According to what I read, her picture was posted "All Rights Reserved", so it was dumb of them to take it and not expect a takedown notice. Even if they had attributed, it wasn't posted (to my knowledge) with a CC-Attribution license in the first place.
She claims to have contacted them and they didn't do anything about it, so she got a lawyer, and their video went down. They should have replaced that one picture, re-uploaded and continued with their success. They didn't do that, so they caught a takedown. Also, that's what they get for posting the video for youtube. Everybody knows that youtube was built on piracy, so now, they're quick to take down videos for the slightest bullshit reason *coughpauldatehcoughcough* If you're going to do something like that, contact the owners of the content for permission, only use CC licensed material or expect a takedown if you post it on YouTube. Period. -- Bill Cammack BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Many of you might already be following the overblown, but pertinent, uproar > over Lane Hartwell's photos being used in a "viral video". > It's interesting because it's a argument between an independent photographer > and an independent band. > its an argument over Fair Use and Creative Commons. > > The band says they didnt think they had to attribute anyone since their work > was Fair Use. > Lane Hartwell says she just wanted credit in the video. > > Here's a good wrap up of the controversy: > http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/12/18/analysis-on-the-lane-hartwell-bubble-controversy/ > > here's the take away that applies to all of us as we're learning how to use, > but respect, each others work. > > *Attribute Obsessively*: If you use other people's content in any way, > > attribute, attribute well and attribute graciously. It is best to follow > > industry standards here and to start out with the intention of doing so > > rather than having to go back and do it later, when it is much harder. > > *Don't Go Public*: Nothing is ever gained by going public with a copyright > > dispute. When the Richter Scales mentioned it on their blog before the > > situation was fully resolved, they helped spark the controversy and, in a > > way, pushed Hartwell's hand. It didn't encourage cooperation and > > negotiation, which is what was needed. > > *Respect Fair Use*: Fair use is such a murky area of the law that relying > > on it is dangerous and filing a DMCA notice against a potential case of it > > is equally risky. Save your DMCA notices for the real bad guys. There are > > plenty of plagiarists and scrapers out there. > > *Remain Calm*: When emotions get involved, as they often do with content > > theft and plagiarism issues, it is easy to lose sight of how important a > > case really is. Some are more important than they seem, others are less. > > This case was the latter. It is important to focus less on feelings and more > > on legal issues and how a case of plagiarism can potentially help or hurt > > you. > > *You Can't Silence Through Copyright*: Finally, it is important to > > remember that, while you can use copyright law to stop true abuse of your > > work, using it to silence what is seen as creative expression never works. > > When Hartwell filed her notice against the video, it had passed its peak. It > > had been online for over a week and the Web had started to move on. However, > > with the notice filed, reuploads of the video are more popular than ever. > > > > Jay > > -- > http://jaydedman.com > 917 371 6790 > Video: http://ryanishungry.com > Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman > Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ > RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
