Feel Good Anyway » Work » TMBG Elements
Derek Alexander Muller (born c. ) is an Australian-born, Canadian science communicator, filmmaker and television personality, who is best known for creating the YouTube channel Veritasium. Muller presented in film Vitamania, a documentary by Genepool Productions, . Will Goodman (23 February ). Written about Syd Barrett, their former band member, it's both a tribute, and a call for since Pink Floyd's July 18, concert at Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, .. During the show Mary will be speaking to David Gilmour about his recent film .. After all the elements were compiled and Roger Waters' lyrics added, the. Read Common Sense Media's Little Giants review, age rating, and parents guide . Parents need to know that this Little Giants is a football-themed movie in which Danny's team may be filled with outcasts, but they still give Kevin's team a run for Families can talk about the outcome of the big game in Little Giants.
It was a funny memeand I didn't think it would work, okay. And you know what? If people don't like my jokes, I fully respect that. I fully understand that. I acknowledge that I took things too far, and that's something I definitely will keep in mind moving forward, but the reaction and the outrage has been nothing but insanity. I'm disappointed in myself because it seems like I've learned nothing from all these past controversies, [using the slur] was not okay.
I'm really sorry if I offended, hurt or disappointed anyone with all of this. Being in the position that I am, I should know better. It makes me wonder maybe this is why women are so underrepresented on Twitch in general. As a result, he received criticism from online users, including fans of Lovato and others struggling with addiction.
I didnt mean anything with it and I didnt fully know about the situation. I realize now it was insensitive, sorry! I don't even know why PewDiePie is taking this so seriously. He's getting his people to push him, promote him. We are not competing with him. Aja Romano of Vox stated that racial slurs were used in the video description of one. In SeptemberRob Walker of Yahoo! He constantly addresses his audience as a bunch of peer-like friends, as opposed to distant, genuflecting fans. He's certainly more than willing to make fun of himself in the process.
No agent, press release, or any other intermediary. He just hit record. Likewise, for critics and fans who value inclusivity — and among outside observers who view PewDiePie's conduct as inexplicably frequent in the news — PewDiePie represents all that is wrong and alienating about games culture.
Tech sites like The Verge and Polygon report on him and often critique him severely. But in the mainstream media, his name has broken through only either as a result of novelty or scandal," and added "PewdiePie's content is written about even less often.
And I don't think anyone should underestimate its most powerful artist. These licenses are discussed in more detail towards the end of this page.
Getting a Mechanical license is straightforward, but Synchronization licenses and Master Use licenses are not always easy to obtain if there are a few different songwriters, you would need to negotiate a fee with each one! Once a work is old enough, it enters the public domain and can be freely distributed, performed and recorded without you having to obtain a license or pay royalties. Some people have the misconception that if something is posted on YouTube, it becomes a public domain work.
This is a completely wrong idea. Composers and musicians may release their work into the public domain at any time, meaning they give up all control over the work. This, however, is extremely rare. Also, people tend to forget that the composition as well as performance enjoys copyright protection; therefore, while a Beethoven composition will be in the public domain, a recorded performance of this work would most likely NOT be in the public domain. The laws that govern exactly how old a musical work must be before it enters the public domain differ from country to country and also tend to become more restrictive over time.
As new laws are passed, copyright terms tend to be longer and longer as evidenced in this video that is amusing and disturbing in equal measure: One Day Less than Forever. A work may be in the public domain in one country while still being under copyright protection in another country. For example, musical compositions published in America before are in the public domain.
For works published between andthey enter the public domain 95 years after their initial publication. And for works published from on, they are protected for 70 years after the death of the composer if there is more than one composer, you start counting after the death of the last one.
To make matters worse, a legal technicality means that most recordings of music in the US will not enter the public domain until ! In the US, recordings made since after are NOT in the public domain unless the copyright owner has explicitly placed them in the public domain. For sound recordings made prior tomost of these are actually still copyright protected under various state laws.
The exact details for when a work enters the public domain in the USA are here: For example, in Canada and Hong Kong, works enter the public domain 50 years after the death of the composer; while in European Union countries and Russia, the figure is 70 years.
The piece was published inso it is in the public domain in America. At the time the article was first posted, it was not, but now it is. To complicate matters, most classical musicians play from sheet music, which is itself copyrighted by publishing companies. Though a composition may be in the public domain, a new arrangement of the composition e.
It is not clear how substantial the changes must be in order for the new version to be considered a derivative work. Would adding more detailed articulation and dynamics make it a new work?
Probably not, though sheet music publishers may disagree this issue is explained in more detail in the second part of the Public Domain Sherpa link: If you are in a school symphonic band or orchestra, it is very likely that whatever you are playing has been heavily adapted and therefore is NOT in the public domain. This is why when you post your own performance of a classical piece or an old folk song, you will sometimes get Content ID matches or copyright claims even though your work is definitely in the public domain.
