One thing that we've done almost from Day One is include a requirement that everyone accessing blip.tv respect the licenses attached to media hosted on blip. The relevant portion of our TOS:
All user-generated content will be uploaded onto the site under a Creative Commons License (see http://www.creativecommons.org/) or on an all rights reserved basis. You agree to be bound by the terms of each license. As a creator of user-generated content or as a passive user of the Blip.tv site, you may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, or in any way exploit any of the content on the Blip.tv site in whole or in part outside of the specific usage rights granted to you by each license. If you download or print a copy of any Blip.tv content or user-generated content for personal use, you must retain all copyright and other proprietary notices contained therein. You may not otherwise use, reproduce, display, publicly perform, or distribute such content in any way for any public or commercial purpose unless such use is expressly granted by a particular license. > -----Original Message----- > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 2:09 PM > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Defending the Creative Commons license > > Greetings, > > Woo you;ve got the nice cc license on your work that allows > derivatives, that makes you a hero of mine :) > > Ive been looking at the creative commons site to learn more. > I fear they may not have as much spare resources to help us > all that much, or rather they probably need our help in > return as much as we need them. > For example I was just looking at a 'podcasting legal guide' > on their site, specifically the 'applying a cc license to > your podcast' section: > > http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Podcasting_Legal_Guide#Applyin > g_A_CC_License_To_Your_Podcast. > > Specifically this bit: > > "Using A Service To Distribute And/Or Promote Your Podcasts. > > We are reviewing "terms of use" agreements offered by many > podcast service providers and will update this section of the > Guide to address legal issues related to these "terms of use" > agreements of which podcasters should be especially aware. > > For now, suffice it to say, that before you agree to use any > podcasting services, you should, at a minimum, read the > provider's terms of service, privacy policy and copyright > policy. This ensures, first, that such policies exist (which > can tell you a bit about who you are dealing with), and > second, informs you of the terms and policies to which you > may be bound. It is a best practice for service providers to > make these policies clearly available through a link on the > service provider's home page, as well as on any page on the > website where you sign up for the service. If these policies > are not obvious and clearly available, write to the provider > and ask for details before you move forward. If the provider > is reluctant or refuses to provide the terms up front, it > would be better to hold off doing business with the provider > until their policies are in order and in writing. " > > I seem to remember reading the same thoing on their site some > time ago, so I guess they havent managed to update this yet. > Anyway for most of this stuff I imagine podcasting and > videoblogging are very close. So perhaps they need our help > with this stuff. > > For example Ive been restating a lot of the basic and > not-so-basic creative commons principals etc in recent > threads over the last day, have you been looking at that > stuff at all? I would really love to get your take on > advertising, whether text or graphic advertising within > website pages that may embed your video is ok or not, in your opinion. > We need as many of these opinions as possible, because some > are assuming its ok, its legally not so clear, and it would > be good to know what content creators all think about this. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Casey McKinnon" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > After the whole MyHeavy debacle, I believe it important to > discuss our > > Creative Commons licenses. I don't believe we need to > change anything > > about the licenses because they are pretty thorough > already, but since > > this is the second (known) time that we have had an issue > with sites > > disregarding our licenses, I think it's important not to sweep it > > under the rug too quickly. > > > > I believe our next step should be to reach out to the > Creative Commons > > community and ask them for an opinion and how we should > deal with the > > situation in the future. > > > > The truth of the matter is that most of us do not have the > funds for > > legal representation so we need to figure out what options are > > available from the larger internet community. I have no doubt that > > the good people at Creative Commons have dealt with situations like > > this before and I believe that they may have a lot to contribute to > > this discussion. > > > > Best, > > Casey > > > > --- > > Casey McKinnon > > Executive Producer, Galacticast > > http://www.galacticast.com/ > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
