It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: Grambler
I might add? It's content within a work...something that one didn't ask permission to INCLUDE within your project.
"Fair use" is so totally misunderstood...that's why there are copyrights, trademarks etc.
You could copyright your video as a "performance of" or "taken from"...and you could do that....but not without permission from the c.right holders of their content within that you used.
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: uncommitted
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: uncommitted
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: Jefferton
originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Grambler
It's not your material. It's that simple. Why do you think you even have an argument to make?
In your OP you also said you substantially changed the messaging of the clip - I take it you mean you changed it's original points to something that suited the message you wanted to put forward. Effectively that makes you the censor as you want people to believe something that's false to keep your own bias intact.
Amazing how you manage to make everything about democrats isn't it.
This just needed repeating.
Good God, people need to shrug off this victim mentality.
I see the future of many people here, sitting in a padded room, drooling and screaming about the Democrats.
Says the people who see russians under their bed everyday, even when proven wrong.
So I suppose you have never linked an article on a post here on ATS?
If so, you are a hypocrite, because you have uised publish material without the authorization of the creator of that material.
I love the very same type of people that claim to be oppressed victims start to claim others are victims when speaking outr against censorship.
Double speak at its finest.
Once again, look at the T's and C's on ATS, your posts aren't under your personal copyright. Sheesh, this is embarrassing.
Fair enough.
SO I assume you have never posted an article on ats?
I mean, you would be infringging on copyrights then, correct?
I'm not quite sure what you are attempting to say? Could you elucidate? You mean have I put links to the original source if said source was something I was referring to in a post? Yes I have. Is that the same is me posting copyright restricted material on youtube which I have then altered to reflect my personal point of view rather than the view that was originally expressed in that material? No, I haven't. I'm not inclined to do so.
Thanks for conceding that your criticism of myself and Jefferton regarding copyright status of posts made on ATS was misguided and incorrect though, well, in so many words at least.
I conceded no such thing.
I have posted links showing criticism is appropriate fair use.
Exolain to me the difference between you posting an article you didnt have copyrioghts to on ats, and me posting it on youtube?
Yes both sites may have different terms of service, but fair use is a legal concept beyond sites terms of service.
Are you saying so long as you agreed with the article you posted, it was ok, but had you disagreed or criticized it, then its not?
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: uncommitted
No, that's not it.
Have you ever participated in a literary discussion class in school at any level? What do you think you are doing when you write about and interpret literature? You are making your own interpretation of what the work meant to you based on the author's material.
You end up writing papers quoting parts of the original text and then discussing your take on what you think the author meant. For all you know, the author was simply writing an engaging story, but it means something to you and you put forth your viewpoint. This is precisely what the OP is doing, only in video format.
This is exactly how the world of commentary works. You express your opinion of others' opinions. It was pretty darn obvious where the original opinion came from and it was therefore attributed. The OP made no claims to that work as his own, and his own ideas built off of that either explaining why he agreed or disagreed from it.
This is "fair use" -- using parts of someone else's work to build your own original ideas.
You'd have to have been completely out of the loop on your basic education not to understand how that works.
In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an infringement.
In the decades that have since passed, the standards of "transformative" have continued to evolve. Still, the status of a transformative work seems to be defined by two questions:
Has the material taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?
Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandings?
The Copyright Act codifies the judicially created “fair use” doctrine. Courts have long recognized the need for such a defense because not every act that might violate an owner’s copyrights should amount to an infringement. The fair use defense was created to limit the scope of copyright through an equitable rule of reason. The statute provides, in relevant part, that “the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies…, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching…, scholarship, or research” is not considered an infringement.
originally posted by: Wreckclues
a reply to: Grambler
I have no idea if others can see, I can, but I dont know if the block affects others
Haven't had a chance to read every response to your post but I'm watching the video now, 9:55PM, Wednesday, March 27
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: uncommitted
AAnd so instead of just hitting repliy to me, had you hit quote, and quoted my post, I guess you violated my copyright on my material.
You used my words in your post then, right?
originally posted by: Nyiah
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: uncommitted
AAnd so instead of just hitting repliy to me, had you hit quote, and quoted my post, I guess you violated my copyright on my material.
You used my words in your post then, right?
Swing & a miss.
You agreed to give up those rights to your material when you joined ATS, it's theirs & no longer yours.