Fair usage of downloaded content

[frankandjoan]

I was just reading a post where a discussion ensued concerning the copying of a television show and giving it to a friend. The poster wanted to know if this was a legal practice, and that question sparked a lively debate, well worth reading. It also inspired a question in my mind.

Would it be legal to download web content, (music, pictures and video offered for free usage) and then assemble and edit that downloaded web content into a brand new composition? Further, could the editor then claim that the new assemblage is a new creation which is the property of the creator? Another question, without regard to the claim of ownership, would it be legal to distribute that composition to friends for free? How about strangers? How about posting that new composition on the web for free download? How about selling that composition? How about charging for the download?

Please note that many clips offered for free on the web are of a quality too poor for any of the usages I suggest, but I still wonder about the legality.

[Gazorgan]

You would have to read the disclaimers on every page you stole items from( View/source). And there's no guarantee they aren't stolen from elsewhere.

[frankandjoan]

Aside from the fact that nothing was "stolen", the material, which is downloaded by open invitation would be significantly altered. My question is, I think, does the combining and editing process create a new product? For example, is every issue of the Readers Digest an original product? Even better, consider an issue of the Readers Digest in which all articles are of a certain theme, edited to conform to that theme, and ordered to make sense, to make a larger point, as it were. With writing, this would be difficult beyond belief, but not so hard with web content. Is such a product illegal?

[racer-x]

The way I look at it, is if you have to alter it that much, then you have contributed as much to the product as the original creator. Therefor, you should use it as you wish.

Don't get me wrong, if you only touched it up a little, like changing a few colors here and there, then it won't be right. But if you had to do a major overhaul on it, it is just as much your creation as the originator.

Just my 2 cents, but do what you want.

[andkiich]

Just to be safe, I'd say that getting permission to use the items couldn't hurt.

[RabidDog]

I'm sure most web pages are "published" as for viewing only, and any and all of the uses you allude to have been thrashed out in court with regards to Books television and music.. with music its even more clear cust as some rappers sample the music of other beat combos, and there have been a few hi-profile court cases regarding this.

[frankandjoan]

The clips I would use, if I were to pursue the creation of such a product, would not be changed so much as used in parts. Specifically, taking 3 seconds from this, five seconds from that, then 4 seconds from the first, 2 seconds from another clip, etc, all with an eye towards making some larger point.

There are two factors which distinguish this concept from the music, literary, and film law that already exist. The first is the little sentence beneath the thumbnail which says Click here to download. When you do, the web page immediately begins the process of shipping the file off to you. In my view this represents a proactive and unsolicited offer for the viewer to have a copy.

The second is that the financial interests of both the content provider and the content originator are not harmed through my usage. In fact, the intention of the proactive offer is to obtain publicity, and if I were to take no money for my production, I could argue that the originator is receiving far more free exposure then he or she originally intended.

I think I would be on very solid ground. Where am I going wrong here?

[Ripper2860]

You bring up some very interesting points. While I do not have the answer, I would like to bring something else into consideration -- the original creators intended message or intent. If there is content created for the purpose of delivering a message or making a statement, I would think that maintaining the integrity of the intended message, view or position would need to be maintained. Taking excerps of created material which when edited and combined with other excerps distorts or changes the author's original message or intent may pose an issue.

Example: Free clips providing general historical information regarding WWII and the Jewish Holocaust are downloaded, edited and arranged with others content used in recruiting White Supremacists. While an extreme perversion of the original intent -- you get what I mean.

While it may be free to download the content, there may be stipulations as to it's use -- something akin to the distribution of free "Public Domain" software, in that while it may be distributed for no profit, it must be distributed with no changes and full credit to the original author and it remains the property of the original creator.


Just as "snippets" of content on this forum can be cut and re-arranged to deliver a different message, I would think that the content of video, audio and text would need to remain in it's original context and true to the original intent.

Just another dynamic you may wish to consider.

[frankandjoan]

Well spoken, and well taken.

Now for another question, even more difficult. If I do not use these edited productions to make a profit per se, but rather as a tool to attract people to a website for the free download of the production, and then through the resulting increase in traffic I am able to profit from this website, could this usage be construed as profiting from other peoples work? Or is it mine? Remember, I regard this as material I have been invited to have, in order to lure me as traffic to other peoples websites, and that the material I would present would be considerably enhanced from the original downloaded web content.

[Rookie64]

I'm sort of in your situation and have been reading more into it.

You either need permission from the legal copyright owner of all copyrighted materials, or can use them as "fair use" - however, the legal owner can still sue you, even if it is "fair use".

These things happen all the time, and there are situations where you could win your case, but be prepared to be paying court fees.

It's better to seek permission first, but be prepared to pay some big money for the material you decide to use - it's not cheap.

Many of the sites you speak of that offer downloads of movie clips, images, etc are usually not the copyright owners of the material.
They may be using the material illegally themselves or claiming fair use (even though they still are at risk of getting sued)

The only materials you don't need any permission for is what is Public Domain.
You're free to do what you wish with it...though you need to know if the material actually IS in the Public Domain.

These books should help you with more details on the subject -

http://half.ebay.com/cat/buy/prod.cgi?cpid=545757&meta_id=1

http://half.ebay.com/cat/buy/inv.cgi?offer_id=1090911029&meta_id=1&cpid=1067219&domain_id=1856

http://half.ebay.com/cat/buy/prod.cgi?cpidEQ1057908221AMPmeta_idEQ1

http://half.ebay.com/cat/buy/prod.cgi?cpidEQ723297AMPmeta_idEQ1

[Gazorgan]

Ahhhhhhhh, you said profit.

Have a lawyer on retainer. Some fan site with a few South Park images/audio is one thing. An effing ad-driven popup site is quite another. As soon as any income is being derived, you lose fair use. Even for covering costs, since your costs could be redicolous in relation average market value.

Basically your saying you going to steal snippets from other sites, re-compile them, change them slightly so you can say it's not exactly the same as the original, call it your work, and try and make a profit from it?

[frankandjoan]

Wow, aren't you reading, Gazorgan? You jump to a lot of insane conclusions that no one else has seemed to draw.

First of all, I am not stealing anything. I am taking what is freely offered, and what I have been invited to take.

Next, if I do this, I will be performing extensive editing, both in the way I described above, and quality enhancements as well.

Next, I don't need to claim it as my work, even though I believe it would be. Read above about the Readers Digest. The snippets would each be a PART of a LARGER WORK, not presented as slight changes from the original.

Finally, if I do this, I would hope to profit from web traffic, not from the production itself. The production or productions would be offered for free.

You seem to be morally against profit. Thats a legitimate point of view, but we don't share it.

[offline]

frankandjoan,

Your question is a good one and it often comes up
in the print media field as well. Putting it simply you
can possibly do all that you have stated if the media in question
is offered as [royalty free] Even then there may be
certain exlcusions and limitations. This has nothing to do with "Fair Use"

In all other situations (and it is a good idea anyway) you
should request permission in the form of a signed document
of agreement (or contract) from the copyright holder.

Example:
Graphic / Video companies such as Ulead and Corel offer
royality free media but I'm sure they can still sue, if for example,
you simply set up a gallery of their clips for yourself to sell.