I've just looked through the latest entries for the animation round (Speed)
and noticed that there are several instances of copyright music being used
without permission.

What gives?  I take it this isn't allowed (it never used to be).

Lance.

thezone.firewave.com.au
www.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:
> 
> I've just looked through the latest entries for the animation round
> (Speed) and noticed that there are several instances of copyright
> music being used without permission.
> 
> What gives?  I take it this isn't allowed (it never used to be).

Two ways for the judges to deal with this:

1)  View animations with the sound turned off.  I already judge the
anims this way (since judges are supposed to ignore sound).

2) Turn the sound on, and if copyrights are violated, award a scare of
1-1-1 to every violating entry.  I already plan to do this if I see a
copyright violation in the visual media.

The administrators could reject the entries for being in violation of
the rules.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

"John VanSickle" <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3E290C7E.5A31CE76@hotmail.com...
> Lance Birch wrote:
> >
> > I've just looked through the latest entries for the animation round
> > (Speed) and noticed that there are several instances of copyright
> > music being used without permission.
> >
> > What gives?  I take it this isn't allowed (it never used to be).
>
> Two ways for the judges to deal with this:
>
> 1)  View animations with the sound turned off.  I already judge the
> anims this way (since judges are supposed to ignore sound).
>
> 2) Turn the sound on, and if copyrights are violated, award a scare of
> 1-1-1 to every violating entry.  I already plan to do this if I see a
> copyright violation in the visual media.
>
> The administrators could reject the entries for being in violation of
> the rules.

Hmm, thanks John, I'll have to take another look soon.  I actually plan on
voting this round (I believe it's the first time I've ever had the bandwidth
and time available to vote on an animation round!)

Regards,

Lance.

thezone.firewave.com.au
www.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 1)  View animations with the sound turned off.

  Ignoring the problem does not remove the problem.
  The question is not whether you can listen to the music or not. The problem
is that the author of the animation has violated copyright. Viewers turning
sound off does not fix this.

-- 
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3e294b0b@news.povray.org...
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > 1)  View animations with the sound turned off.
>
>   Ignoring the problem does not remove the problem.
>   The question is not whether you can listen to the music or not. The
problem
> is that the author of the animation has violated copyright. Viewers
turning
> sound off does not fix this.

Yes, that was more my concern, too.

Lance.

thezone.firewave.com.au
www.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3e294b0b@news.povray.org...
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > 1)  View animations with the sound turned off.
>
>   Ignoring the problem does not remove the problem.
>   The question is not whether you can listen to the music or not. The
problem
> is that the author of the animation has violated copyright. Viewers
turning
> sound off does not fix this.
>

<rant:hot button issue>

Who's copyright?
This is the IRTC, eh? Not the AmericanRTC.

The point is that what may be protected in the USA is public domain in
the rest of the world.

Other points:

1. Copyright infringement is a pursuit for those who believe their
property has been infringed. No action is ever taken without a complaint
by the ip owner. It is not the job, or duty,  by either law or IRTC rules,
for
anyone to police copyright issues vis a vis IRTC entries.

2. Though it is customary in some venues in some areas of the world to
always acknowledge that permission by the ip owner has been granted, it
is neither mandantory to do so legally nor is it even peripherally mentioned
in the IRTC rules and guidelines. Who is to say (or who will investigate)
if permission has been given or that royalties have been paid?

3. It is, and always will be, the prerogative of the admin team to modify,
enhance, change or otherwise express the rules of the IRTC. There is
nothing, at present, that addresses the use of copyrighted music other than
to suggest it is an unnecessary and likely ignored unrequired part of an
entry.

4. Should the current state of the rules and guidelines change, I would
suggest
someone volunteer to collate and coordinate all the differeing copyright
laws
vis a vis public domain and be prepared to deal with severe
multi-jurisdictional
issues.

No one can authoritatively write about someone's alleged copyright
infringement
without specific knowledge, undertanding of the contradictrory juridictional
issues,
and without being a party to any allegation.

Remember, there is no infringement without a complaint by an alleged owner
and without a formal leglal proceeding followed by a judgement in court.

At most, if so inclined, an IRTC judge may choose to alert the ip owner of
what
they might deem to be an infringement. Making any statements beyond
expressing
an opinion that there may be infringement is not useful to anyone.

Notwithstanding the very recent US Supreme Ct. upholding of the
Bono/Disney virtually eternal extension of US copyright, the rest of the
world
is enjoying the public domain status of much music from the 1950's.
Maria Callas, a lot of folk, country, a few Elvis tunes, a whole lot of
jazz,
etc. etc. etc.

If one of our entrants from France or Germany (or other) legally uses what
is
public domain music in their country - just how are American judges and
entrants
going to object?

Finally - I personally believe original music mixed into an original IRTC
anim
entry is best, but I am not about to make any unfounded judgements about
an entrants use of music. It's not a germane part of the judging process and
there are too many unvoiced assumptions being made about the legalities with
respect to any individual entrant's home country laws.


Again - the admin team will have the final word on this issue

- if it is an issue, especially considering that there is no infringement
without
an owner's complaint.

</rant>

Doug Sterrett "yes, I know about the Berne convention and the WTO"

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 20:03:31 -0500, argus quoth:


> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:3e294b0b@news.povray.org...
> 
> Who's copyright?
> This is the IRTC, eh? Not the AmericanRTC.
> 
> The point is that what may be protected in the USA is public domain in
> the rest of the world.
> 
> Other points:

> 3. It is, and always will be, the prerogative of the admin team to
> modify, enhance, change or otherwise express the rules of the IRTC.
> There is nothing, at present, that addresses the use of copyrighted
> music other than to suggest it is an unnecessary and likely ignored
> unrequired part of an entry.

