Dan Bull: Censored By Copyright For Protesting Being Censored By Copyright

from the more-copyright-as-censorship dept

On Friday, we wrote about the ridiculous situation in which Lord Finesse issued a takedown for Dan Bull’s video that was critical of Finesse’s lawsuit against Mac Miller. Over the weekend, Dan decided to do a “documentary” style video about the situation, entitled CENSORED BY COPYRIGHT. It’s eight minutes, and worth watching in its entirety:

It does a good job laying out both the legal (fair use, fair dealing) and moral (culture, the nature of hip-hop building on itself) reasons for why Dan believes he’s in the right. But it also highlights the chilling effects at play. Dan can put in a counterclaim, but if he does so he risks (1) a lawsuit from Finesse and (2) losing his entire YouTube channel, with which he’s spent years building a massive following… and (1) is not a particularly far-fetched threat, given that Finesse did, in fact, just sue Mac Miller for $10 million. Clearly, he’s got lawyers and he’s not afraid to use them.

In the meantime, Lord Finesse posted something on his own Facebook account, implying that Dan Bull has no fair use claim, because he has ads on his YouTube channel. Of course, that’s not quite how fair use works. While the fact that Dan might make some money could play into whether or not it’s fair use, the fact that you monetize your work does not automatically mean you lose fair use protections. As Dan notes in his own comment, news organizations — magazines, newspaper, TV news and radio — are all for-profit ventures, and are probably the biggest users of fair use. What Dan was doing here was providing commentary on the news in the same way that a news program or magazine might.



So while Finesse claims that “there’s a difference” between presenting an opinion and making money on ads, that’s hard to square with reality, where lots of people make money while also presenting their opinions.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Dan Bull: Censored By Copyright For Protesting Being Censored By Copyright”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
89 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Campbell v Acuff Rose Music

Campbell v Acuff Rose Music (1994)

The Court of Appeals, however, immediately cut short the enquiry into 2 Live Crew’s fair use claim by confining its treatment of the first factor essentially to one relevant fact, the commercial nature of the use. The court then inflated the significance of this fact by applying a presumption ostensibly culled from Sony, that “every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively . . . unfair . . . .” Sony, 464 U. S., at 451. In giving virtually dispositive weight to the commercial nature of the parody, the Court of Appeals erred.

The language of the statute makes clear that the commercial or nonprofit educational purpose of a work is only one element of the first factor enquiry into its purpose and character.

(Emphasis added.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Campbell v Acuff Rose Music

Also, from Fisher Vs Dees 1986: “We recognize, however, that many parodies distributed commercially may be “more in the nature of an editorial or social commentary than … an attempt to capitalize financially on the plaintiff’s original work.” Milky Way Productions , 215 U.S.P.Q. at 131 (footnote omitted). In such cases, of which this is one, the initial presumption need not be fatal to the defendant’s cause. The defendant can rebut the presumption by convincing the court that the parody does not unfairly diminish the economic value of the original.”

Does the Dan Bull parody unfairly diminish the economic value of Lord Finesse’s original?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Campbell v Acuff Rose Music

|Does the Dan Bull parody unfairly diminish the economic value of Lord Finesse’s original?

Well I suppose Lord Finesse’s lawyers could argue in court that Dan Bull made Lord Finesse look like a douche which reduced the value of his works because no one wants to purchase anything from a douche, especially one that might make you look like a used tampon…….

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Campbell v Acuff Rose Music

Only if it is in fact parody, which is still debatable here. It’s more like political commentary. It’s not made to make you laugh at fun he is making of the song, but rather that he is making commentary on the person.

So he is fighting an uphill battle, having to prove that it is in fact a parody, that it doesn’t do any economic harm, etc… I doubt he is going to spend the money required to prove the point. Further, it’s not good for an attention whore agenda, courts take time. Just issuing another commentary “song” is the best way to keep the spotlight focused on you, and not the issues.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Campbell v Acuff Rose Music

Only if it is in fact parody, which is still debatable here. It’s more like political commentary.

Fair use is not limited to parody. The non-exclusive ? 107 factors are:

purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research

?Comment? is the second listed example purpose. And critical commentary implicates both the first and second listed example purposes.

