On Wednesday Esteban released WP-License Plugin Reloaded to the WordPress community, and already others have discovered it in the WordPress plug-in directory and have begun to use it. Here’s Esteban’s announcement on his blog:

The post Socialbrite developer releases CC plug-in appeared first on Socialbrite.

“CC licenses enable anyone to specify to the public how they want their work to be used. If you’re a photographer, you might be happy to let someone use your photos so long as they give you credit. CC licenses make it easier to be clear about how you want your content used.

The Creative Commons License application allows users to choose one of the six Creative Commons licenses to apply to the content they upload to Facebook.”

Why use Creative Commons in Facebook?

You may be licensing your blog posts or website content under a CC license, like I do (you can see the license information in the right hand column).  Maybe you use Flickr and share your photos there under a CC license as well.  Why, because you want others to know they can share or post your cool photos so long as they give attribution (or any other stipulated criteria you’ve set via the licensing options).

Facebook has a great deal of content you are creating, uploading, posting, and sharing.  Why not license that as well so that your Flickr photos and your Facebook photos are both included. So that your blog posts and your status messages are both licensed.

How do you get started?

It’s pretty easy! Just visit the Creative Commons Facebook application page here (be sure you are logged into Facebook first) to add the application and select your license. Something to keep in mind: “Because of the way Facebook applications work, users cannot select a license per-photo or video, and must choose a CC license for all items of a particular type of media.”

If you want to suggest ideas or features for the Facebook application, you can visit the Creative Commons wiki.

What do you think?

Will you use the application? Do you use Creative Commons on other online spaces as an individual or as an organization, like a blog or website?  How did you select which license you wanted to use?

This post originally appeared at Amy Sample Ward’s Version of NPTech.

The post License your photos and more on Facebook appeared first on Socialbrite.

Guest post by Peter Jaszi
Professor of Law, Washington College of Law, American University

The answers to some of filmmakers’ most common clearance questions don’t really lie in the realm of “fair use” at all, but fall under the heading of “free use.” Some examples:

• Buildings that can be seen from public areas can be filmed for any purpose. Although there has been copyright in architectural works in the United States since 1990, the U.S. Copyright Act includes an exemption for filming. It doesn’t matter whether the building is the subject of the film or an incidental background.
• Federal government works enjoy no copyright protection whatsoever, whether they are the words of federal government employees or footage taken by camerapeople in civilian or military service. The purpose for which you use the material – as well as the source from which you obtain it – are irrelevant from a copyright perspective.
• Public domain works (such as 19th century paintings or medieval manuscripts) in museums or private collections are free for use as well, if you have access to a reproduction. Many institutions claim copyright in their own photographs of old objects in their collections. But if you have a different source, you’re free to proceed, without a license from the collection.
• For most documentary projects, filmmakers don’t have to be concerned about the so-called “right of publicity” that exists under some state laws. The cases (and sometimes the statutes themselves) make it clear that the right bars only the commercial exploitation of celebrities’ “persona,” and First Amendment-protected expressive uses are specifically exempted.
• In answer to a common (but not intellectual property-related) question, documentarians don’t need photo releases from individuals who are filmed in parks, streets or other public places where they have no expectation of privacy. If you single out an individual for special attention, you may a need a release.

Related

• Filmmakers’ best practices in fair use

• The rules around capturing public performances

• Guide to shooting photos in public

• Your rights as a photographer

The post What is off-limits to a documentary filmmaker? appeared first on Socialbrite.

Fair use — the tradition that individuals may make use of copyrighted works for a range of purposes that are legal — is enshrined in Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act. Other countries have their own versions of fair use.

Many people mistakenly believe fair use gives them broad, indiscriminate leeway to appropriate copyright holders’ works. Fair use is somewhat limited in scope. But Lawrence Lessig, the author and Harvard law professor, makes the important point that free use covers much more terrain than fair use. So does Peter Jaszi, another noted academic. Fair use is limited to carveouts, or exceptions granted to certain classes of individuals, in the Copyright Act. Free use covers longtime traditions like taping television shows on your VCR.

Fenwick-West, a prestigious intellectual property law firm in San Francisco, wrote the following fair use guidelines for Ourmedia.org members. The same guidelines apply to anyone who uploads works to any public website.

