-
Quick Tour
Connect. Share. Learn.Welcome to ActiveRain, the #1 social community for real estate professionals.- Explore the world's largest storehouse of real estate knowledge
- Access free training on ActiveRain University
- Share the experience of life in the real estate industry
- Grow your business through real estate blogging
- Blogs
-
Resources
Product Reviews Curious as to what others in your profession think about a certain product or tool? AR's community takes the time to leave honest and transparent reviews of their experiences so you can be a bit wiser about your purchase.
- Broken down by categories and subcategories for easy finds
- Get an unfiltered look at what real users are saying
- Leave a review yourself for others to benefit from
- Add new products as you use them and gain points for doing so
|
Posted by 
;)
;)
;)
Find FL real estate agents and Wellington real estate on ActiveRain.
Disclaimer: ActiveRain Corp. does not necessarily endorse the real estate agents, loan officers and brokers listed on this site. These real estate profiles, blogs and blog entries are provided here as a courtesy to our visitors to help them make an informed decision when buying or selling a house. ActiveRain Corp. takes no responsibility for the content in these profiles, that are written by the members of this community.
© 2013 ActiveRain Corp. All Rights Reserved
85 Comments on Embedding Videos On Your Website- Is It Copyright Infringement?
Thanks for the well thought through and brilliant post explaining the use of video.
I found another post that said there are a couple of things to keep in mind regarding the ruling from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals you refer to...
"this was a ruling on a preliminary injunction, not a consideration of the full merits of the case. Also, the court did not rule that embedding infringing content is legal, but rather “vacate[d] a preliminary injunction…because the district court had applied the wrong standard.”
Bottom line, it does NOT mean it's okay to embed someone else's video.
Katerina
As you always do you have presented some highly relevant information that speaks to all of us here and our blogging on AR.
I recall a post not all that long ago...OK, maybe a few years...when it was made VERY clear that the TOS on YT precluded us from embedding videos that were not our own.
That said, I suspect this issue may NOT be done and settled, just knowing how the courts and attorneys work. But it seems to clear the way for embedding going forward and relieves some anxity about what has been done by many here on AR.
Jeff
Jeff- I think that this is far from over. There are strong lobbying groups too that will continue to fight sharing of content. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out over the next few years. For right now, we get to embed away. It makes total sense. When we embed a video, that video is still on the site we embedded it from, it is linking right back to that video thus helping the author of that video.
A case to watch will be U.S DOJ against British citizen Richard O'Dwyer. The U.S is trying to extradite him. He created a site taht linked to online videos but never hosted those videos on his site. He created TVshack.net. mostly for Brits. Some of the users linked to content that was pirated on other sites. But Richard himself never did that. Of course Richard does not have the kind of money that Google does to defend himself against Big Brother on the side of Hollywood. Wikipedia founder is helping him get his defense. Richard deleted the post that a user had added but he was still arrested. I wonder if this is such a great use of our tax dollars. He is facing 10 years in prison. Another waste of our tax dollars since we pay $45,000 per inmate per year.
The U.K. investigated the case and the case was dropped in the U.K.
His mother has started a petition which the U.K. Guardian has joined to help - it is #saveRichard campaign if anyone would like to support him. Sign the petition.
Michael- If you embed via YouTube- every single person who uploads a video to YouTube has already agreed to the TOS of YouTube.
"For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in video Content you submit to the Service terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your videos from the Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of your videos that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in user comments you submit are perpetual and irrevocable."
Michael- therefore- if you are a member of YouTube and you use YouTube public content- it is very clear that you agreed to allow the embedding of your videos on my website, etc.
For those that don't like it, they don't need to participate in YouTube or they make ALL their videos PRIVATE. Of course, that gives no google juice.
The court case does not deal with YouTube since YouTube has a TOS that is very clear.
The court case is about another video site - MyVidster.
...but you weren't talking about YouTube, or their TOS. You were talking about a preliminary injunction in a completely different court case, drawing conclusions from that, and passing it along as fact.
In your blog you stated..."This means that you can go to YouTube and choose videos to embed on your website. You can go to any Video syndication site and do the same thing." Which is NOT necessarily correct information.
I'm not an attorney, but I do know that potential 'plagiarism' is very risky area, and the liability can be extremely high. And people need to know what's really going on before just grabbing someone else's videos or photos.
Just my 2¢
Wasn't going to comment, but figured why not, I read your entire post! Very interesting and I'm glad you posted the results of the court case. Since we all tend to share YouTubes and video it's good to know we aren't committing copyright infringement. Thanks!
Very informative! I always appreciate other's expertise on these matters. Thanks for the lesson.
YouTube takes the position that everythikng is a Copyright infriongement. I have had to battle them three times (twice for clients) and I prevailed all three times but they put me (us) through a LOT
It will be interesting to see how this issue continues to unfold. It seems almost impossible to police and mandate materials that a person is putting on the worldwide web for everyone.
So does this mean it is alright for me to continue with my movie review as long as I continue to say that they were found on YouTube they do allow you tho embedded them .
Hannah
Very insightful information about this issue and thanks for posting it. Many responsible agents were afraid to use good and effective videos from sources with Terms of Service like You Tube in their communication and marketing efforts. Your information brings all of us a sigh of relief.
The YouTube videos I have shared have had the ability to share openly displayed on the site. If it was not to be shared that should be disabled on the YouTube video.
Wow, Great information and very interesting! Thank you for sharing so great post!
Honestly I don't know any of the rules, laws, or injunctions regarding copyrighting videos but the only thing I can say here is that if you are prohibited by law or statute, etc., then why would YouTube give you the option of embedding a video?! To me, that makes no sense if you weren't allowed to embed it.
On another note, real estate agents who upload their own videos to YouTube can add your signature at the end so that if another agent steals embeds your vidoe on their website, your contact info is still there (its almost like a re-blog).
Thanks for sharing.
I see this post was featured in the AR daily drop. I was quite surprised to say the least to see the post revived with comments!
Gina- Agents and anyone else who is marketing online should be happy to have their videos embedded on other websites. That is getting a link back to your YouTube account from that person's website. That helps in the original video uploaders' YouTube SEO. The only way to have any video go viral is through many people posting the video on their sites and linking to it in social media.
Most of your questions have been answered in my comments above. I go into detail on some of the copyright questions. I am not an attorney. I am only using the TOS from YouTube in my responses.
Good stuff! Very clear! Most people don't realize how all this works!
Login or register to leave a comment