But there is no reason to suppose that Campbell’s analysis of the lower court’s mistake would be different when the critical commentary is not exactly parody but instead some other type of critical commentary.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Campbell v Acuff Rose Music

“purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research”

Yes, but generally that doesn’t mean you take someone’s copyrighted work and use it to make a new song. Those are uses that are very specific and not really meant to apply to someone making a new song.

Commentary would take a short clip of the music, play it, and then COMMENT on it. It wouldn’t use the music as the beat for a rap about something.

You stretched it to the breaking point, and it snapped, sorry!

Leigh Beadon (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Campbell v Acuff Rose Music

You are really desperate to prove that this isn’t fair use, huh?

And that shows the difference between you and most people on this blog. When there’s a fair use gray area, we would much prefer the outcome be more speech and less censorship. You seem to derive some sort of glee from the idea of shutting down someone’s art.

Whether you believe the letter of the law makes this particular thing fair use, what you should probably agree is that this is exactly the kind of thing that SHOULD be fair use, and exactly the kind of thing that fair use exists to protect. But you don’t seem to have thought that far at all: you just don’t like Dan, apparently, so you want to see his work disappear whether it’s right or wrong.

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Campbell v Acuff Rose Music

I’ve met and talked to one of these types in person (he wasn’t even a “creator”, but he supported the model in case it ever there was some “property” he wanted to protect). It’s clear that you can’t reason with them because they take their belief of how it should be to irrational levels of entitlement. They refuse to even entertain the idea that their belief is incorrect, even in the face of logic, reason, and facts. There has been a huge connotation between creative works and property. Due to that, these people feel that they are owed something for the use of their “property”. People, for some reason, have a strong attachment to the idea of property and questioning the validity of that property evokes strong emotional reactions to it.

The fellow I spoke to felt that if he or any part of his family ever published a creative work, then anyone who ever makes use of that work (e.g. cover songs, etc.) and makes revenue from it, owe him or is family a percentage of it. He was fully convinced that the work entirely belonged to him, and sidestepped the issue of works being built upon what came before, claiming all derivative works entitled him to remuneration, yet didn’t once acknowledge he should be privy to the same requirements. He believed this so strongly, in spite of facts to the contrary, much like those that cling to religious beliefs (ironically, he mentioned that he strongly believed in a “god”. A connection perhaps?). After about a half-hour debate, it became clear that this person had no interest in questioning that which he was convinced could stand to benefit him at some point.

When encountering staunch copyright supporters in the wild, it’s best to come into the situation with the assumption that they will not submit to logic and reason because they are fully convinced it’s in their best interest not to. People tend to behave irrationally when it comes to property and money.

My opinion: Everything should be fair use. Why should some people (group A) be allowed to take and make use of what others have done (group B), but bar others (group C) from making use of what they’ve themselves (A) have created using what others (group B) have done? I can make use of the Grim tales collection to my heart’s content, but I can’t make use of Disney’s “Snow White”? Why does that make sense? How is that fair? The only difference is copyright that likely will never expire for works create after 1923. But, “Oh noes! How will artists make a living from selling their work?” Simple, they get hired to do the work they actually do (i.e. labor) instead of holding the results of their labor ransom from the common culture they drew their ideas from.

Let me be perfectly blunt. Everything an artist creates is, by nature, not their “property”. It belongs to the collective common culture that birthed it. That is, all works are formed from the memes of society, thus are the commonwealth of society, which no single person or entity can ever lay claim to.

I realize that I contradict my earlier point about those not willing to entertain such concepts, but this isn’t for them. This is for those that aren’t yet indoctrinated into the culture of “intellectual property” (a term the industry made up to give merit to their arguments).

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Campbell v Acuff Rose Music

Morals are relative and subject to the majority perspective. In this case, most people agree that items you legally obtain are your property. However, it is not an absolute truth. The truth is, nothing is anyone’s property. Everything is borrowed and will be redistributed after you cease to live. Property is a human concept and does not exist in nature. To claim a moral right to property is nothing more than an appeal to emotional attachment to material wealth and power.

The physical manifestations of art are only held in exclusivity due to their scarcity. Were it possible to effectively create unlimited copies of physical objects with minimal effort and resources, even the concept of property will become meaningless.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Campbell v Acuff Rose Music

“Property is a human concept and does not exist in nature.”

