Copyright Discussion (Moved from Video Share Forum)

[Bluestone]

Chton, we pride ourselves around here on allowing differing opinions to be presented, and respecting those differing opinions and those who put them forward. So, thank you once again for your contribution to this discussion. I will readily admit that my opinion is not always correct. I wouldn't be so hypocritical as to say that I'm right and you're wrong. You may very well be right on this matter. I would also admit that there is the appearance of hypocrisy, if not actual hypocrisy, in our position; however, we intend to maintain our position until, and unless, it is successfully challenged or we are convinced that it has become untenable. It is this video share forum that would be closed down first, if challenged, not the paid review site. Until then, we take the position that this forum is an adjunct to our paid movie review site, which allows the posting of clips from movies for informal review and discussion by the membership, as opposed to by our site reviewers. Chton, I know that you consider such a position to be hypocritical. What does everyone else think? Should we close down this portion of the site, or do you think our position has merit?

Blue

[lis150]

This portion of the site is greatly appreciated and so is what you do Blue. I understand that your not out to make a million considering this is not a very mainstream fetish. In fact its the opposite. We live in a society where money is just as important as water or food (as sad as that sounds) and I don't expect you to take a loss for the clips you produce, it makes no sense. Your models expect compensation, the camera equipment costs money, the webspace isn't cheap. So why shouldn't you go bankrupt. I understand what Chton is expressing, but I feel his opinion holds more relevance to mainstream media and not a small fetish community like this one. However, thats just my opinion.
As far as this "message board" is concerned, how can it be a copyright violation if only small portions of the films are being used without the goal to make a profit from it? I'm not an expert in this field so I am only voicing an opinion. I just think that the people targeting copyright violations and piracy are more concerned with the torrent sights where entire seasons of shows and full length films can be downloaded, reproduced and distributed.
In conclusion, lets keep this message board alive! Thanks guys!!

[Bluestone]

I have moved the discussion above from the Video Share Forum so that everyone can participate...

Blue

[Max5s]

I'm inclined to agree with Chton on the piracy issue. I'm not sure what the actual laws state, but I have a bit of trouble with the argument that by only posting a "piece" of a Hollywood movie, we avoid potential legal issues. If you look at the recording industry, a single song on an album is a piece of the album, but pirating those pieces is exactly what brought down websites like napster. I fail to see the difference in snagging the death scenes in Satan's Blade and grabing the only songs on a Red Hot Chilie Peppers album I happen to like. I got the pieces I want for free and would no longer have any interest in purchasing the video or the album.

And I see it as a matter of MONEY. Making it as in the case of Columbia records or NOT LOSING in the case of Bluestone.

[Bluestone]

Here is the "Fair Use Policy" that is posted on FF's front page. I believe it speaks for itself and sets out our legal protection on this matter:

"Femme Fatalities"
and the Fair Use Policy

All of the images, including video images, presented within this website are the property of the copyright holders of the source motion pictures and other media sources. Femme Fatalities does not represent ownership of any of these images. These images were scanned and are hosted in the United States of America. Femme Fatalities represents that these images were legally obtained and are legally presented in this format for film criticism purposes. Title 17 USC Sec. 107 allows such use since these images represent far less than 1% of the frames of the source motion pictures, or other media, and the use of these images cannot conceivably lessen the value of the motion pictures and other media themselves.

Title 17 USC Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

* (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
* (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
* (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
* (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Blue

[The Stalker]

I've always been under the impression that it's not a violation of copyright laws to post a short scene from a movie or tv show, regardless of where it originates from.

I could be wrong, but that's always been my understanding of copyright laws....but i'll have to defer to the experts.

[Triple Nickle]

As for music, I know there was a very famous case back in the 50's a song called "The Flying Saucer Record" Parts 1 & 2
The song had about twenty segments of other copyrighted songs on them, a lot of the owners of the songs tried to sue copyright infringment.
They lost the sute to do something about the segments being very short part of the whole song that was in question or something like that, can anyone else elebarate on this.
Here are some links to the song.

http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.co ... oxx8WZZD0Q

http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs ... ucer.shtml

http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/prute ... saucer.htm

[The Stalker]

I forgot to mention something very important in my earlier post. While it may not violate any copyright laws to show short scenes from movies and tv shows, if you charge people money to view those scenes, then that very well could be a problem....that could be considered making a profit from someone else's work without their permission.

Once again, i'm no expert on copyright laws, but i thought i'd add this to the debate.

[JoJo]

Hey didn't that thing (The Flying Sauser) Triple Nickle mentioned using other folks snips of songs and made money and did not have to pay any royalties or got into trouble?
So that seems to say if the snips are small enough it seems hard to argue copyright.

