Youtube

mamboqueen

Well-Known Member
#1
Interesting announcement today:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070127/D8MTOAFO0.html

I wonder how this is going to impact the whole issue of people posting videos of other people who were taped without their knowledge. So, you go to a competition and somehow manage to record (for instance) Max & Yulia, and you get paid for it and they have no idea the tape is out there. What rights do they have? Shouldn't they be paid?

Seems like a can of worms about to be opened. Thoughts?
 
#2
Interesting question. I know that when I worked at the college, we had to sign a form saying that it was ok to use our names in advertisements and things like that. And I know that when it comes to television commercials that I had to do the same thing for that too. My gut feeling is saying that you can't display pictures of those that don't know their picture is up no matter if you are getting paid for it or not without their permission. Now I think it is different for personal use though.

But anyways, if video cameras are going to be allowed into the room where they compete, then they can't complain a whole lot about that issue. I do not think that it matters either way. But if they want to complain about it, then the only thing that you can do is to take all the video cameras or whatever else they have away.

The problem with that is that you have cell phones and all kinds of other things to worry about. I know that when we went to go see Seinfield in person, the girl sitting next to my sister had her cell phone taken away, because she was taking pictures with it. So, it can be done. It's just kind of a hassle and unnecessary I think.
 
#3
Well, I read the article you linked MQ, maybe I'm wrong but I think it's basically the same situation that could happen if I put a video I made at a competition (or wherever else) on my blog and I have google ads in the same page: I'm not being paid for the video, but to put the advertising on my blog. Youtube pays users not for the video itself, but for the income got from ads in the page of the video. This page exists because an user posted that particular video, so they decided to share with users their incomes.
 

tangotime

Well-Known Member
#4
domain

There is , from my understanding, a public domain law. it essesntially states, that any act performed in public, may be filmed without recourse.-- However-- am not suggesting that a recognised comp. falls under the same umbrella.
Most major comps forbid ANY filming or photos being taken .
 

reb

Active Member
#5
Interesting article MQ, as well as Tanquera's point. This will be interesting. Another tangent may be the Borat phenomena with the "interviewee's", the Kazakhstan people, etc. :confused:
 
#6
This would open a can of worms though. Suppose I have someone taping me and my partner and we are the focus of the video the whole time. And there are other couples in the background, who are never the center of attention in the video. Does this give them the right to say I can't post this video to the web? This can be carried to extremes in my opinion.

Suppose I open a cam website with a webcam pointed at a park across the street, because there is an amazing variety of birds that flock to the trees there. But someone decides to shut me down because they happen to walk across the field of view of my camera and it got posted to the web.


Don't think this could happen? Think again. In this country there is an endless amount of stupidity when it comes to things like this.
 

mamboqueen

Well-Known Member
#8
Even if you sign a release, you're signing it to the organizer (or videographer...), not to some person who may be sitting in the audience taping it.

I think no matter how you read the statement...the payment via advertising...it's still money for a video that may be someone else's "work". They're just doing it indirectly.
 

mamboqueen

Well-Known Member
#16
Well, technically *everything* on there is copyrighted. You don't actually have to file a copyright to own one. I think the issue is that google is side-stepping the whole copyright issue by saying they are not making money off the videos, that they are making money off the advertising. But, they wouldn't have the advertising if the videos weren't there.

I can certainly see Viacom's point...
 
#17
Hm.. good point and a different perspective. I just keep remembering how quickly people's videos were getting removed during the DwtS and SYTYCD seasons...
 

mamboqueen

Well-Known Member
#18
I think it's going to be a very interesting case to follow as it seems to me it has the potential to make or break youtube. And then Google...which just paid how many millions (billions?) to buy youtube. The guys who sold it probably got out just in time...and are clicking their little martini glasses on the beach of some remote and exotic island!
 

Dance Ads