How long ago did mefeedia get polluted with ad overload, and was it discussed on this list at all?
Anybody know if there have been any more legal cases related to creative commons that get us any further along the road of working out what counts as 'commercial use'? For video aggregation & search engine sites, I tended to use google image search as a vague guide, in so much as if you embed the full media within your site, you have to abide by the license for that work. In practise I suppose it remains a grey area, and many people decided long ago that to fight eery site that makes use of peoples video's, is too big a task. This can lead to a more philosophical approach such as: Oh well, its publicity I suppose, and if the viewers love my vids but hate the ads they will find another destination to view the vids or These sites are desperate, they probably arent making much money anyway, and its just a waste of my time trying to stop them earning peanuts or try to claim my share of the peanuts Having said that, approaching sites and complaining loudly tended to achieve results back when it was a lot of 'reputable web 2.0 companies trying to make a great image for themselves' but maybe we are beyond those times now? Bottom line is that video producers have rights, enforcing them is not a trivial task, but the most grotesque violators still deserve a good slagging off at least. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sullivan <sullele...@...> wrote: > > Hi Sheila. > > Could you ellaborate? > Are you referring to aggregator sites like mefeedia.com who bombard visitors > with ads wrapped around everyones videos or are you referring to hosting > sites like youtube? > > Sull > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Sheila English <sheila_clo...@...>wrote: > > > I'm looking for feedback on this. > > > > As video content providers our material is taken by third parties and used > > for financial gain by that third party. > > The site you upload to may be a "free" site and you can elect to be there > > or not, but each site sells itself as "the place to be" and gives itself > > such importance as to come across as "necessary" to video content providers. > > That is the nature of the business. > > > > Yet, the content providers are not only rarely, fairly compensated, but are > > sometimes shown a complete lack of respect by those sites. > > > > They want what you have so they can make money, but because everyone and > > their brother has a video camera and will send video, they feel they don't > > need to give you any extra or special treatment just because you make > > professional content. They can arbitrarily remove your content and not > > explain or not even investigate any claims. > > > > Here we are providing content, not getting paid, or being paid very little > > and are at the mercy of some sites that just don't care. > > > > I know, I know, don't use those sites. But, if those sites are where your > > target audience is, then what? > > > > Do video content providers have rights? Do we have rights if a third party > > uses our material to bring in income? If our material brings them income are > > they obligated to recognize us? > > > > What do you think? > > > > Sheila > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
