if we can't post youtube content, wouldn't logic dictate that we shouldn't be posting images from photobucket either? after all, they're visuals, even if they're not video clips.

in fact, maybe we shouldn't be posting pics at all and we should close down the image gallery.

i'm not trying to be sarcastic. think about it.

Anx said:

I understand about not posting the content, but what wrong with a link??

jerseykrs said:

i don't know. i'm on your side with this. i'm curious to know what the legal difference is between an appropriated moving image and an appropriated static image, even as links.
[Edited 5/24/06 6:21am]

based on the actions i've seen on here, it appears that youtube links are prohibited altogether. i just assumed that was the case.

The org doesn't encourage the posting of links to a/v material not being streamed by the rightful owners. At the same time, TV performances which there isn't an easy way to see again, I don't really have a problem with people putting up on other sites like youtube and linking to them... it's up to the copyright owners to get them removed from YouTube if they want that to happen. Again, I still don't encourage this.

There is a difference between posting links to audio of released songs and video of tv shows; the simplest way to explain it is in the value of that media--radio stations etc may play those same songs, not on-demand, and make advertising revenue off of you listening. They pay a licensing fee for this. Also, the audio may be (typically IS) sold later on CD, etc. TV is a bit different--if you were to "broadcast" the shows over the 'net, live, that would detract from the value the station can derive from it. But generally, these shows are NOT offered to the public for sale later, and so you're typically not degrading the value of the media by making it available online after it's been broadcast. Obviously, if the video is ever offered for sale, that's a different story.

But either way--we (the mods, the org, me, etc.) won't post up copyrighted material nor encourage other users to do so. Some images we use in the gallery, we know are copyrighted, but believe them to be reproduced within the realm of fair use. For example, Getty images are branded as such, served off our servers so as to not leech their bandwidth, properly attributed, and always provide a link to purchase the image. We have explicit permission, or sometimes implicit indication, that it's OK to use some copyrighted text/images. We may occasionally include text beyond "fair use" from online sources, for the purpose of providing an archive, but we try to keep this to a minimum.

If you guys link somewhere you probably shouldn't in a message, we may or may not remove it. If a copyright owner requests us to remove something, we will. And as always, moderators have final judgement, and I stand behind their decisions.

based on the actions i've seen on here, it appears that youtube links are prohibited altogether. i just assumed that was the case.

So what would you recommend when someone DOES post a youtube clip of a kid singing a Whitney song and it gets deleted by a mod? Can they orgnote an "appeal", or is the decision final?

based on the actions i've seen on here, it appears that youtube links are prohibited altogether. i just assumed that was the case.

Anx said:

well, the proper course for an appeal is via ben...but we all know how busy ben is of late...

Anx said:

i think it's just bad moderating, which usually stems from being bored.

where have all the good moderators gone?!

where have all the good moderators gone?!

sinisterpentatonic said:

I mean, I'm all for following the rules. But I don't know why the last youtube link got snipped, I didn't see what it violated. I always feel like if I ask why that it is assumed I'm starting trouble. Just looking for some clarification. Based on SOS' explanation, I still don't see what it violated.

jerseykrs said:

well, politely orgnote the mod that took the action...refer the person to this thread and then ask for clarification...and be polite and friendly when your doing it...

there are a few instances of "assery" already within this thread when ive attempted to be as helpful as i can...that doesnt help with communication.

sinisterpentatonic said:

look..mods are people...

jerseykrs said:

well, politely orgnote the mod that took the action...refer the person to this thread and then ask for clarification...and be polite and friendly when your doing it...

there are a few instances of "assery" already within this thread when ive attempted to be as helpful as i can...that doesnt help with communication.

sosgemini said:

Yeah, you know how we get, assclowns. It wasn't my link, so I'm not going to make a big stink about it. I just know I've posted youtube links before and I wasn't aware we had to watch what we post. Thank you for answering SOS


Happy Bday too.

sosgemini said:

i never knew!

sosgemini said:

Yeah, you know how we get, assclowns. It wasn't my link, so I'm not going to make a big stink about it. I just know I've posted youtube links before and I wasn't aware we had to watch what we post. Thank you for answering SOS


Happy Bday too.

sinisterpentatonic said:

it's a lie! don't believe it! i only quit being a mod because the blue fairy promised i could be a real boy if i [deleted - ]

.

Stax said:

tell us how u really feel.

http://www.prince.org/msg/3/177835

it depends on the content....

you can post youtube links of public domain stuff, performances from television shows (ie, old soul train performances) or old school videos...

if its public domain stuff (old old movies, tv shows or recordings) or owner authorized (ie, a kid recording themselves singing a Whitney song horribly) then its okay...

does this help?

if we can't post youtube content, wouldn't logic dictate that we shouldn't be posting images from photobucket either? after all, they're visuals, even if they're not video clips.

in fact, maybe we shouldn't be posting pics at all and we should close down the image gallery.

i'm not trying to be sarcastic. think about it.