In most cases, the claim will come from a legitimate publishing rights collection agency that is making the claim on behalf of a music publisher. It is up to you whether you want to challenge their interpretation of copyright law. In some cases, however, when you get a copyright claim notice for a public domain work, you might be the victim of something known as copyfraud.
Copyfraud is a kind of abuse of copyright. In some cases, copyright claims on public domain music are completely spurious—simply the work of con artists trying to monetize as many videos as possible.
This problem is discussed in detail here: Well, if advertisements are put beside and over your video, part of the money collected will go to the copyright holder and part will go to YouTube. YouTube benefits financially from false and therefore illegal copyright claims, so there is not much incentive for them to stop.
There are a lot of people making music almost entirely from pre-recorded audio loops or who use some loops in their songs not everyone has a drummer on hand! These loops can come with software like GarageBand, Cakewalk, Final Cut or iMovie or they can be purchased in collections e. The other person can basically end up claiming copyright over all songs containing that loop, including yours. At the moment, I am disputing such a claim by Believe a music publishing organization that is becoming notorious for their false Content ID matches view the YouTube Forum Discussion.
As so many problems with copyfraud and false Content ID Matches can be traced to a handful of companies e.
These songs may also get incorrectly entered into the Content ID system. This is a new scheme meant to allow artists to share their work more freely, while not giving up complete control.
There is no formal registration process, so musicians and composers can just write in a video description that they are using a Creative Commons licence. There are six main kinds of licences: If the license includes a non-commercial NC restriction, you would not be able to monetize your video unless the copyright owner gives you permission. Once you start monetizing videos, you can no longer claim that they are non-commercial.
What if a musician with poor knowledge of copyright does something like upload an instrumental version of a copyrighted song and then upload this recorded version under a Creative Commons license.
The music composition is copyrighted, so you could still find yourself in trouble with the music publisher if you use the recording. Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable, but people often remove them anyways.
What happens if the composer of the Creative Commons licensed song you are using in your video suddenly removes the license information and asks you to pay for its use?
You would legally be in the right to refuse Hey, the licence is irrevocable! If you ever use CC licensed work, I would recommend that you record the download date and the URL and get a screen capture of the licence information. Fair use is an exemption to American copyright law that allows people to make use of limited amounts of copyrighted works for the purposes of education, criticism,commentary and parody without permission. The kinds of purposes associated with fair use are spelled out in the actual law: Those purposes explicitly mentioned seem to related mainly to to non-fiction, non-creative works; however, it is important to note that creative works of art also carry their own meanings and can provide a kind of commentary on society, concepts, individuals and other works of art.
Therefore, if you are going to rely on fair use, you should look at The extent to which your new work advances knowledge. In describing fair use, many countries have a very similar principle in their copyright laws, though it is sometimes referred to as fair dealing rather than as fair use. Fair dealing exemptions can be found in the copyright laws of many Commonwealth countries like the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and England.
Fair dealing exemptions tend to be more restrictive, with the purposes of use allowed under fair dealing being more clearly defined, For example, parody as a fair dealing defense was only added to Canadian copyright law in However, In the copyright laws of some countries, like Japan, there is no overriding principle of fair use at all.
Instead there are very specific and very narrowly defined exemptions, none of which cover things like YouTube reviews or parodies. Japanese copyright law also grants moral rights to copyright owners, among which is the right to preserve the integrity of a work.
This right enables claims against those who distort, remove, or conduct any other modifications without authorization. As laws differ from country to country, if you are involved in disputes with copyright owners from a country without a fair use principle in its copyright law, you should bear in mind they their attitudes towards your use of the work will be informed by the laws of their own country.
Therefore, you may have a difficult time convincing the copyright owners to accept your standpoint. You can say your use of copyrighted work constitutes fair use; however, the copyright owner might disagree. In such a case, who would decide? It would basically require a court case. The courts would decide whether your use falls under fair use provisions.
Thus, fair use can be considered as a legal defense against claims of copyright infringement. YouTube, of course, is not a court. Therefore, it has no right to determine whether something constitutes fair use. Second, YouTube gives copyright owners the benefit of the doubt in almost all cases. Many copyright owners routinely reject fair use claims perhaps because so many people make bogus claims. If you are looking for information about what to do if your claim is rejected, you can go to Section 5.
Third, the criteria that are used to determine fair use are purposefully left ambiguous and vague. For example, if you are doing a commentary of a famous rock album. How much of any one song can you use before you are using too-much-to-be-fair-use? There are no exact guidelines because copyright laws are left ambiguous to allow decisions to be adapted to a wide variety of circumstances and to new forms of media and technology.
