Steve, Thanks so much. I think the term "non-commercial" is up for a lot of debate and legitimate disagreement (as we've seen many times on this list). I've written a lot about differences in monetization approach on the part of aggregators, and we'll continue to take stock of actual usage on a regular basis and make any changes or improvements as we and the community feel are necessary.
Yours, Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 10:07 PM > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Defending the Creative Commons license > > Thanks for the quality reply :) > > I see where you are coming from, and persoanlly feel that > this is a pretty good balance you've struck. Especially as > people opt-in to use you in the first place, and get a chance > to opt-out of various partner offerings which may stretch > things beyond what they are comfortable with. > > If I have one remaining concern worth mentioning in relation > to all this, its the bit in the relevent part of your terms > that, in regard to your partners, says "or for any other > non-commercial use of that content." Potentially a lot of > your partners dont seem on the face of it to fall into the > 'non-commercial' category, and so this may be a weakness in > the wording of your terms? > > Anyway, your overall credibility and ethics are probably more > vital to making this acceptable to users in practice, > rendering any small quibbles about the legal side of the > wording of your t&c less relevant in reality. But I find it > important to know how much protection creators are getting > via specific legal terms, beforetaking into account the > character of those providing the service. eg an evil service > could use exactly the same terms&conditions as you, but could > stretch things a lot further. Still as you and others have > suggested, upsetting lots of people, causing a backlash and > damaging own reputation is probably as large or even larger > risk factor that may sway companies towards being ethical, > than the legal copyright etc details. > > Wow I seem to have spend most of my time from 8PM till 3AM > tonight on this stuff, ugh I think I am some sort of sick > obsessive little moneky nerd! :D Quite why Ive probably spent > more time on this stuff in the last few years than some > content creators or service proviers have, escapes me! > > Cheers and goodnight all, > > Steve Elbows > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Hudack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > That's a great question. The short answer is that our partnership > > agreements may sometimes supercede portions of our terms of service. > > The slightly longer short answer is that we don't negotiate > > partnerships that violate either the letter or spirit of the TOS. > > > > I could give you a list of our partners now (it's a long > list full of > > companies you'll recognize and some you won't) but it may be > > worthwhile to note that it's also an ever-increasing list. > We aren't > > standing still, and any list of partners is likely to get > quickly out > > of date, unless we maintained it on a daily basis. Even then, we > > would have to maintain the list along with everything that > we're doing > > with the partners and everything we intend to do. > Unfortunately most > > partnership agreements have at least some confidential > aspects since > > they tend to cover the future business plans and strategies > of both partners. > > > > The only way that a partner can operate in a way that > contradicts our > > TOS is for us to explicitly give them permission to do so > in a contract. > > I hope you'll agree that we're exceedingly unlikely to do this in a > > way that impacts our users negatively, and that if we do make that > > mistake that we'll pay for it in terms of our reputation when the > > inevitable outcry comes our way. > > > > To be clear, though, we have made some agreements that > could have an > > impact on the TOS. We've made these agreements with folks > like Yahoo > > to allow them to spider, index and display blip.tv videos > on Yahoo! Video. > > The thing is, though, that they respect MediaRSS and the MediaRSS > > exclusion standard. So our users can opt out of > distribution to Yahoo! > > Video at any time if they're unhappy with the way that Yahoo is > > indexing or displaying their content. > > > > There's another class of partner that we have contracts > with that may > > impact the TOS. These are advertising partners. Many of our > > advertising partners subscribe to our RSS feeds and interact with > > video in a way that is potentially in violation of our TOS. > Using our > > advertising partners is always within your control, though, and I'm > > sure you'd agree that they should be able to do what they > need to do > > in order to deliver both you and blip.tv as much money as possible. > > > > Yours, > > > > Mike > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins > > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 2:53 PM > > > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Defending the Creative > Commons license > > > > > > Can I just clarify a point about whether 'everyone' > excludes blip.tv > > > and its partners & affiliates? > > > > > > I mean its normal that whatever license, normal copyright > or one of > > > the creative commons licenses, a person uses, the service such as > > > blip.tv normally requires that users give the service additional > > > rights. > > > > > > So earlier in your terms & conditions it says: > > > > > > "GRANT OF LICENSE > > > > > > When you upload or post content to Blip.tv, that content become > > > public content and will be searchable by and available to > anyone who > > > visits the Blip.tv site. Blip.tv does not claim ownership of the > > > materials you post, upload, input or submit to the Blip.tv site. > > > However, by posting, uploading, inputting, providing or > submitting > > > your content to Blip.tv, you are granting Blip.tv, its affiliated > > > companies and partners, a worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free, > > > non-exclusive, sublicensable license to use, reproduce, create > > > derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, > publicly display, > > > transfer, transmit, distribute and publish that content for the > > > purposes of displaying that content on Blip.tv or for any other > > > non-commercial use of that content. > > > > > > In addition, when you upload or post content to the Blip.tv site, > > > you grant Blip.tv a license to distribute that content, either > > > electronically or via other media, to users seeking to > download it > > > through the Blip.tv site or for purposes of other > services provided > > > by Blip.tv and to display such content on Blip.tv > affiliated sites. > > > This license shall apply to the distribution and the > storage of your > > > content in any form, medium, or technology now known or later > > > developed. " > > > > > > Now as I said thats fair enough, you couldnt be sure youd > actually > > > got permission to use the videos people upload to you, unless you > > > asked them to grant you these rights. But as you also make this > > > sublicensable and applicable to your partners and affiliates, I > > > think it would be great to always have clarity about who they are. > > > > > > It also links back to the question of what counts as > 'non-commercial' > > > activity but I doubt we are going to get away from that > grey area in > > > a hurry, I think you and many others have behaved > admirably in this > > > regard so far, just pondering what a less scrupulous > entity could do > > > after being granted similar rights by creators. > > > > > > See Im thinking, not quite sure, that because creators are giving > > > you and your partners these righrts, seperately from the license > > > they attach to their work thats valid for 'everyone > else', that if > > > someone like network2 was considered a partner of yours, > they might > > > not actually legally have to stick to the cc license for the work? > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Steve Elbows > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Hudack" <mike@> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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" > > > > > <caseymckinnon@> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
