Pond5 Free Stock Media and Public Domain Project

Pond5 is one of the older internet royalty free music service and stock media companies. You might not know that with all of the ads from the upstart competitors.  

Creators have a lot of choices in the on-line marketplace. Choices doesn't necessarily mean that the service is a good fit for what you want and need. 

I snagged a lifetime deal subscription to another music service that has a lot of music. 80% does not fit my tastes or creative needs. Other services are very expensive or free and everybody uses them.

https://www.pond5.com/free

In full disclosure, I was a prior customer of Pond5, liked the service but drifted away to other new and shinny toys. In a podcasting group, I saw a notice about free access to music, video and graphics.

So I'm checking out the site to get info on the deal.

Pond5 has the Monday free video of the week. And they have a section of their website for what they called Public Domain Project. 

This is different. There is section of the website that has a collection available for free use and attribution. 

The Licensing Agreement is not the easiest of documents to read. A law school background would help. I am not a law student so this is my understanding of the service:

• You can use it for commercial use, preferably with attribution.
• You can use it on your website/blog and for social media distribution (Instagram, FB, YouTube, SnapChat) but not for broadcast or fee for service streaming services (Disney, Hulu, or any of the Plus services)
• Don't do anything, immoral, illegal or ethically questionable with their stuff.
• If something goes wrong you agree that the service will be held harmless.

Pond5 has a lot of content, be careful and aware of what you are downloading. Make sure you are on the Free Stock Music page.

You do get to listen to the music before downloading it. It will have the embedded Pond5 notice until you go through the process of placing it in the cart and downloading it.

Before checking out - make sure you go to the See Item Detail page. This confirms to you that you have selected the free track, that it is designated for commercial use with attribution.

Add it to the cart, then continue the process to download a clear copy. So long as you do the attribution thing, you are good to go.

Pond5 Public Domain Project

Pond5 has an archive of works produced by the U.S. government. These are assets created for the benefit of U.S. citizens. They are 100%  in the public domain. There are also expired copyright videos, images and sound recordings. 

I would say tread carefully and double check before use. You'll have the least problems with the video and images. The music - well, yes, no and maybe. 

There is a lot of classical music. There is usually a code or maker in the recording to tell the music sniffing bots that this is ok to use. But some music sniffing bots do patter matching. So as soon as it pattern matches Beethoven's Fifth "Dah, dah da dah..." 

You may or may not get hit with a copyright flag or get demonetized. You want to have attribution and be prepared.

There are folks songs, these are interesting. Some of them have very short interviews with the performers. It seems like it was an audio ethnography project. Could have been from Alan Lomax.

There are railroad laying songs, songs from prisoners. songs in other languages or faith based songs. I'm losing an afternoon just listening to this living history.

The sound quality can be poor or clear. Depends on the quality of the original recording.

There is a song I really liked "Makes a Long Time Man Feel Bad" I'm linking to the Library of Congress version so you can hear it. 

Many years later, in 1962, Harry Belafonte recorded his version of the song. Much more stylized than the prison version. The Belafonte version is not in any way in the public domain. 

Will the music sniffing bots know the difference?

Summary

It is an option to use some of the public domain music recordings. But it is your responsibility to make sure there isn't going to be a problem or issue using the song in question. 

For educational and classroom use, yes a thousand times yes (with context about the subject matter and the historical world of the song.)

For historical podcasts and video essays, yes. 

To sell a bar of soap using "Sick Em Dogs On Me" as the soundtrack?  I don't think so.

You should know saying that "I downloaded it from Pond5" isn't going to be a sufficient defense. There could be another recording of the song you don't know about.

That person or company can put a copyright claim on your use. Even if it is truly in the public domain. 

You have the right to use it but you want to be able to promptly prove your right to the recording.

There is a lot of good stuff on Pond5. I can recommend both the paid service and the free, attribution version. 

For the audio public domain version, spend some time listening and really evaluate if you can properly and respectfully use the content.

Checking Out Uppbeat.io for Royalty Free Music

I think every other week someone asks a question about using commercial or pop music in a podcast of video. There are folk that declare that they have never been caught and don't worry about it. 

There are many more people that are educated and have good sense that talk about not to do this. Not for eight seconds. Not for three. Flat out don't do it.

Me, myself I tend to attach a source to convince those of the cement dome why they should not do use commercial or pop music. I lean toward the academic so I have no problem plunking people toward the Stanford Library Copywrite Principles Primer. 

I like the stuff at web host Blubrry that explains why not to do it.

Or I could point folks to a Nolo.com post about the topic. The answer is from a legal point of view but, nope, don't do it.

Which leads folks into either commissioning someone to their music or making use of the various Royalty Free Music websites. 

This is going to get confusing very quickly.  Hang in there.

Royalty Free music services have a collection of music or sound effects for sale. That music can be used multiple times (per the condition of the license) after purchase. Meaning you don't have to pay each and every time a music track is used in a podcast or video.

Generally there is a fee associated with Royalty Free Music. But not always money.

For example, Purple Planet Music does provide music for attribution. Meaning you can use their songs provided you make sure that their name and/or website is visible in the finished product. 

The payment is by attribution. If you don't want or can't do that they do have a fee for track purchase option.

Which brings us to Uppbeat.io.

Main Page of Uppbeat.io website.

This is a relatively new service that is offering free music for creators. And right on the screen it says no copyright claims.

I am a person of doubt. Before I download anything, I keep reading. 

