Interesting new video - Page 2

evil nickname · 05 Jan 2010, 10:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarge

It's not that odd when you consider a particular other video that was taken off along with this one.

Yes, but I am not talking about that video. I'm talking about this one, where Meat is talking to a band. It's the exchange of ideas, and ideas are not covered by copyright law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikox1

if someone stuck a video of you running around your living room but naked!!
would you not ask to take it down?

Indeed, I think I would ask whomever uploaded said hypothetical video to take it down, but I wouldn't send Youtube a take down notice claiming my copyrights are being violated. Cause unless I would be running around in a highly choreographed fashion, making it modern dance or something, there would be no copyright to infringe regarding my performance in the video.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikox1

anyway its youtube who would be taken to court, if they refused to take it off

Yes. And that is why they seem to take every video down once there's a copyright claim made against it. It is Youtube's obligation to check whether or not that claim has any merit, and in the case of this particular video, I am hard pressed to see how Red Pony Tours' copyright was being violated. That Meat didn't want it filmed is, once again, another matter.

**RadioMaster** · 05 Jan 2010, 11:02

so, by that logic I could contact youtube and ask them to take down the video of me doing karaoke drunk at that pub in london because I hold the copyright? Would be the same situation i reckon.

evil nickname · 05 Jan 2010, 11:22

Well, you could always claim that as a performer you have certain rights. You don't own the copyright to the song (as it's a cover), and I doubt that the performance itself is an original work of art, as drunk karaoke isn't exactly orginal. But once again, I am not a IP-lawyer. I just find this stuff interesting.

*AndyK* · 05 Jan 2010, 12:35

It's probably more a case of You Tube having a pre defined set of reasons for taking videos down that violate it's terms of service. As with any predefined list there will always be an exception to the rule somewhere alogn the line and it's possible that this is the situation here, woith copyright infrigement being the reason that the trained monkey at YouTube who deleted the video chose when they dealt with this "case"

roomster · 05 Jan 2010, 13:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikox1

it was meats work, a song belonging to him? case closed really

I think you mix this thread with the leaked song thread.

This thread is about the video where Meat is talking to a band and giving them instructions about performing on stage.

Dave · 05 Jan 2010, 17:11

Think of the reality of youtube for a minute. They are making enough money to pay users whose videos are being watched over and over again up to thousands of dollars a month. Youtube is making a fortune off the backs of others content. It would serve them well to keep users happy - No Matter What.

Dave

suzieq · 05 Jan 2010, 17:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyK

It's probably more a case of You Tube having a pre defined set of reasons for taking videos down that violate it's terms of service. As with any predefined list there will always be an exception to the rule somewhere alogn the line and it's possible that this is the situation here, woith copyright infrigement being the reason that the trained monkey at YouTube who deleted the video chose when they dealt with this "case"

I agree. Predetermined reasoning for wanting the video removed. Nothing matches the exact circumstance. Check the box with copyright situation selection and there the video is down. Easy and done. I wouldn't get to overthinking the situation. More or less, if there is a video with defamation or the like, they may have a convenient little box for that. Clearly Meat expressed his desires not to have the cameras rolling. So the expressed consent was NO consent.

Suzieq

Sarge · 05 Jan 2010, 17:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by evil nickname

Yes, but I am not talking about that video.

I know you aren't. As far as I remember, both videos were uploaded by the same user (correct me if I'm wrong). I assume when removing the one containing the song they probably just did not bother to find a separate, different reason for taking down the other unapproved recordings - apparently they removed them in one go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzieq

Clearly Meat expressed his desires not to have the cameras rolling. So the expressed consent was NO consent.

Right. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter whether it's a violation of his copyright, personal rights, whatever...

mickp · 08 Jan 2010, 23:19

Well Red Pony Tours has also been active in the last few days in removing a few other long standing Meat vids on youtube. Let's hope its because he's releasing his full tour back catalogue on dvd. Otherwise I can't see the point

Evil One · 08 Jan 2010, 23:30

Petty arseholeishness?