Fair use guidelines

The best way you can avoid infringement is by obtaining proper permission from the copyright or trademark owner before using it in your work, even if you only use a small part of his or her material. Simply crediting a copyright or trademark owner whenever you use his or her material is not a substitute for obtaining permission. If you do not obtain permission and you are not sure if your work falls within the fair use guidelines outlined below, consider consulting an attorney or avoid using the material altogether.

Cyberspace law differs by jurisdiction and is developing rapidly. A reasonable fair use policy seeks to reflect U.S. and international intellectual property laws, but copyright is a rapidly evolving arena.

Copyrights

A copyright protects original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression, such as published and unpublished written, visual, and audio works. Examples of copyrighted material may include music, films, television programs, and photographs. Copyright laws usually do not protect, among other things, ideas, procedures, discoveries, and works in the public domain (i.e., standard calendars).

Be mindful, however, that many things commonly thought to be in the public domain are not, so you need to be very careful to do a little research before assuming that something is in the public domain. For example, just because someone posts something online does not mean that he or she is allowing anyone to use it for any purpose. A copyrighted work does not need to say that it is copyrighted, or have the copyright symbol © on it. The copyright owner has the right to copy or permit others to copy his or her material.

Copyright infringement occurs whenever someone uses rights reserved just for the copyright owner without proper permission from the owner. You could be guilty of infringement if you improperly use another’s copyrighted material, even if that use is unintentional.

If you live outside the United States, be aware of the copyright laws governing your jurisdiction. Many countries have ratified international agreements and are members of organizations that seek to protect copyright owners.

Copyright ‘fair use’

The “fair use” of another’s copyright material means that, depending on your particular situation, you can sometimes use a part of another’s copyrighted material in your own work without permission from the owner. You may fairly use another’s copyrighted material provided that your work essentially transforms the copyrighted material into something original and creative, such as a parody, satire, or political statement.

It is not automatically fair to use another’s copyrighted material for a noncommercial, educational, or private purpose, or to exercise your First Amendment rights. It is usually fair use to use just enough of another’s copyrighted material that is necessary to communicate your ideas.

Examples of actions that may infringe others’ copyrights include the following: attempting to make money from another’s copyrighted material; completely duplicating another’s copyrighted material; creating a new work comprised mostly of another’s copyrighted material; and paraphrasing another’s copyrighted material without permission and attribution.

Trademarks

A trademark is a distinctive sign that identifies particular goods or services as those made or supplied by a person or entity. The owner of a trademark possesses the license to use the mark. Examples of trademarks include the bulls-eye symbol for Target, and word marks like Xerox and Macintosh.

Trademark infringement occurs whenever someone uses rights reserved just for the trademark owner without the owner’s permission. You could be guilty of infringement if you improperly use another’s trademark, even if that use is unintentional.

If you live outside the United States, be aware of the trademark laws governing your jurisdiction. Many countries have ratified international agreements that seek to protect trademark owners.

Trademark ‘fair use’

The “fair use” of another’s trademark means that, depending on your particular situation, you can sometimes use another’s trademark in your own work without permission from the trademark owner. You may fairly use another’s trademark inconspicuously in your own work to identify that product or service, while avoiding the risk of misattributing your work to the trademark owner. Fair use often permits “fair comment” of another’s trademark, such as comparing your product to another’s in an advertisement. A work that incorporates another’s trademark in a genuine parody or satire is often fair use, so long as it is not a disguised attempt to compete with another’s products or services.

Examples of actions that may be infringement include altering another’s trademark or the product or service associated with it, or directly or indirectly making false claims about the trademark or product or service with that it is associated.

Copyright Act

Here is the wording of the U.S. Copyright Act with respect to fair use:

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.

Additional resources

• U.S. Copyright Office on fair use: Can I use someone else’s work? Can someone else use mine? (FAQ)

• Socialbrite’s law resources

• Center for Social Media’s Fair Use Project

• Stanford University: Copyright and fair use

• Documentary filmmakers’ statement of best practices in fair use

• Podcasting legal guide

• Wikipedia on fair use

• Wikipedia on copyright

• University of Cincinnati Libraries: Using Images FAQs

• Nolo law center: When Copying Is Okay: The “Fair Use” Rule

• Stanford University Library: Summaries of Fair Use Cases

• Creative Commons on remixing

Please comment on, correct or expand upon this article.