My first stop is the Help Center:

YouTubers, streamers, podcasters, vloggers, and social media maestros, that means you! If you're a solo creator or part of an organisation with up to 10 employees, you can use our music on any open-distribution platform, so long as your content isn't paid advertising

Ok, so far, so long as you are not using the music to create an advertisement it seems like you are go to go. 

When you create an Uppbeat account, you agree to the music usage policy, which explains what you can and can't do with our music. When you download a track, instead of a complicated license, you simply receive a unique Uppbeat Credit that's linked to your account. For YouTubers, the Uppbeat Credit can be included in your video’s description to proactively clear copyright claims.

Hold on, there is a music usage policy. And if the video is being uploaded to YouTube you have to place a credit in the description to knock out the YouTube music chasing bots. 

Understandable, but I have a feeling there is more. I found the more. The actual service is a company called Music Vine Limited dba Uppbeat.io. 

I am not, nor have I ever been a lawyer. This is my understanding of what is being presented.

1. If you decide to use the service, you have to abide by the rules of the service.
2. They can stop, change or remove the use of the service at any time.
3. You can make limited alterations of a track, suck as using just a section of it, limited sound editing and minor enhancements.
4. You can't "sample" the track or make a derivative work.

Yadda, yadda more legalese until you get to section 9.5

9.5   If you are a consumer user, please note that we only provide the Platform and the Tracks for domestic and private use.  You agree not to use the Platform and the Tracks for any commercial or business purposes, and we have no liability to you for any loss of profit, loss of business, business interruption, or loss of business opportunity.

There it is - the gotcha.

Because what constitutes domestic use? This company is located in the UK. I'm not. 

And posting on YouTube or other social media sites is a very public and now days, internationally public activity. Are they saying that yes, if you lock down the video and only show it to friends and relations, that is ok?

But if I use it in a tutorial that may or may not be popular then does that becomes a violation if it does?

And if it does, will Music Vine come back to me and say "hey, you violated the terms of service, either take the video down or pay the commercial rate?"

I'm not feeling comfortable about this. 

You will have to evaluate if this is a safe royalty free site to use. You might like their stuff. 

Maybe just go ahead and pay the Uppbeat Premium monthly rate of $6.99 a month to get whitelisted on the 'Tube.

In my opinion, I don't think this "free" offer is free enough of potential trouble. 

Changes at Danosong and Fighting DCMA Notices

Coming up from vacation mode with a sad notice of change. One of the two places I visit for podsafe music is Danosongs. It appears that folks can't directly download music anymore for their videos. You still can listen to his music or pay a donation fee for a track.  More on that later.

There are a number of mouth breathers, attorneys and low knuckle dragging beasts that are using the DCMA act to make false claims of copyright infringement; even though Dan O'Conner granted Creative Commons use of his music with attribution.

Yes, there are people out in the wild that for kicks that will put in false DCMA requests.  Reasons:

• Kill or slow down the competition
• Don't like the content and use the DCMA to act as their own personal censor
• ContentID Match Software bots that don't understand about multiple users selecting the same Creative Commons song.
• Slime buckets attorneys and the software that loves them that ain't got nothing better to do than to file false DCMAs.

Dan was getting pelted with people coming back to him because YouTube yanked their videos.  There are only some many hours in the day and no one wants to spend 23 hours trying to convince YouTube that your clients obtained the music legally.

You can check out Dan's FAQ page on what to do if you have downloaded prior versions of his tunes or still want to use some of his new work. 

So, what do you do if you get a false DCMA notice?

Like I have been telling folks; make sure you have a copy of the page of the website where you got your music. You can make a PDF of it or place a paper copy in a binder. You want to be able to prove that you are not in violation.

You will want to go to the EFF page specifically on YouTube take down notices.

This might help but it may not. YouTube has gotten cozy with Universal music so if you song sound remotely like one of their tunes you might have issues. Even if it is clear Fair Use you might have issues.

Also check out FairUse.org article on YouTube Refuses to Honor DCMA Counter Notices

And you'll want to read VideoInk's article from two entertainment attorneys on how to fight a false DCMA notice. 

In the meantime; those of us that need affordable music can make use of YouTube own audio library of tunes. I'd lay a dollar to a donut that this will not stop false flagging but it will be interesting to test it out.

You can also hippy hop over to Vimeo's music service where you can buy an affordable track with no muss or fuss. Again, document your sources and do the best you can in the turbulent times.

 Other Posts of Interest

• Audio and Music Posts
• Copyright Posts
• Legal for Video and Videoblogging Posts
• Home Page for Mobile Users

Internet Archive Public Domain Music for Web Video Part 2

Finding musicians that intentionally place their work in the public domain is a challenge. Finding those musicians while avoiding scammers and other assorted folks is the problem.

One place to search is the Internet Archive. It is a slog but you can find musicians who have release their copyright to their music.

• Hussalonia's The Public Domain EP
• Michael Sandler's Public Squeegee
• DJ Black Guy - Chokehold
• Sol Rezza

I specifically look for music that was composed by the performer and has a clear declaration that the work has been released from U.S. copyright protection.

The quality will range from poor to "damn, that is kinda, good."

Be exceedingly careful about using the Internet Archive to locate public domain music. I have found works by Ella Fitzgerald that someone uploaded and tagged as being in the public domain. No. Sister Rosetta Tharpe?  Nope. Selections from Your Hit Parade? Oh, hell no.

You don't have to use the whole song. Maybe you need just a bit of the song for an introduction or closing theme. You decide.

You should print out the music page and place in your resource binder. You might have to prove where you got your music and the conditions of use.  This will not help you if you are silly enough to use a Betty Boop song in your video. The current copyright holder is Viacom.

