Polo Videos

The videos are out there for anyone to see. Anyone who puts them on their blog etc does so in order to attract viewers.
However, by taking all videos and creating the ultimate viewing platform to gain direct attention for your brand will always have it's lovers and haters.
I think there's nothing wrong with it at all and is good business strategy.
Because it's NS too I don't mind as they have worked hard to establish a good position within polo. Of course, not everyone will agree.

I personally like discovering the vids through several sources and wouldn't want to go to one site to see them all. As a database it serves a purpose though.

Do videos uploaded to vimeo and youtube have copyright laws?
I know Wills photos are copyright to him.

thats true, they are not allowed to be memes for one thing.

You retain all of your ownership rights when you submit content to Vimeo or YouTube.

I really dislike the attitude that because something is online it is available to be used in anyway you wish. When you share work online you are reaching a wider audience than you would at an offline screening or gallery but it is the same premiss; the gallery or cinema shows the work but it's your work being shown.

YouTube and Vimeo both have stances on this, I prefer Vimeos:

*I want to use a video I saw on Vimeo. Do I need permission?
Yes, it's always a good idea to contact the video maker if you want to use a video. Our members retain copyright of their works, and it's up to them what type of use they choose to allow.

Someone is using a video I uploaded to Vimeo without my permission. What do I do?
Formal DMCA takedown requests should be sent to rights[at]vimeo[dot]com.*

YouTube's is a little different, saying:

*8. Rights you licence
8.1 When you upload or post Content to YouTube, you grant:

B - to each user of the Service, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such Content to the extent permitted by the functionality of the Service and under these Terms.*

...which I understand to mean that you surrender quite a lot within the 'functionality of the service'. Is the use at 321kill outside of 'the service'?

I think this kind of stuff is a big deal. You should respect creators and consult them when you want to use their work.

I wonder if Rik likes it though

I wonder if Rik likes it though

LOL

Snoops can you explain what is the difference between this thread and 321 except for the later being part of a business? Or is money the only issue?

There are facilities on both Vimeo and YouTube to stop hotlinking so any video creator that doesn't want 321 to do what it's doing just needs to tick a box.

I personally; regardless of whether i want/care about my videos being on that site (any site) i did infact email max and say use what you wish, value what snoops is saying and find his rhetoric interesting and valuable to debate and interest. the internet shifts constantly and i'm some what jaded as a film maker so its nice to see someone take an interesting stance and point things out that i would at this point be knackered / go along / take for granted.

Snoops can you explain what is the difference between this thread and 321 except for the later being part of a business? Or is money the only issue?
There are facilities on both Vimeo and YouTube to stop hotlinking so any video creator that doesn't want 321 to do what it's doing just needs to tick a box.

It's the money. I don't believe you should try and make money from other people's creativity; hire them, consult them, bring them into your business if you like their output – that's how you nurture new talent. The way the internet is going, we are going to be left with no photographers/video-makers left as you can't earn a wage. Your work is taken from you for promotional activities as soon as you try and gain some exposure by publishing online. It's ridiculous.

321KILL is basically an aggregator site, a site which only exists to show other peoples work outside of the context that they intended it to be shown. There is a very interesting white paper that you can read on aggregator site law and best practice here. If you run an aggregator site, I suggest you read it as it covers copyright law also – the paper is about news aggregators but you can apply most to video aggregator too.

I know it's boring to read this stuff, but it's very important for the future of original content on the web. If aggregators keep making money from other peoples work, people will stop creating new work and then aggregators will be empty and we will have no news/art/documentary.

David Carr made a brilliant illustration of aggregators in the documentary Page One: Inside The New York Times. It's worth a look.

I'd like to think I count Kenny NS as a friend, we had a blast in Berlin 2010. I haven't spent much time with Max NS but I've heard he's cool, too. I really like NS. I just really don't like aggregator sites or appropriating creative work by others for corporate (however small) promotion.

lol

lol

Cam won.

321kill video thingy can stay.

Problem resolved.

#londontotherescue

Cam isn't even involved in this! Ah jeez

"Ah jeez" was a solid retort. I counted you out too quick, Rupert.

BACK ON!

I'm interested in this snoops, so I hope you don't mind me playing devils advocate.

My first obvious question is, don't Vimeo and YouTube make money from videos posted, is that acceptable because they provide hosting, if 321 provided hosting for polo videos would you like what they did?

In relation to the white paper, but I'd say the main difference between the polo video's and news is that the creatives in the news sites are employees of the publishers, so even if you argue against fair use (I think the transformative nature of the site and almost entirely documentary style videos mean the case for fair use is close to irrefutable), you can't argue that 321 is stopping any of them from making money. It does look like the 'in the news' thread is probably breaching copyright though!

Obviously I've only read your links, so my opinion is mostly based on them.

News in the uk is in massive decline, and that is partially because of the availability of news on the Internet. Personally I find it difficult to understand how so many quality papers existed in the uk... I don't know of another country with as big a news industry? But there will always be professional journalists in the uk (the beeb and laws about media time spend on news ensure that) so I think your suggestion that aggregators will end reporting/art/documentary is a bit extreme.

I'm still a bit on the fence... When I want news 2 of the three places i go to are aggregators (this forum and google news, the other being the beeb) frankly the click-through's from the aggregator's are the closest I've ever been to paying for news (before the Internet all my news came either from the beeb or the oldest aggregators, other people).

Tl;dr

My first obvious question is, don't Vimeo and YouTube make money from videos posted, is that acceptable because they provide hosting

It's acceptable because the creators chose to put their content on Vimeo and Youtube. Vimeo and YouTube are services that you choose to use.

And if you are the creator you can make money from YT and Vimeo. They are from advertising revenue and *tipjar. Quick question and not trolling but do you illegally download movie's snoops? Or do you pay for a service like netflix / lovefilm etc. Not saying i have never watched a movie given to me or used a service like veetle. But i do go to the cinema regularly, still rent with lovefilm and do not use any kind of torrent software. I'm not a saint but I do try to pay for what i consume. I like your arguments, especially "ah jeez".

Luca's media study project
http://vimeo.com/57454432

Already got that one in my private collection.

NA Highlights on Vimeo

Can someone please do something about the music on the Mr.Do videos.

I don't want to play my own music over the top because then I miss out on the nice thwock noises and people doing shouty stuff, but I cannot abide by any more chart dubstep or whiney emo shit.

Edit: I should say that otherwise, I enjoyed it. MORE TACOS!

I've just watched four other videos (randomly searched for "mr.do polo" on Vimeo) only one other had emo music...

There was also unchained melody, bad boys (with a bit if police and theives at the end), the theme tune to the magnificent seven and something funky that I've forgotten (theme tune to stately and hutch?)...

It is not the spoon that bends, only yourself.

Tim's got a point, the music is questionable. Otherwise, awesome 11 minutes of polo.

Americans are so emotional, a lot of tussling in that video. Saying that, I'd flip if someone elbowed me in the back, throwing me off in the process...

To be fair he could be putting one direction behind every video...

Or imagine if John H made videos

#oneeuropopsongistoomuch