> Individual > >> Fireant > >> Typepad > >> Use > >> > >> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > >> > >>⪠ Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. > >>  > >>⪠ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > >>  [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>  > >>⪠ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > >> Service. > >> > >> > >> > Do yourself a favour and Visit my Vlog > > http://pjkproductions.blogspot.com > > It's worth a laugh and work friendly. > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Most low income households are not online. Help bridge the digital divide today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/I258zB/QnQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM ~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive
before we make the turn onto the road of conversation about licensing, I'd like to hop in and postulate that it ain't the copywrited music that's the issue! What we have here is Barbie enjoying her free time in a way that many would call "naughtynaughty". Granted, she's just a doll, but still. That being said, I'd like to point out that I totally dig the video and totally get its message. But I'm not surprised it was yanked. Bekah http://missbhavens.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > around the 30/11/05 Ronen mentioned about Re: [videoblogging] my > video got taken off archive that: > >Does it make all of these services (incl. iTunes) unprofessional > >that they pull anything with copyrighted content with first checking > >if the content has been liscensed? > > not sure the tone of that, but no, it makes them professional :-) > > you always indicate (must indicate) licencing information in the > credits, if you don't have a licence to use it, then you can't. There > is an enormous amount of good video made in my home city (Melbourne) > in schools. Most can not be broadcast on community TV because they > continually use copyrighted content (music) in their productions. > That is bad teaching, not a bad law (copyright law is stuffed, but > the principle is fine). > -- > cheers > Adrian Miles > this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] > hypertext.RMIT http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/admin/briefEmail.html > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/2jUsvC/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM ~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
