How can I protect my VCDs or DVDs being copied?

[triphop]

All:

While I could argue on and on, there are limits to this. I have a wedding video to edit. Believe as you wish, but vitalis (and others) have the facts. You can believe that I am going to rape my clients just as you could believe that the world is flat. The fact is that I have never had any altercation with *ANY* of my clients (and I could not care in the slightest if they may casual copies). **ALL** (you want letters of reference, I can provide) of my clients are very happy with my services. None of them have ever complained nor have they embarked on wholesale copying - its not worth it to them.

While I applaud the technical nature of this site including the pursuit of fair use duplication of legally purchased copies of creative works, this site should not knowingly condone the unauthorized duplication of works that are quite clearly the creatiive works of people like myself. The law is very clear and any attempt to obfuscate this is disingenous in the extreme. Be clear that I (and many others like me) are not multinationals that wish to impoverish you, but merely wish to earn a decent living. There is no right to a wedding video and those that can afford such a luxury should pay a fair rate for this work. TANSTAFL.

regards,
Triphop.

[vitualis]

vitualis, sorry but it is not the law. It is the standard, which is not to be confused with legality.

You are missing the point and you are furthermore incorrect.

The videographer in this case is the one creating the content. He/she is the artist and creating intellectual property.

Thus, by law they have the copyright or the material they produce. We all do.

That is quite clear.

If the contract does not specifically grant copyright over to the clients, then the videographer retains the copyright.

Whether they do anything with it is a completely separate thing.

Case law on this is quite clear, with no contract, then ownership is 9/10 of the law. When you purchase the video you then have ownership as well. Fair use doctrine is important here in that this is MY wedding.

"Fair Use" is not a catch-cry that allows you to do whatever the hell you want because you think that it is "right". It is a very specific set of circumstances where a breach of copyright is legally considered "okay".

If there was no written contract, then that does not mean that there is no contract. There is. The contract is implicit.

I mentioned this before. I don't sign a contract when I pay a fare and get onto a bus. But, there IS a contract between myself and the bus company.

The contract (even if it were simply a verbal agreement that person A will do a video for person B) would involve:
- person B giving rights/consent for person A to photograph/film him
- person A to produce the product (video) which should be a reasonable quality
- person B paying person A a reasonable amount of money

Beyond that, the DETAILS can be argued ad infinitum and if disputes do arise, it would have to go before a civil court (or arbitration or something similar).

There is absolutely no implicit reason why full copyright is given to the client (person B) if it was not discussed and written in the contract.

As for your "case law", your example is nonsense. We are talking about intellectual property, not the physical medium. I completely agree that the client in such a case has "Fair Use" rights to the disc, but even by saying that, this is implying that the client does not own the copyright. If they owned the copyright, then "Fair Use" is not applicable or necessary.

As an analogy, look at this forum thread.

You are asked/invited to write and volunteer comments/information/etc. onto this public forum owned by Baldrick. There is an implicit contract between yourself and Baldrick.

Now, does the copyright of your POSTS belong to YOU or to Baldrick?

If it is otherwise unstated, then the copyright belongs to you as you are the creator of the intellectual property. You implicitly grant Baldrick license to publish your content by your action of posting the message, that DOES NOT MEAN that you GIVE him copyright.

Unless there is a contract between yourself and Baldrick (e.g., when you sign up) where you GIVE copyright of your posts to Baldrick, you continue to own the copyright.

Best regards.

[spiderman2k1]

IF there was soing you think Hollywood would be using it. There are some VCD copy protection software that puts dummie files on the disc but there are CD copy program that can get around it like clonecd. If you do not want people to copy it do not give it out. Any 90 percent of the time most other people have no idea on how to make a copy any way.

[Supreme2k]

Believe me (if you haven't already read my posts), I can be the most stubborn person when it comes to issues such as these. Even so, there's times I'll give in to argumentative logic, which I have been a bit after reading others' posts.

Then a few fallacies pop up, like so:

The videographer in this case is the one creating the content. He/she is the artist and creating intellectual property.

Thus, by law they have the copyright or the material they produce. We all do.