The rules seem quite clear on this.  Animations rules section 3 part d:

>> You may use objects and textures downloaded from the internet or
>> purchased commercially, but it is not encouraged. Similarly you may use
>> other people's images as image-maps or textures within your own work.
>> In all cases, you must get permission from the creator of the object or
>> image. If you use such objects or images, you must make this known with
>> proper acknowledgments in the text file accompanying your submission.
>> You may not violate copyrights of any sort.

That last sentence seems quite explicit to me.

-- 
Mark

Post a reply to this message

argus wrote:
> 
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:3e294b0b@news.povray.org...
> > John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > > 1)  View animations with the sound turned off.
> >
> >   Ignoring the problem does not remove the problem.
> >   The question is not whether you can listen to the music or not.
> >   The problem is that the author of the animation has violated
> >   copyright. Viewers turning sound off does not fix this.
> 
> <rant:hot button issue>
> 
> Who's copyright?
> This is the IRTC, eh? Not the AmericanRTC.
> 
> The point is that what may be protected in the USA is public domain in
> the rest of the world.

Since one of the people to whom you are responding is Finnish, I
think we know this already.

> Other points:
> 
> 1. Copyright infringement is a pursuit for those who believe their
> property has been infringed. No action is ever taken without a
> complaint by the ip owner. It is not the job, or duty,  by either law
> or IRTC rules, for anyone to police copyright issues vis a vis IRTC
> entries.

Dude, we are not talking about hauling the copyright violators into
court.  Are are talking about whether and how to exclude copyright
violations from the contest.

> 2. Though it is customary in some venues in some areas of the world to
> always acknowledge that permission by the ip owner has been granted,
> it is neither mandantory to do so legally nor is it even peripherally
> mentioned in the IRTC rules and guidelines. Who is to say (or who will
> investigate) if permission has been given or that royalties have been
> paid?

Exactly what part of "You may not violate copyrights of any sort" do
you not understand?

> 3. It is, and always will be, the prerogative of the admin team to
> modify, enhance, change or otherwise express the rules of the IRTC.
> There is nothing, at present, that addresses the use of copyrighted
> music other than to suggest it is an unnecessary and likely ignored
> unrequired part of an entry.

Exactly what part of "You may not violate copyrights of any sort" do
you not understand?

> 4. Should the current state of the rules and guidelines change, I
> would suggest someone volunteer to collate and coordinate all the
> differeing copyright laws vis a vis public domain and be prepared to
> deal with severe multi-jurisdictional issues.

Exactly what part of "You may not violate copyrights of any sort" do
you not understand?

> No one can authoritatively write about someone's alleged copyright
> infringement without specific knowledge,

You are.  You're saying it's okay.

> Remember, there is no infringement without a complaint by an alleged
> owner and without a formal legal proceeding followed by a judgement in
> court.

This is as absurd as saying that there was no robbery because the
victim didn't file a police report.

> Notwithstanding the very recent US Supreme Ct. upholding of the
> Bono/Disney virtually eternal extension of US copyright,

Exactly what part of "You may not violate copyrights of any sort" do
you not understand?  If it is illegal anywhere, it is prohibited in
the IRTC.

> If one of our entrants from France or Germany (or other) legally uses
> what is public domain music in their country - just how are American
> judges and entrants going to object?

Exactly what part of "You may not violate copyrights of any sort" do
you not understand?  If it is illegal anywhere, it is prohibited in
the IRTC.

> Finally - I personally believe original music mixed into an original
> IRTC anim entry is best, but I am not about to make any unfounded
> judgements about an entrants use of music. It's not a germane part of
> the judging process and there are too many unvoiced assumptions being
> made about the legalities with respect to any individual entrant's
> home country laws.

And the biggest assumption is one that you're making:  That an abuse
by one entrant won't get the whole IRTC dragged into copyright court.

The IRTC should amend the rule on use of IP to state that all material
not created by the entrant must be declared in the .TXT file that comes
with the entry, and that all permissions to use material created by
others must include permission to borrow for commerical use (since
IRTC CD-ROMs are sold).

> - if it is an issue, especially considering that there is no
> infringement without an owner's complaint.

And no rape without a police report by the victim.  Sheesh.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

argus <arg### [at] npqrnet> wrote:
> Who's copyright?
> This is the IRTC, eh? Not the AmericanRTC.

> The point is that what may be protected in the USA is public domain in
> the rest of the world.

  I don't know of many musical art which is copyrighted in the USA and not
copyrighted anywhere else.

> 1. Copyright infringement is a pursuit for those who believe their
> property has been infringed. No action is ever taken without a complaint
> by the ip owner. It is not the job, or duty,  by either law or IRTC rules,
> for
> anyone to police copyright issues vis a vis IRTC entries.

  You seem to completely miss the point.
  It's not about pursuing the copyright violators. It's about avoiding
the IRTC admins from being sued because they are distributing copyrighted
material on their web server.
  Do you think that they are willing to take that risk?

  That's why there's a clear clausule in the IRTC rules that no copyrighted
material whatsoever may be used in the entries.

-- 
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

"argus" <arg### [at] npqrnet> wrote in message news:3e29f965@news.povray.org...

> Remember, there is no infringement without a complaint by an
> alleged owner and without a formal leglal proceeding followed
> by a judgement in court.

Any group of persons can say, "You can only upload things on my server on
the condition that it doesn't even make me think about copyright issues."
They have the right to say keep the rubbish off my server.  You don't have
the right to say, Take it unless You're sued or I'll sue you.

Post a reply to this message