Territorial animals the world over would beg to differ. If they could talk that is. So-called ‘intellectual property’ does not exist in nature but certain forms, like making exclusive use of land or space, clearly do.

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Campbell v Acuff Rose Music

That’s not even close to what I meant. Nature doesn’t lend itself to the concept of discrete units of property like human government does. Nature does not form divisions of land and resources. It’s mutually occupied by all living things. Territorial animals own their territory like you own the air you breath. It’s only yours so long as you can hold it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Campbell v Acuff Rose Music

“And that shows the difference between you and most people on this blog. When there’s a fair use gray area, we would much prefer the outcome be more speech and less censorship. You seem to derive some sort of glee from the idea of shutting down someone’s art.”

The difference between you and me is that I don’t look at a 1% chance of fair use and scream “FAIR USE! FAIR USE!” with my hands over my ears, running like a silly child with no intelligence. I would rather stop and look at the reality of the situation, and see where it is.

“you should probably agree is that this is exactly the kind of thing that SHOULD be fair use”

Not in the slightest. What Dan Bull wrote should be legal and free, but making a song using exactly musical material in question to make a new song isn’t fair use.

Dan Bull has not been censored (using your own standards) because he can still publish his words and he can still state his opinion in every forum that he chooses. He isn’t censored.

Censorship means the speech is stopped. Clearly, Mr Bull isn’t being stopped.

You are making the same sort of mistake that is often made here. You are looking at the wrong parts to try to justify something, in this case using the legal and acceptable opinions of Mr Bull as a reason to claim the music as fair use. You have to squint really, really hard and ignore almost all of the law and caselaw to get there.

Let me ask you: Is Dan Bull’s opinion so weak that it entirely depends on using the “stolen” music to make it work? Would it have been useless without it? Are his arguments or points so weak that they cannot stand up without the obvious legal misstep?

Leigh Beadon (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Campbell v Acuff Rose Music

You are demonstrating my point nicely.

It’s a piece of transformative art; it’s a piece of criticism and commentary; it contains many elements of parody; it’s a person creating something new that expresses something important that does not harm the original by its reuse.

Nothing about this takedown is related to the actual purposes of copyright. That is evident from the fact that many other videos using the beat (including Mac MIller’s) are still up. It is an abuse of copyright to block content based on the views and ideas it expresses, not because of a violation of the commercial rights copyright entails.

Fair use exists to prevent that from happening. Fair use is what theoretically allows copyright and free speech to exist in harmony. If fair use does not protect Dan here, then it’s fair use that has failed – not Dan who has gone too far.

But, you haven’t given one lick of thought to any of that. All you know is that you don’t like this video, and you can see arguments for why it’s not fair use, so you intend to push them. You give zero consideration to the fact that you are supporting a takedown that, whether or not it meets various semantic definitions of ‘censorship’, was motivated by the desire to censor. That’s not what copyright is for. Preventing that IS what fair use is for. Your apparent goal is to find ways to minimize fair use and make sure this takedown — motivated by a desire to censor — is permitted on technicalities.

We’re not making excuses for Dan Bull. You’re making excuses for Lord Finesse.

Leigh Beadon (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Campbell v Acuff Rose Music

You are demonstrating my point nicely.

It’s a piece of transformative art; it’s a piece of criticism and commentary; it contains many elements of parody; it’s a person creating something new that expresses something important that does not harm the original by its reuse.

Nothing about this takedown is related to the actual purposes of copyright. That is evident from the fact that many other videos using the beat (including Mac MIller’s) are still up. It is an abuse of copyright to block content based on the views and ideas it expresses, not because of a violation of the commercial rights copyright entails.

Fair use exists to prevent that from happening. Fair use is what theoretically allows copyright and free speech to exist in harmony. If fair use does not protect Dan here, then it’s fair use that has failed – not Dan who has gone too far.