I still would give attribution to the musician. It is the right thing to do.


Other Posts of Interest 

• Audio and Music
• Copyright/Fair Use 
• Home Page for Mobile Users

Public Domain Music for Web Video - Definitions

People see the word free in a sentence and get all twitchy.  Not everything is free and even if it is there is always a cost. Once again, I'm not a copyright lawyer but I am a nerd with a library tech certificate and I know how to use it.

Public Domain Music

Music that was under U.S. copyright protection that has expired is in the public domain. Users are free to use, re-mix, re-sell and re-interpret the work without further compensation to the creators or previous license owners.

For a multiplicity of reasons, commercial and popular sound recorded music will not enter the public domain until 2067. This includes very old works that should have entered the public domain but didn't due to "shenanigans" of a corporate legal nature; in my opinion.

Sheet music is different; you can find printed sheet music that is the public domain. If you or your computer can read music you can create your own version of the song. You cannot use another musician's sound recording of a public domain sheet music tune without permission. 

For example; There are hundreds of recordings of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. You can find pre-1922 sheet music for his work. However a sound recording is a unique expression of the music. That expression can be copyrighted.

Each recording of the symphony is under copyright protection unless the musician has intentionally placed it in the public domain.

Royalty Free Music

Royalty Free music is music that is still under copyright. You purchase a license to use the music under the conditions of the license. Some royalty free music can only be used in non-performance settings like elevators or a convention kiosk. Some license music can be used in web video but not in broadcast video.

There are royalty free licenses that only ask for attribution; meaning you agree to provided a link back to the original web site so that others can find the resource. There are always conditions with royalty free music It is your responsibility to clearly understand the terms of use.

Jewel Beat is a royalty free music service. They sell licenses to use their tunes. They also have a section of their web site where they have free attribution license music that you can download and use provided you provide a link back to the web site.

Music Revolution is another royalty free service that has an attribution free music page. When you click on the standard license link (and you should) you are given the terms of use.

Other Posts of Interest 

• Audio and Music
• Copyright/Fair Use 
• Home Page for Mobile Users

Public Domain Music for Web Video - Part 1

Video and music belong together but there are corporations and teams of lawyers that want to control what you can and can't do with music. To be clear, I do believe that music artists and performers should be compensated for their work. No question about that.

We who strive to stay to the good side of the law understand that we cannot use copyrighted music. In the United States we have a bunch of laws that prevent many songs and music history from entering the public domain. But first...

What Is Public Domain in the United States?

It is a work whose copyright has expired and it enters the public domain for anyone to use for any reason.

 Except for recorded music.

You see, there are a lot of vested interests that like to keep generating income off of recorded music. They have, IN MY OPINION, manipulated state and federal laws to keep said music from transitioning into the public domain.

In truth, no recorded music will enter the public domain until 2067 at the theoretical earliest.

There is sheet music that has entered the public domain. If you can play a music instrument you can record your own version of that song.

You can own the sheet music but you cannot buy a recording based from that sheet music and use it in your video without permission.

Here is an example:

• The sheet music might be in the public domain.
• The song (words) might belong to one or more authors or under ownership to a specific music company.
• The artist recording of the song might be copyrighted to another company
• The recording company might have been absorbed into a larger company who now owns that recording. 

Yes, it can get that complicated. Haven't even started to talk about federal copyright issues.

There Is A Way

So no, you will not be able to use Larry, Move Your Hand in your video.

You can:

Make your own music.
Find artists that have freely released their music to the Public Domain.
Find artists that allow usage via Creative Commons licenses.

Just Because You Found on The Internet Does Not Make It So...

There are web sites that state that they have Public Domain music. Be skeptical.

Other countries have other interpretations of copyright law. And for those thinking Americans who want to bypass U.S. copyright laws you need to double check if there is a cooperative copyright agreement between the U.S. and the country of the web site your are visiting.  The term you are looking for is called The Berne Convention.

The recording could be out of copyright in Rome but still subject to the U.S. copyright in America.

It goes without saying that I am not a lawyer or a copyright expert. It will be your responsibility to verify if the recording you use is in compliance with the laws of your location.

Other Posts of Interest 

• Audio and Music
• Copyright/Fair Use 
• Home Page for Mobile Users

Trip to Grand Central Market - Video Poem

Chip, chip, chip away at the stone. I had to let go of the prior idea. It just was not coming together. The rabbit got away this time.

I went out on a road trip and came up with this video:




It is a mixture of video and photos taken at the Grand Central Market of Los Angeles. There is a change between the prior version of the market and the new culinary influences that are starting to move in.

What the market has always been is a place about the accessibility of food. Inexpensive veggies co-exist with mouth watering and heart clogging food.

So this is a travel video poem about a food place.

I recorded on my Panasonic DMC -XS1. That is one accommodating camera. It did a great job in getting the recordings in a number of challenging lighting areas and types.

Editing took place in Serif MoviePlus X6.  Music from Frank Edward Nora who has graciously placed much of his New Midnight Cassette Collection in the Public Domain.

Home Page for Mobile Users

Magix Music Maker - The EULA License Game

Just want to follow up on the entry level/basic version of Magix Music Maker Sountrack Edition. To recap, I purchased the software in order to create my own intros, video tunes and avoid the threat of DCMA and assorted attorneys trolling for dollars.

The software was on sale and it seem to be designed for novice users who wanted to craft their own tunes with the provided music tracks. As is my habit, I do read the End Users License Agreement (EULA) before installing software. That is when I had a WTF moment.

Yes, I could use the provided music tracks in videos. Provided those videos are non-commercial or the music is not used in a commercial (business, money generating) atmosphere.

Hold On - It Says You Can Use For Social Media Use

Yes, you can use the music in videos that appear on YouTube or an audio service like Soundcloud; so long as it is non-commercial. I understand that. But it is up to Magix to determine the use and the context of usage. If they feel you have violated the terms then you will have to deal with them or the attorneys. In Germany.

Technically, Magix did provide links on the web site, teeny tiny links, that spell out the End Users License Agreement.  And there are good people in the Magix multimedia community that are answering this question over and over.

I wish that Magix would put a link or some kind of notice on the sales page to alert potential users about the non-commercial use of this software.

If You Have Not Activated the Software:

Suppose you read the EULA and you decide that you want no part of the software. Stop, uninstall it and contact them within 14 days of purchase to get a refund.

Installation Caution:

If you are about to install the software, be careful. There is an installation window for a product called SimpleCheck

and Ask.com Toolbar.

I can’t tell you want to do but if you ask me what I did I’d tell you I unchecked those suckers quick, fast and in a hurry.

If You Have Activated the Software:

If you activated (register) the software then you are out of luck on that refund action. All is not lost and you have options.

Magix will want you to register to become a member of the Magix community. This is the only way to get into the Knowledge Base and community assistance to find out what the heck is going on. Or you can keep reading this post.

After Installation Using the Software Only:

There are music loops which are snippets of notes or beats. There are full tracks called soundpools and these are the music elements that is provided with the software.

For a moment, think of the software as if it was a word processing program. You can enter your own music that you compose. You will have no problem so long as you do not use any musical elements provided by Magix.

You can import Creative Commons or Public Domain music (and you are 101% sure it is in the public domain) and use the software to remix and compose tunes. Again, if you don't use any of the provided music you will be fine.

Using the Provided Loops and Soundpools

Here is the thing. Music is rarely free when it comes in contact with a vendor or software provider. Magix has another site called Catooh; it is a music repository where people can buy music, sound effects and soundtracks. There is an artist community that sell their music creations.

Catooh/Magix provides a variety of music licenses depending on the users need. For entry level users that can abide by the non-commercial license you do not have to pay extra.

But if you have a commercial need for music then you can purchase a single track or an all inclusive license. So let's say that you buy an Audio Pro track for 79 cents. You would be good for 3 million web impressions per month or 1 million public presentations. Which is a heck of a lot of conferences or 1 million video viewers.

With the 99 cent track it is unlimited non-commercial use. And no, I see no reason to purchase an entire catalog of music.

So Is It Worth It?

Well, that depends. If you want to have a unique theme or you are creating a special video or series of videos then yes, plunking down 99 cents for an single tune that has an unlimited music license is not a bad deal.

I would not do it for sound effects but for a composition you want to touch up, why not.

That said, there is one more thing. You purchased the license for the music. You can do anything you want except anything that Catooh/Magix deems unlawful, illicit or is used to establish a business identity.

Other Options

You can download a software program like Audacity and then purchase tunes from Magix, Sony or dozens of other music repositories.

You also have the option of diving into the Internet Archive to find music placed in the public domain by musicians. It is a slog but it can be done.

Other Posts of Interest

• Magix Music Maker Soundtrack Edition and EULA Terms of Service
• Audio Library - YouTube Music for Web Video
• A Look At Sony Sound Production Music
• Home Page for Mobile Users

Collaborative Remix Documentary Project at HitRECord

The future is a remix of the past; everything we known is a re-working of another persons content. Today we call it re-mixing.

There is a new project from HitRECord community asking some very interesting questions. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is reaching out to videobloggers and all other creatives to help create a short form documentary on what it is to remix.





The above video is a discussion with Jay Smooth about the nature of remix, how it applies to the hip-hop community and to creatives everywhere.

Can't have a discussion about remixing without a mention of the current restrictive copyright laws that do not accommodate the (U.S.) founding fathers intent to allow for the public domain use of content.

If you are interested in participating in the documentary you should slide on over to project page and put in your two cents or at least answer the three questions posted on the site.

Other Posts of Interest:

• HitRECord Looking for User Generated Content
• Know Your Rights Video From ACLU
• YouTube 2013 Copyright Video
• Home Page for Mobile Users

YouTube 2013 Copyright Video

I am not going to get into a discussion of what constitutes the intended design of copyright versus the current U.S. government implementation of copyright. There has been corruption, corporate subversion and about a pound and a half of the laws of unintended consequences.




No matter how you feel about copyright you do need to under what you can and can't do in a public space like a video web host such as YouTube.

You can't say that YouTube doesn't have a stake in this topic. They have spent millions of dollars against mainstream media companies defending themselves against copyright claims and infringement charges generated by their users.

Still, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Not with the amount of under employed lawyers romping around. Don't assume you know (okay, the copyright lawyers are excused) and just watch the video.

For the other copyright resources mentioned in the video visit the original link for the video and click the About section.


Other Posts of Interest

• Education Videos, CPG Grey and Copyright Video
• Protect Yourself: Make a Resource Binder
• Placing A Copyright Notice In Your Video - Part 1
• Home Page for Mobile Users

Musings on Crowdsource Crime Fighting

I have been hesitant to comment on the serious and evolving Boston Marathon Bombing suspect hunt. There has been a lot of misinformation created by mainstream media; specifically the New York Post as well as some users of social media via Twitter.

The content requests from the Boston Police Department and the FBI is just an extension of the old fashion wanted poster.  Except that the community provides the photo or video.

This isn't the first time that law enforcement has asked for photos and videos of a crime scene. But I think we have to just take a moment to understand that not only was the FBI asking for content but folks on their own via other social networks are conducting their own independent investigations.

This is a different space we find ourselves in.

There might be questions we are going to have to ask ourselves. I am thinking about this from a U.S. perspective.

1. What are my rights and responsibilities to provide that information?
2. Will I be compelled to testify at the trial to verify that I did indeed take the photo and video?
3. Can I retain my copyright and insist that I be fairly compensated for non-law enforcement use? This means having broadcast and cable news programs pay for the use of my content. I don't mean to be callous; not everything is for profit and there are instances where you need to show what you got. But if law enforcement turns over that info to broadcast media then that media company, as a business, should compensate the creator of the work. Is that going to happen?
4. What will we do when it is found out that somebody fudged the photo or /video evidence? Not in malice; maybe the person edited a portion out that they felt was not important.

That is just on the law enforcement side.

What about independent cyber investigations? Or crowdsourced vigilante crime fighting?

I'm thinking of recent incidents where people have been attacked on-line that slipped into off-line behaviors.

What if they have the wrong person?

Yeah. This is going to get increasingly messy.

There is a lot to think about.


Other Posts of Interest

• You Should Read the Contract, Seriously
• The Copyright Bots are Here
• Protect Yourself - Make a Resource Binder

Education Videos, CPG Grey and His Take on Copyright

In the early days of broadcast American television there was a serious attempt at educational programing. There were TV shows for those trying to get their GED, learn a language and even classical music appreciation.

These programs were stuff into the early morning hours during the week or on Sunday mornings. From what I remember, most were talking heads with a blackboard or lectures with maps.

The intent was sincere but often they were dull as a butter knife. I don't want to disrespect that programing. It was hi-tech at the time. It was an attempt to honor the desire to use television to open education to all people.

That intent lives on; there is a growing wonderful class of Pro/Am Science and History Vloggers and people that creatively use web video to educate. John Green on History, Veritasium on atoms and the stars, Hank Green on Science, Vi Hart on Math, and the subject of this post, CPG Grey.

First, let us have a taste of what CPG Grey does with a concept or historical topic. This is his take on the origin of U.S. copyright and the long distance consequences extending the protection period.





The bashful Mr. Grey (he does not appear or wished to be seen in public) uses stick drawings, public domain images, graphics and text to convey historical information about the UK and the U.S.

I wasn't going to pass up a good explanation of  the beginnings of U.S. copyright law but last night I fell into his blog and started watching his videos.

How does he do this? Did he get the fact right? Is there a good balance of information and presentation? For the most part, heck yeah.

Because 15 hours later I still remember a convoluted process how to get elected the mayor of the City of London which is not the same as London, UK.

That is the thing. Will your audience remember what you were trying to convey long after they watched the video?

Much to do, so very much to do.

Other Posts of Interest

• My Experience Using SnagIt to Record Video
• What Can I Learn from Pomegranate Video?
• Problem Solving On My ALA Advocacy Video

Japan and Copyright Math with Rob Reid via TED

Japan has just put into law the most restrictive law concerning copyright and downloading from the Internet. Two years in prison and a $25,000+ fine. Uploading is even worse and it might be a Japanese ISPs are also getting the squeeze or shakedown.

Now it has been said that some of the lawyers and known agents of myopic copyright thinking were buzzing into the Japanese legislators air space. They told of the number of monies lost and the people who would not be employed.

The lobbyists and attorneys got to talking. Money and contributions changed hands. And this is how you get a draconian law that goes way beyond what is necessary.

What could constituent downloading? Watching certain YouTube videos? The act of even watching YouTube? If a copyright holder objects and they trace it back to the Japanese viewer well...

Anyway, if you think this has nothing to do with you I invite you to watch this humorous video from Rob Reid.  The video pokes a hole in the allege monetary suffering the poor old RIAA and MPAA have kinda, sorta experienced from all of this free expression, recycled viewing of old media  and re-use of content.



For the record, I do support right livelihood and the right to protect your property. That is a given. Using amped up laws that will result in some granny going to prison because their grandchild watched a Gangam video on their computer or tablet? It is gonna be ugly.

Y'all need to think about the long distance implications.

Related Posts of Interest 

• The Copyright Bots Are Here
• Protect Yourself - Make a Resource Binder
• Placing a Copyright Notice In Your Video Part 1

The Copyright Bots are Here

For those that do not know, software programs called a "bot" are designed to seek and remove what they believe to be unauthorized use of copyrighted material. You don't even get the courtesy of a DCMA notice. The video is removed.

Copyright bots are spreading across all of the video web hosting sites and streaming channels.  That flipping YouTube ContentID is in full effect. There are other companies creating equally noxious programs.

The past few weeks have focused attention on some of the more public goofs of the bots. 

• On YouTube the blocking of Michelle Obama speech on the official Barack Obama YT channel.  This meant that those missed it or watch it after the fact couldn't.  
• Wired magazine has a write up about the the Hugo Awards the speech of Neil Gaiman was removed when pre-cleared, permission content from the BBC's Doctor Who appeared on the screen. The copyright bot did not care, off it went and the stream could not be re-started. At all. The Slate also has the details.
• NASA is a government agency. Photos and videos produced by said agency for the benefit of the American people are instantly in the public domain.  If you wanted to see the Control Room video after the event you could not because Scripps Local News Service had a copyright claim on the video. You can read more of that story at Mashable.com

For those of you resistant to reading, this is a video from Mashable's Lauren Gores about what happened.