**The Flying Mouse** · 08 Jan 2010, 23:45

Depends on what's being taken down.
If it's vids that just show pretty pictures while his entire catolouge plays in the background, i'm 100% behind him on that.
How is he supposed to sell albums when everything is on youtube?

But if it's interviews, then it should be left where it it.

Same goes for promo vids, to an extent.
If the vids in question are commercially available (like the stuff on Hits Out Of Hell), then fair enough, take them down.
But if it's stuff that is not commercially available (Modern Girl promo vid for example) then they should be left on youtube for the benefit of the fans.

If they're going to be released on an official release, GREAT.
But I don't hold with stuff being taken down because someone owns the copyright and might want to release something in 20 years time.

On the vid from rock camp, I agree with Meat on that one.
The guy said no cameras, so what do you expect?

CarylB · 09 Jan 2010, 01:42

And if Meat wants to have them taken down .. that's the point imo.

Caryl

Vickip · 09 Jan 2010, 01:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarylB

And if Meat wants to have them taken down .. that's the point imo.

Caryl

Exactly.
Vicki

mickp · 09 Jan 2010, 02:55

I got into the youtube thing (as aputey) as I had a load of Meat stuff on original vhs from the 80s / early 90s that I thought merited sharing as there was little chance of pro release. Most of it was recorded by myself when originally broadcast, not trades etc. I was always going to take stuff down if it ever came out on dvd (although the label did beat me to it on the 1978 tour vids). It was done with the utmost respect for him as an artist and reflected some of the greatest concerts I've ever been to

It was enjoyable though - I got some great feedback from former members of the Neverland Express

Due to the claim that I may have inadvertently infringed copyright on one video, I have taken them all down to ensure compliance with youtube policy

Wario · 09 Jan 2010, 05:46

Thing is if he discovers my Channel thats meat heaven. But nothing i post is commercial accessable....

My channel's meant to be a sorta meat loaf encyclopedia

**The Flying Mouse** · 09 Jan 2010, 20:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarioLoaf

Thing is if he discovers my Channel thats meat heaven. But nothing i post is commercial accessable....

My channel's meant to be a sorta meat loaf encyclopedia

Just like every other fan site in the world that has video and sound recordings on it's pages (despite the legalities of copyright law).

Fans like to share and, and rightly or wrongly, they believe they are providing a free and harmless service for fellow fans.

You either believe that, or you side with the artist and management (you can't really do both).

It's a shame there was not a little more common sence and a little less law.

CarylB · 09 Jan 2010, 21:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Just like every other fan site in the world that has video and sound recordings on it's pages (despite the legalities of copyright law).

Fans like to share and, and rightly or wrongly, they believe they are providing a free and harmless service for fellow fans.

You either believe that, or you side with the artist and management (you can't really do both).

It's a shame there was not a little more common sence and a little less law.

However, you can put short clips of recordings you have purchased on your site and remain within the copyright laws Mouse, thus sharing with fellow fans and supporting the artist.

Imo it's the frequently poor quality of illicit recordings made at live performances which upset artists, plus the fact that those who record live shows had no permission to do so, or have acquired what are in effect stolen sound board tapes. Common sense needs to come from both sides

Caryl

Sarge · 09 Jan 2010, 21:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarylB

However, you can put short clips of recordings you have purchased on your site and remain within the copyright laws Mouse, thus sharing with fellow fans and supporting the artist.

Your criteria as to when something's a copyright infringement and when it's "supporting the artist" are beginning to confuse me.

CarylB · 09 Jan 2010, 22:49

When we set up our website we were advised by Meat's official site that clips of no longer than 2 minutes (I believe it's that; I didn't prepare and post the clips) were permitted and did not infringe Meat's copyright, and we always stuck to that. They are tasters and arguably could encourage someone to buy the recording, thus supporting the artist. We did not post any clips from live bootleg recordings, nor post songs in their entirety.

Caryl

Evil One · 09 Jan 2010, 23:13

But what about stuff that is of good quality such as the Live In The Neighbourhood tv show? It's probably never going to be shown on tv again so where is the harm in having it on Youtube? Many fans won't have seen it and it may even encourage more sales of WTTN.

