What We Should Do About Copyright

How this Forum Works - Questions and Answers

Moderator: ame

User avatar
Chimega
Registered user
Posts: 2656
Joined: July 12th, 2012, 7:49 am
Location: Iowa

Re: What We Should Do About Copyright

Post by Chimega » May 30th, 2013, 2:17 pm

DO NOT STEAL PHOTOS AND POST THEM ON FACEBOOK!
The woods are lovely, dark, and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

User avatar
baska
Registered user
Posts: 1897
Joined: August 28th, 2011, 7:04 pm
Location: Odenwald/Hessen, Germany

Post by baska » October 28th, 2013, 1:13 pm

Hello :hi:

I don't kow exactly where to put my question about the copyright of Loodusemees pildipank.
For example: when I want to post a picture of Arne Ader in a private forum, what do I have to consider?
That I write the link underneith the picture is taken for granted.
But perhaps that is not enough?
Or perhaps its forbidden generally, because this forum can be accessed by everybody.

I hope Jo can give me the right answer or perhaps somebody else.
greetings from Baska

We are living in a dangerous age. Human beings are controlling and dominating the nature, before they have learned to control themselves.
Albert Schweitzer

Jo UK
Site Admin
Posts: 17790
Joined: September 20th, 2008, 1:40 am
Location: Winchester, UK

Post by Jo UK » October 28th, 2013, 1:56 pm

Baska :hi:
If the photograph you are using is already available to the general public, then a link to the original source of the image is usually enough. Simply write "copyright Arne Ader" as well as a link to Loodusemees.
If it is a private photograph, then I think you need permission from Arne himself.

Does that help?

User avatar
baska
Registered user
Posts: 1897
Joined: August 28th, 2011, 7:04 pm
Location: Odenwald/Hessen, Germany

Post by baska » October 28th, 2013, 2:07 pm

That does help!
Thank you very much, Jo! :wave:
greetings from Baska

We are living in a dangerous age. Human beings are controlling and dominating the nature, before they have learned to control themselves.
Albert Schweitzer

User avatar
ame
Moderator
Posts: 46274
Joined: April 7th, 2009, 10:26 pm
Location: Turku, Finland
Contact:

Post by ame » January 5th, 2014, 4:41 pm

i have been looking for an answer about translating and summarizing news articles whether in newspapers (on paper) or on their webpages or webpages of some other news media.

i found this answer which i think both best expresses my question and also gives a concise answer to it:
"Does summarization of news articles constitute a copyright infringement?
As i understand, a summarization of a news article is just extracting the facts and re-arranging them in your language. Moreover, copying facts is not copyright infringement (as far as i know). Thanks!"

here's the source:
http://www.quora.com/Copyright-Law/Does ... fringement

thus we may make summaries of news articles and post them on LK forum regardless of the original language in which the news article is written.
correct me if i'm wrong! :dunno:

making a translation is another thing though: for making and publishing a translation of some work, even a newspaper article one should get a permission in writing beforehand.

i also looked up instructions about how a summary should be written.
(here i am using the word summary for translation of the Finnish word referaatti which my dictionary says is Referat in German and résumé in French. my dictionary gave words summary and extract content in English. the latter is quite infamiliar to me..)

the instructions said that in a summary of a news article only facts are written in one's own words and thus it is not even required to include a citation to the article which is being summarized,
BUT making citation(s) to source(s) where the facts may be checked naturally increases the reliability of the summary.

User avatar
ame
Moderator
Posts: 46274
Joined: April 7th, 2009, 10:26 pm
Location: Turku, Finland
Contact:

Post by ame » January 6th, 2014, 11:40 am

a brief discussion about the use of Google-maps (which started here: viewtopic.php?p=291342#p291342):
[color=#FF8000]On 05 Jan 2014, 20:33[/color] maertha wrote:... Screenshots of Google Maps: The “Permission Guidelines for Google Maps” provide information on this and other subjects. Please visit the website if you are interested. As far as I know it is no problem to share just the URL of a map – click on the chain symbol beside each Google Map for this purpose. OpenStreetMap is perhaps an alternative, but I´m not familiar with this service.
....
i've now studied the Google maps-site and found this question and and answer to it:
Q: " Can I put Google Maps on my site without using the Google Maps APIs?" (https://developers.google.com/maps/faq#mapswithoutapi)
A: "Yes. Google Maps now offers the ability to embed the map that you're viewing into your website or blog, without any programming or use of the Google Maps APIs. More information is available here."

