Christopher Knight
Viacom took a video that I had made for non-profit purposes and without trying to acquire my permission, used it in a for-profit broadcast. And then when I made a YouTube clip of what they did with my material, they charged me with copyright infringement and had YouTube pull the clip.

from theknightshift.blogspot.com

freaking television networks are loosing money off of the internet so they get sue happy. The freedom of the internet is slowly getting squished by big business. enjoy these happy days of internet freedom for in the future it will be constricting.

When the air waves were regulated by the governmaent, big business was behind it and manipulated it. They already had a stranglehold on the broadcasting industry.

The TV industry is scared stiff of the internet, in the next few years they will try not snap a leash on it, and start trying to bring it in to the fold.

Eventually I believe that the free independent spirit of the internet will prevail and rescue it from becoming as corrupt and monopolized as the airwaves.

bobhhh
Eventually I believe that the free independent spirit of the internet will prevail and rescue it from becoming as corrupt and monopolized as the airwaves.

There will always be dark corners of the internet, but they will become a little smaller as time goes on.

Remember when everyone had a homepage? It was 99.9% crap, but there wasn't too much in the way of corporate stuff here. Now, there are a lot less homepages.

But there are (and will always be) a few rogues out there.

warren
Remember when everyone had a homepage?

Nope.

Well 4chan still exists. Though I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not.

subcultured

Someone
So Viacom took a video that I had made for non-profit purposes and without trying to acquire my permission, used it in a for-profit broadcast. And then when I made a YouTube clip of what they did with my material, they charged me with copyright infringement and had YouTube pull the clip.

from http://theknightshift.blogspot.com/2007/08/viacom-hits-me-with-copyright.html

OH MY GOD!

That is total bullshit!

He has the right to show his own video. He does not have the right to upload someone else's video. So he DID violate copyright law. So did Viacom. If he likes, he should go after them. But he really needs to can the righteous indignity. Basically he's bitching because he got caught.

TnTComic
He has the right to show his own video. He does not have the right to upload someone else's video. So he DID violate copyright law. So did Viacom. If he likes, he should go after them. But he really needs to can the righteous indignity. Basically he's bitching because he got caught.

It depends on how Viacom used his video. If they used it in a news story/opinion piece, or as an example of something, they probably didn't break any laws because of "fair use".

If, however, the video originator had taken the Viacom clip and inserted it into his own news story/opinion piece, then that would not have violated copyright law.

I do think there's some sort of arbitrary length of footage you can use at any one point before you've broken the "fair use" laws, but I have only a smattering of understand about any of that.

I like the NFL disclaimer that says "accounts of the game" are not allowed without permission.

As long as theres people willing to stand up to their rigts, the internet will have to struggle to be a company owned base. Probably down the road, a lot of sites will be owned by some company, but there still be rogue sites out there.

Plus, TV can never be silenced. There'll always be people who will rather watch something on TV then the computer. *Besides, the computer screen is to small to watch stuff on.*

he used a video that used his video that a company used to gain profit

so why can't he use it?

subcultured
he used a video that used his video that a company used to gain profit

so why can't he use it?

Okay, let's follow the breadcrumbs...

Mr. Knight created this (rather lame) video:



The events that transpired were - according to him - this:

VH1 took the video that I had created and hosted on YouTube, and made it into a segment of Web Junk 2.0. Without my originally-created content to work with, VH1 would not have had this segment at all. They based this segment of Web Junk 2.0 entirely on the fruit of my own labor.

I got to catch the episode and was laughing pretty hard not just at host Aries Spears's witty commentary about my commercial, but that VH1 had found the commercial worthy of sharing with such a vast audience.

Please bear in mind that at no time prior to the broadcast of this show was I contacted by VH1 or its parent company Viacom. At this time, I've received no communication from Viacom whatsoever about this.

I was quite aware that they were using my own not-for-profit work for commercial purposes and that they should have contacted me. But I didn't really care that they were doing that, either. It was just nice to see something that I had worked on getting seen and appreciated by a lot more people than what I had intended for a local audience. And I was glad that Melody Hallman Daniel, the voice-over actress in the spot, received some widespread notice of her considerable talent.

I was so proud that my commercial had been highlighted on Web Junk 2.0 that I posted the segment featuring it on YouTube so that I could put it on this blog, just like I'd posted the original commercial.

Okay, so VH1 pulled a bunch of crap that was available for public display and made a show around it. Not a show I'd care for all that much, but there you go.

They added commentary to the video either before or after the video.

That is a valid use of "Fair Use", because it adds content to the original, and uses the original as an example.

Then Mr. Knight posts the VH1 episode - or at least the portion his video was featured in, and it got yanked off of YouTube.

(The letter Knight received looks an awful lot like a form letter from YouTube and it is very possible it was deleted by a YouTube moderator applying whatever their standards are, and that Viacom wasn't even involved. But it's also possible Viacom complained, so we'll go with that).

What Mr. Knight did was NOT fair use, as he wasn't using the Viacom video as a reference of a work of his own, but rather posting a copyrighted show.

However, had Mr. Knight created "bookends" to the video, or even added commentary withing the context of the show, Viacom would have no standing to have the video removed at all. Because then he would be using the "fair use" laws as well.

Ronson
However, had Mr. Knight created "bookends" to the video, or even added commentary withing the context of the show, Viacom would have no standing to have the video removed at all. Because then he would be using the "fair use" laws as well.

There ya go. All he needs to do is comment on the commenting on his... I have a headache.

My question- Why isn't George Lucas suing his ass?

SpANG
My question- Why isn't George Lucas suing his ass?

Seriously, there's the original infringement right there.

Furthermore, who would elect this screwball to a public position? The whole Jedi thing was just a bit strange for my taste.

Hawk
Furthermore, who would elect this screwball to a public position? The whole Jedi thing was just a bit strange for my taste.

I think the awkward geek actually projects a more publicly reassuring image than the cigar-smoking fatcat or the angry minority leader.

A friend told me that school board politics is as vicious as anything with a bigger pool.

mlai
I think the awkward geek actually projects a more publicly reassuring image than the cigar-smoking fatcat or the angry minority leader.

Well, yeah, better than those guys.

Jesus...

And to think Viacom sued Youtube over copyright infringement!

Hawk

SpANG
My question- Why isn't George Lucas suing his ass?

Seriously, there's the original infringement right there.

Furthermore, who would elect this screwball to a public position? The whole Jedi thing was just a bit strange for my taste.

Right to parody I thought?

Everything thats on the tv ends up on the internet;

tv needs internet and internet needs tv