But, you haven’t given one lick of thought to any of that. All you know is that you don’t like this video, and you can see arguments for why it’s not fair use, so you intend to push them. You give zero consideration to the fact that you are supporting a takedown that, whether or not it meets various semantic definitions of ‘censorship’, was motivated by the desire to censor. That’s not what copyright is for. Preventing that IS what fair use is for. Your apparent goal is to find ways to minimize fair use and make sure this takedown — motivated by a desire to censor — is permitted on technicalities.

We’re not making excuses for Dan Bull. You’re making excuses for Lord Finesse.

Killer_Tofu (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Campbell v Acuff Rose Music

Yes, but generally that doesn’t mean you take someone’s copyrighted work and use it to make a new song. Those are uses that are very specific and not really meant to apply to someone making a new song.

From henceforth we shall call you Captain Censorship! Or CC for short! … Wait … I guess we will have to come up with a new name lest the public confuse you for an idea that is far more useful and intelligent than you are.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Campbell v Acuff Rose Music

Yes, but generally that doesn’t mean you take someone’s copyrighted work and use it to make a new song.

On the contrary, that is exactly what happens in many cases.

Weird Al Yankovich, parodist-extraordinaire, generally asks permission of the artists he parodies in order to avoid arguing with them later. However, for one of his most famous parodies, “Amish Paradise”, the original artist objected after the fact. That didn’t stop the parody from being distributed.

Yankovich sells his work. He continues to do so. He is protected by both the transformative and parodic nature of his work, plus the fact that his songs provide increased exposure for the originals while being quite distinct from them, therefore not reducing their economic value. The only difference between Yankovich and Bull is that Yankovich isn’t making fun of the original artists for being douchebags. Usually.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Campbell v Acuff Rose Music

“Weird Al Yankovich, parodist-extraordinaire, generally asks permission of the artists he parodies in order to avoid arguing with them later. However, for one of his most famous parodies, “Amish Paradise”, the original artist objected after the fact. That didn’t stop the parody from being distributed.”

Yes, but you have to understand the difference. Weird Al didn’t make a song that insulted Coolio directly and did nothing to create parody, he created a parody song about Amish people. That’s a parody of the song. He didn’t try to score political points or try to make someone else look bad, he made a funny song with the same basic music (but didn’t reuse the performance, another key here).

Your post explains my point exactly. Dan Bull didn’t do what Weird Al does. That’s important to understand.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Campbell v Acuff Rose Music

I agree with you that Yankovich’s work is different, but I would say that his work is also less important. Yankovich’s work, in many ways, is just for fun. Bull’s work is a direct political statement about a current event. Freedom of speech in the US (the jurisdiction for Youtube) was created precisely to protect political speech and various forms of criticism. That it also extends to other types of speech is awesome, and I thank the courts for those interpretations. But that doesn’t change the fact that Bull’s work is more precisely what was intended to be protected by James Madison and the others who supported the Bill of Rights being added to our Constitution. If anything, his work deserves greater protection because of its critical nature.

The Founding Fathers didn’t really care about protecting tavern drinking song versions of popular ballads, because almost nobody was stupid enough to try to stifle those. They were trying to protect the Thomas Paines of the future, along with everyone who might be critical of the government or of powerful economic and social influences. Arguing that because Bull made Finesse look like a douche (which, to be honest, Finesse did to himself) therefore Bull should be silenced is a perfect example of why Fair Use had to be created to reconcile copyright law with the First Amendment.

Your argument smacks of sour grapes, rather than being grounded in actual law.

JMT says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Campbell v Acuff Rose Music

“He didn’t try to score political points or try to make someone else look bad…”

If that’s why you think Dan made the song you might as well just quit know, because that would be a spectacularly ignorant position to take. This is a topic Dan feels particularly passionate about, and like a lot of musicians he expresses those feelings in song. It’s pretty clear you haven’t actually listened to the song’s lyrics and comprehended Dan’s arguments.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Campbell v Acuff Rose Music

“Only if it is in fact parody, which is still debatable here. It’s more like political commentary”

Consider these definitions:

Parody – imitation of another in a satirical way
Satire – in which a topical issue is held up to scorn

A laughter test for parody misses the point..

PopeRatzo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Campbell v Acuff Rose Music

See, you don’t get to decide on whether something is parody by whether or not you agree with it.

And if parody doesn’t “hurt” it’s not doing it’s job.