And "here" tells more:
"You can embed a simple map, a set of driving directions, a local search, or My Maps created by other users in the classic Google Maps."
(https://support.google.com/maps/answer/ ... opic=10788)

if i understand the above correct it is ok to embed a G-map on one's one site so that clicking the link will redirect the viewer to a Google-map. i have made some maps so that i took a screenshot of a Google-map and then edited it (cropped the map and added some names of locations etc.). then i uploaded the resulting jpg-picture in a photohost and added it as an image in my post. this does not strain either Google's or LK's website with any more traffic than posting any other image. i think this is an allowed thing to do. :nod:

correct me if i'm wrong! :dunno:

User avatar
beans
Registered user
Posts: 304
Joined: June 2nd, 2010, 9:25 am
Location: California

Post by beans » June 5th, 2014, 5:57 am

I received a copyright notice from YouTube for a video, recorded from your live stream in 2012. The company below has claimed a copyright on the audio. However, the audio in the video comes from the cam only and not from any other source. I appealed the copyright notice.

"Kishore Kumar, Mohd. Rafi, Asha Bhosle, Lata Mangeshkar, Chorus,-Yaar Ki Khabar Mil Gayi", sound recording administered by: saregama

YouTube has rejected my appeal. Before I open the appeal again, I wanted to make sure that Louduskalendar had not sold the audio rights to the above company. Here’s the video in question:



Not sure what I can say in the second appeal that will convince YouTube the copyright notice is without merit. Any ideas?
Please help preserve wildlife and wildlife territories

User avatar
Felis silvestris
Site Admin
Posts: 19582
Joined: February 20th, 2011, 4:54 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Felis silvestris » June 5th, 2014, 8:05 am

I think for such questions you have to write a direct mail to webmaster! Such things we here in forum cannot know.
Looduskalender.Management@reisijutud.com
“One can measure the greatness and the moral progress of a nation by looking at how it treats its animals” (Mahatma Gandhi)
"You can judge a man's true character by the way he treats his fellow animals" (Paul McCartney)



The Aquila Pomarina Collection

User avatar
ame
Moderator
Posts: 46274
Joined: April 7th, 2009, 10:26 pm
Location: Turku, Finland
Contact:

Post by ame » June 5th, 2014, 10:32 am

hi beans! :hi:
did they say anything about what it was in the audio that violated someone's copyright? i heard there some cuckoo calls (besides the chirping of the chicks).

i guess the cuckoo calls could be the reason for the claims. you see: i had trouble with cuckoo-call-videos 2 years ago. i got a lot of copyright violation claims when i recorded and uploaded videos which i recorded at the old Linda's and Sulev's nest. then one cuckoo took the habit of singing by the nest on the back balcony branch in early mornings so that its singing could be heard loud and clear in the videos. one or two music companies or such complained about each and every one of the videos.

i always denied the claims and told them that the video was recorded from a webcamera stream which was broadcasted publicly and for free, and there was nothing else on the audio track except the sounds that came from the camera. i also gave the LK-address of the camera with every explanation. in the end, after a week or two they accepted every one of my videos one by one. by the end i finally got so fed up with these claims that i added in my denials the question: how on earth can someone claim owning a free wild bird's singing?!? then the claims stopped coming. (but by that time the cuckoo had also stopped singing there so i had no more videos to post. :mrgreen: )

btw: congratulatios on the video! it was unique to see the chick roll out of the eggshell. :loveshower:
thank you for the video! :thumbs:

User avatar
beans
Registered user
Posts: 304
Joined: June 2nd, 2010, 9:25 am
Location: California

Post by beans » June 5th, 2014, 8:01 pm

Thank you! That is very helpful. I will add that sentence about copyrighting a wild bird's singing because you have said it so well and it has worked for you!

