Elite TV / Studio 66 - General Chat & Discussion

(02-01-2010 16:18 )vostok 1 Wrote:  Quite right, however there are these two chapters pertaining to UK copyright law:

s29.—(1) Fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical, etc, work, for the purpose of research or for a non-commercial purpose, does not infringe any copyright in the work, provided it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement of the source.
s30.—(1) Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work, or of a performance of a work, does not infringe copyright in the work, provided it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement, and provided the work has actually been made available to the public.

The relevance of those rests on what constitutes 'fair dealing', which is set out at http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyri...yright_law

It's easy to incorrectly read s29 as meaning you can do anything with a work provided it's for a non-commercial purpose.

(02-01-2010 16:31 )DanniPandemos Wrote:  The relevance of those rests on what constitutes 'fair dealing', which is set out at http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyri...yright_law

Would several screen caps and a short video, accompanied by an acknowledgement of the source, for the purposes of review and discussion constitute as 'fair dealing'?

Anyway, this issue has been discussed to death in the past.
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid298850
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=14806
Perhaps the easiest solution is to not bother uploading content to the forum when the "Copyright holder" is in the habit of requesting its removal?

And this poll explains the situation clearly for people such as myself:
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=15632

(02-01-2010 09:57 )dirk362 Wrote:  Without copyright having being clearly stated on the programmes as aired, this is "free" content, to be used in part or in whole as we wish.

There is no such thing as "free" content (unless of course the copyright holder has clearly stated that such is the case).

(02-01-2010 16:56 )vostok 1 Wrote:  Would several screen caps and a short video, accompanied by an acknowledgement of the source, for the purposes of review and discussion constitute as 'fair dealing'?

You could do that for the purpose of review, but you would actually have to make an effort to provide a proper review too. Remember that if something ever came to court you would have to demonstrate that you were making a genuine attempt to review the show in question and not merely providing a cursory review in an attempt to technically legitimise the posting of copyrighted material.

Also, even for purpose of review you would be expected to post a minimal amount of material. Take a TV show like Film 20XX or Newsnight Review and look at the length of clips they show in connection with reviews. They're almost always under 30 seconds.

(02-01-2010 17:12 )DanniPandemos Wrote:  Also, even for purpose of review you would be expected to post a minimal amount of material. Take a TV show like Film 20XX or Newsnight Review and look at the length of clips they show in connection with reviews. They're almost always under 30 seconds.

So posting of numerous caps would equate to a 'minimal amount of material', as 1 cap equals 1/50th of a second of material?

(Don't worry Moderators/Admin, I get the picture: http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=15632 )

OK – my bad for going on a bit around copyright, so whilst all that law stuff makes for an interesting read, the essence of what I was stating has been lost a bit. I'll make one final point and then I'll shut up – honest !

My issue isn't really with copyright at all - it's just their method of dealing with it.
If a post is requested to be removed on the grounds of copyright as the reason then it must by definition mean all their content as it's all copyrighted (clearly based on the links you've very kindly provided).

So if they want something removed due to say inappropriate content (that will get them into say trouble), then that is what we should all be open and honest about. Trouble is they're playing the copyright card and not just owning up to wanting something taken away in case they get a nasty surprise in the mail or on the telephone.

I've seen the poll, and yes it is obvious that we want the girls/shows etc to remain, and so removing posts is the most prudent and sensible approach.

Most of my posts very clearly state the content is © EliteTV or whoever, so I've shown good practice in line with s.30 (in my humble opinion although I'm clearly not legally aware enough to know what is right or wrong).

But it leaves me with the unhappy realisation that our freedom of expression and discussion is curtailed, and I for one will not post a single picture or video on this site going forward. If it wasn't for the effort it would take and annoyance to other forum members, then to be honest I'd delete all my picture and video posts.

End of childish hissy-fit - toys liberally scattered on the floor and not in my pram anymore

I'll not be back....

(02-01-2010 17:20 )vostok 1 Wrote:  So posting of numerous caps would equate to a 'minimal amount of material', as 1 cap equals 1/50th of a second of material?

I think the legal term for that would be taking the piss

(02-01-2010 17:22 )dirk362 Wrote:  My issue isn't really with copyright at all - it's just their method of dealing with it.
If a post is requested to be removed on the grounds of copyright as the reason then it must by definition mean all their content as it's all copyrighted (clearly based on the links you've very kindly provided).

So if they want something removed due to say inappropriate content (that will get them into say trouble), then that is what we should all be open and honest about. Trouble is they're playing the copyright card and not just owning up to wanting something taken away in case they get a nasty surprise in the mail or on the telephone.

I don't think any part of the above is true. I'm sure the channels have been more than clear as regards what the problem is.

(02-01-2010 17:22 )dirk362 Wrote:  But it leaves me with the unhappy realisation that our freedom of expression and discussion is curtailed...

You would be hard-pressed to find a court anywhere on earth that would regard posting of copyrighted material outside of the specific criteria legislated in the relevant country as being a bar to freedom of expression.

(02-01-2010 17:34 )DanniPandemos Wrote:  You would be hard-pressed to find a court anywhere on earth that would regard posting of copyrighted material outside of the specific criteria legislated in the relevant country as being a bar to freedom of expression.

Correct DanniPandemos.

I think the freedom dirk362 wants is the freedom to use other people's material as he wishes.