If things were only so black and white. The so-called "artist" is creating (recording) something for the client. It is not "art for art's sake", but for a job.

Also, there seems to be some confusion over copyright vs. distribution (or physical copy). Yes, the author may retain copyright in the sense that the client cannot say that they created it, slice it up and use proprietary animations and such, or charge a fee for it, but beyond that, making a few copies for the wedding party is fair game.

If there was no written contract, then that does not mean that there is no contract. There is. The contract is implicit.

I mentioned this before. I don't sign a contract when I pay a fare and get onto a bus. But, there IS a contract between myself and the bus company.

That one came out of nowhere (especially after you said "We are talking about intellectual property, not the physical medium.)". There is NO contract between you and the bus company. We've even taken it up ith the Port Authority when the bus failed to stop at our stops (and other such "breaches"), but were told TS. They made a damn good argument too.

Beyond that, the DETAILS can be argued ad infinitum and if disputes do arise, it would have to go before a civil court (or arbitration or something similar).

There is absolutely no implicit reason why full copyright is given to the client (person B) if it was not discussed and written in the contract.

Again, there is the misconception. It is not necessarily full copyright (unless agreed upon).

As an analogy, look at this forum thread...

Actually, when you post on Baldrick's message board (or nearly any, for that matter), you implicitly give up any copyright. That is why topics can be locked, removed or edited. The author has absolutely NO control over his "copyrighted work".

I'll agree that some of you have good/valid points, ut I'll continue to keep this old sweater, thankyouverymuch.

[indolikaa]

PEOPLE!

It's nice that we all get together and argue about something like this. But there's something missing from this whole discussion...

CASE LAW!

Does anybody have any case law, copyright standard or anything legal that they can post to backup their argument?

For those of us in the United States (and I would assume other countries) there has to be legal standards that are codified in either local or national law. Copyright laws are codified as part of United States Code, aren't they?

You can believe that I am going to rape my clients just as you could believe that the world is flat.

The world is flat.

When a friend or family brings in a pile of VHS or 8mm tapes, I charge $50 per hour of taped material to be transferred to optical disc. That means a full 6-hour VHS tape runs $300, and they have to provide a storyboard or layout for me to work from. If they just want a straight transfer with Mark In/Mark Out editing only, it's $25 per hour of footage.

If they don't like my rates or my attitude, they get the standard '**** off and do it yourself' party line. That's rarely the case; they wouldn't be calling me if they could do it themselves.

Now, do you think you're rates are excessive?

[jaxxboss]

The videographer must comply with sections 407 and 408 of the Copyright law . Tell me you do that and I will agree with you Vit and trip. By the way trip, your attempt at being pedantic does nothing to bolster ur claim. Nice try though.
No contract= No copyright. Period. You assume that you do because it is the company standard. Of course anyone in that line of work will claim this (just in case a ufo does show up), but the person
PAYING for the video also has rights as he bought it. He has the rights to do what he wants with it and yes that includes making copies. Im not going to argue this any longer. Believe what you want, it's your Legal right to be wrong

[indolikaa]

Thank You. I shall now research sections 407 and 408.

[triphop]

Now that I have finished that I can answer JaxxBoss' "arguments". He keeps waffling about sections 407 and 408. These basically handle the registration of copyrights. Now, unlike patents and marks, copyrights DO NOT NEED to be registered to be in force. Here are my references:

Copyright Law [all](dense!)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/copyright.table.html

Copyright Law [section 407]
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/copyright.act.chapt4.html#17usc407

Copyright Law [section 408]
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/copyright.act.chapt4.html#17usc408


Some FAQs
http://www.keytlaw.com/Copyrights/faqs.htm

Here are some quotes:

1. What does copyright protect?

Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. .

2. When is my work protected?

Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form so that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

....

12. Do I have to register with your office to be protected?

No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, section Copyright Registration.

13. Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?

Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within five years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. See Circular 1, section Copyright Registration and Circular 38b on non-U.S. works.

...

34. Who is an author?

Under the copyright law, the creator of the original expression in a work is its author. The author is also the owner of copyright unless there is a written agreement by which the author assigns the copyright to another person or entity, such as a publisher. In cases of works made for hire (see Circular 9), the employer or commissioning party is considered to be the author.