Such a thing does not exist. Of course, you can still ask for permission to use a work, but there is no formal mechanism for applying for fair use exemptions or permissions.
There is no exact formula for determining fair use, but in a court case, four aspects would be considered: Unfortunately, music is basically creative in nature an exception might be a performance by a musician demonstrating various music styles.
However, if you re-publish something that is considered a very crucial element to the work, such as a YouTube video clip showing the entire incinerator scene in Toy Story 3, that might be considered too much. One exception where using a longer excerpt might be considered fair use would be in a music tutorial video—you can argue that it is necessary to play the whole song, or at least most of the song, in order to teach people how to play it.
YouTube Video Ideas List # 1 - Best Ideas by Categories, Goals, Levels
How much of the original work is used The proportion of the original work used How important that portion of the original work is in relation to the entire original work How necessary it is to show that amount in order to make your point How much of your own content you are bringing to the table and how the original work relates to your own content Everything depends on the context.
If I upload a second clip of the Simpsons with nothing added, that would not be fair use. However, if I used a second clip of the Simpsons in the middle of a twenty-minute commentary about the role of the cartoon on pop culture, I would be on much firmer ground when arguing fair use.
This criterion is related to the potential of your use of the work to affect the market value, and potential future market value, for the work. Of course, the smaller the actual and potential audience, the better your chance of your use of the work being considered fair use. Putting something on YouTube, however, makes it very difficult to meet this criteria unless you have really transformed the nature of the music see the next point or have used a very small proportion of the music see the previous point.
You need to be aware that anything you can upload can be downloaded using online video-downloading sites, so if you put a whole song online, you are basically offering it free for the entire world. And yes, there are people who build up their mp3 collections by downloading the soundtracks of YouTube videos.
The purpose of the use and the extent to which you have transformed the purpose of the original work If the purpose is for non-commercial use, especially for education, criticism and commentary, or for strictly personal use, this would increase the chances of the use of the work being considered fair use. Also important, however, is the extent to which your new work transforms the purpose of the original work.
One example of a commercial use that could be considered fair use would be a commercial movie review webcast using short clips of movies to demonstrate the points made by the film reviewers.
The purpose of the original movie may be entertainment, but your use of the clips can be considered as a form of criticism or commentary. With regard to music, if you just do a cover of a song, there is no transformation of the melody, harmony and lyrics, and there is no transformation of the purpose, so a straightforward cover version would not be considered fair use.
However, if you do song tutorials in which you teach people how to play the song on the guitar, you have transformed the purpose of the song it is now serving an educational purposeso you would be in a much stronger position to claim fair use. Even if the purpose of your new work is educational, however, you would also need to look at if your use of the original work is necessary for that purpose. If you are teaching people how to play a song, obviously the use of that song is necessary.
In contrast, if you are creating an educational video about physics and want to liven it up with a pop song in the background, the use of music would not be considered relevant to the educational purpose of the video and its use would not be considered fair use. To sum up, almost all uses of copyrighted music that you normally see in YouTube videos uploaded by non-copyright holders would not meet most of the four criteria and would not fall under the category of fair use.
Here is a video with legal experts discussing the possibility of applying fair use arguments to a number of different situations involving YouTube videos. Their favorite words seem to be: This is a controversial topic. Parody involves the deliberate imitation of a work, usually in order to make fun of it or comment on it in some way. It is considered a form of derivative work—meaning something based on an existing work. In many jurisdictions such as the USAparody can be considered a form of fair use if certain conditions are met and is thus protected from copyright claims from the owner of the original work.
In the United States and Britain, for example, a parody can be considered to be fall under fair use if the new work can be interpreted as a comment or criticism of the existing work. In Canada, however, there is no such protection.
Parody becomes an even more troublesome concept when music is concerned. Most music parodies make fun of the performance style of the performer and the lyrics of the song; however, the actual music the melody and harmony remains unchanged.
Thus, although the performance and lyrics are imitations, the music—which is also protected by copyright—is not. One key factor would be the extent to which the purpose of the original performance has been changed e. The most famous music parodist, Weird Al Yankovic, does get permission from the performers and copyright holders before recording his parodies of their songs.
Regarding AMVs, no, sorry, these are not protected from copyright claims though you may find opinions to the contrary. In an interesting article on copyright law, AMVs and the new culture of re-mix creation, Stanford Law professor Lawrence Lessig calls for a new way of considering intellectual property, but admits that the existing laws do not really allow for uses such as AMVs: As the rules are written today, even for purely noncommercial purposes, there is no clear right on the side of the remixers….
There is no way to even license the right. The original work is creative in nature failing to meet the first criteria.