If you go into the comments of that Mashable story you are going to see one from a woman that represents singer James Taylor and other performers/clients. That man is getting flagged for performing his own work.

What has this got to do with you and me?

Plenty!

Lets say you record an up and coming band at a public concert. So do 100 other people. The band doesn't mind, it gives them exposure to new audiences for free. Everybody is cool and copacetic with the synergy.

Except the copyright bots.

You are creating commentary on a social topic. You use an example from a current news or television show. 25 seconds tops to make your point. You can prove straight up that your work clearly comes in as intended under Fair Use.

Not to the copyright bots.

The copyright bots could not distinguish the difference between a NASA event and a television news re-use of that same video. Commercial interests were allowed to take priority over the legal creators of the content.

Doesn't anybody have a problem with this? I do. Scripps Local News Service are not the rightful owners.

Now here is the chilling effect. You never know when those suckers are going to hit. When they do you have to actively prove that you are the legal copyright holder.

You have to prove that you have the right to use your own content.  Or that you are justified in using copyrighted content in certain situation.

I've seen videos where teachers have assigned To Kill A Mockingbird to students and asked them to come up with a video critique of an aspect of the movie.

It will not mean a damn thing to the copyright bots.

The shady folks that the copyright bots where intended to stop? They have already figured out a way around them.

My point is don't allow the copyright bots to stop what you are doing; especially if you are doing social commentary or documentary work.  Be aware that it might become an issue.  The road of free speech and expression just got a little rougher.

I was reading some of the comments at Slashdot about the NASA video. They have some words about it. I don't think removing lawyers from the planet is a good solution. Not even if they are from the RIAA/MPAA.

We as a people are giving up way too much control to non-human entities. I read science fiction. It is never a good thing.

Related Posts

• Protect Yourself Make a Resource Binder
• Placing A Copyright Notice In Your Video - Part 1
• Checking Out Everything Is A Remix

Protect Yourself - Make A Resource Binder

There is a good post by Roni Loren on BlogHer about the dangers of using copyrighted materials. Ignorance is no excuse under the law. Roni's post is about photography in blogs but it applied to video folks as well. 

It isn’t even that you intentionally did something wrong. With the new software algorithms that are now being used by YouTube and other video web hosting sites, you might be flagged as having music that appears in multiple videos.

Being able to quickly prove that you have the right to use the music or video in question can help to get your video restored a bit faster. If you use another person’s work without their permission you can be in lawyer involved trouble. 

For this post, I wanted to find a public domain image of a binder. What appears is royalty free stock photos and trademarked images that require permission. I can’t use a photo of the cover if there is a design element on it.

It is trademarked protected. Think of the Nike Swish which cannot be used without permission of Nike. Same concept.

Bummer.

Example of A Terms of Service page at Texture King

One way to avoid those problems is to make sure you can document where you obtained the photo, video or music used in your project.

What You Will Need
 
It doesn’t matter if it is an old school 3 ring notebook or a file on your system. You will want to have some method of demonstrating where you obtained the content and the Terms of Service (TOS).

Here is what you need:

A copy of the web page where you obtained the content with the date you accessed it.
A copy of the site's Terms of Service page that specifically gives you permission to use the material for

• Attribution
• Creative Commons Attribution
• Non-Commercial Use
• Commercial Use
• Public Domain

A note page where you list all of the sources of content that appear in your video. 

If your can't find the TOS or license of the content I would not download or use that material. Be aware that there are users that steal other people's content, modify it and claim public domain. It doesn't work that way.

I also would be cautious of sites that have URL/web addresses that have public domain music or public domain photo multiple times in different domains. There could be skeezy activities in that neck of the Internet.

Protect Yourself

If you are creating business videos you have to do this. It might be far safer for business vloggers to purchased content at quality royalty-free sites.

If you are doing news/documentary you have to be aware of your surroundings and what is being heard in the background.

Demo and resource vloggers also need to be conscious of materials used but you might have more of a Fair Use leeway if you are reviewing or evaluating a product or service. 

Goofing around with the camcorder and you make your own music, you are free to do as you please.

If you are unclear about Copyright, Creative Commons, Fair Use and Public Domain you are putting yourself at risk. I wish it were easier. We in the U.S. have had corporations influence and muck up the traditional terms of copyright.

Until things are sorted out we have to abide by the current rules.

Related Posts

• Duke University's Bound By Law Primer on Fair Use
• A Few Thoughts on YouTube's Content ID
• What Is Creative Commons License?

Placing A Copyright Notice In Your Video Part 3

Okay, you tried inserting the copyright symbol using the keystroke method and it it didn’t do it for you.  You have imaging options.  You can locate a public domain image of the copyright symbol.  Public domain does not mean snatching the first copyright symbol image you find in a search engine.

The symbol is not copyrighted but a specific design expression of it might be. So if you find one with hearts shooting out of it don’t use it.

I highly suggest a visit to WikiMedia Commons page of Copyright symbols. You can find Copyleft and other usage symbols. Once you have selected the version of the symbol that you want you will go to the download page.

WikiMedia Commons Page of Copyright Symbols

Make sure you download the PNG version, not the SVG image. You can generally import PNG images but not many video editing programs accept the SVG image format. If you can’t import the PNG you will have to convert it into a jpg/jpeg image.

I hear folks grumbling. Hey, I can’t add my name to that! Wait, it is white and my closing titles background is purple! Yo, it is too big!

I didn't say it was the best option, just an option.