The post Fair use in the digital age appeared first on Socialbrite.

Drop down to see:
YouTube   Blip.tv   Ourmedia   Internet Archive   Yahoo Video   Revver   Google Video   Metacafe   DoGooder TV

Many organizations and users don’t give a second thought to the rights you forfeit over the use of your content when you post a video to a site like YouTube. Here’s a site-by-site breakdown of what you get — and give up — by consenting to the Terms of Service at some of the major video sites.

YouTube

YouTube’s TOS.

• Ownership/licensing: You own your work but grant YouTube wide rights to reuse it.
• Creative Commons licenses?: Not yet permitted. (Creative Commons explained.)
• Payment to producers?: No.
• Can you remove your work?: Yes.
• Can they sell or license your video?: Yes.
• Can they put ads on or around your video?: Yes.
• Share your data with third parties?: No, though users may need to opt out.
• Unsolicited emails?: No, though users may need to opt out.
• Bottom line: YouTube is the 800-lb. gorilla of video hosting sites. Most people are there to gain visibility rather than income for their works; it remains to be seen how they’ll react if their work is sold to a third party without compensation to them.

Blip.tv

Blip’s TOS.

• Ownership/licensing: You own your work but grant Blip rights to display and distribute it. “We claim distribution rights only for the purpose of delivering the service while giving the user as much control as possible,” CEO Mike Hudack says. For example, Blip makes the video available as an RSS feed, creates thumbnails and transcodes the video to Flash.
• CC licenses?: Yes.
• Payment to producers?: Blip gives video producers a 50-50 revenue split from ads (when users earn at least $25 per quarter).
• Can you remove your work?: Yes.
• Can they sell or license your video?: “Our interpretation of our TOS is that it allows us to syndicate the content, cross-post it and put it into RSS feeds, but that it doesn’t allow us to sell the content to third parties without the permission of the creator,” Hudack says.
• Can they put ads on or around your video?: Yes, on the site, but the creator can opt out of that and would have to opt in to allow ads to be inserted into the video.
• Share your data with third parties?: The site does not share user data with third parties except if it’s necessary to provide a service to the Blip user, in which case the site holds the third party to the same standards as Blip itself.
• Unsolicited emails?: The site never sends e-mail to users except in direct relation to an action they’ve taken, and they always have the opportunity for users to opt out of those e-mails.
• Bottom line: Blip is perhaps the best solution for video producers who want free, reliable hosting for their works in a community setting. See their mission and principles statement.

Ourmedia

Ourmedia’s TOS.

• Ownership/licensing: You own your work and must decide on a license when you upload it.
• Creative Commons licenses?: Yes. Ourmedia’s default license is a Creative Commons license, though members may choose from a wide palette of options.
• Payment to producers?: No.
• Can you remove your work?: Yes.
• Can they sell or license your video?: Ourmedia does not do this. The site is restricted by the license chosen by the member.
• Can they put ads on or around your video?: Yes. The site uses accompanying text ads.
• Share your data with third parties?: No.
• Unsolicited emails?: No.
• Bottom line: With the Internet Archive serving as its media repository, Ourmedia remains a creator-friendly options for grassroots media producers. (But decide for yourself.)

Internet Archive

Archive’s TOS.

• Ownership/licensing: You own your work and grant the Archive the right to display and preserve it.
• CC licenses?: Encouraged.
• Payment to producers?: No.
• Can you remove your work?: Yes.
• Can they sell or license your video?: The Archive does not do this.
• Can they put ads on or around your video?: The Archive does not do this.
• Share your data with third parties?: “The Collections are made available to researchers and may be … provided to third parties [such as libraries], for any use, without limitation.”
• Unsolicited emails?: Users consent to being contacted but the Archive has sent out no such surveys in the past two years.
• Bottom line: An artist-friendly repository that is more about long-term preservation than viewer-friendly video hosting.

Yahoo! Video

Yahoo! Video’s TOS and Additional Terms of Service.

