nail art express image
jessiedevy
I've uploaded 2 video art pieces with songs (one by Nine Inch Nails, one by Queens of the Stone Age) in the background and it tells me they're rejected because the audio. But how do other people get away with uploading commercial audio?
Answer
I regret to inform you that any music which is not your creation
and used as part of your video is indeed copyright infringement.
Companies like UMG, Warner and Viacom not only "own" their
music, they also "own" the rights to them, which includes how
and where the music can be publicly presented and performed.
Thus they would be 100% within their rights to claim the music
in your video as their own -- especially if you didn't seek written
permission or licence to use it and "broadcast" it over YouTube.
They could easily and legally force YouTube to take your video
"off the air" (potentially banning you) for any number of reasons:
1) If you used "their music", it is considered part of the famous
sentence "unauthorized duplication, whether in whole or in part,
without the expressed written consent of...." Their fear wouldn't
just be about you, but also other people who could conceivably
download, copy or listen to that music without having bought it.
2) You are potentially lessening the value of "their property" by
presenting and "broadcasting" it in a bad-quality, tiny 4x3-inch,
poor-resolution, mono-sounding and possibly amateurish video.
3) They may think your video makes "their property" look either
bad, cheap or unappealing to someone who could otherwise be
considering purchasing "their music".
4) They could also be thinking that anyone's memory or mental
image of "their music" could forever be "haunted" by images of
your video or your YouTube channel if they feel it's in bad taste.
You may involuntarily be "defaming" the artist and/or the music.
Even if you've given due credit on your video to the music label,
the artist or the music itself, that should never be construed as
a validation, excuse or justification for you (and really YouTube)
to "break the law". You can always claim that your video is "for
personal use only", but then they could come back at you with
some interesting questions: A) why did you upload the video to
YouTube, B) why did you "steal" the artist's music, and C) how
did you acquire that music? (note: Even if you bought it legally,
that doesn't give you blanket permission to use it "willy-nilly" or
however you like, as though you're a legal representative of the
artist.)
As for the other people who may be uploading the same music,
either YouTube will get to them eventually or somebody who is
jealous will "flag" their video. If you're willing to take the chance
and reupload your video with the same music, avoid writing the
name of the song or the artist in either your title, description or
tags. Also, donât use sentences like "no copyright infringement
intended", "I do not own the song" or "I don't take any credit for
this music". YouTube's computers search for phrases like that.
You should also bear in mind that the music-recording industry
is beginning to implement the use of inaudible "watermarks" or
"fingerprints" hidden inside their music, in order to uncover and
identify their illicit use. As such, it's conceivable that no matter
how many times you upload your video, it'll always be rejected
because of copyright reasons. You'd thus probably have to find
a different recording of the music you would want to use. If you
noticed other videos using the same music, they were probably
uploaded before this new technology started coming into being.
The only possible exception to everything I just wrote is for you
to use music that is less than 30 seconds long. If you listen to
any talk-show on radio or TV, they will never play or use music
longer than 30 secs during a guest introduction or segué going
into and out of commercials. Guess what the reason is.
I hope my info has been helpful to you.
I regret to inform you that any music which is not your creation
and used as part of your video is indeed copyright infringement.
Companies like UMG, Warner and Viacom not only "own" their
music, they also "own" the rights to them, which includes how
and where the music can be publicly presented and performed.
Thus they would be 100% within their rights to claim the music
in your video as their own -- especially if you didn't seek written
permission or licence to use it and "broadcast" it over YouTube.
They could easily and legally force YouTube to take your video
"off the air" (potentially banning you) for any number of reasons:
1) If you used "their music", it is considered part of the famous
sentence "unauthorized duplication, whether in whole or in part,
without the expressed written consent of...." Their fear wouldn't
just be about you, but also other people who could conceivably
download, copy or listen to that music without having bought it.
2) You are potentially lessening the value of "their property" by
presenting and "broadcasting" it in a bad-quality, tiny 4x3-inch,
poor-resolution, mono-sounding and possibly amateurish video.
3) They may think your video makes "their property" look either
bad, cheap or unappealing to someone who could otherwise be
considering purchasing "their music".
4) They could also be thinking that anyone's memory or mental
image of "their music" could forever be "haunted" by images of
your video or your YouTube channel if they feel it's in bad taste.
You may involuntarily be "defaming" the artist and/or the music.
Even if you've given due credit on your video to the music label,
the artist or the music itself, that should never be construed as
a validation, excuse or justification for you (and really YouTube)
to "break the law". You can always claim that your video is "for
personal use only", but then they could come back at you with
some interesting questions: A) why did you upload the video to
YouTube, B) why did you "steal" the artist's music, and C) how
did you acquire that music? (note: Even if you bought it legally,
that doesn't give you blanket permission to use it "willy-nilly" or
however you like, as though you're a legal representative of the
artist.)
As for the other people who may be uploading the same music,
either YouTube will get to them eventually or somebody who is
jealous will "flag" their video. If you're willing to take the chance
and reupload your video with the same music, avoid writing the
name of the song or the artist in either your title, description or
tags. Also, donât use sentences like "no copyright infringement
intended", "I do not own the song" or "I don't take any credit for
this music". YouTube's computers search for phrases like that.
You should also bear in mind that the music-recording industry
is beginning to implement the use of inaudible "watermarks" or
"fingerprints" hidden inside their music, in order to uncover and
identify their illicit use. As such, it's conceivable that no matter
how many times you upload your video, it'll always be rejected
because of copyright reasons. You'd thus probably have to find
a different recording of the music you would want to use. If you
noticed other videos using the same music, they were probably
uploaded before this new technology started coming into being.
The only possible exception to everything I just wrote is for you
to use music that is less than 30 seconds long. If you listen to
any talk-show on radio or TV, they will never play or use music
longer than 30 secs during a guest introduction or segué going
into and out of commercials. Guess what the reason is.
I hope my info has been helpful to you.
Why are literary criticisms so boring to read?
JohnL
And I don't even feel like I gain anything from them. Most of them basically express the obvious in pompous language.
Answer
You've hit the nail on the head when you say 'most express the obvious.' A lot of literary critiques ARE boring, for that reason. The art of critique is a difficult one, and is probably lost nowadays in most areas of literature.
Try looking up literary critiques by writers that you admire. A lot of times, they know what to look for in a book and how to make a review interesting, whether they hate or love the book. They will often be better than professional critics, for that reason.
One really hilarious criticism: Mark Twain hates James Fenimore Cooper. 'Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses,' linked here: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/HNS/Indians/offense.html -- Excerpt: "Cooper's art has some defects. In one place in "Deerslayer," and in the restricted space of two-thirds of a page, Cooper has scored 114 offenses against literary art out of a possible 115. It breaks the record." It is really savagely funny, and if nothing else will keep you away from Fenimore Cooper, which is always a good thing.
You've hit the nail on the head when you say 'most express the obvious.' A lot of literary critiques ARE boring, for that reason. The art of critique is a difficult one, and is probably lost nowadays in most areas of literature.
Try looking up literary critiques by writers that you admire. A lot of times, they know what to look for in a book and how to make a review interesting, whether they hate or love the book. They will often be better than professional critics, for that reason.
One really hilarious criticism: Mark Twain hates James Fenimore Cooper. 'Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses,' linked here: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/HNS/Indians/offense.html -- Excerpt: "Cooper's art has some defects. In one place in "Deerslayer," and in the restricted space of two-thirds of a page, Cooper has scored 114 offenses against literary art out of a possible 115. It breaks the record." It is really savagely funny, and if nothing else will keep you away from Fenimore Cooper, which is always a good thing.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