I have one more work around that would allow you to customize. It does not involve Photoshop, Corel Draw or The GIMP.

Presentation Graphics to Generate A Title Slide

If you haven’t used presentation software before now is not the time to start. If you have experience, and you don’t need much, word processing experience will do, then you can do this in about ten minutes.

The basic concept is:

1. Create a title or text slide
2. Use Alt Key + 0169 to generate the copyright symbol
3. Customized by changing the font, size, background or color
4. Add any other text that you want on your copyright screen in your video
5. Save as a JPG or PNG image file
6. Import the copyright title slide into your video editing program

Google Docs/Drive

In the presentation mode I was not able to find a way to insert a symbol from the menu. I could use the keystroke method.

Create copyright symbol using Google Docs/Drive

PowerPoint 2003 and Higher

You can go to the Insert Menu and select Symbol. This will open the Character Map and bada bing, you now have a the symbol that you can customize and add additional text.

PowerPoint Insert Symbol Screen

It works the same way in Open Office 3.2 Presentation, I have a Netbook running Ubuntu. Keynote folks, I'm thinking you have something similar but I can't verify it because I don't have a Mac.

Placing a copyright notice tells folks, this is mine, I created it and you need to ask permission for usage.


Related Posts

• Placing Copyright Notice - How To Format Part 1
• Placing Copyright Notice - Character Map Part 2
• CCMixter - Music for Your Podcasts

Placing A Copyright Notice in Your Video Part 2

To me, the keyboard is faster but I know some of you want more visual options. Another way to add a symbol is to use the Character Map (Windows) or Character Viewer (MacOS). I’m on a PC so that what I’m going to show you how to find and open the program.

To open the Character Map in Windows XP

1. Start Menu
2. Programs
3. Accessories
4. Character Map
5. Click on the character you wish to copy, then hit "Copy".
6. Paste into the title generator.

In Windows Vista

1. Start Menu
2. In the Search Box at the bottom type Character Map and press Enter
3. The Character Map will appear on the screen.
4. Click on the character you wish to copy, then hit "Copy".
5. Paste into the title generator.

 Again, some of the title generators in video editing programs might not let you copy and paste, it depends on the program. For finicky video editing programs it has to be an absolute text file.

Here Is Where A Text Editor Can Help

The next thing you can do is to use a text editor to strip out any code and then paste it into the title generator. On Windows that would be Notepad. On the Mac OS that would be TextEdit included in the OS or the free version of TextWrangler.

Not a word processor. Nope. No can do, there are hidden codes that can gunk up the copy and paste process. 

Here is what you do:

1. Type the code for your symbol in the text editor to get the symbol
2. Copy that symbol
3. Swing over to your video editing title generator
4. Paste the text. Your symbol should appear.

This should work. Not promising but there is a good chance you will have your symbol in your title. Plus, you will be able to apply any formatting or customization that you want.

Alternatives and Resources 

If this doesn’t work then you might want to think about using a copyright image as a substitute. You can roll your own by using a image program like Irfanview or in your preferred image editing software. That is coming up in part three.

If you need a different symbols I would take a look at the Alt Codes and Special Characters page at the Teaching and Technology site of Penn State. There is also a section for those typing with International keyboards or needing International symbols.


Related Posts

• Reuse and Remix with Rob Parrish
• Wreck and Salvage Remix and Reinvention
• Duke University's Bound By Law - Fair Use Resources

Placing A Copyright Notice in Your Video Part 1

In this age of voluntary and involuntary sharing of videos it might be a good idea to add a notification indicating what the status of the video is and who own the video.

It isn't hard, just a few numbers to have on a scrap of paper nearby. For the record, I am using a U.S. keyboard. Those of you on the other side of the creek have different keyboards, methods or codes. The concept is the same but you might have to adapt them to your local needs.

 Format of the Copyright Notice

In the U.S. you don't have to apply the copyright notice. Your work is protected at the point it is fixed in its final form.  But some folks are hard headed and need a reminder that the video belongs to the creator of the video and not to them.

The correct format is the symbol + the year of first publication + the name of the copyright holder.

That works out to be: © 2012 Jayne Doe

There is not one way to do this. You can add the notice at the beginning of a video, in the credits or slap it at the end. If you want it to be a lower third that runs thought the video you can do that too.

Old School Method

This is old school as in how the ancestors did it in the age of manual and electric typewriters. There was no dedicated copyright key. It was typed as bracing parentheses and the letter "c" as in (c).

There is a better way.

The Keyboard Entry Method

I’m a little concerned about the Mac version because I have conflicting info about the keystrokes. 

Macintosh

• Copyright - press and hold the Option key then letter "g" to generated ©
• Registered Trademark - press and hold the Option key then letter "r" to generate ®
• Trademark -  press and hold the Option key then press the letter "t" to generate ™

It seems that some of you Mac folks can use the Alt key as well. If you can make heads or tails on this Apple OS X instructions on how to add symbols more power to you.

Windows/PC

• Copyright - press the Alt key and 0169 then release to generate ©
• Registered - press the Alt key and 0174 then release to generate ®
• Trademark - press the Alt key and 0153 then release to generate ™ 

You can copy the code and then insert it into you title generator. Or can you? Sometimes you can't and that is why there is a part two.

Related Posts

• A Look At Copyright Video from YouTube
• Fair Use Resources
• What Is A Creative Commons License

Searching for Ideas In The Reels

Like the song says, "everything old is new again". If you are telling a story and that story has a history you might want to take your camcorder to the library. If you are doing a citizen journalism or activist piece this is a great place to check out.

