Interesting... "Non-Takedown" notice
10
May
May
3
Over at Rikomatic, the eponymous Rik posts about something interesting…
“UMG has claimed some or all audio content in your video Elfay Pinkdot’s Jazz Party in Second Life. This claim was made as part of the YouTube Content Identification program. Your video is still live because UMG has authorized the use of this content on YouTube. As long as UMG has a claim on your video, they will receive public statistics about your video, such as number of views. Viewers may also see advertising on your video’s page.”
Hmm. I’m not sure what to think. It’s interesing that major music labels have a) noticed and b) decided not to attack a Machinima piece using their music. Thoughts, anyone?
I’ve come to think that probably a best case scenario for a machinima video which uses copyrighted content (be it games or music) would be for the infringed-upon entity to let us continue showing people the work we created. I really do think wishing for any “rights” beyond that is a pipe dream. There’s just not any incentive for them to do so.
As such, this is probably about as good a thing as CAN happen when copyrighted content is used. And we can’t afford to begrudge them for the ad dollars aspect, else I think it undermines our “this usage isn’t hurting you” argument.
this is - quite frankly - the most intelligent thing I have heard about the issue ever. Probably because it is money-driven. I really like the song - put a link to buy it next to it and you might make you 99 cents on iTunes. Where can this go from here? Could this be a consistent model? One where the artist could “tag” machinima movies and plainly offer them as commercials for google-like targeting information distribution media (to find a nicer word than commercial). For example: Engines might shoot commercials when machinimas are “tagged” with the name of underlying game engine - and might create a huge viewer/ fan base this way.
The artist might rotate in the grave - but it might be up to you what you would “tag.”
The labels wouldn’t go for this, as it would mean giving up control over the sorts of things associated with their brand. If you made a violent, sex infested piece, and stuck a track by a squeaky clean pop band on it, the record company wouldn’t want to have watered down their claim to get it removed by allowing others to use the track for their own purposes. I think this is why the major labels have been slow in enforcing copyright, they don’t necessarily mind the publicity that an infringing work brings them, but they still want the option of stopping uses they see as not in their best interests.