Since when is cleavage offensive? Oh, and copyrights....

[HEMI6point1]

I'm back home now, so I can add more. The models and the photographers make their living by selling those photos that you're happy to give away free. Youtube as host runs the risk of being sued over their existence on their servers, so they're protecting themselves through their policies. They don't want a photographer to tie up their time with a nuisance suit claiming that the video being there cost them X amount of cash in lost sales. Giving the photographers credit does squat for them - that doesn't pay the rent.

What's more damaging to the original photographers is if someone puts an entire set of pictures in a zip file and hosts it on rapidshare, or hosts the pictures on a website. Well, I don't think putting some in a low-quality slideshow on a video sharing site is as damaging. Who knows, maybe someone sees it and likes the content enough where he buys a membership to the original site in question.

Oh and not that it matters but I actually got permission from this particular model to do this slideshow. Really!

[Rapscallion]

More damaging? That would mean yours is less damaging, which is still damaging.

Models often don't own the actual copyright of the pictures. They were paid to stand or lay there and look good - the copyright belongs to the people who took or commissioned the photos.

So, what was your actual complaint again?

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

More damaging? That would mean yours is less damaging, which is still damaging.
...
Rapscallion

Wait. You're saying that stealing poor quality images is similar to stealing the original high quality images?

[Rapscallion]

I didn't say 'stealing'. Stealing implies that the person stealing benefits from the act. I dealt with damage, which is to the income of those who make their living from those works involved.

The law is the law. Is it morally right to put up a montage of a lady in homage to her ginormous breasts despite not owning the copyright? I could care, quite frankly, but I don't. Is it against the letter of the law? Yes, and that's the issue here as far as I'm concerned - Youtube is protecting itself against legal problems caused by one of its users uploading copyrighted material. The copyright laws do not differentiate between high-resolution and a low resolution version of the same as far as I know (I don't claim to be an expert, but I do acknowledge that I don't know everything). Without the work of the people producing those high quality images, the low resolution images would not be available. The rights are still theirs, unless they specifically sold those rights to another person. Poor quality or high quality is irrelevant.

I'm still asking what actual complaint the OP has. Is it that society is too uptight over seeing cleavage? Well, not everyone has the same opinion, so his original arguments are fairly redundant. Was Youtube right to pull the videos? According to their terms of service, apparently. Has the OP shelled out for space on the Internet where he can post these and thus take the financial risk and potential legal repercussions himself? I suspect not.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

I agree with Raps for the most part.

What is in actuality copyright infringement is not the issue. What YouTube believes could constitute copyright infringement is the issue. It makes no sense to open themselves up to potentially massive legal problems in order to appease one individual user, and nor is it financially feasible for their legal team to examine every single video for possible intellectual property violations.

So chances are, if your video gets flagged for copyright violations, it will get pulled. But who cares? Use a different song and post another video. No one's out any money.

And as a decidedly non-bitter, non-jealous woman, let me assure you that while I'm not offended by provocative pictures of large-breasted women, I can understand why some people would rather not see them on YouTube. The internet is 90% porn, 10% everything else. There are probably more appropriate places to post those kinds of videos.

[MystyGlyttyr]

I had an original Youtube account where I posted some WWE videos that I had made. It got pulled and I figured "Oh, well, better not post that again." So instead I only posted home movies and the like. A few weeks later, my entire account was completely shut down, permanently. The reason given was "copyright infringement". I couldn't figure out how the hell videos taken of me and my pets in my own home could be copyright infringement.

Until a friend of mine pointed out that in a couple of the videos, I was wearing WWE T-shirts that had the company logo on them, and for a while, ANYTHING with the WWE logo got pulled for being infringement. So yeah, my account was banned for my daring to wear a shirt with a particular logo on it. Not even an offensive one, just one that the Youtube people apparently were trolling for. And it only appeared on the screen for maybe one second in each vid.

So, yeah, I'm of the mind that Youtube doesn't exactly pay complete attention to what they ban...

[HEMI6point1]

I had an original Youtube account where I posted some WWE videos that I had made. It got pulled and I figured "Oh, well, better not post that again." So instead I only posted home movies and the like. A few weeks later, my entire account was completely shut down, permanently. The reason given was "copyright infringement". I couldn't figure out how the hell videos taken of me and my pets in my own home could be copyright infringement.

Until a friend of mine pointed out that in a couple of the videos, I was wearing WWE T-shirts that had the company logo on them, and for a while, ANYTHING with the WWE logo got pulled for being infringement. So yeah, my account was banned for my daring to wear a shirt with a particular logo on it. Not even an offensive one, just one that the Youtube people apparently were trolling for. And it only appeared on the screen for maybe one second in each vid.

So, yeah, I'm of the mind that Youtube doesn't exactly pay complete attention to what they ban...

I don't know if you are aware of this, but a woman put a video of her baby dancing to a Prince song in the background and they pulled it for "copyright infringement." The woman sued and won!

The biggest problem with Youtube is that ever since they've been bought out by Google, they have gone too "corporate." Before then, Youtube was very lenient on a lot of things. Now they apparently try to please everyone and in the process go too far on a lot of things and then completely miss some others
that SHOULD be taken down.

[Rapscallion]

Have you reported those others?

So, since you're still active in the thread, what exactly is your complaint?