[Geno]

Max5s--- You always sticking your middle finger in the wind to see which way it's blowing, before you make a decision to post. You know good and well that copyright laws don't, nor are they intended to give it's holder's, a 100 percent "hands off everybody" protection. You can post a small portion of a movie, without the copyright holder permission, on this site and give a review, and there would be no problem. Of course we live in a litigatous society and anyone can bring a civil suit against you, Bluestone, or G-Man, for any little reason. I am only talking bout actual true violations of law, which do not apply here. Look at this Max.......

I have loads of that stuff unfortunatly it cannot be posted ..........[Why Not?]...its all copywrite protected also its a big NO NO in the necro circles

This is where you should agree with Chton, Max5. You know for the record, snuffit is refering to "custom video clips". Snuffit made the most hypocritical statement on this thread when he said that. In other words, he saying that whether you are talking about Silk Videos, or JohnM graphic ranchy nasuating videos, we don't show those clips on Fantasy death boards with the copyholder's permission, BUT it's OK to show a section of a mainstream movie on this board, and charge for it. I think Chton would have a lot more repect for Snuffit if he had said....All copyright violations period, are a violation in, or out of these, fetish board sections.

What I usually do, whether or not custom video company object. I will post still from the clips and give reviews on DeadSkirts. Legally I have that right.

Take Note Bluestone, you transfered this topic to the main board, and you did not just hook up a link to this post, and tell everyone to join in on the other section of this forum. You actually put the entire post on this main board. Do you know why you did that? I will tell you. You did because you knew it had the higher traffic and you would never get any input from some members on this subject, unless you brought it to the main board.

Putting up a link just doesn't do it. Only members have the right to post anyway. Just because they know a debate is taking place on more lonely section of this forum, does not mean they are going to join in on a debate.

That's why I make a conscious effort to create a post which is "on topic", so I can get the maximum input into my posted subject. In case my post is transfered to my dismay and strong protest, I should not be obligated to continue. If I made a honest effort to post ON TOPIC and someone transfers my on topic post, to another board, I know I am the only person in the world with power to wash my hands clean of that post, not to follow it up, or continue posting, once is is put on another section of forum.

Geno

[Max5s]

Max5s--- You always sticking your middle finger in the wind to see which way it's blowing, before you make a decision to post.

I occasionally stick my middle finger in the air, but not for the purpose of testing the wind.

I'm not all that familiar with the laws on copyrights, but I think chton is probably right at least on ethical grounds, especially if there are any charges (like memberships) associated with the opportunity to view the clips.

[chton]

A quick question about the review theory: if you stopped providing reviews but still provided clips do you think the impact on your bottom line would be worse than if you continued to provide reviews without the clips? I think we all know what people are paying for. Not to devalue your reviews but honestly, would you get as many subscriptions without the clips? If the answer is no then you have to wonder if your are making "fair use" of the clips.

[Geno]

Naw.. I can't give you that much Chton. A site has got to have it's reviews, because itf you have 2 equal sites (A and B), both with the same videos, both with the same clips....Only Site "A" does not give you a video review with the clip....and site "B" does. Site B will get more subscriptions because people who see a woman getting killed want to know more about it, more about her character, is she a bad girl, or a good girl, Is the rest of the movie a poor production or not, and other factors.

I will give you this much, however. Snuffit did put his foot in his month with he said copyright violations are not tolerated among fantasy death sites, but other copyright violations of mainstream movies, are allowed. That's selective enforment of the law, alright. You got him in corner on that one.

[chton]

Naw.. I can't give you that much Chton. A site has got to have it's reviews, because itf you have 2 equal sites (A and B), both with the same videos, both with the same clips....Only Site "A" does not give you a video review with the clip....and site "B" does. Site B will get more subscriptions because people who see a woman getting killed want to know more about it, more about her character, is she a bad girl, or a good girl, Is the rest of the movie a poor production or not, and other factors.

That's not what I'm trying to compare, to use an example similar to yours it would ned to be site A gives you the review and site B gives you the review and the clip. I humbly submit that site B would have more subscribers. My original example posits site A has reviews only and site B has clips only, which of these do you think would have more subscriptions?
Again not to devalue the reviews, but do you think people would pay the same for reviews only?

[Bluestone]

If you could purchase an art book with text and beautiful photos of the artwork, or one with just the text, which would you choose? Yes, it's a no-brainer. People will always pay more to get more content. I don't think that proves what you think it proves though What you have to determine is, would someone buy this picture book without the text, if they could get a book that includes that text? Again, they are getting more content. I submit that they would always buy the book that has both text and pictures!

Blue