Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
I don't see how embedding a YouTube on one's blog could be construed as commercial use, under typical circumstances, wige. On a website, I could more easily imagine it, though. I fully agree with you about the background music. What about the clips from various TV programs and movies, though? Aren't they just as proprietary (and in many cases, the cost of production for the artist, much higher)?
|
To me the difference is in the type of blog. From the original post, I get the feeling that the post that accompanies the embedded video will be something like "watch the video and see how beautiful Jamaica is, then buy your plane tickets from
my web site" (commercial) as opposed to a blog that embeds the same clip and accompanies it with a message like "I just got back from Jamaica, check out the video and see how amazing the beaches were!" (personal) - intent is very much a consideration in determining fair use, and even if the owner of the protected work will give permission for the work to be used. For instance, some media is produced with a license that allows it to be used without royalties, as long as there is no commercial connection. In this case, it could be the difference between getting a Cease and Desist ("You are using my song on your blog. Please stop") and getting sued ("You are using my song to advertise trips to Jamaica. You now owe me...")
As far as the different handling between music and video, I think there are a few reasons for the discrepancy. The same laws apply in both cases, but RIAA is almost militant in their attempts to suppress the unauthorized circulation of the music their artists create, whereas the television studios have seen that the lower quality shared content can actually lead to increased DVD sales or increased viewership of current programming. Videos do still get pulled, but it seems to take longer. In fact, I believe some studios even upload episodes of shows onto YouTube themselves.