WhenItComes2LovingU · 09 Jan 2010, 23:23

Where U.S. law stands, I only know this:

In regards to the legality of the video home recording act settled by Congress with the Home Recording Act (P.L. 102-563,106 Stat.4237, Codified at 17 U.S.C. 1001-1010) in October 1992, no action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital or analog recording medium or based on the noncommercial use of such a device or medium. No rights are intended, expressed or implied.

I'm surprised more YouTubers haven't used this, but with that in mind, if anyone knows a lawyer and is petty enough to argue the issue, the Americans could take Red Pony to court, but even so, that's no guarantee.

Evil One · 09 Jan 2010, 23:45

The main point is that Youtube won't want the hassle so will just delete anything that is complained about.

Sarge · 09 Jan 2010, 23:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarylB

When we set up our website we were advised by Meat's official site that clips of no longer than 2 minutes (I believe it's that; I didn't prepare and post the clips) were permitted and did not infringe Meat's copyright, and we always stuck to that.

What about clips from international TV? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's the broadcasting channels who have the copyright in this case? How can Meat Loaf (or whoever represents him) decide whether it's okay to use such clips?

WhenItComes2LovingU · 09 Jan 2010, 23:52

Exactly. Looks to me like Red Pony Tours would have to have signed an agreement with the broadcasting channels for footage ownership before they can make such copyright claims. Unless they provide the piece of paper that says they did, some uploaders might have to call their bluff.

CarylB · 10 Jan 2010, 01:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarge

What about clips from international TV? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's the broadcasting channels who have the copyright in this case? How can Meat Loaf (or whoever represents him) decide whether it's okay to use such clips?

I was talking about album recordings. We have a multimedia section with many short clips from these.

As far as TV shows, interviews etc, I'm not aware that any of these have been removed at Meat's request? I suspect you're correct, and it would be the broadcaster who holds copyright.

As far as recordings of live performances taken in the audience are concerned, I'd consider them bootlegs and we wouldn't post them. That's my view anyway.

Caryl

08 Jan 2010, 23:19	#34
mickp Loafer Join Date: 16.02.2006 Posts: 51	Interesting new video Well Red Pony Tours has also been active in the last few days in removing a few other long standing Meat vids on youtube. Let's hope its because he's releasing his full tour back catalogue on dvd. Otherwise I can't see the point

09 Jan 2010, 02:55	#39
mickp Loafer Join Date: 16.02.2006 Posts: 51	Interesting new video I got into the youtube thing (as aputey) as I had a load of Meat stuff on original vhs from the 80s / early 90s that I thought merited sharing as there was little chance of pro release. Most of it was recorded by myself when originally broadcast, not trades etc. I was always going to take stuff down if it ever came out on dvd (although the label did beat me to it on the 1978 tour vids). It was done with the utmost respect for him as an artist and reflected some of the greatest concerts I've ever been to It was enjoyable though - I got some great feedback from former members of the Neverland Express Due to the claim that I may have inadvertently infringed copyright on one video, I have taken them all down to ensure compliance with youtube policy

05 Jan 2010, 11:02	#27
RadioMaster The German Join Date: 11.03.2006 Location: some kind of hunting lodge for rich weirdos... Posts: 15,778	so, by that logic I could contact youtube and ask them to take down the video of me doing karaoke drunk at that pub in london because I hold the copyright? Would be the same situation i reckon.

05 Jan 2010, 11:22	#28
evil nickname Guest Join Date: 19.04.2003 Posts: 2,238	Well, you could always claim that as a performer you have certain rights. You don't own the copyright to the song (as it's a cover), and I doubt that the performance itself is an original work of art, as drunk karaoke isn't exactly orginal. But once again, I am not a IP-lawyer. I just find this stuff interesting.