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

Actually, I had a quick google and found the story you refer to.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9807555-7.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...niversal_dmca/ for the verdict.

Looks like there is legal precedent for usage of the song in a fair use context. I'll cheeruflly give you some level of pass on that, but I need to think about that part.

Go on then, get the EFF involved. They seem to have done all the running in that case.

Rapscallion

[Shards]

What's more damaging to the original photographers is if someone puts an entire set of pictures in a zip file and hosts it on rapidshare, or hosts the pictures on a website. Well, I don't think putting some in a low-quality slideshow on a video sharing site is as damaging. Who knows, maybe someone sees it and likes the content enough where he buys a membership to the original site in question.

Oh and not that it matters but I actually got permission from this particular model to do this slideshow. Really!

Under your logic, stabbing someone in the hand shouldn't be illegal (assault) because it isn't as damaging as stabbing them in the jugular (homicide), and who knows, maybe they'll like the knife they were stabbed with and go out to stimulate the economy!

No. Wrong. Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

The law is still the law. If you decide to break it, you need to be prepared to deal with the consequences, and what you are talking about is a blatant infringement upon international copyright law.

That's forgiving the fact that you're bitching that a service you GET FOR FREE is only doing what is proper according to the TERMS OF SERVICE agreement that you agreed to when you created your account. If I were to give you bandwidth on my site without making you pay, I'd feel I had a right (and I do, according to the letter of the law) to give you one warning and then cut you loose entirely if you did the same thing that I didn't approve of, even if I hadn't told you prior to the first offense that I didn't approve, because the server space online is my property, and I did give you one warning after the initial offense. YouTube not only gave you warning BEFORE the first offense, but also allowed you to keep your account after a brief suspension, even though you violated their TOS repeatedly.

To quote Barney from How I Met Your Mother:"Hello? Leg Warehouse? My buddy needs something to stand on? Oh, You're sure? Nothing for him to stand on? Thanks anyway."

[HEMI6point1]

My complaint really wasn't with copyright, that's a secondary issue. Most of my videos aren't even copyright flagged (yet). The issue is that Youtube is too quick to pull videos that are flagged for nudity and sexual content, when mine in fact had none. Seems like people are afraid of a little skin.

BTW, this strikes me as odd: regarding copyrighted songs, I lost one of the disputes for a song I had in one of my videos and my video was pulled. I argued fair use, after all I wasn't using it to make a profit or sell it, I was just using it as a backdrop to the video. The song? "Dancin' On the Edge" by Lita Ford. Which is funny because that isn't even her biggest hit. That honor belongs to "Kiss Me Deadly," which I used in another video that wasn't even touched yet.

[Flyndaran]

...
BTW, this strikes me as odd: regarding copyrighted songs, I lost one of the disputes for a song I had in one of my videos and my video was pulled. I argued fair use, after all I wasn't using it to make a profit or sell it, I was just using it as a backdrop to the video. The song? "Dancin' On the Edge" by Lita Ford. Which is funny because that isn't even her biggest hit. That honor belongs to "Kiss Me Deadly," which I used in another video that wasn't even touched yet.

Only rappers get away with "sampling" others' works.

[Rapscallion]

I got around to watching the dancing baby video. That was a blatant 'fair use' case, what with the video being only twenty seconds or so long. I'd be willing to suggest that your video had a lot more sound on it - more likely the full song? That's not fair use if so.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

Only rappers get away with "sampling" others' works.

And even then, they spend ages trying to get in touch with the copyright owners to see if they can use it. I remember not long ago, a rapper was desperately trying to use a sample, but had a hell of a time trying to track down the owner, but wouldn't use it til they had the ok.

OTOH, some will use the sample without seeking permissions, and if it is objected to, they drop it.

and Hemi, there is still the main point that you're completely overlooking. It's a private website. The owners of that site have the right to have whatever, or not, that they choose. Granted, if they were that erratic they may eventually cop a discrimination suit, but otherwise - they can do what they like. Eg - Raps here might take a certain dislike to a particular poster. Absolutely nothing to stop him from just banning them, or just modding every post they do. And, in reality, he needs absolutely no reason whatsoever for doing so. Your options?? Suck it up!

[AdminAssistant]

My complaint really wasn't with copyright, that's a secondary issue. Most of my videos aren't even copyright flagged (yet). The issue is that Youtube is too quick to pull videos that are flagged for nudity and sexual content, when mine in fact had none. Seems like people are afraid of a little skin.

You don't consider photos of Maxim models with ginormous boobs set to songs like "Kiss Me Deadly" sexual? So, why exactly did you post them? I mean, that's the purpose of Maxim, to give guys something to wank off to (as my friend says, it's Playboy with strings). Clothed or not clothed...it's sexual.

Yes, I'm female. No, I'm not jealous, although I do find a lot of that stuff somewhat degrading. I have a perfectly fine, normal looking, 38C rack that's proportional to my body and I have never ever ever heard one word of complaint.

As far as copyright goes...you're treading very fine lines, because the magazine, photographer, AND the model all have different rights here. Not to mention the use of music. Do you have disclaimers on your account and posted one every video saying that your material is not original? There's a person on YouTube that makes NCIS fanvids with clips of the series set to music, and she's never had any trouble that I've seen. But she makes it abundantly clear that the work is not her own.