35. What is a work made for hire?

Although the general rule is that the person who creates the work is its author, there is an exception to that principle; the exception is a work made for hire, which is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or a work specially ordered or commissioned in certain specified circumstances. When a work qualifies as a work made for hire, the employer or commissioning party is considered to be the author. See Circular 9.

In closing, I believe that I have provided enough information that conclusively shows:

1. Registration not necessary for copyright to be in force.
2. The author the video is the copyright holder unless contracted to another party
3. Work for Hire and employment.

[indolikaa]

This thread had better calm down or I will lock it.

Isn't this one calm by our standards? We haven't evoked politics or religion yet...

[jaxxboss]

a work specially ordered or commissioned in certain specified circumstances. When a work qualifies as a work made for hire, the employer or commissioning party is considered to be the author.
Dont make me post here anymore. You just proved my point. Now drop it.

[handyguy]

"Ulead DVD Workshop 2 only adds Macrovision (level 1,2, or 3) and regional coding"

How did they get a license to do that from Macrovision?

[triphop]

a work specially ordered or commissioned in certain specified circumstances. When a work qualifies as a work made for hire, the employer or commissioning party is considered to be the author.
Dont make me post here anymore. You just proved my point. Now drop it.

Are you trying to be stupid or is it a natural state for you?

READ THE WORDS CERTAIN SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES. As a creator of a work, you need to contract away your claim to copyright. Jeez - this aint hard to understand - but you are doing your best.

[tommyoz]

People are so greedy.

Put warnings on the box, at the start of the video, embed customer name/info in the ending credits, put up your company name in the disc firstplay.

... but in the end ... you still can't do anything about it.

They paid once. It's theirs. They can copy all they want. Do you plan to still be around in 30-40 years if they want more? No, of course not.

I totaly agree.

[Supreme2k]

If a work is created by an independent contractor (that is,
someone who is not an employee under the general common
law of agency), the work is a specially ordered or commissioned
work, and part 2 of the statutory definition applies.
Such a work can be a work made for hire only if both
of the following conditions are met: (1) it comes within one
of the ten categories of works listed in part 2 of the definition (as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work)
and (2) there is a written agreement between the parties
specifying that the work is a work made for hire.

Yours (triphop) may be different, but every photographer's/videographer's contract that I've seen has shown work for hire.

I also found this quite interesting:

If a work is created by an employee, part 1 of the copyright code’s definition of a work made for hire applies. To help determine
who is an employee, the Supreme Court in CCNV v. Reid identified certain factors that characterize an “employeremployee” relationship as defined by agency law:
1) Control by the employer over the work (e.g., the employer may determine how the work is done, has the work done at the employer’s location, and provides equipment or other means to create work)
2) Control by employer over the employee (e.g., the employer controls the employee’s schedule in creating work, has the right to have the employee perform other assignments, determines the method of payment, and/or has the right to hire the employee’s assistants)

All listed here:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

[triphop]

"Ulead DVD Workshop 2 only adds Macrovision (level 1,2, or 3) and regional coding"

How did they get a license to do that from Macrovision?

As far as I understand - this is done when the dvd is mastered and not as part of regular burning of a DVDR. I do not think that you or I can do this. I defer to those with better information.

[triphop]

Supreme2k:

Interesting. Most (all?) wedding videographers follow the lead set by wedding photographers (precendence and all that). Holding the original material is a pain - monstermash has a interesting solution that I may adopt - he provides the client with the opportunity to purchase the original materials (at cost, it seems). I would imagine that at that point he then transfers complete ownership of the materials to the client. Remember that my clients wouldn't know how to feed a MiniDV tape into a camera let alone edit and produce a wedding video... I would be more than happy to sell the originals to get rid of this responsibility. My main beef is: Dont assume that you can copy the video - thats all. And I think being called Greedy by people without the facts is quite insulting.

Incidently my contract indicates that I am an independant contractor that has been commissioned to produce a video - it makes no mention of a work for hire clause. I guess the lawyer ommitted this for this reason. I never imagined that I would have to learn all this stuff when I embarked on this sideline business...

regards,
Trip.

