ObsidianStray
New Member
---
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
-
- Thread starter ObsidianStray
- Start date
Re: Is footage of an event copyright the host?
Firstly, I am not a lawyer
But my guess would be that the fight is a performance and as such when you record that and put it online you are in violation of their copyright on said performance.
The above is assuming there has been no alteration of the source material to create a new creative product. If that is the case then you need a actual lawyer to tell you how it might be. But when in doubt, don't bother. Because the cost of finding out trough legal means if it was or wasn't a violation probably outweighs the worth of the video footage.
I however very much doubt recording the audience falls under that, but wouldn't be surprised if it was and I am absolutely sure that hotel rooms don't fall under that.
But again, I am not a lawyer, so I could very well be wrong.
Firstly, I am not a lawyer
But my guess would be that the fight is a performance and as such when you record that and put it online you are in violation of their copyright on said performance.
The above is assuming there has been no alteration of the source material to create a new creative product. If that is the case then you need a actual lawyer to tell you how it might be. But when in doubt, don't bother. Because the cost of finding out trough legal means if it was or wasn't a violation probably outweighs the worth of the video footage.
I however very much doubt recording the audience falls under that, but wouldn't be surprised if it was and I am absolutely sure that hotel rooms don't fall under that.
But again, I am not a lawyer, so I could very well be wrong.
ObsidianStray
New Member
---
Re: Is footage of an event copyright the host?
Well I've never been to fights before but at most concerts where I live you are not allowed to take video recording equipment or professional grade camera's. The reason for this, as I've been told, isn't because they actually care that you tape it and distribute it, but because of the artists/managers.
The artists/managers get paid for the performance, but those costs are roughly based upon the size of exposure. If a event will be recorded and then sold as a live-dvd or something, the artist/manager will want a piece of those profits. Now most of these ideas of course where developed before youtube and viral marketing and such, and industries move slow.
So basically events will disallow records if they don't want to deal with the potential hassle. I think it is best illustrated by a yearly event here in the netherlands that does also do records, in the form of live TV coverage. Some bands or their managers will explicitly forbid it and as such those performances aren't shown.
The reason I referred to a court room to get a definitive answer is simply because copyright is a difficult field that lets a lot of interpretation room. But the basic rule of thumb is that if the performance or piece is the same then it falls under their copyright. The US is actually a country with pretty loose rules surrounding it, in belgium for instance, if you would take a photograph of the atomium (a famous building) the architect of the atomium has a right to royalties for your depiction of that building.
I am not sure if having a flamewar or a simple discussion will be enough really. Because while some implications of those laws are just silly, and perhaps even counter-productive there are also many many examples where copyright actually works as intended. For instance, a few months back a graphical artist who made logo's and icons and sold them got ripped off by another company who stole his work. Because of the copyright laws he could actually stop them doing it. I very much doubt having a discussion about it would resolve it as easy.
ObsidianStray said:When you call it a performance, it makes sense that they'd hold the copyright. I wasn't thinking of taking legal action though. I didn't have any videos up, so it's all for the sake of argument. You really can't fight piracy, and trying to strong-arm people into following your policies instead of asking politely is just bad for the community, so I disagree with their actions. It's always better to settle things with words and flamewars than with courtrooms, don't you think? It seems more... human.
Anyway, thanks for your post.
Well I've never been to fights before but at most concerts where I live you are not allowed to take video recording equipment or professional grade camera's. The reason for this, as I've been told, isn't because they actually care that you tape it and distribute it, but because of the artists/managers.
The artists/managers get paid for the performance, but those costs are roughly based upon the size of exposure. If a event will be recorded and then sold as a live-dvd or something, the artist/manager will want a piece of those profits. Now most of these ideas of course where developed before youtube and viral marketing and such, and industries move slow.
So basically events will disallow records if they don't want to deal with the potential hassle. I think it is best illustrated by a yearly event here in the netherlands that does also do records, in the form of live TV coverage. Some bands or their managers will explicitly forbid it and as such those performances aren't shown.
The reason I referred to a court room to get a definitive answer is simply because copyright is a difficult field that lets a lot of interpretation room. But the basic rule of thumb is that if the performance or piece is the same then it falls under their copyright. The US is actually a country with pretty loose rules surrounding it, in belgium for instance, if you would take a photograph of the atomium (a famous building) the architect of the atomium has a right to royalties for your depiction of that building.
I am not sure if having a flamewar or a simple discussion will be enough really. Because while some implications of those laws are just silly, and perhaps even counter-productive there are also many many examples where copyright actually works as intended. For instance, a few months back a graphical artist who made logo's and icons and sold them got ripped off by another company who stole his work. Because of the copyright laws he could actually stop them doing it. I very much doubt having a discussion about it would resolve it as easy.
ObsidianStray
New Member
---
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Re: Is footage of an event copyright the host?
The problem with Youtube is that it constitutes broadcast. If the video is of somebody else's performance, then you own the mechanical rights to the recording, but they own the copyright of the performance, and any broadcast thereof constitutes a breach.
The problem with Youtube is that it constitutes broadcast. If the video is of somebody else's performance, then you own the mechanical rights to the recording, but they own the copyright of the performance, and any broadcast thereof constitutes a breach.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Re: Is footage of an event copyright the host?
Posting on YouTube can also be seen as "suffering a financial loss" because it can be argued that people who watch the free video won't pay to buy or rent the official DVD. That's a loss a revenue that is actionable in a court of law... I'm not a lawyer, but that's how it appears to me.ObsidianStray said: