Real Estate Blog - COPYRIGHT. I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO HATE ME NOW!

Home : Blogs : Lenn Harley, Real Estate Broker, Maryland & Virginia : Lenn Harley, Broker, Homefinders.com in Maryland and Virginia

COPYRIGHT. I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO HATE ME NOW!

CAN or SHOULD YOU USE VIDEOS FROM YOUTUBE.COM?

FROM THE YOUTUBE COMMUNITY GUIDELINES:

Respect copyright. Only upload videos that you made or that you are authorized to use. This means don't upload videos you didn't make, . . . . More. . . . .

Copyright Guideline. When you create something original, you own the copyright for it. . . . More. . .

FROM YOUTUBE TERMS

Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only and may not be downloaded, copied, * * * * without the prior written consent of the respective owners. . . . More. . . .

GENERAL USE - A. You agree not to distribute in any medium any part of the Website, including but not limited to User Submissions (defined below), without YouTube's prior written authorization. . . . More. . .

There is no risk of copyright infringement in the video published below.

Courtesy, Lenn Harley, Broker, Homefinders.com, 800-711-7988, E-Mail.

Join the fight against "THE RIGHT CLICK SYNDROME"

Posted by Lenn Harley, Real Estate Broker, Maryland & Virginia on 11/06/2008 09:53 AM

Comments (77)

Post is included in group: Club Chaos
Post is included in group: Realtors®
Post is included in group: The Ninety-ninth Percentile

77 Comments on COPYRIGHT. I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO HATE ME NOW!

NOV

2008

Sigh!! You have too many rules! Lol! I already went back and I think I deleted every uploaded youtube. thanks for the info Lenn.

Oh boy! You've opened a can of worms for many people. A hyperlink to a YouTube video should still be kosher. Fortunately, the videos I've embedded here from YouTube are all my original creations.

Now the question is who will police this: YouTube themselves? The copyright owners? Harlen, the masked copyright crusader?

I too have made videos of my own creation uploaded to YouTube. Wonder if anyone is using them lol!

Susan. Rules can be down right aggrivating, can't they?

Brian. I've seen your videos and I know you did them yourself. I know folks aren't going to like this one.

Brad and I have been talking about these matters and I thought I'd get this one out of the way before The Masked Copyright Crusader got to it.

Sally. Ah Ha! That's another question.

You are just a font of useful information. Whether people like it or not is inconsequential, as some will choose to ignore what's right for their own benefit, but for those who believe in the rules, it's helpful to have the right answers. Thanks for this!

From YouTube:

Prohibited commercial uses do not include:

using the Embeddable Player to show YouTube videos on an ad-enabled blog or website, provided the primary purpose of using the Embeddable Player is not to gain advertising revenue or compete with YouTube;

I see no problem.

Lenn, To avoid any problems linking should be used instead of embedding. Doesn't look as nice but it's safer in the long run.

Lenn, thankfully I wasn't smart enough to know how to do it as I learned to make my own videos.

I am curious about Jim's comment about not using it for advertising. Your thoughts?

What bothers me is that the MPAA and the RIAA go after individual copyright infringers and p2p users while youtube and other various sites knowingly and criminally commit much broader copyright infringment and are not in any trouble. Youtube would be zilch without its pirated video clips and movies. Yet this corporate entity gets away with it. Not only that they go beyond any normal "pirater" because not only do they make available these pirated videos to billions of people they make a gigantic profit! If a single person did this they would be in prison for life. Yet our government turns a blind eye to them. Very unjust in the least. Millions of dollars have been spent prosecuting torrent sites that dont even host material! They host a tracker and there is no actual video on their servers while youtube hosts this stuff! Our copyright law stinks like rotten cabbage and only benefits large corporate entities. They are in the pockets of politicians writing these laws for their own benefit while they go after 90 year old women and 8 year old kids for pirating. Something stinks.

Lenn: I agree with your post and believe that links are generally the best approach. Embedding video does violate both the TOS for YouTube.com and enfringes the copyright of the owner of the video (who may not have been the person who posted it to YouTube.com in the first place). If the Napster fiasco didn't teach anyone a lesson, it should have - that is, just because it is on the internet doesn't mean that you can or should use it.

Ryan. Excellent. Napster and the one that followed with the $200.000 plus judgment for copyright violation against the lady that downloaded music should have taught folks too.

Shane. I'm fine with what YouTube does. YouTube acts like a library. You can borrow (view), but you can't use for commercial purposes. Books in a library are copyright protected. Videos on YouTube are copyright protected.

Lenn, we don't hate you for being right. I need to go look at my early posts. You have probably saved me loads of hard earned cash!

Melody. Thanks. That is all I'm trying to do.

Jim. I've heard that opinion before. The question is, is ActiveRain a commercial web site blog? I believe it is and I believe that by posting a YouTube video to which you do not have permission to publish, you are violating the creator's copyright. Keep in mind, of course, that I'm no expert.

Connie. Better take your own videos. Wish I could get a handle on it. I'm working on it.

I disagree with Jim.

Richard. I agree 100%.

Susan. Thanks for your comment. That's the spirit we must develop.

Thanks for sharing! I have really not gotten into videos so I have not paid attention to this issue. Thanks for sharing! Yes Lenn, we still love you! :)

Thanks Jim. I'm happy now.

Thanks for this valuable information, good to know, thanks again for sharing

Wow Lenn, that is a great video...now if I can only think of a way to snag it for my blog... :)

Btw, thanks for reminding me that I have another cooking video to finish! :)

Prohibited commercial uses do not include:

using the Embeddable Player to show YouTube videos on an ad-enabled blog or website, provided the primary purpose of using the Embeddable Player is not to gain advertising revenue or compete with YouTube

Lenn- You can never go wrong not copying or embedding someone else's material. However, I have also read the YouTube terms, above, to which Jim referred.

Most entities prohibit all commercial use or ban commercial use without express authorization. YouTube's prohibition differs by the inclusion of its final phrase, only disallowing use if it is to gain advertising revenue or compete with YouTube.

I think that phrase may open the door to allowing YouTube to be embedded on individual's blogs.

For myself, I think I'll stick to using my own text and pictures. I haven't yet embarked on the world of video. Better safe legal than sorry broke.

I agree with Jim on this one. On youtube the original owner/copyright holder can opt out of sharing their video. From youtube...

Also, please note that if you don't want one of your videos to be embedded on other websites, you can disable that feature by following the steps below:

Within your account, click the "My Uploaded Videos" link (http://youtube.com/my_videos).

Click the "Edit Video Info" button to the right of the video in question.

Under "Sharing Options," click the button next to "No, external sites may NOT embed and play this video."

So they way youtube is designed is that BY NOT opting out, which you can do, you are agreeing to share your video.

I think they define commerical use as use for profit. So the question becomes is sharing a funny real estate video a for profit adventure? I don't think so, but that is one for the attorneys to decide.

Marilyn. I understand that phrase. However, ActiveRain is repleat with advertising and received income from advertising revenue.

I still believe that if one uses videos from YouTube, even if there is no gain advertising revenue, the blogger still needs the written permission from the copyright owner.

Melina. I understand the matter of the YouTube sharing.

I still believe that it's risky. We had one incident earlier with a "FREE" image web site that gave permission to post and then withdrew it long after many of the images were posted on ActiveRain web sites.

Jeremy. You have my permission. It leads directly to me.

Roberto. Many disagree. However, when there is conflicting information about copyright, I wouldn't risk the use of anything I didn't create.

Marilyn Katz wrote:

Prohibited commercial uses do not include: using the Embeddable Player to show YouTube videos on an ad-enabled blog or website, provided the primary purpose of using the Embeddable Player is not to gain advertising revenue or compete with YouTube

Marilyn. I read that to mean that you can use the Embeddable Player to show YouTube videos . . . . . of your own, not a video post by someone else.

YouTube does not grant rights. Owners grant rights. YouTube only illustrates what you can and can not do in their forum. YouTube warns users not to violate copyright law. GET RID OF THE EMBEDS. YouTube is still in litigation and there is more than $1 Billion at stake. If Google, who owns YouTube loses, they will be forced to hand over individual account information. Do you really want to be safe or sorry?

Lenn Harley, I love the way your mind thinks. Keep telling the truth about copyright... :-)

Featured @ Club Chaos

Carolyn. Thanks. I am always concerned that ActiveRain will be dragged into a lawsuit.

I have been wondering about this! Is it legal to just copy and paste the inspirational emails? I am still really confused about this too.

Thanks for the post.

Well you've found another situation! I've only used one so far thank god.

Lenn- Good point. I guess I was playing devil's advocate, looking for the loophole. I think I'll stay on the side of the angels - less chance to end up owing a lot of money.

Kathy. I don't believe so.

Lyn. We just cannot be too careful.

Marilyn. Agreed. I know what I collect in damages from folks who use my maps. I can imagine the damages of a copyright protected video.

wow - you're worse than my mother telling me what I'm not allowed to do :)

thanks for looking out for all of us and making sure we stay on the striaght and narrow!

tina in virginia

Tina. Thanks. Moms know best.

I agree that its better to be safe than sorry but I don't think it is something to completely stop using.

I think there are three issues here. 1) the blatant copyright violations. I know that the Inspired by Music group is going to have some serious problems since those are mostly youtube videos and I am sure mostly copyright violations. You can see who uploaded the video and if the artist or music company did then they want it out there. Some musicians post their own music on there. Most don't. I personally would be very cautious with music.

Then 2) sharing truly original content. The people who upload their own original content are consenting for it to be shared and embedded unless they opt out. I don't think there is any issue there. They are consenting. It is, in theory, informed consent.

Then 3) the gray areas. Sarah takes video of her wedding and their are songs playing in the background. She isn't marketing the songs or profiting from them, but they are being played and heard. The artists aren't receiving any royalities on them unless she actually went to the music industry website and got a limited license to use those songs in her public video. You can purchase the rights to use music in an original video production.

I know the lawsuit with Viacom is over the blatant violations.

Wow, Lenn is giving me permission to use her video...I wonder if I can press my luck and use her photos...:) Nah, I don't need fedex visiting my office with a package from Lenn's Attorney!

Jeremy. Folks who take and use my maps, usually crop my name off. I don't really care that much about the photos.

Although, one of these days, I might select the best ones and register them. Mmmmmmm.

If my photos were of the quality of Teresa Boardman or Mike Jones, I already would have registered them.

I'm so glad I've never attached a you tube ..... now I don't have to go back to edit my blogs.

This is the reason I never ventured to embed you tube videos. Just didn't sound right. I'll have to start shooting some original video a la Lenn :) ~Rita

I agree just do your own and you won't have to worry about infringing on someone else.

WOW! You are daring. You just opened a can of worm.

I am just glad I never added anything to my blog like pics and video. Kept it nice and boring with whole bunch of text. Now I won't have to edit it.

Lenn, When you post a video on YouTube one of the options is either to allow people to embed your video or not. If there is an embed code then that person has already given permission for the video to be embedded on other's web sites, blogs etc.. I am not an expert on copyright but this is clearly stated when you upload a video. Of course this certainly assumes that the person that posted the vidoe is the one that OWNS the video. Am I wrong?

Bryant. I don't know. The copyright info on YouTube is clearly conflicting. I followed the advisory statements on the YouTube "Copyright" statements and the "Community Guidelines".

Nelya. Funny. I suspect that this matter will not be settled for now.

Terry. Indeed. That's always safe.

Kenna. If you use your own created material, you never have to worry.

April. That's a very safe route to take.

Lenn, what is YouTube if not a great "sharing" site? I agree that the embed code is implicitly allowing you to use it.

Lenn, we definitely have to be respectful of copyright laws. I love your youtube video.

I always wondered about this, but the embed code suggests to me its "okay" to use the video in my opinion. I do hear what you're saying, and will think twice before I use a YouTube video in one of my posts.

It should be noted that youtube and daily motion both remove videos if there are complaints by copyright holders of copyright infringement. You will find videos on there, that used to work, that are clearly labeled that they were removed for that reason.

Lenn, I bet you made a lot of grown people cry with this post. I see youtube videos all over AR...thank goodness I'm too stupid to figure out how to share them, lol...

Lenn... yes, I hate you now. And just like Elizabeth, I see tons of youtube videos all over the place. What about those of musicians? I didn't read the guides. ex.. if I wanted to use a specific Beattles song/video, I can't? rut row..

jeff belonger

NOV

2008

I was doing a bit of reading about this. I see that sites like youtube are not held liable for user content, they are covered by the Online Infringement Liability Limitation Act. This law protects providers such as youtube but, they must be willing to take down videos if the copyright holder says that infringment is taking place. Apparently youtube has an excellent record at taking down any videos that fall in this category. They follow the rules per the law which is that their obligation is to remove content if there is a legit complaint.

http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy

I was also reading other information that said that, linking is probably smarter than embedding in the long run and that if a video is being used with comments, as in to make a point, then it is likely to be considered fair use. It said that merely posting a video, without comment or critique is where the risk comes in. Anyway, that is some of what I gleaned.

Steven. Right on the mark. Fair use, snippit and links is the way to go.

I purposefully compiled a list of "snippets" to demonstrate that point in this post.

I believe that many are risking damage claims in the zeal to include a video in their post when a snippet and link provides the same information.

Jeff. Funny. Beatles? Sinatra? HA! Shucks, go ahead and use a current Metalica and thei attorney might come knocking at your door. Lars Ulrich was a prime mover against Napster.

Elizabeth. If it's any comfort, I could be wrong. Actually, copying the imbed and putting it on a post, as I did with MY viceo ad is quite easy. When you have your own video on YouTube, you can copy them an use the whereever you wish.

Steven. Indeed. YouTube and Google have a healthy respect for copyright. When content owners publish on Google or YouTube, they have the right to expect that viewers will not violate the contributor's copyright and use the content as their own. Sadly, they overestimate the ethics of many.

Margaret. That's about the best we can do. I believe that YouTube could do a better job of removing the conflict between the "imbed 'permission'" and the copyright information in the Guidelines.

Tanya. Thanks. I love it too. Since it's clearly branded, I don't really care if someone uses it. It's got Homefinders.com all over.

Bryant. The matter of the "permission" when uploading a video would be clearer if the "permission" were published with the video by the owner. As it is, anyone can upload anything. I'm still not sure that this "permission" relieves the user of the need for written permission which is clearly stated in the Guidelines.

Oh Lord, I better not share my favorite Barry White video any more! Wish you were here in Orlando for NAR.

Susie. Careful of the Barry White video.

I'd love to go to these events. However, I have a number of agents who depend on me for home buyers. I have to "hang in" here and get the job done.

Every buyer contact counts these days. They don't let me out anymore.

Enjoy Orlando.

I like your sense of humor with your video---which is very nice, btw. I always appreciate your expertise and your clear explanations. Thank you!

Mara. Thanks. I used that video on Comcast Cable TV and it produced little to no busines. At least none that I could track.

I figure now, shucks, let 100,000 ActiveRain members post it.

Who knows???

Well since you inspired me to finish it, I did. now my next cooking video is up. They say I should make a cooking show, so I will need an agent to represent me. Lenn you busy?

I think based on the youtube guidelines that I read that one can, far as they are concerned at youtube, embed if you have -- per agreement -- also a link back to you tube.

F. If you use the YouTube Embeddable Player on your website, you must include a prominent link back to the YouTube website on the pages containing the Embeddable Player and you may not modify, build upon, or block any portion of the Embeddable Player in any way.

They do not want you stealing videos for your site. They want to be the central location for the video. I think the only real risk would be if you had a video embedded and the person who posted it did not have the right to have put it up there in the first place. Then the fact you embedded it is not a problem with youtube, the problem is that it should not be there. And then it seems that if the copyright holder complains, as in the way the law reads, youtube then has to remove it so it goes dead. So your blog, suddenly loses the link. That happens by the way and has happened to me a couple times. It is not always copyright issues, sometimes people just remove stuff far as I can tell. That is a risk of these sites -- you loose your content at some point.

For the record, I have done some historical music posts, at inspired by song, that include videos. Based on what I have read, I would think they would be fair comment as the articles are detailed. The videos are used to establish the history of the artists. I certainly could have used links, used to do that until someone told me how to embed. In some ways I like the links better anyway and they work just as well. Anyway, in three cases, regarding the music history articles, of which I have probably done thirty or so, I have had Emails from family members of the artists, and in one case from the manager of a major artist, thanking me for the post and asking that I also put links to their websites. They liked the publicity and the favorable comments. The others I heard nothing from.

Ok, here's the skinny. The user who contributes the video to youtube , when enabling the embed feature, "IS" allowing you to share their video elsewhere.

In regards to copyright issues with Youtube, the video itself has to bring in advertising dollars, not the blog. Active rain furthermore is not liable for information we post on our blogs. That is at our own risk.

The thought that they will shut down the embed feature based on one lawsuit on every website is just not realistic. I assure you that there is nothing to be worried about. If you should be worried about this, then embedding google maps on our blogs would be risky. Again, noone is going to go after you for something that youtube users are allowing you to share with others. It comes down to the individual account. They have the option to turn sharing on or off.

