Party Video 2016

May 2024 Forums World Socialist Movement Party Video 2016

Viewing 15 posts - 271 through 285 (of 304 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #118662
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    jondwhite wrote:
    Young Master Smeet wrote:
    gnome wrote:
     the consequences of copyright infringement have been grossly exaggerated.  

    No, the risk of getting caught is low, but the potential harm is high, especially if maliciously enforced: the remedy is simple, as there is plenty of  public domain or creative commons material available: and being able to demonstrate a generally diligent response to issues of IP and copyright makes it easier to defend claims when we do slip up.  It's not rocket science.

    So there's no other issue, other than copyright in the event the potentially infringing material was removed and the same video resubmitted?

    Which "same video"?  I'm not aware there is or was any "potentially infringing material" in the current introductory video.  It's a complete red herring caused by an inefficient EC confusing the content of the current video with a much shorter one made two years earlier which did not refer to the party but which may have had copyright issues.

    #118663

    Is the clip featuring me still there?  That's copyright the BBC (or their production company).

    #118664
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    Young Master Smeet wrote:
    Is the clip featuring me still there?  That's copyright the BBC (or their production company).

    But as someone reportedly said…

    #192 wrote:
    …the words are copyright me, and also performance right is mine: that said I was at a hustings, so I suspect the courts would be unwilling to enforce that part of the IP.

    Quite.

    #118665

    That is the courts would be unwilling (probably) to uphold my copyright (and arguably, as I was an agent of the party there, it's also arguable the copyright belongs to the party), but unarguably the footage belongs to the BBC and that culd be enforceable.  If in any doubt, ask permission, that's a lot safer.

    #118666
    lindanesocialist
    Participant
    Young Master Smeet wrote:
    Is the clip featuring me still there?  That's copyright the BBC (or their production company).

     Yes it is.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic28EwLsLqU with many more BBC, and ITV clips here on our official youtube sitehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFZgYrHuoQfjE0JBkd_h57gVin assumed that the party had already checked copyright befor publishing 

    #118667
    SocialistPunk
    Participant

    It's a fair enough assumption to make.

    #118668
    SocialistPunk wrote:
    It's a fair enough assumption to make.

    Fraid not, not unless the work you're taking it from has an attribution and a licence statement (as we have at the end of the staandard).  We all know what happens when you assume…

    #118669
    lindanesocialist
    Participant
    Young Master Smeet wrote:
    .the words are copyright me, and also performance right is mine

    If you intend to sue Vin  for using your comments, you wouldn't  get much, Vin and I have no property of any value.The performance is yours but the words are certainly not copyright of yours.I and Vin said very similar words at public meetings in 1979-88 

    #118670
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    SocialistPunk wrote:
    It's a fair enough assumption to make.

    It is a fair enough assumption to make particularly in view of the fact that these BBC broadcasts are among those which appear on the official SPGB 1904 YouTube channel list and about which nobody has lodged an objection, least of all members of the current Executive Committee.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rjv71HyAPghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUMaBg7bdGUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBFj9BUYMwQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUCtS7LU0y4

    #118671
    SocialistPunk
    Participant

    Gnome,What do you make of the following from YMS (#277), in reply to my "fair enough assumption"?

    Young Master Smeet wrote:
    Fraid not, not unless the work you're taking it from has an attribution and a licence statement (as we have at the end of the staandard).  We all know what happens when you assume…
    #118672
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    SocialistPunk wrote:
    Gnome,What do you make of the following from YMS (#277), in reply to my "fair enough assumption"?

    Young Master Smeet wrote:
    Fraid not, not unless the work you're taking it from has an attribution and a licence statement (as we have at the end of the staandard).  We all know what happens when you assume…

    Search me; better ask YMS…

    #118674

    If you assume you make an ASS of U & ME.  *Badum tish*Crap corporate joke.  Point being assumptions don't help in a court case, if it gets that far.  Generally we'd have to surrender at the first take down notice.

    #118673
    lindanesocialist
    Participant
    Young Master Smeet wrote:
    If you assume you make an ASS of U & ME.  *Badum tish*Crap corporate joke.  Point being assumptions don't help in a court case, if it gets that far.  Generally we'd have to surrender at the first take down notice.

    Are you talking about the BBC and other TV programs on the Party's Youtube site, Because they are the only 'danger' to the party's funds. 

    #118675
    ALB
    Keymaster

    I don't think there is any danger of TV companies going after us, but the chances are increased as long as we keep publicising this possibility…..

    #118676
    lindanesocialist
    Participant
    ALB wrote:
    I don't think there is any danger of TV companies going after us, but the chances are increased as long as we keep publicising this possibility…..

    I agree, it should neve have been raised in the first place. Can't think why it should have been. 

Viewing 15 posts - 271 through 285 (of 304 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.