For those of your born after 1990 this is a video of what a microfilm machine looks like and how to load it.



A few weeks ago I hit the stacks in the basement of a library. That is where the microfilm and microfiche machines are stored. I wanted to research how women were presented in newspapers and magazines back in the day. I got a lot of great story ideas that I would like to make into projects.

• Ads that targeted a woman's looks
• How goods and services were sold to women
• Service articles i.e. "what you should know or how to do it"
• How they were missing from major news articles unless they were in a crime story.

There are some challenges. You library may not have a functional microfilm/fiche reader any more. Sadly a number of libraries are getting rid of the machines.

Lighting is going to be dicey too. You might be in a dark cavern or in florescent city. You will be very dependent of the quality of the bulb in the machine. There could be crud on the screen or on the film.

Loading the reels is an act of patience.  Newbies might want to stick with microfiche to get the hang of it. Other than that it is rock and roll.

What Else? 

There are some copyright issues. The copy of the microfilm/fiche is copyrighted by the original recording company, if they still exist. Then you have to look at the copyright of the publication.

Depending on the age of the news and magazines materials these could be in the public domain.  You can write down the details and then give it a try with Public Domain Sherpa's Calculator for U.S. works and for those in the E.U. try out the one at Europeania

So if you are up to it go physically into your local library and see what stories you can find.


Related Posts

• A Look at YouTube Copyright School/
• Duke University - Bound By Law Fair Use Guide

Checking Out EZVid Movie Editing Software - Part 1

This shopping has me exhausted. I need to take a curiosity break. Spotted EZ Vid in the wild and I'm taking a look under the hood.  This software is designed for novice or casual users who want a quick way to create slideshow or photo/video movies.

It has some quirks but it does seem to do what they say it can do. This is a tutorial video from the vendor.



I have some concerns like I can't find a complete breakdown on what you can and can't does with the software. Now they do have a more information page.  They are forth coming with what the product is and what you can do.

Let me try to show you what I am getting at:

Supported Computers: Unknown, it seems if the software will run under Windows XP then it should be functional with Pentium level computers. I would think that having a Dual Core computer and above would be the proper level for operation.

Supported Operating System: Windows XP Service Pack 3, Vista, Windows 7

Memory Requirements: 1GB of RAM

Hard Drive Space for Operation: 5GB

Supported Video File Types: MOV, WMV some forms of 3GP, maybe MTS (?)

Supported Photo File Types: JPEG, PNG

Supported Audio Types: You cannot import your own music or audio files. The software has a bank of preloaded music from NATOarts that the user can select for their videos.

You can record your own narration through the software and then adjust the music to accompany the voice.

Something else you should know about the music. If you create a video using the music provided you might get a copyright flag notice from sites like YouTube. In the Terms of Service before software installation (Yeah, I actually read the Terms of Service) it states:

16. MONETIZATION ON UGC NETWORKS. Ezvid has licensed the Bundled Audio from NATOarts. Any uploads you make to UGC Networks (e.g. YouTube) may result in an automatic “claim” of the audio portion of your upload by NATOarts. This “claim” will not lead to strike against your account, however, you will be unable to claim and monetize this upload for yourself on the UGC network.

So loosely translated, it is possible that the automatic copyright sniffing robot on YouTube will detect that there is another video with this exact same music. You might get a notice from YouTube or the audio might get blanked out or something. Or nothing.

Wait, Monetization?

Not so fast. Also in the Terms of Service is the statement that you can't use this software for commercial purposes. And if an ad appears overlaying your video my understanding is that you don't get to profit because you used the software and/or the music that you had no choice in using in the first placed.

You own your own content. They own the software and NATOarts owns the music. I said it once and I'll say it again, free is not always free.

Didn't I mention that this is free software? Oops. Yep, it is.

More Questions

One more bothersome item. I don't like it when I can't contact a vendor other than an email form.
Gives me the willies. There is no alternative contact other than the forums, which do seem active and EZvid is currently responsive to questions..

From the Terms of Service I gather that it is a Los Angeles, California company.  If there is a legal problem or concern you might have to venture to the City of Angels to resolve it.

Another item is a line in the Terms of Service about Affiliates. What kind of affiliates are we talking here? NATOarts? Folks on commission pushing the software for side money?

I don't know.

Last question is about Google Analytics.

24. ANONYMOUS USAGE REPORTING.  Portions of this software use Google Analytics, a web analytics service provided by Google, Inc. (“Google”).  Google Analytics uses occasional HTTP requests, which are small packets of data sent from your computer to Google, to analyze how users use the Software. The information generated by the HTTP request will be transmitted to and stored by Google on servers. Google will use this information for the purpose of evaluating your use of the Software and compiling reports on software activity for Ezvid.  Google may also transfer this information to third parties where required to do so by law, or where such third parties process the information on Google's behalf. Google will not associate your IP address with any other data held by Google.

Now if you are a Google user you know full well Google is tracking your data for their own monitization goals.

I can understand a company wanting to know how users are doing with their software. What has me itchy is how many hands are in the soup. It could be EZvid, Google, law enforcement, RIAA, MPAA and who knows with the laws folks are trying to enact in Congress.

I ain't feeling the warm fuzzies about this. But I won't be using this computer too much longer so I am going to give it a go.

I should say that I have MalewareBytes and other antispyware detection. I didn't have any alerts so I'm going to give it a shakedown.

Related Posts

• Quick Look at Serif Movie Plus Starter Edition
• Magisto Web Video Editing
• Guideline Chart for Uploading MP4 Videos