Lenn, you definetely think ahead and i hope what you say won't come true but for now this is not an issue. But you're right better safe than sorry, this is always true. This article showcases how this hotbed topic is gaining attention and highlights some of the possible future scenarios. But if you notice in the article it clearly dictates that one would have to misuse the embedding feature by using it to mock or critique. If one wants to protect their investment; don't upload it to a public video sharing site, instead upload it to a private photobucket account for example and/or add a copyright logo at the bottom of the video which will inhibit most people from attempting to take your video and abuse it.

What sums it up is comment #10 in that article. He explains what the process of protecting one's own work should consist of. The reason why blogs or other webmasters are asked to take down a video of an individual user is due to the fact that most people ignore these cease and desist messages as lenn could illustrate many times over in her experiences with her maps. Thats' why webmasters like youtube end up having to take action. But in conclusion, as of now, these laws are not set in stone and nothing is actively being done to go after others who use the embed feature in someone's video page on sites like youtube. So we don't need to worry. The world will know when that day happens though as you'll hear it from news organizations like msnbc, cnn and foxnews first as they often use these videos for their news stories.

btw: in regards to using music in wedding videos for example. There have been several cases where music artists sued videographers from using music in their videos but didn't get compensation for said action. Normally speaking, if you post a video where portions of a song is playing in the background you are not at risk. Furthermore, disc jockeys reserve the right to play those songs as they have a music license to do so. To record a public event like this therefore is not against the law. You can also purchase your own license to play music for these purposes at killertracks.

Lenn - interesting...I had not thought of Youtube videos as a copyright issue - guess its because I have not used it myself...But I find the post previous very interesting...so perhaps folks here are ok...

I am safe, I never upload other people's videos. I also see many adding copyrighted music. I will not go there.

Lenn, it seems that since the original uploader of the video has the option of allowing the video to be "embedded" on other sites, or not... that by allowing the embedding they are tacitly approving of the redistribution of their video.

In fact, that seems to be much of the use of YouTube, people posting and hoping that their video becomes the next "Obama Girl" and goes around the world virally.

I know the safest thing to do is "link", but as someone pointed out, it's not as visually pleasing, and some people will choose not to follow the link. As long as we're not using the video to actually generate a profit... and while these blogs are often indirectly about connecting with clients, I think a strong argument could be made that they're not being used for profit, or to compete with YouTube.

Lancaster. Interesting and helpful explanation. IF one wishes to use. I still believe that it's risky. However, that explains the contradiction, somewhat.

Steven. That appears to be a welcomed use of videos.

Jeremy. HA! I still need to cut my speakers on. Next week I'll try to catch up with your cooking video.

NOV

2008

Well there you go... as simple as that. Here is the no nonsense explanation from a no nonsense woman. Thanks Lenn.

Alan. I'm not sure. I would not pull one of those videos and republish without written permission as outlined in the "copyright" sections of the YouTube use instructions.

Marlene. Simple?? I wish. There is disagreement. For me, I'm very risk averse.

Many years ago, I put together a little group of about 50 attorneys who were interested in talking about real estate. Some were real estate attorneys, but all were welcome. For the past decade we go out to eat on Friday nights and talk about the latest happenings. Jim informed me about this discussion, so I broached it with my little group this past Friday. The unanimous consensus (I love it when the consensus is unanimous) was manifold: 1 - "primary purpose" is a key phrase. The primary purpose of using a YouTube video on any specific blog of any specific individual participating at an Active Rain type of site "is not to gain advertising revenue or compete with YouTube." 2 - YouTube has a bazillion gazillion attorneys on staff. They know what's going on, especially at a site as large as Active Rain. Don't worry about it. If they don't like what any specific individual is doing, they will notify you. They like people embedding YouTube videos because it is free advertising and publicity for them. 3 - If any specific YouTube member uploads a video that he doesn't want embedded elsewhere, he can opt out. When he does that, the embedding code will not be available, replaced instead with a note that says "Embedding disabled at request of the user" or something similar. 4 - No logical person (which might not include attorneys -- LOL) could possibly think that any individual blogger at Active Rain or any similar site would be using YouTube videos for "the primary purpose of .... gain[ing] advertising revenue or compet[ing] with YouTube." Certainly Active Rain is not advertising anywhere that "If you would like to advertise with Active Rain, we give 50% discounts if you'll use YouTube videos in your advertising on our site" or "Advertise with Active Rain because our members use YouTube videos in their blogs." Then you would have a valid issue. At this time though, I think you're just looking for a blog topic that fits in with your obvious obsession with copyright infringement, not that copyright infringement is a bad topic in and of itself.