I’m not sure who or what a “Lord Finesse” is, but I’m pretty sure he’s a big douchenozzle whose name and impact will pass pretty quickly. Going after someone’s living just because he made fun of you is pretty much the OED definition of “big douche”. Let’s not pretend this has anything to do with copyright, really. How many mixtapes are out there with “Lord Finesse” beats on it? And doesn’t he realize that the sideways baseball hat thing went out with the original “Step Up” movie?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Campbell v Acuff Rose Music

Also, from Fisher Vs Dees 1986…

Note well that Fisher v Dees (1986) was decided by the 9th Circuit. In comments here, my habit is to specify the court, unless the opinion is from the US Supreme Court, in which case it’s sufficient to provide a hypertext link and the year alone.

That said, Fisher v Dees was cited in Campbell v Acuff Rose.

MrWilson says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Your identity doesn’t have to be known for you to be an attention whore. Compare all the serial killers who leave notes for the cops and all the hackers who post messages announcing their hacks. Anonymous trolls making absurd statements in comment threads are definitely about getting attention and feeding their egos.

surfer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

omg, I forgot about Region Codes. you have to have a blanket license for each region.., and each arm..

does anyone start to realize how mind-bogglingly retarded this whole copywrong quagmire has become? ineffectual, useless, obsolete, ancient, irrelevant?

just this thread is sufficient example to disregard or disrespect copyright at every opportunity…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

If that is the case, how is Bull – or anyone else who earns money from a commercial venture online – supposed to voice criticism of anything at all, without being open to accusations that they are doing so in order to increase revenue? What evidence is there to support such accusations?

Bas Grasmayer (profile) says:

Man… from being disappointed in Lord Finesse, I’ve gone to disgusted.

I’m a huge fan of his work, but I’m not sure if I’ll ever enjoy listening to it again… and since in the age, listens = royalties, destroying your cred like this is likely to be quite bad for your income.

If you’re gonna sue and do stuff like this, at least be reasonable.

Anonymous Coward says:

the sad facts are:-

the double standards that Finesse is using (ok to do what ever he wanted when trying to make a name for himself, no good if anyone else does the same)

Youtube removing whatever on the flimsiest of accusing evidence, no checks done first

no repercussions against false take down requests. that would stop so much of this crap from even getting off the ground!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I agree.

Do you know how hard it is to convince a 15-year-old who can barely read the legal notices that they do, in fact, have rights? That they should, in fact, argue back against blanket takedown requests? I know of more than one amateur vidder, both political and not, who has simply stopped making vids because their youtube account was suspended based on bogus takedown requests.

Chilling effects means someone stops doing their transformative, creative hobby (or living) because someone else wants them to shut up. Fuck the DMCA.

Dreddsnik says:

Re: Fair Usage

” It’s like a hammer–meant to drive nails–but, for some, it could be used in a manner not intended. Copyright is a tool, isn’t it? “

It’s being used exactly the way current laws are intended to be used. Control of information. A gate for new artists. A means to eliminate pesky competition. A way to stifle uncomfortable opinions.

Yup, it’s working just like those that put it in place meant it to work.

Philip (profile) says:

Re-release on Viamo? How about embedding on his site using HTML5? Have other users host the video in their channels? Put it on PirateBay for others to pull down and post to their discretion?

There are many ways to get the video air play. While this is a obvious display of censorship, it’s very, very easy to “play around” Finesse’s “commercial use” claim. Dan Bull can easily “fight back” without falling under the terms of the counter-notices.

hmm (profile) says:

well

Does ANYONE still believe rappers are realistically portraying themselves?

The ones that say ‘shoot the fags’ turn out to be gay/bi,

the ones that have ‘talent’ turn out to have all their songs written by a 74yr old lady (and have to pay her tens of millions of dollars in compensation)

The ones that say ‘kill the cops’ turn out to be the ones most likely to file lawsuits and use legal means to enforce copyright etc….

Rap is entirely fake, usually created by RIAA committe members sitting round a table (hey! we haven’t had a small child rapper for a while…lets create lil’woofwoof or snoop puppy wuppy or whatever) and all this would be forgiveable if rap wasn’t boring and trite.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Fraud

“Maybe what Dan Bull should do is get the UK government to sue “lord” finesse for fraud, since its illegal to claim you are a Sir, Duke, Lord or other monarchy-approved title.”

