…actually I think it works the other way around. If the moderators are so uncertain of the nuances and aspects of copyright law then the only practical solution would be for the administrators to say “if in doubt, shut it down” rather than writing a detailed and relevant “memorandum”. The moderators do this for free. How much time do you really expect the administrators and moderators to commit to something that you correctly point out is an extremely complex legal issue?
“Don’t make copies of works of art without the owner’s permission” isn’t an accurate distillation of the Copyright Act of the United States. It is however a very good “rule of thumb” that most content creators out there would appreciate.
Well, exactly. But that could be avoided by a simple disclaimer: **“Caution!! Be careful of violating US Copyright law! The SDMB does not condone violating Copyright law!”
**
That way, these types of legal arguments would no longer occur. The Mods dont need to know anything about copyright law. They dont need to make a call on possible violations, just :Caution!! Be careful of violating US Copyright law! The SDMB does not condone violating Copyright law!"
IIRC, the admins (or higher up) have discussed other thread topics with lawyers before, and the advice wasn’t to put up a disclaimer, it was to shut the thread down.
Then- nothing. The person posting it might have a issue.
SDMB would only have a issue if after being notified by the copyright holder that he wants it taken down, they didnt.
*On the other hand, suppose Steve, the copyright holder, did discover Mike posted something created without obtaining permission first. Steve has two options now: (1) he can do nothing and let the material remain on the YouTube or (2) he can decide the material must be removed. It is extremely important that everyone understand that Steve can choose #1 or #2 at any time and Steve can choose #1 for some posters and #2 for other posters and Steve can change his mind at any time.
For my example, Steve notifies YouTube that material is on the site without his permission. He does this by filling out a form available on the copyright section of YouTube (scroll to the bottom of the YouTube.com page to see a link to their “copyright policies and procedures”. YouTube immediately takes down the material. (If they don’t take it down, Steve can bring legal action against YouTube.) YouTube will place a “strike” on Mike’s account. Three strikes and Mike’s account is terminated. This is comparable in the speeding example to perhaps being caught and your license to drive is suspended or terminated.
If you feel your video was wrongly removed, you can appeal the decision.
Is that all that will happen? Well, as far as YouTube is concerned, yes. However, let’s imagine that the speeding also resulted in a horrific and tragic accident. Read on: It is not at all difficult to trace the poster of the copyright infringing material. Once the Steve knows who posted his material illegally, Steve has every right to come after the Mike with the full might of the Federal Copyright laws supporting him. *
A point that has been brought up already is that the mods aren’t lawyers and they don’t get to interpret the law and make the decisions you think they should, even after they read the webpage you linked to that doesn’t seem to be written by a lawyer and isn’t pertinent to this board, but to YouTube. Going by my recollection again, if there is even a threat of a lawsuit, the existence of this board may be in jeopardy. That’s not the case with YouTube. They can not only afford a lawsuit, they have a pretty large financial reason to stay afloat- they make a shitload of money.
…the owners of this messageboard might have an issue. And the owners of this messageboard, rather than deal with a petty dispute, may instead choose to shut the boards down. Look what happened to the Randi forums. They were “shut down” and “disavowed” in a matter of weeks when Randi and the board took a closer look at what was being discussed on the forums.
The complexity of this issue is best demonstrated by your cite. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything that is being discussed. Yet you chose to use it to make some sort of point. You can’t just google up an opinion piece written by a non-lawyer and confidently use that opinion to declare the “SMDB have nothing to worry about.” The thread was closed because the OP was asking someone to take a photo of an artwork in a public space, which (depending on exact circumstances) may or may not be a copyright infringement. The infringement had not yet taken place. That is not analogous to the article you posted: a much closer analogue would be if someone posted an OP asking someone else to go down to the supermarket “and get them a loaf of bread without paying.” (I admit its not a perfect analogy.)
Allowing only a limited snippet of copyrighted work to be posted here is extremely likely to be considered fair use in the context that most works are normally posted. And because it is so well policed here it is very unlikely if the boundaries of fair use would ever have to be tested in court. But “fair use” and what qualifies as fair use is not as “black and white” as most people here seem to believe.
…we can’t know for sure. The admins of the forum are on record as having battles with Randi over discussions about recreational drug use. According to an admin Randi thought “all such discussion was dangerous for the JREF and his reputation.” He seemed to be uncomfortable with discussions about sex. There were other issues at play as well of course. But its a complex story, best for another thread I think This was what I posted a few years ago.
And sorry for the kerfuffle, everyone, educational though it has been.
I understand Chronos’ reaction and decision.
But specific to the subject at hand, I wonder if the surrealist in Mr. Blume would have recognized any person’s right to intellectual property. After all every thought is derived, consciously or not, from previous experiences which necessarily includes exposure to the (derivative) creations of others. Blume didn’t create this work in a vacuum, and he didn’t create it with the stipulation nobody should incorporate the painting or its messages into their own worldview. I guess that’s its own rabbit hole, though.
Chronos: I will try to be mindful of such matters in the future, thanks for modding. Darren Garrison: Thanks for the link and the process through which you located it Everyone else: Thanks for the exposition. Do carry on.
