The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that embedding a copyrighted video that is publicly available on another website is not a copyright violation
On 21 October 2014, ECJ ruled that embedding a copyrighted video does not constitute a copyright violation.
"The embedding in a website of a protected work which is publicly accessible on another website by means of a link using the framing technology … does not by itself constitute communication to the public within the meaning of [the EU Copyright directive] to the extent that the relevant work is neither communicated to a new public nor by using a specific technical means different from that used for the original communication.
The key here is the use of using inline frames causing the material to disappear from the web page on which it is embedded if it is taken down at the source.
Hi Markku. My feeling if something is available on a site in a public domain then it is already public. I don't see anything wrong with it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Sorry about my voting power hopefully it will recharge quick enough so will come back and upvote you. Got to grow quickly so I can do percentage votes. Just don't have enough and it is getting worse each day.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I understand.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
To be in the public domain is very different from being published. If something is in the public domain, it is not copyrighted. Even if a digital work is published, its copyright owner retains ownership of its copyright. Republishing it without permission from the copyright owners is a copyright infringement.
The issue at hand is whether or not an embedded video can be interpreted as a link, as far as I understand this. It has never been a copyright violation to provide a link to copyrighted material published somewhere else. In 2014, ECJ made a ruling that embedding a video using inline frames is, legally, the same thing as linking.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Ok. I understand now. So just adding the link is not breaking the law. Also embedding using inline frames you said is the same as linking. You are way above me with this technical stuff lol.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This was a great decision marketing wise for some people
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It is a very curious and relatively delicate issue. I have heard that for example a song protected with copyright "you could not even hum it" ... How is it possible? ... It sounds more like a metaphor but if the author demands then It is possible. What madness!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think you can hum or sing any song to yourself but you can't publicly perform it as in organize a concert and sell tickets without compensating the copyright owner for that.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
A few days ago in one of Maduro's campaigns he sang a very popular song just in that situation that you describe. In front of a hundred people the song "Me importas tu"(I care about you), without any kind of public reproduction permits. For dictators, copyright does not apply.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It was an advance to fair use, although really here they don't care too much to the legal use of other people's material, lately I tried to use images without copyright free to share and try used my own conclusion after cite sources, and that one of the biggest myths that exist on the internet, which by putting Source already makes it legal and is totally incorrect, I remember the panic that SOPA generated luck that did not happen.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Fair use is a different thing altogether. Fair use means reproducing copyrighted material for the purposes of commentary and criticism. Fair use would not include reproducing the entire work. But it would allow reproducing parts of it to illustrate what is being critiqued or commented on.
Yes, just mentioning the source does not make it legal.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I didn't know that I thought it was the same, it's good to know.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This measure seems great to me, since over the last few years a good number of people who are responsible for this have been harmed by these actions. They should apply specific parameters on this topic later with reference to the videos.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Can you clarify that a bit?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That's something good for creators who wish to reference videos from other sources without violating any copyrights of the original creator. Good to know about such law.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit