What they are really concerned about is material which is copyrighted by someone other than the person who posts to you tube, since a person who posts his own stuff to you tube has, in effect, given consent to have it published. Of course, the main concern is for material where the copyright holder is likely to sue should their stuff appear. Alas, that would most likely be large corporations such as Fox, Disney and Viacom. But, actually, anyone finding their stuff put on you tube without permission could sue.
*nod* That concern makes sense -- as I pointed out, the question should be what is posted illegitimately (i.e. without the consent of the copyright holder (even more so if the copyright holder is litigious)). While I'm no fan of most of the Big Media outfits these days on account of what I see as frequent abuses of, and attempts to pervert IP laws, I do feel that they have valid concerns over unauthorized copying and republication of their works.
My complaint is with the reporters and editors who portray that distinction (between authorized and unauthorized publication/duplication) as being between "copyrighted stuff" and "other stuff", which obscures for many readers the distinction between "permission to share" and "not covered by copyright" (the old, "I found it on the web so it must be public domain" bogon), and the fact that they too have the right to sue if their own copyrights are infringed.
In the press, "copyright" and "unlicensed and subject to lawsuit" are too often used as synonyms; even if the corporations party to the various legal actions aren't confused, the press appear to be -- or to not care whether their readers are. My complaint here is directed at the press.
"a person who posts his own stuff to you tube has, in effect, given consent to have it published"
I could be mistaken, but I think the YouTube Terms of Service agreement makes that consent explicit. I know the last two photo-sharing sites whose TOS documents I read did so. Thing is, it's still covered by copyright; it's just that in the case of a user posting his or her own work, the work's presence on YouTube is not infringing that copyright. I just want the media to make clear that the distinction is between infringing and permitted rather than copyrighted or not.
(no subject)
(no subject)
My complaint is with the reporters and editors who portray that distinction (between authorized and unauthorized publication/duplication) as being between "copyrighted stuff" and "other stuff", which obscures for many readers the distinction between "permission to share" and "not covered by copyright" (the old, "I found it on the web so it must be public domain" bogon), and the fact that they too have the right to sue if their own copyrights are infringed.
In the press, "copyright" and "unlicensed and subject to lawsuit" are too often used as synonyms; even if the corporations party to the various legal actions aren't confused, the press appear to be -- or to not care whether their readers are. My complaint here is directed at the press.
"a person who posts his own stuff to you tube has, in effect, given consent to have it published"
I could be mistaken, but I think the YouTube Terms of Service agreement makes that consent explicit. I know the last two photo-sharing sites whose TOS documents I read did so. Thing is, it's still covered by copyright; it's just that in the case of a user posting his or her own work, the work's presence on YouTube is not infringing that copyright. I just want the media to make clear that the distinction is between infringing and permitted rather than copyrighted or not.