Friday, August 03, 2007

New Fair Use Project For User-Generated Media Announced

In an effort to reduce uncertainty and provide understandable guidelines for "fair use" for user-generated online content, akin to those they helped to establish for documentary film-makers, American University’s Center for Social Media and Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property are undertaking an important, multifaceted project called “Copyright and Fair Use in Participatory Media,” to promote standards for the use of copyrighted materials in user-generated media that is broadcast over the internet. This project builds on the two organizations’ success in helping to establish “best practices” for fair use by documentary filmmakers." Their announcement states that "Nonprofessional, online video now accounts for a sizeable portion of all broadband traffic, with much of the work weaving in copyrighted material. “We’re pretty much a mixed-media generation,” one student told American University researchers. A new culture is emerging—remix culture, an unpredictable mix of the witty, the vulgar, the politically and culturally critical, and the just plain improbable. For a greatest-hits-of, watch Remix Culture. What’s fair in online-video use of copyrighted material? The healthy growth of this new mode of expression is at risk of becoming a casualty of the efforts of copyright owners to limit wholesale redistribution of their content on sites like YouTube, and of videomakers’ own uncertainties about the law."

Here is an excerpt from their statement:

New Copyright and Fair Use Project Announced!
Posted by Ann Williams on Aug 1, 2007 at 12:55 PM

American University’s Center for Social Media and Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property are undertaking a multifaceted project. “Copyright and Fair Use in Participatory Media,” to promote standards for the use of copyrighted materials in user-generated media that is broadcast over the internet. This project builds on the two organizations’ success in helping to establish “best practices” for fair use by documentary filmmakers.

Nonprofessional, online video now accounts for a sizeable portion of all broadband traffic, with much of the work weaving in copyrighted material. “We’re pretty much a mixed-media generation,” one student told American University researchers. A new culture is emerging—remix culture, an unpredictable mix of the witty, the vulgar, the politically and culturally critical, and the just plain improbable. For a greatest-hits-of, watch Remix Culture.

What’s fair in online-video use of copyrighted material? The healthy growth of this new mode of expression is at risk of becoming a casualty of the efforts of copyright owners to limit wholesale redistribution of their content on sites like YouTube, and of videomakers’ own uncertainties about the law.

Political and cultural commentaries are endangered by “takedowns” (Internet service providers’ taking down of videos upon demand) that sometimes are examples of hyper-vigilance and sometimes are simply in error. The National Football League insisted on a takedown of 33 seconds of a football game, 13 seconds of which were a copyright announcement. Viacom even demanded a takedown of a parody of Stephen Colbert’s parody of right-wing punditry (“Stop the Falsiness”), until the Electronic Frontier Foundation objected. Indeed, copyright holders often back off, once someone objects; but many people don’t even know they can.

Complete announcement


Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet.net "The 'Takedowns' Chill Factor"





Keywords: digital copyright online law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs

2 comments:

AMD FanBoi said...

My question is: How does a user remix of some copyrighted material in a brand new way diminish the value of the original copyrighted work? In short, how does not-for-profit use of a song, or part thereof, cost the record companies money?

recordjackethistorian said...

Its quite easy, They see **any** use of their Intellectual property that does not put money in their pocket as illegal. The have an exclusive right to publish. That someone is or isn't making money from it is irrelevant.

This is where rights clearance comes into play,

Its a knee-jerk reaction, I know.