[cc-community] YouTube and Creative Commons

Emma Carpenter emma.k.carpenter at live.com
Mon Aug 12 14:01:34 EDT 2013


Maarten, ah, I understand now. I would tend to agree with Eric's comment that Youtube would have licensed the work under its own agreement, which the licensor probably agreed to at some stage in the uploading process; while also giving the licensor the option to license the work to third parties under a CC licence. This would certainly be necessary if the licensor wanted to use an NC licence, as Youtube's use of the work is commercial. In such a situation, it would be the licensor's responsibility to ensure that potential CC licensees could download the video - but I don't know if the existence of a download link is something which is decided by the licensor or by Youtube.

More complicated than it looks!

Emma

> From: mz at kl.nl
> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 19:44:37 +0200
> To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [cc-community] YouTube and Creative Commons
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> My reaction to Emma and Eric's interpretation is that YouTube is actually one of the licensees. You could argue that despite Youtube gave the licensor the option to provide movie clips under these conditions they do not follow the license to the letter. That and that if the license is valid (i.e. that they indeed have the position to publish the clip under cc terms) brings me to my pragmatical approach about how to obtain those files.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Maarten
> 
> -- 
> Kennisland | www.kennisland.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 12, 2013, at 19:23 , "David" <aristegui at nodo50.org> wrote:
> 
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > If the uploader of the video is also the licensor and the work is
> > 	unpublished, is this a public communication?
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > David.
> > 
> >> Eric is quite right. Assuming that the video's uploader is the licensor,
> >> which is the most likely situation, the clause which Maarten noted is not
> >> relevant; that clause restricts your behaviour, not the behaviour of the
> >> licensor. You could argue, somewhat indirectly, that by uploading to
> >> Youtube without a download link the licensor is preventing you from
> >> exercising your rights under the licence, but that's not nearly as
> >> clear-cut a conflict as I think was originally in mind.
> >> 
> >> The point here is that there are two separate agreements in play. Firstly,
> >> there is the agreement between yourself and the licensor; that is, the CC
> >> licence. If you used one of the various non-sanctioned methods to download
> >> the video, you would not be in breach of the CC licence, and the licensor
> >> wouldn't have any copyright claim against you.
> >> 
> >> Secondly, you have an agreement with YouTube, i.e. the Youtube TOS.
> >> Downloading the video 'illicitly' would be a violation of your agreement
> >> with Youtube, and although I haven't read the Youtube TOS, I would assume
> >> that the 'punishment' for breaching that agreement would be (in theory)
> >> Youtube having grounds to ban you from their website.
> >> 
> >> I am a lawyer, just about. But don't take my word for it, law isn't a
> >> one-right-answer kind of game. ;)
> >> 
> >> Emma Carpenter
> >> 
> >>> From: eric at hellman.net
> >>> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 10:40:10 -0400
> >>> To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [cc-community] YouTube and Creative Commons
> >>> 
> >>> It's an important discussion. But remember who is being the licensee and
> >>> who is the licensor.
> >>> 
> >>> 1. If the uploader of the video is also the licensor, there is no
> >>> implication on the license, because the license is not exclusive and the
> >>> rights holder can do what they want.
> >>> 2. if the uploader is a CC licensee, then it seems to me they are not in
> >>> compliance with their license to distribute unless they also post a
> >>> download link. In theory, the video could be taken down by the original
> >>> licensor for noncompliance.
> >>> 
> >>> YouTube is neither a CC licensee nor a CC licensor, typically they
> >>> extract a limited license through their TOS. They are protected by DMCA
> >>> from many copyright claims. They can regulate the use of their website
> >>> as they see fit.
> >>> 
> >>> I am not a lawyer, just a copyright nerd.
> >>> 
> >>> Eric
> >>> 
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> List info and archives at
> >>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> >>> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community
> >> 		 	   		  _______________________________________________
> >> List info and archives at
> >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> >> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> > Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community
> 
> _______________________________________________
> List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20130812/eebdce91/attachment.html 


More information about the cc-community mailing list