Displaying Youtube videos and Flickr photos

[Third Sector Lab]

Does anyone know where copyright comes into play if you display videos from Youtube or photos from Flickr on your blog which aren't your own?

I'm not talking about displaying things like videos of famous films or TV shows. I'm talking about user-generated content which has been uploaded.

I ask because I'd like to display photos and videos on a website based upon keywords/tags using one of the many Youtube/Flickr widgets/feeds but I'm a little unsure about the legality of it.

If people have uploaded it to the sites and I'm displaying it via a feed, as opposed to passing off the photos/video as my own, is it ok?

 

[Mike Lewis]

Ross,

Very simple. Copyright in any photo or video belongs to the person who created it. It doesn't matter if the person is an international celebrity or an unknown amateur. It doesn't matter if they upload the work to a thousand websites or just hang it on their bathroom wall. It's their copyright, and no-one can take it away from them.

Now, having said that, people who upload to Flickr and similar sites sometimes give permission for other people to copy or use their work - including displaying it in feeds. Flickr itself has settings that make it easy to do that. It might be a blanket permission or a more limited one.

But the default is always the same. The work is always copyright. And, unless you can see a notice stating otherwise, you are infringing the copyright if you re-post or otherwise publish the images.

Hope this answers your question.

Mike

 

[Boxby]

When you use a youtube video you embed youtube into your website, you don't take the video out of youtube. I would therefore imagine that as long as you don't mess with the embedded code, leave it all as youtube sends it, then you would not be breaching any copyright rules. The publisher has given consent for the video to be used on youtube, and you are displaying youtube in your website. Every play of the video I think just carries on and adds to the youtube stats etc, so it's clearly within youtube still.

 

[stugster]

It's an interesting one, and one that even the courts can't agree on. I would have said that by "embedding" or "showing" the youtube video on your site, you're actually just linking to the content and you haven't actually duplicated it.

Having said that... The guys who run the illegal torrent site The Pirate Bay recently got done for copyright infringement, but all their site actually does is links to the files (or trackers) which in turn, link to the files stored on joe pubilc's PC.

The clear cut answer comes from YouTube themselves. Their Terms of Service state that when you upload content:

8.2 You retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions, but you are required to grant limited licence rights to YouTube and other Website users. These are described in paragraph 10 of these Terms (Rights you licence).

10.1 When you upload or post a User Submission to YouTube, you grant:

1. to YouTube, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable licence (with right to sub-licence) to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform that User Submission in connection with the provision of the Services and otherwise in connection with the provision of the Website and YouTube's business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels;
2. to each user of the Website, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, licence to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such User Submissions to the extent permitted by the functionality of the Website and under these Terms.



Therefore, by embedding a YouTube video, you yourself are not infringing on any copyrighted works.

 

[Mike Lewis]

On the specific point of "embedding" content -- rather than reproducing it -- this has never been tested in the Scottish courts as far as I know.

However, there are have been a few cases in the US. For example, see:
New York Times sued over Boston.com's linking practice | Digital Media - CNET News

(The headline is misleading. The case wasn't about linking as such, but about aggretating extracts, which I think is relevant to this thread.)

I still maintain than any attempt to display another person's work without their consent constitutes a breach of copyright. I take Stu's point about YouTube requiring users to grant a specific licence, but I think that's a special case. I know Flickr, for example, doesn't do that.

Mike

 

[stugster]

I'm no expert on this at all by any means, but I think that if you're clearly showing the content is being distributed by YouTube (which is clear in their flash player),then the copyright onus is passed from you to YouTube. Just like if you were to RSS a feed from another site - you're not automatically going to become liable for infringing any copyright.

One such case that almost got to the Scottish courts was Shetland Times v Shetland News. Copyright info on the Net

There's a sentence that reads:

"One can "fair deal" - in other words one can copy a Literary Work without having to ask permission or pay a fee - as long as it is indeed "fair" (in other words, does not damage the legitimate commercial interests of the copyright owner) and as long as the copying is for one of several permitted purposes"

As soon as the courts learned that the content had been uploaded to YouTube by the copyright holder, they'd automatically assume that any further use of the material would be "fair use". The owner of the material has voluntarily released it to the public domain and therefore, there is no legitimate commercial value in the material itself (in terms of direct revenue stream for the copyright owner).

The YouTube terms of service upon uploading are there specifically to prevent these kinds of things going to court.

Having said all that about YouTube, the owners of Flickr, Yahoo, are of a complete opposite stance. They insist that the copyright remains with the uploader and that although users can link to the article, they must not infringe the copyright. By doing so, the infringer is breaking the terms of service Yahoo have set, and is liable.