[noki]

they can copy it but will have to have a password to open files (one time only of course...once they have the password cuz they paid for the cd/dvd they can of course pass that along with the copies. but should your disc magically appear on someone's desk (s)he will need a password).
program is called CD-Lock...
http://www.pc-magic.com

[smearbrick1]

Why not avoid all of the hassles of trying to milk money from the client with extra copies, and just charge the person, as I think it was already recommended according to the time it takes to make the original master. Keep the original master on hand, and if the client needs, copies, they can make their own from their disc. The original master disc is only a backup in case the client loses/damages their copy. At that time, the client could request a new "client copy" which, of course, can be made in a minimal amount of time. If you are pissed about people copying your stuff, don't charge so much and give them a reason too... You create your own problems.

[triphop]

Sigh.... Another one.

LISTEN UP

No one is trying to milk anyone. Thats not the only reason why a person could want to retain copyright - its also to stop unscrupulous people taking your animations and titles and re-using them in their own videos. I could not care about a copy for uncle Ted in the next town - I certainly am not interested in doing lots of ad-hoc copies.

Jeez.

[jaxxboss]

[b] READ THE WORDS CERTAIN SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES. As a creator of a work, you need to contract away your claim to copyright. Jeez - this aint hard to understand - but you are doing your best.

triphop
Are you actually that frign Stupid? My Lord, it is amazing how lame you can be and still be able to type. A work specially ordered or commissioned in certain specified circumstances. When a work qualifies as a work made for hire, the employer or commissioning party is considered to be the author. The hiring of the videographer is the work specially ordered. What is so frign hard to understnad about that?
You best go back to school lil boy and drop this. You will lose everytime.

[jaxxboss]

Dude, im done with you. It is obvious that you are bias in this regard.

[solarfox]

"Ulead DVD Workshop 2 only adds Macrovision (level 1,2, or 3) and regional coding"
How did they get a license to do that from Macrovision?

As far as I understand - this is done when the dvd is mastered and not as part of regular burning of a DVDR. I do not think that you or I can do this. I defer to those with better information.

CSS encryption would have to be done at mastering time, as no recordable DVD format is capable of having CSS keys burned on it. (This was one way in which they hoped to foil the copying of DVD's, since they blithely assumed that CSS couldn't be broken. Ha!) For this, DVDWS-2 allows you to output your work to DLT (Digital Linear Tape), which is the format that professional mastering & duplication houses use for data exchange to make the glass masters with.

Macrovision, on the other hand, is simply a bit setting in the data stream (in the IFO files, if I'm not mistaken), so it could be included on a DVD-R. If DVDWS-2 permits this, then ULead is most likely including a license to Macrovision as part of the program's purchase price.

[FOO]

You don't need a Macrovison licence to set a bit in the video.
The DVD player generates the Macrovision so it's the one that needs the
license.

[lordsmurf]

Dude, im done with you. It is obvious that you are bias in this regard.

I don't think it's bias. I think some of these people are starting to realize their ideas are unpopular and/or untrue, and are getting defensive and stubborn instead of just saying "I may be wrong" or "I need to research this a bit more in light of this conversation".

[vitualis]

Also, there seems to be some confusion over copyright vs. distribution (or physical copy). Yes, the author may retain copyright in the sense that the client cannot say that they created it, slice it up and use proprietary animations and such, or charge a fee for it, but beyond that, making a few copies for the wedding party is fair game.

That is, the wedding party has "Fair Use"... As for "... cannot say that they created it, slice it up and use proprietary animations and such..." as far as intellectual property goes, surely that is what copyright is all about. The OWNER of the copyright can do anything they want with the content (including locking it away completely until expiration). The licensee can only do a limited number of things depending on the license + "Fair use".

The arguement on whether the videographer retains copyright or not is actually really simple. Firstly jaxx, stop talking about your two sections. It is only relevant to American law and furthermore, you don't need to register copyrights. The fact that you keep going on about them means that you don't understand copyrights. Copyrights are automatically given.

Secondly is the issue of whether the videographer is "work made for hire". The videographer CAN be in this status (and I agree with the assertion from numerous members that they MORALLY should be in this status) -- in such a case the client owns the copyright. However, they don't necessarily have to be. They can work as an independent contractor. In such a case, they will retain copyright.

