If Valleywag receive a DMCA, as an American company, they have to take it down and THEN argue their position. In cases like this lawyers and non-lawyers balance risk and that’s what the respective lawyers have done in this case, although their opinions differ

Many of the images I use on here can be regarded as copyright – screenshots of art/websites but I never ask permission because my assessment of the risk is low as I’m guessing the owners want me to write about the stuff to spread the word. I either inform or ask permission, depending on licence, when I’m using Flickr images as they do not expect their images to be used to illustrate a web story. When people use my images I’m usually fine, I prefer if they inform me but I licence them for use so they can be shared. Lane did not. That’s her choice.

When Stanford Law School used Disney clips to discuss Fair Use, they argued Fair Use (http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/documentary-film-program/film/a-fair-y-use-tale) and they used far more than has been used then a quick view in the video here. They had an interpretation of the law, I bet Disney had another but the risk assessment was such they did not pursue. When a clip of the Superbowl copyright statement was used to illustrate copyright, it got pulled via DMCA but a counter-statement was issued and it got re-loaded. (can’t remember the link)

I throw these out to say there are laws out there that allow use. I strongly believe that current copyright law in the US is far too burdensome, (especially for music) and I’ve heard plenty of tales of movies that cannot be re-released, valuable documentaries etc as the effort of clearing all the rights again is far too onerous and expensive. I strongly believe there needs to be some way of managing orphan works.

There also needs to be a lot more case law/clarity over fair use, over transformative works, over parody, over non-commercial use, so it is all a lot clearer over use of images, of music, of characters and information such as in fanfiction, without the use of lawyers all the time. I don’t think we need more laws yet. We need to clarify what is there.

“we get the video back, because it is fun.”

Actually, the video is still with us: just not on YouTube.
See http://valleywag.com/tech/online-video/here-comes-another-takedown-332666.php

I wonder if Valleywag would take it down if asked? Or would they fight on principle (they don’t seem to have many BUT they might fight to escalte the issues for community benefit).

Check it out and don’t blink during the second labeled 1:19 when the “infringed image” appears. That’s 1 second out of 164 of infringed image.

Anyone that has ever created a homemade video knows that the effort involved is pretty exhausting and there is no payback other than the feedback from it’s audience. But this video maker got some feedback that involved lawyers.

It foreshadows a world where the Internet moves closer to real media and all that that entails… like the Writer’s Strike and legal wranglings over pennies that add up to millions.

It’s just sad. Where IS the harm in that cute freely available video and the hundreds that might follow? The audience has lost something when the creative talent needs to secure permissions for all images… does this include Corporate logos? It leads to a form of censorship that we should all agree is far too restrictive and limits expression to to high a degree.

There should be laws protecting these more advanced forms of free speech. The government restricts images of the “war” in Iraq as well and makes journalists sign agreement to that effect before they are allowed to work with the troops.

There are issues in this that deserve better treatment by the community of bloggers and creative professionals… standards that could be discussed and lead to more open sharing of media and some fair use allowances for derivative works that are not typically sold but are simply shared.

Share. What a lovely concept: “use jointly or in common”.

Here’s what bothers me about this issue of rights and the right to “take down” someone’s derivative work. Take a magazine, some glue and some art supplies and you use the source images to create a new work of art. It’s a collage. Do you need to request permission for re-purposing the images in a derivative work? I haven’t seen that aspect discussed in the debate.

The video in question was a mash-up of web images to visually accompany what was effectively a clever music video. The financial gain of the creator was not large in my estimate… “The Richter Scales” are a ad hoc vocal group that all have day jobs to support their musical “habits”.

Lane put the web on notice that her images are hers and she locked down her Flickr site but the image in question is easily obtained from a web “magazine” (and thus easily implemented in a web collage):

http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/05/geeks_and_suits.html
NOTE: the images there are credited Lane Hartwell but NOT label with any statement of rights protections.

Lane’s body of work and incoming production is not in the least impacted by the use of the image and I think she over-reacted by having the work censored and I hope she and the Richter Scales folks can reach an amicable resolution… if not, I hope they re-edit the video and delete or replace the image with any suitable Web 2.0 face.

The image appears 1-2 seconds on a music video that’s 2:43 long.

If it was embedded in a commercial work, I’d feel differently but it’s folk art. It’s a mash-up of culture. It’s actually, IMHO, a potential source of “positive” PR for the photographers involved. It’s a midnight creative act for a guy with a day job, a new house and a kid that blew up into the an internet controversy over IP rights.

I like to see lawyers and art separated by a wall of common sense and fair treatment for people creating folk art. This applies to mashups of all sorts. Ideally, I like to see these new forms of social media given some protections against abuse of the legal system.

Make art legal (again).

When the art becomes commerce then the issues often need lawyers but when that happens the art suffers tremendously. You can’t sing “Happy Birthday” in commercial media without paying for the right. We should start a fund to pay people NOT to use that song… it’s a musicial “virus” like most good children’s tunes. Try NOT to hear it right now. and now. and now. How much would you pay to make it stop.

“Do you know why the alphabet is in that order? it’s that stupid song.” – Steven Wright.