22 replies to this topic

[Chezrome]

You have to download the player, but it looks promising (if you can judge it by the first five minutes)

http://www.veoh.com/...1716619Tb3WCDqY

Bye

[Gary C]

ah yes, the 'Champion' video. I'm sure Duke Video will be well pleased with whoever has posted that on youtube!

[Hieronymus]

ah yes, the 'Champion' video. I'm sure Duke Video will be well pleased with whoever has posted that on youtube!

Probably a compatriot, since I get this message if I click on the link:

Veoh is no longer available in SOUTH AFRICA. If you are not in SOUTH AFRICA or think you have received this message in error, please go to veoh.com and report the issue.

[Chezrome]

Still works for me... I'd have to say that I am a believer in copyright. However, I think that Jim Clark belongs to the public domain by a long shot. Fair use, I think, posting the video and watching it.

Anyways, I find it fascinating to see Graham Gauld being interviewed... and hear Jim Clarks voice on a tape for longer than 10 seconds!

[David McKinney]

Still works for me... I'd have to say that I am a believer in copyright. However, I think that Jim Clark belongs to the public domain by a long shot. Fair use, I think, posting the video and watching it

If you think that's "fair use", Chez, you clearly don't believe in copyright

[kayemod]

If you think that's "fair use", Chez, you clearly don't believe in copyright

I've had lots of stuff used without permission or payment over the years, photos, magazine articles and more, so I'm a strong believer in upholding the law on copyright, but although I'd never post anything like the Jim Clark film on YouTube (even assuming that I was clever enough to do it), that isn't going to stop me from watching the film all over again, though I suppose that's double standards isn't it? It's a bit like stopping to gawp at a house fire or non-injury road accident, someone else has done all the work, and you aren't doing any further harm by being an onlooker.

[Ivan]

I too am a firm believer of copyright...but I hate the fact that Duke Video UK NEVER releases any of it's library to Duke Video USA!!!

[Chezrome]

I do believe in copyright, but that it should be reserved for 'creative works' of which the form and contents belong to the author. The rest is public domain. Some media-organisations have succeeded in claiming parts of the public domain - like historic footage - als their ownership, and exploit them as creative works. In sports that is a very dominant practice.

In the case of Jim Clark all the footage of him and photographs, even interviews with him, are part of the public domain and should be distributed freely. If the presentation of that footage take a creative form, okay, then you have a new creative works. But that's not the case with the above mentioned video, however enjoyable it was to watch.

[FrankB]

In the case of Jim Clark all the footage of him and photographs, even interviews with him, are part of the public domain and should be distributed freely.

How do you know that the filmakers (whether amateur or professional), photographers, TV companies that originally created the footage, photographs and interviews are happy to relinquish all of their rights with respect to their work? Do you know for a fact that those people now regard their work as being part of the public domain?

They may well have agreed to their inclusion in this particular documentary, possibly for some financial rewards. Does that mean that anyone and everyone has some automatic right of access to their work, or am I misunderstanding the concept of copyright?

[Chezrome]

How do you know that the filmakers (whether amateur or professional), photographers, TV companies that originally created the footage, photographs and interviews are happy to relinquish all of their rights with respect to their work? Do you know for a fact that those people now regard their work as being part of the public domain?

They may well have agreed to their inclusion in this particular documentary, possibly for some financial rewards. Does that mean that anyone and everyone has some automatic right of access to their work, or am I misunderstanding the concept of copyright?

I am not of the opinion that authors - to use a broad general term - should relinguish their rights to financial rewards all the time. The same applies for myself. I've written two novels, several songs, both jazz and pop, and those are my intellectual property and not to be distributed without my consent.

However, as a journalist I've also written articles - about the scandal of the UN-enclave Srebrenica for example - for which I was paid, and which are my creation.The rights belong to the magazine I wrote them for, and they will ask money if you want to quote them in full. I think that's wrong. I think those articles belong to the public domain, and should be distributed freely, because it is contemporary history. Strictly and formally speaking I am the owner of the copyright, but I think that the subject is of such a broad importance, a public importance, the interest of the many (the public in general) outweighs the interest of the individual (me).

Jim Clark is a part of history. People still grief about his death. Documentary's about his life are works of history, and I find watching and downloading such a documentary as 'fair use', because I express my democratic right as a citizen with it -the right to be informed.


(And where I can find the smiley that says: 'hides...')

[D-Type]

Interesting logic, albeit misplaced.

I recently bought the book Jim Clark: Grand Prix Legend by Andrew Tulloch. By your logic because it has been published it is "in the public domain" therefore it would be perfectly in order for me to scan it, put it on a website and give it away, ie allow anybody to download it.

Does your logic go on to say I could make prints from my scans, bind them into books and sell them? International copyright law says I can't as I don't own the intellectual property.

To me it seems reasonable to scan a couple of pages at low resolution and post them on a forum for discussion purposes, provided I said where they had been scanned from. As I understand it under US law this is "Fair use" but under English law and that of most European countries this is illegal unless I had obtained the consent of the owner of the copyright.

We may not like it, but that is what the laws of copyright, or "Intellectual Property" say.

[Hieronymus]

To me it seems reasonable to scan a couple of pages at low resolution and post them on a forum for discussion purposes, provided I said where they had been scanned from. As I understand it under US law this is "Fair use" but under English law and that of most European countries this is illegal unless I had obtained the consent of the owner of the copyright.

I am always extremely fascinated by these copyright discussions on TNF. Some things are pretty clear, or so I think...you don't use someone elses photos, articles, etc and sell it for financial gain.

Showing a low resolution photo, like Duncan mentioned, by trying to illustrate something to other enthusiasts. Is this really criminal? The only gain one get from it, is perhaps additional knowledge...or is that also a crime.

How about students...I buy an expensive text book and show my pals the photos or text. Isn't it the same as above? Is this criminal?

Another question...if I use photos and publish it in a local (South African) publication, what will happen? OK, I'll never do it myself, but I just set the scenario. Can UK or European law get one into a local court?

Considering the fact that I live in a banana republic, copyright will most probably we thrown out of local courts and will be regarded as petty crime...especially if it concerns a photo on the Internet.

Edited by Hieronymus, 13 May 2009 - 13:02.

[Chezrome]

D-type: I think we can ascertain pretty quickly which book is history (or history in the making) or which book is a creative work. I feel very sympathetic for someone who has put a lot of blood, sweat and tears in a non-fiction book about Jim Clark for example, I think it would nice if he or she could earn money of it... but he just doesn't own the subject if that subject is part of the public domain. If I write a novel, the persons acting in that book are created by myself, if I write non-fiction I am using real-life persons. I can't claim right over those, they are just not mine. If I write a book about Jim Clark or Aerton Senna, I would love to earn money from it... but I think it would be wrong.

[chdphd]

I just want to clarify that this not a link to a youtube video, but to one of the many youtube-like web sites out there.

[David McKinney]

I feel very sympathetic for someone who has put a lot of blood, sweat and tears in a non-fiction book about Jim Clark for example, I think it would nice if he or she could earn money of it... but he just doesn't own the subject if that subject is part of the public domain.

No, he doesn't own the subject.
But its presentation is his intellectual property

As for showing friends a book, I regard that in exactly the same light as if I email you a photo which I know is someone else's copyright. It's between you and me. I am not "publishing" - ie, making public - the photograph

But as soon as I post it on, for example, this forum, I am not only showing it to a group of enthusaiasts like myself, I am putting it somewhere the whole world can see. I am publishing it, and thereby breaching the copyright

[FrankB]

However, as a journalist I've also written articles - about the scandal of the UN-enclave Srebrenica for example - for which I was paid, and which are my creation.The rights belong to the magazine I wrote them for, and they will ask money if you want to quote them in full. I think that's wrong. I think those articles belong to the public domain, and should be distributed freely, because it is contemporary history. Strictly and formally speaking I am the owner of the copyright, ...

This is all my personal opinion, I don't claim to be an expert, and my interpretation and understanding of copyright law may be completely flawed.

If you felt that your articles should have been in "the public domain, and should be distributed freely" then you could have arranged to publish them yourself or at the very least submit them as a letter to the magazine. You say "the rights belong to the magazine I wrote them for". If indeed the arrangement was exactly that, that they would pay you for the article AND for the rights to that article, then I feel it is too late now to try to change the agreement. You could have suggested an arrangement whereby they paid you for the article but you retained the rights - but that should have been discussed and agreed before the original publication.

You also say "Strictly and formally speaking I am the owner of the copyright". Unless the terms of your agreement with the magazine specifically state that (or something similar) then I don't believe that you can automatically assume that you retain the copyright.

[Chezrome]

This is all my personal opinion, I don't claim to be an expert, and my interpretation and understanding of copyright law may be completely flawed.

