Twitter's catching criminals

That's right you read correctly... well to some extent. To the copyright owners then yes they're catching thieves. To the rest of us we probably wouldn't know they took anything. Twitter is now monitoring information that is posted on Twitter that infringes any copyright. You'll get a warning and then your account will be deactivated. This sounds a bit extreme for merely posting something without reference to its original source but to the people who wrote/recorded/came up with the idea it is a big deal. I suppose that makes sense seeing as it would be unfortunate for any of my original material to be copied.

Copyright is a serious game... It seems between YouTube and Twitter both organisations are willing to deactivate their users for copyright infringement, (remember users power these sites)... why? the power of money? or is it something more pure like protecting artists work? All we know is that copyright is being taken very seriously now by Twitter. So be careful do what they suggest and come up with your own work. That way all is well, you're being original and other users will appreciate what you have to offer.

Twitter information sourced from: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/05/twitter_withhelds_material_from_copyright_infringers/

Access Denied

I love music, and when a new single comes out there's nothing better than going onto YouTube and loading up the song. I tried to do this lately with a Jake Bugg song called "Someone Told Me" but to my dismay I found I could not listen to the song because it had been blocked by the record label UMG. I found this incredibly strange because I was not on a random YouTube account, it was the official YouTube of Jake Bugg. For some strange reason, his record label had stopped a song from being played on his own account. Pretty far fetched if you ask me seeing as he's the guitarist, singer and song writer. Now if I was Jake I'd be pretty annoyed at this.

It just goes to show that once you take out a copyright on something, no matter who you are you have very little control over what happens to your material. This was proved in a previous blog which highlighted the sale of the entire Beatles song catalogue to Michael Jackson. These copyright and and IP rights companies have people tangled up in one massive cobweb. 

The song has since been restored and the copyright block removed, but who did UMG think they were blocking Mr Bugg from uploading his own song? Copyright is indeed going mad.

Pick any name....except Blue Ivy, that's mine!

They are considered to be one of celebrity’s ‘power couples’. But did Jay-Z and Beyonce try to push this status too far when they attempted to register their daughter’s name, Blue Ivy, as a US trade mark? A trademark is defined as ‘A symbol, word, or words legally registered or established by use as representing a company or product’; essentially its purpose is to let people know that the product is genuine by highlighting its trade source. Therefore many argue that the couples attempt to trade mark their daughter’s name does not demonstrate appropriate use of trade mark rights, and thus far it has been unsuccessful in the US.

They have, however, found greater success in Europe, where Blue Ivy Carter has been registered as a Community Trade Mark for various products, ranging from cosmetics, hair products, to DVDs, clothing and pushchairs. By registering their daughter’s name as a trade mark, Jay-Z and Beyonce are attempting to convert the name into intellectual property, which can therefore be bought and sold. This would ironically be defeating the original purpose by losing them the right to stop others trading under the same name. Funnily enough, the couple were not the only ones to make a bid to trade mark the name, with two separate sets of papers being filed within two weeks of the baby being born, however they were also unsuccessful.

Their failure to have Blue Ivy Carter successfully registered as a trade mark is proof that money can’t buy everything…but Jay-Z and Beyonce gave it a pretty good go!

Property is nine tenths of the law. [citation needed]

The internet has become an integral part of everyday life in the 21st Century. People upload their photos, thoughts, songs, poems and countless other items for the world to see. With this, comes the issue of ownership, many websites make a point of expressing how you still own anything that you upload, the only issue with this being that just because the website may not claim it as their own, it doesn't mean other people won't. Countless cases of online profiles 'stealing' other people's works and passing them off have been reported. Often websites will ban accounts that fail to give the true owners the recognition they deserve, but as the ease of downloading a picture, and removing the watermark, are well within the grasp of many internet users it can often be difficult to fully enforce.

One story which shows that often the larger of two forces can crush the copyright claims of internet users, is that of Travis Irvine and Brian Kamerer. The article linked here, http://splitsider.com/2012/05/an-open-letter-to-jay-leno-about-stealing-my-video-and-then-getting-it-removed-from-youtube/ tells of how the the work of Irvine was shown on the Jay Leno show, without the permission of the original creator, the video was then removed from YouTube due to a copyright claim made by NBC. The video linked here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOl6BpFScAc is now back in the hands of Irvine, but is an important lesson in how you may want to think twice before uploading anything to the internet.

Copyrights is relevant for everyone (yes,and YOU)

Before starting on this project and before even beginning to research intellectual property or copyrights, i believed it was an important issue but a subject not widely spoken of and not thought about much. Well after 5 minutes of looking up information i found i couldn't have been more wrong. It is literally all around us, in the newspaper, on the internet, on the TV, however what surprised me the most was when i happened to come across it regarding the American presidential campaign. Who would have thought the President of the United States of America and his campaign could have been caught up in a copyright battle? Well it seems so, a merchandising company who says they have helped support the democrats for over 25 years have been sued concerning the mis-selling of products with the Obama logo. Surely Obama and his team have much more important things to concentrate on than losing out on a few dollars because their official merchandising store is selling less than they would be. At least it shows they have the support, right? What's more interesting is it seems this isn't the only case of copyright issues with a presidential candidate. In 2008 McCain asked for special treatment regarding his campaign videos after they were taken down by YouTube as they were not fitting with copyright legislation. Many major media companies such as Warner Music Group, CBS and Fox news even showed their support for the videos being removed.

This just shows how no one, not even you, is exempt from Copyright law!

(Information from http://www.newser.com/story/147380/obama-campaign-sues-site-for-selling-obama-gear.html and http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/15/mccain_campaign_wants_youtube_dmca_special_treatment/ )

Youtube… There are no rules?

Video sharing has become a phenomenon in today’s contemporary society. YouTube is the largest video sharing site on the web today. You can search for video clips, tutorials, funny clips and so much more. There is a common belief that users have freedom to express themselves creatively… but do they really? When posting a video to YouTube you agree to the terms and conditions of the site. Copyright is an important factor to take into account when producing or reproducing already existent works. If YouTube finds you have reproduced works that are protected by copyright from the original artist it will be blocked. You run the risk of having strikes against your account and potentially having it terminated. What do you do to avoid these risks? The answer is simple… be original. Well this is the answer YouTube gives. This is easier said than done. Sometimes reproducing a major artist’s work by making a ‘cover’ is a great way to draw audiences in because they know the song. Are these up and coming artists meaning any harm? If they are it’s because record labels and artists have copyrighted the work and don’t like having reproductions on YouTube. It seems unfair to the artists wanting to put new twists on old songs but all artists, to some extent, want their work to remain their work. Nobody likes others taking credit for their original ideas.

Regardless YouTube still acts as a gateway for artists to promote their work, their original work. As detailed by YouTube, “[the site] allows billions of people to discover, watch and share originally-created videos. YouTube provides a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others across the globe and acts as a distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers large and small.” The key point within this is the distribution of original content. So ultimately anybody can produce and upload content as long as it does not infringe upon any other artist’s content. YouTube has the power to delete videos instantly if found to possess infringing content. Copyright is taken very seriously. It could be said that having copyright further promotes the production of original works. YouTube is a medium which works to promote individuals’ work and share these works internationally so all may enjoy. 

All information came from http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_center

Brand me!

We're all familiar with the Facebook banner these days. Personally I've always wondered whether I can use the Facebook branding without infringing any copyright and ending up in prison. After a quick search around the internet I found out.

According to Facebook, in regards to their banner they say this: "We do not generally allow the use of the Facebook logo. If you would like to request special permission for a specific use, please work with your Facebook business contact." Now seeing as I don't have a Facebook business contact, I'll take that to mean HANDS OFF OUR LOGO.

The use of just the "F" logo however is slightly different. Facebook says:

"The context surrounding the use of the 'f' logo should clearly indicate the action the audience is being prompted to initiate (e.g.'like us on Facebook' or 'use this app on Facebook').

Don't hyperlink the "f" logo to our Facebook login page. 

While you may scale the size to suit your needs, you may not modify the “f” logo in any other way (such as by changing the design or color). If you are unable to use the correct colour due to technical limitations, you may revert to black and white."

In other words, you can use the "F" to promote your Facebook page if you're a musician or have a page that you want more people to be aware of. The only modifications you can make to it are that you can make it larger or smaller. So anyone who fancies a bit of advertising you're free to use the Facebook "F" providing you stick to the terms laid out by Facebook. If anyone wants to read the terms and conditions in full go to https://www.facebook.com/brandpermissions/logos.php

Oh yeah, and while I remember... 

Find us on Facebook