I will pursue this and post what happens.
Please help preserve wildlife and wildlife territories

User avatar
beans
Registered user
Posts: 304
Joined: June 2nd, 2010, 9:25 am
Location: California

Post by beans » June 6th, 2014, 6:08 am

YouTube copyright June 5, 2014

I took my complaint about the invalid copyright claim on the audio in my video to the YouTube community forum. You can read the posts here:

https://productforums.google.com/forum/ ... 2MD8bP1DEJ

Here is the post, which provides an excellent explanation:
This appears to be a simple (although common) Content ID error. Content ID simply failed to properly identify the material. Most likely the claimant did not bother to read your dispute before rejecting it. The claim is for a “sound recording” which is a specific and restrictive kind of copyright. There is no sound recording used in your video, PERIOD. IMO (IANAL) the sound in your video would not qualify for copyright protection as a sound recording. The claimant is likely clueless. Most likely the claimant will not act on your appeal and after 30 days (way too long but this is what Google allows) the claim will be released. The only other option that the claimant has is to file a formal DMCA Notice inviting you to a lawsuit. He would be stupid to do this and no honest lawyer (if there are any honest lawyers) would take the case. If it did go before a judge he would likely dismiss the case.
This is just another example of how (expletive deleted) Google’s Content ID process is. Google has made some corrections over the last four years but in my opinion they have a lot more to correct.
P.S. If my memory serves scyllabub (https://www.youtube.com/user/scyllabub) has filed over 100 disputes for content similar to yours.
I hope this post will help any of you who have a similar problem with “audio copyright.”
Please help preserve wildlife and wildlife territories

User avatar
ame
Moderator
Posts: 46274
Joined: April 7th, 2009, 10:26 pm
Location: Turku, Finland
Contact:

Post by ame » June 6th, 2014, 2:46 pm

good work, beans!
it's so frustrating to have write explanations for this kind of copyright claims when some kind of robots produce them. my guess is that for example music companies have robots playing through all Y-tube videos, automatically searching elements which bear some resemblance to musical pieces. if they happen to find even some faintest clues of possible similarities they raise the claim. then real people have to write explanations for some other robot at Y-tube to read and release the claim or not.

one thing struck my eye though in your response there. i think that it's actually Kotkaklubi who owns the eagle and osprey cameras, not Looduskalender. i'm not sure about the other cameras, like the Alutaguse or seal island cameras... :puzzled:
but i think it is just the same for the Tube-officials. Looduskalender or Kotkaklubi, whatever. some foreigners overseas anyway. :mrgreen:

User avatar
beans
Registered user
Posts: 304
Joined: June 2nd, 2010, 9:25 am
Location: California

Post by beans » June 6th, 2014, 7:18 pm

Bottom line: the music company does not own the audio.

Now, if this happens to anyone who records these cams, these posts will help the forum member resolve the issue. At least we now have an explanation from a very experienced YouTube user. I doubt very much I will be sued. I wonder whether this so-called music company is located in India. If so, it would need a member of the BAR in the US to file the lawsuit. Still -- I should not be put through this wringer.
Please help preserve wildlife and wildlife territories

User avatar
alice44
Registered user
Posts: 16486
Joined: April 8th, 2009, 8:59 pm
Location: Oregon, Western USA

Post by alice44 » June 6th, 2014, 9:18 pm

I think they use Bots to search all uploads and just complain about everything the Bot flags -- it is cheap and easy for them, a lot more trouble for the individuals who have to fight them.

User avatar
NancyM
Site Admin
Posts: 5690
Joined: October 14th, 2008, 6:20 pm
Location: Boston, Massachusetts, USA

Post by NancyM » June 6th, 2014, 11:38 pm

beans,
what a ridiculous situation for you to have to deal with!
beans wrote:I wonder whether this so-called music company is located in India.
I googled some of the names in the notice that you posted. "Saregama" does appear to be in India, with offices in the US and UK and elsewhere. The several artists named in the "complaint" appear to be ones whose music they sell.

http://www.saregama.com/portal/pages/mu ... orate_home

I don't think you have anything to worry about, but please kjeep us posted on any new developments.

andrasiboti
Registered user
Posts: 74
Joined: November 28th, 2014, 12:59 pm

Post by andrasiboti » January 28th, 2019, 8:50 pm

Hey guys, I am kinda new with posting video highlights, and honestly, I am not sure, if I am asking at the right place, but I'd like to post highlight videos on Youtube, and would like to ask if, how and where can I get permission to post. :)
I own two channels, one of them not being set up for monetization, the other one however, is. :)
I'd like to contribute to sharing sightings and info, based off my observations. :D
Thanks!
I like to watch grass grow.

Jo UK
Site Admin
Posts: 17790
Joined: September 20th, 2008, 1:40 am
Location: Winchester, UK

Post by Jo UK » January 28th, 2019, 9:09 pm

Hi, andrasiboti.

To be certain of giving you the best accurate and current information, I have referred your post to our webmaster and to Kotkaklubi.
Be patient - the answer will come!