If you felt that your articles should have been in "the public domain, and should be distributed freely" then you could have arranged to publish them yourself or at the very least submit them as a letter to the magazine. You say "the rights belong to the magazine I wrote them for". If indeed the arrangement was exactly that, that they would pay you for the article AND for the rights to that article, then I feel it is too late now to try to change the agreement. You could have suggested an arrangement whereby they paid you for the article but you retained the rights - but that should have been discussed and agreed before the original publication.

You also say "Strictly and formally speaking I am the owner of the copyright". Unless the terms of your agreement with the magazine specifically state that (or something similar) then I don't believe that you can automatically assume that you retain the copyright.

You're right. Formally I am not the owner of the copyright, in the sense that I am not allowed to distribute the articles or put them in the public domain. Those rights, commercial one could say, are of the magazine. However, I am entitled to say: 'That is MY article.' The magazine can not reprint the article, omitt my name and put 'Editorial Staff Intermediair' under it.

I am not an expert on intellectual property either, if you had not guessed that already. I've written some articles about it, but at the moment I am trying my hand at music publishing and the whole business of taking care of royalties, copyright and soforth is just spinning my head...

[David McKinney]

Unless the terms of your agreement with the magazine specifically state that (or something similar) then I don't believe that you can automatically assume that you retain the copyright

In the UK at least the opposite is true - the author/photographer/painter/composer retains ownership unless there is a specific agreement with the publisher. And of course there very often is such an agreement...

[kayemod]

You're right. Formally I am not the owner of the copyright, in the sense that I am not allowed to distribute the articles or put them in the public domain. Those rights, commercial one could say, are of the magazine. However, I am entitled to say: 'That is MY article.' The magazine can not reprint the article, omitt my name and put 'Editorial Staff Intermediair' under it.

I don't think there's any hard and fast rule on this, it may well depend on which country you write in, and which country you're published in. I'm talking about magazine articles, and Ive retained copyright on most of what I've written, it's only fairly recently that one UK publication I've written for has insisted on having rights assigned to them by all contributors. Another publisher in the same fairly specialist field tried to do the same thing, but backed down when I objected to the proposed terms. In my experience, most publishers only ask for a 'This article first appeared in...' mention if you retain copyright and sell the same words a second time.

[kayemod]

David beat me to it, but I'd agree pretty much with what he says. The problem is that publishers seem increasingly to be demanding that contributors sign over copyright to them as a condition of acceptance.

[Gary C]

Yes, I've had that happen a couple of times recently with clips from my old films, but for a specfic time though. Last time was for 10 years!!

[Chezrome]

I don't think there's any hard and fast rule on this, it may well depend on which country you write in, and which country you're published in. I'm talking about magazine articles, and Ive retained copyright on most of what I've written, it's only fairly recently that one UK publication I've written for has insisted on having rights assigned to them by all contributors. Another publisher in the same fairly specialist field tried to do the same thing, but backed down when I objected to the proposed terms. In my experience, most publishers only ask for a 'This article first appeared in...' mention if you retain copyright and sell the same words a second time.

You are correct.

Regadering historic footage: does FOM allow documentary-makers to use footage of Aerton Senna's accident? If not, that is exactly the legal but unfair use of copyright.

[Imperial]

Does it not concern anyone that the reason Duke are entitled to charge for a copy of this documentary is that they incurred costs in creating it? Perhaps they didn't have to pay for all of the footage they used, but they may have had to pay for some. Did they pay the people who are interviewed? Maybe, maybe not. Did they pay the cameraman, sound guy and interviewer? Most certainly. Did they have to buy or hire their own recording equipment and buy their own rolls of film? Yes, of course. Did they have to pay to build their own video editing suite or pay for the hire of one? Naturally.

Duke incurred all of these costs in order that this documentary may actually exist. Those who upload such things to the internet and those who provide links to their locations will all be ultimately responsible for companies who make these documentaries going out of business because they simply won't make a return on their investment and will lose money. How many Jim Clark documentaries will we be enjoying then? Are the people uploading documentaries to the internet willing to remortgage their homes to pay for the next Jim Clark documentary to be made? I didn't think so.

The thread about the Mark Stewart-made documentaries had barely got off the ground before there was talk of copies being distributed and questions as to when it would appear on the internet. I thought it would be nice to await a DVD release then buy a copy, thereby investing in Mark's company and in-turn paving the way for future productions.

Put the in's and out's of copyright to one side and consider whether you want to jeopardise the future of small documentary making just so you can quickly satsify your urges and watch everything immediately on the internet. Every last person on this forum has £10 in their wallets that they can use to buy a copy of this documentary either direct from Duke, cheaper from Amazon, or cheaper still a used copy on ebay.

Edited by Imperial, 14 May 2009 - 22:42.