Why does my footage look like this?

The difference here is mass distribution. The original poster put his video -- with the copied music -- on Vimeo, in effect giving the whole world a copy. Big difference.

If I set the VCR to tape a show, watch it later, then tape over it -- while that's technically a violation, nobody is going to come after me for it. But if I put that episode up on a website, then it becomes a problem.

I don't have a wedding video. But professional wedding videographers pay for licenses for just this reason.

I know what you're getting at. And you know what I'm getting at.

Yes, when I was a kid I did that very thing. And then I grew up and realized it was illegal, so I stopped. Then when I became a producer of intellectual property myself, I fully realized WHY it was illegal, and I began encouraging others to stop.
 
Last edited:
I know we are off topic here, but I do have a serious question. When I use my DVR, sold to me by my SAT provider, am I breaking the law? I record shows I can't be home to see during broadcast times. I don't always erase them right away either. I've watched them more than once. So, where is the legal line on this?
 
I think legally you are, indeed, breaking the law. However, in this case I believe there is an implicit agreement between broadcasters and you. They want you to see their shows. You pay for the right to see their shows. If they objected to you recording their shows to view later, you can bet they'd have sued your SAT provider and the maker of your DVR a long, long time ago.

But they would, indeed, draw the line at you freely distributing copies of their shows on the Internet, or anywhere else, whether you profit from it or not.

So while using your DVR to record shows to watch later might be a violation of the letter of the law, a copyright holder would have a very hard time (in my opinion) successfully suing you over it. And I believe there exists an implied approval for this limited use of recording.

But I'm no lawyer. :)
 
I imagine there is some kind of general agreement on that; it just seems a little inconsistant. But, I'll take it. Thanks.
 
chapelgrovefilms said:
The difference here is mass distribution. The original poster put his video -- with the copied music -- on Vimeo, in effect giving the whole world a copy. Big difference.

If I set the VCR to tape a show, watch it later, then tape over it -- while that's technically a violation, nobody is going to come after me for it. But if I put that episode up on a website, then it becomes a problem.

I don't have a wedding video. But professional wedding videographers pay for licenses for just this reason.

I know what you're getting at. And you know what I'm getting at.

Yes, when I was a kid I did that very thing. And then I grew up and realized it was illegal, so I stopped. Then when I became a producer of intellectual property myself, I fully realized WHY it was illegal, and I began encouraging others to stop.
Click to expand...


Please see this link:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Loosen up a bit and do your homework. Now I'm done.
ps: You forget to come up with a rebutal for "photocopies".
 
I'm sure Shakespeare would have hated to have his plays and poems spread across the world through the internet without his consent.

My friend told me Jason Mraz allows pirating of his songs (he's an indie label artist), because he wants as many people to hear him as he can. He just wants to spread his art to as many people as will hear him. Has art devolved to the point where monetary gain is at the source of creation?

So, in short, are you creating art for arts sake? To make something from nothing, and express yourself in a way others can appreciate and relate to? Or are you just trying to drive a Ferrarri with cash spent from litigation? Perhaps this is the dividing line between those who value creative infringment and those who do not.
 
Hey Chapelgrove,

Your statement that LiquidLogic is violating copyrights laws is wrong my friend.

Man, you should really read up on copyright laws, especially since your "a copyright holder yourself," before you make it your "obligation" to enlighten people that they are "violating copyright laws":).

LiquidLogic did not break any laws. It is incorrect for you to suggest that Liquidlogic needs complete copyrights to a song before he use it in his videos and posts it on the net. There is something called Fair Use Doctrine that is incorporated in Copyright laws in America and most other G8 Nations. The Fair Use Doctrine means that:

Copyright does not prohibit all copying or replication. In the United States, the fair use doctrine, codified by the Copyright Act of 1976 as 17 U.S.C. § 107, permits some copying and distribution without permission of the copyright holder or payment to same. The statute does not clearly define fair use, but instead gives four non-exclusive factors to consider in a fair use analysis. Those factors are:

  1. the purpose and character of the use;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
Source: 17 U.S.C. § 107

The first factor, Purpose of Character, is important here because Purpose of Character implies whether the use in question helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only "supersede the objects" of the original for reasons of personal profit.

Therefore, LiquidLogic did not violate any copy right laws and neither will you if you put a song from your favorite band to your videos and post it.

In fact, I spoke to my law professor (who was a corporate lawyer for 15 years, Judge for 3 years) about it and he said that even a prosecutor who was high (his words not mine) would know that this falls under fair use.

Know your stuff before you state that people are not being "professional", that they are "infringing on other artist", and that they are "stealing". Just thought it was my "obligation" to tell you that.

Peace.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but this is incomplete. Manymoosh left out a few key factors in the law and it doesn't help to answer this question when you do that.

  1. the purpose and character of the use;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
Manymoosh addresses only No. 1. But, he conveniently deletes an important part of that standard...including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes...To edit the rule in order to make your argument does not make you right.

A teacher can use material for teaching. A critic can use material for review. A good example of film would be the video of Darth Vader re-edited to change the meaning of the clip. Its transformative and educational. If your question to your teacher did not include all the facts (or was edited as you did in standard number one), then he can't give you a complete answer. Teachers use copyrighted material all the time. For teaching.