Russel, that's the way it seems to me too... I like the way you think.

Russell, I figure that fifty lawyers cannot be wrong. At least in this case they support my pre-conceived notions and I like that. I think youtube is fine, if used as stated.

Good advice Lenn, thanks for keeping us out of trouble!

I'm seeing some dangerous misinformation in the comments. Just because someone enables the embed feature does not automatically mean that it's OK for others to post on their blogs. The original uploader must have rights to the video in the first place, and this is not always the case. If you shoot concert footage on your phone, the performance still belongs to the artist. The best course of action is if you didn't shoot it and/or don't have explicit rights to it, don't use it.

NOV

2008

John. I suspect that if you shot the video yourself, you would own the rights to the video that YOU shot. However, many, if not most preformance artists, film producers, etc., do not permit videos of their performances, movies, etc. to be taken by audiences. The perfect example is the "bootlegged" newly released movie sold on the black market, i.e., vendor on the corner or anyplace in China.

OTOH, I suspect that if you downloaded a video of a concert performance fimed and distributed by the entity with the distribution rights to the performance, you would be violating their copyright. As stated many times, I'm no expert. I still have not resolved the conflict between "imbed permission" and copyright. In fact, I leave that to the real experts. That said, I believe that inserting any video on YouTube on any ActiveRain blog violates the video owners' copyright.

We can call ActiveRain a "social network" all we wish. However, IMO, there is a sufficiency of commercial content for ActiveRain to be considered advertising by anyone who posts to the network. If there is to be an error, I would prefer to stay on the safe side. Of course, I could easily be wrong.

NOV

2008

More information that my own copyright attorney sent to me, something that I had somehow missed earlier:

http://www.youtube.com/youtubeonyoursite

As my copyright attorney said, "Her blog seems to be [censored by Russel Ray]. Good way to get comments, though."

My own personal opinion is that this is much ado about nothing. However, has anyone asked YouTube directly. Perhaps they would like to weigh in here. I think I'll invite them over here.

NOV

2008

Russel. I may be very wrong in my belief that adding videos from YouTube to ActiveRain individual blogs is not permitted. It is beginning to appear that way.

I am, admittedly, over careful when it comes to copyright.

I'm always willing to admit when I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

If your attorney has something to add or correct, seems to me that a statement without a personal attack would be more helpful.

ActiveRain is in a situation where plagiarism is putting many members at risk, confusing many and making folks who have had their content used very angry.

Demeaning members who post about the matter doesn't do much to help.

NOV

2008

John,

If you reread the last paragraph where i talk about music. I used the word portions. And it was in reference to using music in wedding videos, not in regards to concert footage videos. The latter not being ok.

Furthermore your notion that it is not right to assume that someone who enables the embed feature owns the video is correct, your assumption however that it is wrong to post that video on a site or blog is incorrect. There's currently no law against doing so. The burden comes to the original account holder; eg the one who uploaded the video to begin with. Furthermore as mentioned elsewhere, if a video was found to be under copyright infringement, that video would just be disabled furthermore making it unecessary to go after the 1 million people who embedded that video. The embedding technology was created for just that reason, to be able to stop the process of people sharing copyrighted material dead in it's tracks. Once again, this may change as This article suggests.

Lenn has touched on an issue which is being talked about profusely on the internet. This was an excellent topic and by the responses one can see others agree. Thanks again for this great article lenn. You always bring great dialogue to the rain!

btw: Great homefinders video for your company. Was professional and easy to understand. Good job!!

NOV

You can never be to careful or wise when playing with something that doesn't belong to you. I embed YouTube video's all the time in my members only blogs as a theme, and not to help promote my public business or self in anyway.

Lenn you are correct, you are not an expert, but in the same breath either am I.

I suppose posting a public blog with a YouTube video to help enhance my opinion or reinforce a subject would potentially be flirting with trouble.

Trouble is one thing, paranoia and living in fear is another. Just because it isn't practical that somebody is going to sue you to the Stone Age, shouldn't be a reason for you to do as you like with photo's or Youtube videos. In the end I agree with you, but also disagree.

Excellent blog....

Is it possible for a blog to be double featured? lol.

This blog does not allow anonymous comments