05 Jan 2010, 12:35	#29
AndyK Relentless Join Date: 21.11.2003 Location: Over the top..... seeing what's on the other side Posts: 18,694	It's probably more a case of You Tube having a pre defined set of reasons for taking videos down that violate it's terms of service. As with any predefined list there will always be an exception to the rule somewhere alogn the line and it's possible that this is the situation here, woith copyright infrigement being the reason that the trained monkey at YouTube who deleted the video chose when they dealt with this "case"

05 Jan 2010, 17:11	#31
Dave Mega Loafer Join Date: 12.04.2002 Location: Southern Ohio - United States of America Posts: 2,564	Think of the reality of youtube for a minute. They are making enough money to pay users whose videos are being watched over and over again up to thousands of dollars a month. Youtube is making a fortune off the backs of others content. It would serve them well to keep users happy - No Matter What. Dave

08 Jan 2010, 23:30	#35
Evil One Mega Loafer Join Date: 15.01.2007 Posts: 5,192	Petty arseholeishness?

08 Jan 2010, 23:45	#36
The Flying Mouse Armed ba$tard and Jo's other half. Join Date: 06.08.2002 Location: In the middle of nowhere near the end of the line. Posts: 16,104	Depends on what's being taken down. If it's vids that just show pretty pictures while his entire catolouge plays in the background, i'm 100% behind him on that. How is he supposed to sell albums when everything is on youtube? But if it's interviews, then it should be left where it it. Same goes for promo vids, to an extent. If the vids in question are commercially available (like the stuff on Hits Out Of Hell), then fair enough, take them down. But if it's stuff that is not commercially available (Modern Girl promo vid for example) then they should be left on youtube for the benefit of the fans. If they're going to be released on an official release, GREAT. But I don't hold with stuff being taken down because someone owns the copyright and might want to release something in 20 years time. On the vid from rock camp, I agree with Meat on that one. The guy said no cameras, so what do you expect?

09 Jan 2010, 01:42	#37
CarylB Mega Loafer Join Date: 16.04.2003 Location: Sheffield UK Posts: 5,910	And if Meat wants to have them taken down .. that's the point imo. Caryl

09 Jan 2010, 05:46	#40
Wario Monstro helps me spell things... Join Date: 05.01.2007 Location: Masculine, Pennsylvania Posts: 9,105	Thing is if he discovers my Channel thats meat heaven. But nothing i post is commercial accessable.... My channel's meant to be a sorta meat loaf encyclopedia

09 Jan 2010, 22:49	#44
CarylB Mega Loafer Join Date: 16.04.2003 Location: Sheffield UK Posts: 5,910	When we set up our website we were advised by Meat's official site that clips of no longer than 2 minutes (I believe it's that; I didn't prepare and post the clips) were permitted and did not infringe Meat's copyright, and we always stuck to that. They are tasters and arguably could encourage someone to buy the recording, thus supporting the artist. We did not post any clips from live bootleg recordings, nor post songs in their entirety. Caryl

09 Jan 2010, 23:13	#45
Evil One Mega Loafer Join Date: 15.01.2007 Posts: 5,192	But what about stuff that is of good quality such as the Live In The Neighbourhood tv show? It's probably never going to be shown on tv again so where is the harm in having it on Youtube? Many fans won't have seen it and it may even encourage more sales of WTTN.

09 Jan 2010, 23:23	#46
WhenItComes2LovingU Banned Join Date: 16.01.2006 Posts: 303	Where U.S. law stands, I only know this: In regards to the legality of the video home recording act settled by Congress with the Home Recording Act (P.L. 102-563,106 Stat.4237, Codified at 17 U.S.C. 1001-1010) in October 1992, no action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital or analog recording medium or based on the noncommercial use of such a device or medium. No rights are intended, expressed or implied. I'm surprised more YouTubers haven't used this, but with that in mind, if anyone knows a lawyer and is petty enough to argue the issue, the Americans could take Red Pony to court, but even so, that's no guarantee.

09 Jan 2010, 23:45	#47
Evil One Mega Loafer Join Date: 15.01.2007 Posts: 5,192	The main point is that Youtube won't want the hassle so will just delete anything that is complained about.

09 Jan 2010, 23:52	#49
WhenItComes2LovingU Banned Join Date: 16.01.2006 Posts: 303	Exactly. Looks to me like Red Pony Tours would have to have signed an agreement with the broadcasting channels for footage ownership before they can make such copyright claims. Unless they provide the piece of paper that says they did, some uploaders might have to call their bluff.