There is NO contract between you and the bus company. We've even taken it up ith the Port Authority when the bus failed to stop at our stops (and other such "breaches"), but were told TS. They made a damn good argument too.

Actually, your example is somewhat different. If the bus doesn't pick you up, then there is no contract. You have not engaged in any form of business exchange. "TS" seems pretty fair to me (though a bummer for you).

In my example, I got onto the bus. There is an implicit contract then. For example, I have the obligation of paying the designated fare and the bus company has a duty of care to me as a passenger.

As for the Supreme Court in CCNV v. Reid points, that is quite interesting. However, if you go through the "employer/employee" relationship, it is still obviously ambiguous as to whether you can say that the videographer-client relationship qualifies. I would argue that there are some clear qualitative differences.

@ jaxxboss: most other people on this thread are able to discuss these differing points of views without personal attacks. If you aren't able to do this, then please refrain from posting anything further or I will give you a warning.

As for "work specially ordered", don't be so closed minded about it. There are reasons why that paragraph includes several conditions. Just fitting one doesn't mean a whole lot. There are plenty of times when Person A may "specially order" a work from Person B. That does not imply at all that "Person A" is necessarily the owner of the copyright.

Best regards.

[triphop]

Dude, im done with you. It is obvious that you are bias in this regard.

I don't think it's bias. I think some of these people are starting to realize their ideas are unpopular and/or untrue, and are getting defensive and stubborn instead of just saying "I may be wrong" or "I need to research this a bit more in light of this conversation".

Smurf, I will grant you that some of what I believe is unpopular (I have yet to be told by a paid professional that its untrue). Does that mean that I need to change my opinion just to fit with what is popular? I think not - thats called hypocrisy. I prefer to be called unpopular than a hypocrit.

Anyway popularity is all relative to the crowd that you happen to be in: you might not be so popular if you stood up in a crowd of authors and decried copyright protection.

PS. Of course its not Bias (and of course its bias).

[indolikaa]

I prefer to be called unpopular than a hypocrit.

I totally agree with that philosophy.

[Nolonemo]

You don't need a Macrovison licence to set a bit in the video.
The DVD player generates the Macrovision so it's the one that needs the
license.

There was quite a bit of discussion on this topic (without the thread drift) on the Sony Vegas forums a few weeks ago. The videographer there was shooting choral recitals and people in the group were buying a DVD and making lots of VHS copies off of it.

According to that post, it does seem that you can set the Macrovision bit in a DVD-R using DVD Workshop 2. The license fee is paid not by the software mfg or the player mfg, AFAIK, but by the person who uses it to protect the disk.

In both of these cases (don't want crappy copies and mass copying in the target group) it seems to me that Macrovision is an adequate solution. Those of us on the forum forget that copying DVDs is still pretty esoteric stuff for your average computer user. As far as quality and making your product look bad, where DVD to DVD copying is concerned, most of the one-stop solutions on the market will do an excellent job on a DVD-R copy - I mean it's a bit for bit copy, not like ripping DVD-9s and compressing them. The argument that the copy might be made on bad media is pretty far fetched to me. As for copies to VHS, where you would have a significant quality hit, the macrovision would take care of that. The only downside is that DVD Workshop 2 is a pretty expensive package ($500-600?).

Disclaimer: I have not personally tested whether DVD WS2 will succesfully write the macrovison bit to a DVD-R in a way that's recognizable by the circuitry in the player because I don't care enough to get hold of a copy and try it out. . . .

[kamuixtv]

I have my own way to protect vcds but it's not perfect. If I show it here maybe the people of the Philippines will be happy to defeat my "copy protection"

[Sifaga]

This is my method of protecting my backups, it works for me but Ive had to amend step 3.

1. I make my backup in my bedroom

2. After the backup i write "Do not touch" on it

3. I put it on my book shelf. ( Ive had to put it on the top shelf since my two year old learnt to climb )

theres a step 4 but I have to wait till my 2 year old learns to read then I'll show her the label and explain to her what "Do not touch" means.