Media Player Visualizer Copyrights

Back to post

Comments

farss wrote on 5/26/2010, 4:25 PM
"Bob, Could it be that there are some differences in copyright law between Australia and the US?"

There's no difference is the fundamentals of copyright law between our two countries. There's certainly significant differences in the licensing arrangements. I hold a licence to format shift and many videographers here hold licences to use copyright music in event videos that cannot be obtained in the USA.

"In the US, the copyright owner can choose to exercise the "right to prohibit", or not, in almost any way he/she chooses."

Same here, the grant of licence is basically a contract and can include any terrms. I did make the same point, several times :)

Of course contract law is very complex however in general unless you specifically exclude certain use in the licence then you would get laughed out of court trying to limit a reasonable use that you failed to spell out in the licence. For example, you borrow someone's car. It would be quite unreasonable to assume he'd given you permission to drive it over a cliff. It'd also be unreasonable to assume unless explicitly told otherwise that you could not drive it down a certain street. This is why EULA's go to considerable lengths to spell out what you cannot use the software for e.g. academic licences.

"That being said, if I was going to use Milkdrop in a show or video, I would still ask, and I would get written permission if performing in a licensed venue (which is usually the case). "

Certainly if in doubt ask however if you take that approach I think you'll soon be running yourself ragged. What about all the other licences for the tools you use in the show. The encoders in the camera, audio recorders, sound boards etc, etc. This is why yes, a licence can exclude anything it wants to but it really needs to specifically state the exclusions, not list the inclusions or it'd be a mighty big document. Also of course certain exclusion may be unenforceable or simply illegal if they breach certain laws e.g. in most countries a licence cannot restrict use by ethnicity of the owner of the licence or religous beliefs.

Bob.
farss wrote on 5/26/2010, 4:41 PM
"Then there is the whole issue of having an MPEG2 encoder built into Vegas but it has strict licensing limitations on the commercial use of the resulting encoded video. (Licensing limitations of which very few Vegas users are aware because they never read that part of the user's manual.) "

Add the mp3 encoder to that as well although it would seem Fraunhoffer have given up on persuing their rights.
However this is a licencing issue, not a copyright issue. The IP in question is covered under patents not copyright.
Copying a copyrighted work is a crime in this country, you could do time if you're caught. Breach of licence will generally just leave you with an account to settle.

Bob.
musicvid10 wrote on 5/26/2010, 4:47 PM
I was cutting down the size of my post while you were composing, so I acknowledge all the quotes and appreciate your responses.

I think your point was that the creator owns his content irrespective of his tools. That is fundamentally so, but at least in the cases of government and proprietary software for commerce and industry, the toolmaker may place restrictions on the usage of the content that supersede the content creator's rights. I'll be sure and ask the question when I have lunch with our IP attorney in June. (I doubt that creative software makers would enjoy much commercial success if they enforced the same kinds of restrictions on their user base!)

As for your last comment, the cautionary threshold for me is whether the content in question will either be seen or heard, either by the live audience, or in media recordings. This goes so far as marketing materials, press kits, and archive records. (Talent releases are equally important, but that's a topic for another discussion).
BudWzr wrote on 5/26/2010, 7:09 PM
So what's the bottom line to all the bloviations?

It's simple, nobody gives a rat's arse until they see you making money, then they try to extract some payola.

EXAMPLE:

"The Dick Van Dyke Show" is a dead horse, but if you come up with a sitcom named "The Dork And Dyke Show", unless it's a parody on a comedy show, you're gonna get whacked.
musicvid10 wrote on 5/26/2010, 7:47 PM
So what's the bottom line to all the bloviations?

Well . . .
1) Alvin sure made a grand splash on this forum. Haven't seen such great excitation since the bb days.
2) I checked his profile on tomshardware, since he bragged about it in another thread.
3) Since joining there on 02/16/2010, he has made 2659 posts. That's over 25 posts a day, seven days a week, for 14 weeks.
4) Sounds like someone who has a lot of time on his hands. A likely candidate for a new hobby; a time-consuming hobby, perhaps like video editing?

;?)