Is that why Prince changed his name to ‘Love symbol’?

(Actually he claimed that Warner Bros. owned the name, leads me to wonder if the monarchy have to pay a royalty fee every time someone addresses one of the Queen’s sons)

Baldaur Regis (profile) says:

The Royal We

“There’s a difference between someone posting their opinion as a video (something we won’t suppress),…”

I admit to ignorance concerning Lord Finesse; I can only infer his character based on this one tweet – which I assume is his personal feed. Is he in fact a Peer of the Realm, thus entitled to be addressed as “Lord”, and in the personal as “we”?

Was his music written in the style of this tweet, i.e., in a lawyerly fashion, with complete stops, vague innuendo and implied threats (although I’m very happy to read he won’t suppress a personal opinion)?

Would you say he has mad office cred in lieu of the more common street cred?

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: The Royal We

He’s not an “official” peer of the realm. Thank God and Queen Elizabeth.

If he was he’d be addressed as “My Lord” or the more widely used “M’Lord”.

Right now he’s more like “M’Nit”. “He’s a bloody nit” in British English means he’s stupid, a fool, a moron, a complete ass or any combination of those that may apply.

I’d also hazard a guess that he’s just blown whatever street cred he once may have had.

You Tube has too.

letherial (profile) says:

Dan is protesting but it doesnt matter in the USA. Corporations are the new dictators, sure the government cant silence anyone…but our government is not the one in charge, elections are simply for the people who we send to talk to the people in charge.

The cycle is rather simple if you got alot of money

1. Hire a army full of lobbyist, arm them with suits, pens and a check book. Send them to DC

2. Lobbyist infiltrate congress and white house, ambushing all representatives using the smell of money as bait

3. Offer as much money as it takes to write laws in your favor

4. Hire a army full of lawyers, give them the info of the laws you just wrote.

5. Apply for broad patents that fit the law you just wrote

6. send letters to anyone who may just be using your very broad patent and except a check, its cheaper then hiring a army full of lawyers to fight your army of lawyers; Sometimes it does go to court, no problem

6a. Convince the judge you are right, if the judge doesnt think so try and bribe, if you cant bribe well you can try another court, after all, you wrote the law.

7. Use the law you wrote to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with you, or your use of the system.

8. profit!!!!!(and lots of it)

Got to love USA

Wont be long before corporations can just order people assassinated, im sure they are figuring a way to sell it to the American people and with enough money, it can happen..its not like Americans have a education system to comprehend anything other then one liners.

Jason (profile) says:

Piles of Money

Almost fell out of my chair when I recognized that picture of the huge piles of money Dan used as a CC-licensed pic from Flickr. I recognize it because it’s a pic that I myself have used via CC in a number of powerpoint presentations for noncommercial use. The pic is on Flickr here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/noahwesley/120499365/ It’s licensed CC-attribution-noncommercial-sharealike.

I don’t think Dan has any control over the brief ad that appears on the youtube video, so we can probably say he meets the noncommercial clause. And I think it’s a fair bet that he would let us build on his work, so sharealike is covered.

But this brings up some questions about the attribution clause of Creative Commons. Flickr doesn’t make it particularly easy to properly attribute CC pictures. I’ve resorted in my powerpoints to adding an ugly text box at the bottom of each CC licensed picture with the flickr username and the short URL. Although it’s effective and keeps me on the right side of the law, it’s horribly distracting. But technically, the flickr user in question could (although he probably won’t) issue another DMCA takedown since the video doesn’t effectively attribute his work (or any of the other pics, which presumably are also CC-attribution flickr shots).

It hurts my head that in this commentary video about a video about copyright that commented on another use of uncredited borrowed work, Dan uses even more uncredited work…not necessarily because he wants to, but because there is no good way to credit a lot of this stuff. People could spend a lot of time and money devising ways to better allow crediting things like flickr images in videos or powerpoints, or we could as a society get it together and accept that our copyright laws need major reform to adapt to the way we now use media. Either way, I think the way he used this image to meet the spirit of the CC license without meeting all the legal technicalities of it further reinforces the point of the video.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...