Jo UK
Site Admin
Posts: 17790
Joined: September 20th, 2008, 1:40 am
Location: Winchester, UK

Post by Jo UK » January 29th, 2019, 2:51 pm

:hi: andrasiboti.

Replies from Looduskalender and Kotkaklubi.

Looduskalender says "Yes, if it is properly marked that the originator of the stream is Looduskalender"
To clarify, each video must have an acknowledgment of LK property. It would be misleading if viewers thought that the stream was yours only.


From Kotkaklubi - Urmas.
In general, since beginning (2007) of our nest camera action or project we did not want to restrict anyhow using of our streams we produce in the web. No difference, if somebody is simply looking at the stream, saving it, streaming further or getting income of its further work with our stream. Our aim was and is to share the knowledge about nature for further understanding and caring about the environment we are living, in large scale.
Marking a source (citation or source link) seems to me good habit or obvious. No difference if it is Looduskalender, Eagle Club, EENet or Birdlife Estonia (Estonian Ornithological Society. Birdife Estonia is the new English language name) it depends where somebody found the stream. But would be disappointing if somebody serves our stream as their own.

This no-restrictions approach should act at least in two ways: free source makes more users and less restrictions makes less administration, time lost for additional works. Think, both are important for non-profit project.

Therefore, answer would be easy - you can freely use the Eagle Club nest camera streams, but our technical enhancement in future depends on donations. Last three-four years donations were main source to develop nest camera sets according to the technical development of hardware components and transmission systems in general. Also, in remote wild conditions there is quite often need to change the components and those are not for free. Same time we sometimes apply for certain funds for direct transport costs and work hours of service. However, using of funds is always connected to bureaucracy.

andrasiboti
Registered user
Posts: 74
Joined: November 28th, 2014, 12:59 pm

Post by andrasiboti » January 30th, 2019, 7:52 am

Jo UK wrote:
January 29th, 2019, 2:51 pm
:hi: andrasiboti.

Replies from Looduskalender and Kotkaklubi.

Looduskalender says "Yes, if it is properly marked that the originator of the stream is Looduskalender"
To clarify, each video must have an acknowledgment of LK property. It would be misleading if viewers thought that the stream was yours only.


From Kotkaklubi - Urmas.
In general, since beginning (2007) of our nest camera action or project we did not want to restrict anyhow using of our streams we produce in the web. No difference, if somebody is simply looking at the stream, saving it, streaming further or getting income of its further work with our stream. Our aim was and is to share the knowledge about nature for further understanding and caring about the environment we are living, in large scale.
Marking a source (citation or source link) seems to me good habit or obvious. No difference if it is Looduskalender, Eagle Club, EENet or Birdlife Estonia (Estonian Ornithological Society. Birdife Estonia is the new English language name) it depends where somebody found the stream. But would be disappointing if somebody serves our stream as their own.

This no-restrictions approach should act at least in two ways: free source makes more users and less restrictions makes less administration, time lost for additional works. Think, both are important for non-profit project.

Therefore, answer would be easy - you can freely use the Eagle Club nest camera streams, but our technical enhancement in future depends on donations. Last three-four years donations were main source to develop nest camera sets according to the technical development of hardware components and transmission systems in general. Also, in remote wild conditions there is quite often need to change the components and those are not for free. Same time we sometimes apply for certain funds for direct transport costs and work hours of service. However, using of funds is always connected to bureaucracy.
Dear Jo UK

Thank You, for Your detailed reply and explanation!

However, there is one thing, I don't understand. I really hope, that my question is not because I missed something, but I do think, that we gain quite a lot of our knowledge, by asking! :)

Basically, what I'd like to know, is, whether if highlight publishers makers, have to donate to LK or any site, which may be a "partner" website of the fore-mentioned! :)

Thank you, in advance, and again thank you for Your previous reply!

~Botond!
I like to watch grass grow.

Jo UK
Site Admin
Posts: 17790
Joined: September 20th, 2008, 1:40 am
Location: Winchester, UK

Post by Jo UK » January 30th, 2019, 11:14 am

Andrasiboti, you do not HAVE TO donate to anyone.
I used the bold, large font in the text just to let everyone know that donations are a very important part of LK and Kotkaklubi.
If you are able, and want to donate, please do. You are not asked to donate..

Good luck with your videos :thumbs:

Post Reply

Return to “Questions and Help”