• Ownership/licensing: You own your video but license to Yahoo! the right to use it in a wide variety of ways.
• CC licenses?: No. CC licenses are not supported and appear to be inoperable on the commercial site.
• Payment to producers?: None.
• Can you remove your work?: Yes. Yahoo has 14 days to take it down.
• Can they sell or license your video?: Yes.
• Can they put ads on or around your video?: Yes.
• Share your data with third parties?: Yes.
• Unsolicited emails?: Yahoo requires you to allow unsolicited emails, though in practice doesn’t spam you.
• Bottom line: With millions of viewers and a large community of producers, Yahoo! Video is a good option for those looking for greater visibility, but don’t be surprised if you see your video on partner sites as well.

Revver

Revver’s TOS (Member Agreement).

• Ownership/licensing: You own your own video and Revver distributes it with an ad attached.
• CC licenses?: Yes.
• Payment to producers?: Yes. Users earn 50 percent of revenue generated by ad on their video’s page.
• Can you remove your work?: Yes.
• Can they sell or license your video?: No, though the site could use it for promotional purposes.
• Can they put ads on or around your video?: Revver attaches an ad to the end of your video.
• Share your data with third parties?: No.
• Unsolicited emails?: Yes, but you can opt out of emails.
• Bottom line: Revver is one of the most popular choices for video producers who want to go beyond the hobby stage and earn money for their work.

Google Video

Google Video’s TOS.

• Ownership/licensing: You own your video but license to Google the right to use it in a wide variety of ways.
• CC licenses?: No. CC licenses are not supported and appear to be inoperable on the commercial site.
• Payment to producers?: Yes; Google takes 30 percent of revenues
• Can you remove your work?: Yes.
• Can they sell or license your video?: Yes.
• Can they put ads on or around your video?: Yes.
• Share your data with third parties?: Yes, under certain circumstances or with user consent.
• Unsolicited emails?: No.
• Bottom line: Google Video and sister site YouTube are good ways to get your video out there, assuming you don’t expect much in return.

Metacafe

Metacafe’s TOS.

• Ownership/licensing: You grant the site a non-exclusive license to use your work in a wide variety of ways.
• CC licenses?: The site’s TOS makes no mention of CC licenses. But spokesman Mark Day told TechSoup: “We recognize Creative Commons licenses. As far as whether we will post a video with a Creative Commons license, the licenses can all be a little different and sometimes complex. We review each application to Producer Rewards and determine what makes sense in each case.”
• Payment to producers?: Yes. Producer Rewards program pays poster $5 per every 1,000 video views — one of the site’s major attractions.
• Can you remove your work?: Yes, unless content has been sub-licensed through Producer Rewards program.
• Can they sell or license your video?: Only if user participates in Producer Rewards program.
• Can they put ads on or around your video?: The site uses advertising only sparingly.
• Share your data with third parties?: Not without user permission.
• Unsolicited emails?: Not in practice.
• Bottom line: Metacafe is attractive to video producers who want to earn income for popular, viral videos.

DoGooder TV

DoGooder TV’s TOS: Go to Dogooder.tv and click on Terms of Use.

• Ownership/licensing: Site is open only to nonprofits, which own their own work.
• CC licenses?: No. The site requires a non-exclusive license and the content owner can license the content elsewhere under a CC license.
• Payment to producers?: Allows nonprofits to add a link to their donation page to video.
• Can you remove your work?: Yes.
• Can they sell or license your video?: Yes, for the purpose of “getting the nonprofit’s message out to new people,” says a spokesman.
• Can they put ads on or around your video?: Unclear.
• Share your data with third parties?: Unclear.
• Unsolicited emails?: Unclear.
• Bottom line: A good, free hosting solution for nonprofit organizations.

Note: Since this article was published, Magnify.net is also worth your consideration as a producer-friendly hosting site.

Related

• Understanding Video-Sharing Sites’ Terms of Service
• TOS comparison chart

Brian Satterfield of Techsoup contributed to this article. Disclosure: J.D. Lasica was the co-founder of Ourmedia.

Updated Aug. 14, 2009. Please comment on, correct or expand upon this article.

Related

• Legal terms of video hosting services compared (advancing usability)

The post Comparing Terms of Service at video sites appeared first on Socialbrite.