i saw this description:
All video of Dallin Oaks is taken WITHOUT permission from www.lds.org, and used under the criticism clause of the Fair Use Act. If the owners of this material wish me to remove it, please contact me.

for a video called Bias Bingo: How Cognitive Bias Generates Belief:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBXxJJfX3Nk

containing video footage of dallin oaks at a conference.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
...
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment;
...
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
"


http://www.copyright.gov/history/studies/study14.pdf
page 12:
review and criticism
discussions of fair use often begin with the question of quotation from a work for the purposes of criticism and review. it is universally agreed that "in reviewing a copyrighted work, or in criticising it, quotations may be taken therefrom." thus it has been recently stated:
//criticism is an important and proper exercise of fair use. reviews by so-called critics may quote extensively for the purpose of illustration and comment.//
it is interesting to note that there is apparently no reported american decision involving alleged infringement in the course of serious criticism. this may be due to the self-restraint on the part of the critics and the desire on the part of authors and publishers to encourage reviews of their works--reasons suggested for the decline in libel litigation involving the cognate doctrine of fair comment.

(copyright law revision -- studies prepared for the subcommittee on patents, trademarks, and copyrights. 1960)


CONCLUSION: looks like you can quote extensively from their works coupled with critical remarks, just not post entire copyrighted works.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2011 04:53AM by Nick Humphrey.

This is just an example, not of politics per se, but in the past networks would generally extend the courtesy of each occasionally showing the other's footage or soundbites--with permission of course--on the theory that mutual publicity was beneficial, and it wasn't done with regularity and credit always given.

With the adversarial relationship that Fox has created with its news reporting, that situation appears to have changed, and so short segments are shown in this manner, and "fair use" applies.

I'm sure some legal beagles can elaborate, but part of the issue is whether financial gain is involved and if one is trying to make money at the expense of the protected material of the other--as opposed to simply bringing that information to a higher level of public awareness and possibly presenting contrasting points of view...

That said, I'm certain there are other "legal thugs" who would not hesitate to try to bully some into silence...

I posted a less than 3 min extract from a Robert Millet 50 minute lecture on YouTube. I was pursued by Mormon lawyers and told that they would make it prohibitively expensive to defend the video based on "fair use."

The video was copied by another and is still on YouTube, but I know they are watching my channel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zA-rZQB-xQ



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2011 12:26PM by Jim Huston.

You and Nick are both out there under your own names, which means they will to try to be bullies and you face tough choices...

I'm glad the forces of illumination made some headway with this one...

So many liars out there; so few one-liners...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2011 05:18PM by SL Cabbie.

Once a story from a given network gets said network all the "breaking news" accolades, said story and footage goes out on the wire (AP,UPI, etc.) for a price. "Fair Use" is a dangerous gamble in that if the copyright owner is unhappy with your use, he/she/it can and likely will take you to court. You may win, but you'll pay a dear price. In most cases, its simply not worth it.

Here's the thing about copyright laws and the courts. If you're accused of infringement, you're generally considered guilty until proven innocent. I know that doesn't sound right, but that's why you file the paperwork with the Library of Congress.

Its your work, regardless of what it might be, and you have complete control over how its used.

Timothy

stuff like this is a great argument against the lds church: jesus suing people.

one reason why there are considerably less lawsuits in norway is that if you sue somebody and lose, you normally are required to pay the winner's legal fees.

is it safe to assume that the church cant legally threaten people who dont live in foreign countries?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2011 03:56AM by Nick Humphrey.

It was not one of their lawyers. It was someone in private practice in Kaysville Utah. They are smart enough not to use their legal people directly.