Was the video in question transformative? Did the OP state, Here is a song and I will show you how this song is completely changed by use of video? To make that argument, the OP would have had to credit the song itself and make the posting about the song, not the video.

This was a technical question about video and including music was unnecessary to get an answer. Its sole purpose was to make the video more entertaining. To give the work added value, commercially or otherwise.

The OP is clearly in violation of all four standards.

Will he be sued or prosecuted? Hardly.

Do I care? Not really....

Chapel is wrong about all copying, but he is dead on in this particular case. To be fair, I don't think he considering other uses such as education, criticism and the like.

This is a filmmaking site for original work and I believe he was writing in that context. And, in that context, he's right.
 
ive bought quite a few songs off the back of hearing them on a video so it can also have a beneficial effect for the copyright holder

i also remember a friend receiving an email from youtube about a video he had posted with copyrighted material telling him that the copyright holder had checked it out and said it was no problem to use it(he never asked them to), so i take from this that the major copyright holders must regularly check out the big video sites and ive never heard of a case of them not allowing or prosicuting as im sure they know its more exposure for them resulting in more sales, lets face it nobody is going to download a video so they can listen to the song, if they like the song so much they will buy it
 
JitCam said:
i like turtles
Click to expand...
You're great, zombie.


Good times here at the Waterfront Village.






This thread is ridiculous. In all seriousness, the copyright holder won't even waste their time trying to prosecute for an online video THAT IS NOT MAKING MONEY.

There is a huge difference between someone using a song in a video for fun and someone using a song in a video to SELL something. If he was selling the kayak shown in that video, he would already be knee deep in a shi*-storm with the copyright holders.

Would I care if my song was in a video online for fun/leisure? As long as the person who made the video is not making money with my song, and they are giving me full credit for my song, then no, I would not mind.


But this is a discussion that could go on for years with no resolution. While the guy who complained about the copyright infringement is 100% right about everything he said. The copyright holders are not going to sue a person for using their song in a video of some kid having fun kayaking, because in the end is he making a profit off of this video? NO. Plain and simple. This argument goes back to the statement about going 31 mph in a 30 mph speed limit zone.

If a case like this was brought up in court, it would probably be thrown out by the judge. It would be a waste of every persons time, and the copyright holder would loose more money in the long run.

Basically what I'm trying to say is, that they have bigger fish to fry.
 
back to the original question

i cant see any interlacing just a few artifacts that vimeo usually has also the edges lack crispness and look blurry and smudged as if its the compression codec causing the problem

is that what incorrect pulldown causes? im in pal land so i dont do it but interested to know
 
kevob said:
back to the original question

i cant see any interlacing just a few artifacts that vimeo usually has also the edges lack crispness and look blurry and smudged as if its the compression codec causing the problem

is that what incorrect pulldown causes? im in pal land so i dont do it but interested to know
Click to expand...

Kevob,

Originally when I brought the footage into Avid, I neglected to do the 2:3:3:2 pulldown that shooting 24pA requires. As a result, the footage looked HIGHLY interlaced (especially when I had the still frame). Since this is a very small portion of a much larger project (which incidentally I am having scored and have no intentions of "stealing" music for) I wanted to make sure that I had all the correct project settings BEFORE I began to work on this bigger project.

Thank you all who offered helpful insight to my initial question.

-James
 
Sorry, but this is incomplete. Manymoosh left out a few key factors in the law and it doesn't help to answer this question.
Click to expand...
Metro, it would be unrealistic for me to provide all the details for all the four factors. There are hundreds of volumes written about this in law textbooks, therefore (to time restraints) it would be unrealistic for me provide all the details for the four factor. That is why I provided links and resources. So others can research on the topic further.

In fact, these four are just the foundation of the Fair Use doctorine, if I am not mistaken, there are approx 8 other sub factors that come into play.

Manymoosh addresses only No. 1. But, he conveniently deletes an important part of that standard...including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes...To edit the rule in order to make your argument does not make you right.
Click to expand...
Again, it is impossible for me to list all the sub sections that fall under factor No. 1. To emphasize my point I will give you an example of a sub section, that I didn't mention, which would have strengthen my own argument. Sub Section A) - was value added to the original by creating new insights and understandings.


That means if LiquidLogic puts new images to the music, then the music now has new insight and meaning, because the images changes the meaning of the song. You are correct that LiquidLogics video doesn't fall under commercial nature or educational, but it does fall under sub-section A, which I had "conveniently forgotten to omit". :)

This is a filmmaking site for original work and I believe he (chapelgrove) was writing in that context. And, in that context, he (chapelgrove ) is right.
Click to expand...
No this site is not for original work - e.g. Parodies. And what are parodies? In contemporary usage, parodies are works created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work.

Look at the case: Mattel v. Walking Mountain Productions

Peace. I 'm done.
 
Last edited:
bozobigsky said:
it looks interlaced and it's played on a computer screen which is progressive.

Do you have the rights for that music?
Click to expand...

I guess if I ask if this guy has a right to be a lamer , then that make it ok for me to ask that , as much as him asking if you have rights for the music . Don't worry about it though, some regular can ask all they want, and you can just refuse to answer all you want as well.

So bozobigsky , get a day job .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top