Tony Laubach
EF5
Yup, that's my antenna.. LOL Assuming he yanked that from my website, he removed my copyright.
Copyright Infringement Reports (Review guidelines in post #1 before posting here)
- Thread starter Aaron Kennedy
- Start date
Dennis Sherrod
EF5
Unbelievable. Another fine member of this forum showing how good they are.
With this many thieves from this forum and that they get to stay members here, maybe they can start their own thread area.
With this many thieves from this forum and that they get to stay members here, maybe they can start their own thread area.
Heather Moser
EF0
Tim Samaras's slow motion lightning videos are making the rounds on Youtube and a few other sites.
http://www.todaysbigthing.com/2008/08/07
EDIT: Just saw the post in weather and chasing too. I wasn't aware that other people were getting this kind of footage!
http://www.todaysbigthing.com/2008/08/07
EDIT: Just saw the post in weather and chasing too. I wasn't aware that other people were getting this kind of footage!
Last edited by a moderator:
Anthony Petito
EF4
Mike H for the win...
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1593832/beautiful_but_dangerous/
Probably some other photo owners in there as well.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1593832/beautiful_but_dangerous/
Probably some other photo owners in there as well.
Ryan McGinnis
EF5
Agreed -- I have no direct experience with her, but I've heard several very glowing tetimonials about her from other photographers. If you need someone who knows how to dropkick a client into paying up, she's your gal.
David Schuttler
EF5
Here is one of MH's on a City of Tulsa webpage i ran across today
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/PublicSafety/HazMit/index.asp
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/PublicSafety/HazMit/index.asp
Danny Neal
EF5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN2_czSBSD0&NR=1
A Jim Reed.
A Jim Reed.
Adam Lucio
EF5
Im no law expert so forgive me if this is a dumb question.
In regards to reeds video linked above, the person gives all credit to jim reed and left the watermark in....even if he never asked jim reed for permission to do that is that still an infringement?
In regards to reeds video linked above, the person gives all credit to jim reed and left the watermark in....even if he never asked jim reed for permission to do that is that still an infringement?
Danny Neal
EF5
I believe so, he is taking their video under their name and replaying it under their account. Its like me recording a White Sox game and then reposting it under my account, or the same with like a Simpson's episode. Clearly I didn't create it and I am not saying I did, BUT the simple fact that I am taking copywritten material and replaying it without the expressed written consent of "MLB " or FOX broadcast could leave me S.O.L lol
David Drummond
Member
Unless you have explicit (preferably written) permission from the copyright owner, any distribution of content on the part of anyone else is absolutely illegal. Whether or not they decide to pursue you for it is another matter.
I personally allow it as long as they didn't alter it in any way and left my website URL/copyright mark intact. Other folks feel different. Just ask Viacom.
I personally allow it as long as they didn't alter it in any way and left my website URL/copyright mark intact. Other folks feel different. Just ask Viacom.
Dan Robinson
David and Danny are correct - any unauthorized reposting of copyrighted footage is actionable infringement. DMCA protects YouTube in this instance (for now anyway) but does not protect the poster of the video if the copyright holder were to pursue it.
I am of the opinion that posting footage on mass distribution channels such as YouTube not only diminishes the value of said footage, but is yet another instance of footage being given away to help commercial interests without the photographer seeing any benefit. Any publicity value gained by such exposure is only beneficial to the photographer when only 'snippets' or 'teasers' of the footage are given (similar to a movie preview). If the entire clip, or at least the 'meat' of the footage is shown, there is no incentive for a viewer to seek it out elsewhere (via DVD, TV show, etc), thus its diminished value. Never-before seen footage (or footage played on news networks briefly, then pulled after a few days) has greater inherent value to producers, as there is more of an audience willing to tune in to see it (more of an audience means more advertising revenue, which is what makes the media world go 'round).
YouTube has grown significant enough in modern culture to have the potential to reach a large percentage of conventional television viewers. As such, a video that gets major attention on YouTube may be considered 'played out' by potential buyers. Think about it - how many will tune in to see Tim Samaras' footage when it finally airs on NG? How many would make time to watch if the other recently-gone-viral lightning video was going to be on the show instead?
I think YouTube may be valuable advertising for a chaser as long as you don't give all your goods away on it. Give them just enough so they will want to see more.
I am of the opinion that posting footage on mass distribution channels such as YouTube not only diminishes the value of said footage, but is yet another instance of footage being given away to help commercial interests without the photographer seeing any benefit. Any publicity value gained by such exposure is only beneficial to the photographer when only 'snippets' or 'teasers' of the footage are given (similar to a movie preview). If the entire clip, or at least the 'meat' of the footage is shown, there is no incentive for a viewer to seek it out elsewhere (via DVD, TV show, etc), thus its diminished value. Never-before seen footage (or footage played on news networks briefly, then pulled after a few days) has greater inherent value to producers, as there is more of an audience willing to tune in to see it (more of an audience means more advertising revenue, which is what makes the media world go 'round).
YouTube has grown significant enough in modern culture to have the potential to reach a large percentage of conventional television viewers. As such, a video that gets major attention on YouTube may be considered 'played out' by potential buyers. Think about it - how many will tune in to see Tim Samaras' footage when it finally airs on NG? How many would make time to watch if the other recently-gone-viral lightning video was going to be on the show instead?
I think YouTube may be valuable advertising for a chaser as long as you don't give all your goods away on it. Give them just enough so they will want to see more.
Danny Neal
EF5
StormChaser3751 over 475 videos most of them are storm orientated. Off hand I saw Chris Collura's video from Florida, dunno if he got the description off his site or what but it is very detailed.
Who he is.
Who he is.
Dan Robinson
Another case of someone taking videos and branding them as their own. A lot of chaser videos in this user's account:
http://www.liveleak.com/user/fecks
http://www.liveleak.com/user/fecks
Dann Cianca
http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/10,88722,5596746,Traby_powietrzne_niszcza_Polske.html
Can't understand because it's in Polish, but the clip about 10 seconds in looks an awful lot like one Tony Laubach took in February in Tennessee. Anyone else have footage on there?
Can't understand because it's in Polish, but the clip about 10 seconds in looks an awful lot like one Tony Laubach took in February in Tennessee. Anyone else have footage on there?
Tyler Burg
EF2
Not necessarily copyright infringement, but are claiming one of Mike H. images to be the early stages of hurricane katrina, but then someone 'corrected it' as a storm from austrialia months ago. LOL I thought this was funny...
Click Here
Click Here