 

[Mike Lewis]

Stuart, I have to say I really don't agree with your point that "the owner of the material has voluntarily released it to the public domain and therefore, there is no legitimate commercial value in the material itself".

There is really no such concept as "releasing to the public domain". If you have copyright in a work, you have copyright in that work. You might choose not to enforce that copyright; you might give blanket permission for anyone to do anything they like with it; but no third party can contract with you to take the right away.

I accept that YouTube might require you not to enforce the copyright (I haven't read their terms, so can't say for sure about this). But, if I was in Ross's position, I wouldn't rely on that as a defence.

You say you're not an expert in this. Well, neither am I. I'm just basing my opinion on what I've read over the years, plus a some personal experience as a copyright holder. Personally, I think Ross should play it safe and ask the copyright holder (the person who created the work) for permission to show it on his site.

Mike

 

[Former Member 1]

Hello all :001_tt2:

Many months since my last post... But as the cuckoo seems to have been duly ejected from the nest now might be as good a time as any to correct that...

As you might recall Copyright law is actually one of the subjects I teach....

YouTube's T.O.S. do indeed require the author to licence any I.P. both to YouTube itself and (as far as is allowed by the functionality of the platform) to YouTube users. So, insofar as that functionality allows you to embed YouTube videos in your own pages, this would seem to be within the terms of the licence...

HOWEVER! The nature of copyright law is that, depending on the content, you may in fact be breaching the rights of some other I.P. Owner! For instance: In late June we hope to make available some concert footage that will be recorded at "The Captain's Rest" in Glasgow on June 4th. ..The subjects are some student bands, music is mostly original, sound will be recorded by Riverside Studios, video by TFGtv... There are at least FOUR possibly FIVE layers of IP there!

I can post the video up and that might be within the scope of the clearances I hold (for the music, performance and the audio) BUT whilst anyone embedding the video may be within the law in terms of the completed video they might be breaching someone else's IP in terms of the performance etc...

For the record Mike's quite right. There IS no such thing as releasing to the public domain. PD status is quite a specific thing in law. Likewise there is no such thing as "copyright free" material... And to make matters muddier there are differences between what's supposed as "fair use" under American law and "fair dealing" under UK laws...

The commercial value of a piece of IP really doesn't enter into it until you're seeking compensation; and even then it doesn't change the fact that a piece of IP has been stolen; it merely reflects on how much might be claimed by way of commercial compensation (as opposed to damages)...

One of the most important aspects of the core service I offer is the proper management of IP and the maintenance of a proper audit trail. As for something 'escaping' into the public domain just because it's on YouTube? Nooooo....

YouTube - Anvil! The story of Anvil.

...As with all our IP there's a £35,000 price tag for a one-year non-exclusive licence to use this material! That's if you don't ask nicely first, in which case we'll negotiate down to about three pints of Guinness and some crisps....

We've already had it pulled from (I think) four sites who were hosting copies of it themselves...

 

[Eagle]

Youtube users have the option of disabling the embed code so, technically, the onus is on them. Youtube is for sharing. :001_smile:

 

[Former Member 1]

Youtube users have the option of disabling the embed code so, technically, the onus is on them. Youtube is for sharing. :001_smile:

Well, yes YouTube does indeed have that option...

However technically (i.e. legally) the onus is absolutely still on the individual to make sure that they have the rights to use any IP they might actually be using. And that applies to video, photographs, sounds, text or whatever equally well....

 

[stugster]

Welcome back Matt

Does that then mean that if I link to a website on the internet, I am at risk of breaching copyright?

 

[Former Member 1]

Welcome back Matt

Does that then mean that if I link to a website on the internet, I am at risk of breaching copyright?

Possible but not at all likely....

If (as I've seen some sites do) you have a thumbnail of the site you're linking to THAT might breach copyright. But merely giving directions to another site doesn't involve actually using someone else's material.... Same would be true of a link to a video. It's when it's embedded such that it's displayed that you begin to open up cans of worms...

 

[Mike Lewis]

Matt,

I'm pleased that you have confirmed what I more-or-less supposed -- especialy given your obvious expertise on this subject.

Mike

 

[Former Member 1]

Matt,

I'm pleased that you have confirmed what I more-or-less supposed -- especialy given your obvious expertise on this subject.

Mike

Well I'm hardly an expert Mike. Although managing IP rights is a big part of what I do.

In the final analysis where things start to get 'sticky' the only real advice I can give is to see a specialist IP lawyer. But generally speaking if you treat IP in principal pretty much as you would physical property you're more or less heading in the right direction...