slinkydevil

Give up what?

You didn't acknowledge the artist though. I looked. It wasn't even a snippet of the song but the full song - twice! I presume if it goes up again you'll keep the track on if you think you're right? If you want any help with the technicalities of uploading to youtube just ask. Here are the Fair Use myths from the Youtube site: Fair use myths There is some misinformation out there that might lead you to believe that fair use automatically applies if you say a few magic words. There is actually no silver bullet that will guarantee you are protected by fair use when you use copyrighted material that you don't own. Courts will consider all four of the factors described above and weigh them on a case-by-case basis. Here are some common myths: Myth #1: If I give credit to the copyright owner, my use is automatically fair use. As you saw above, transformativeness is usually a key in the fair use analysis. Giving credit to the owner of a copyrighted work won't by itself turn a non-transformative copy of their material into fair use. Phrases such as \'all rights go to the author\' and 'I do not own' do not automatically mean that you are making fair use of that material – nor do they mean that you have the copyright owner's permission. Myth #2: If I post a disclaimer on my video, my use is fair use. As we noted above, there are no magic words that will do this for you. Posting the four factors of fair use in your video or including the phrase “no infringement intended” won’t automatically protect you from a claim of copyright infringement. Myth #3: 'Entertainment' or 'non-profit' uses are automatically fair use. Courts will look carefully at the purpose of your use in evaluating whether it is fair, but the three remaining factors also need to be considered. Declaring your upload to be “for entertainment purposes only”, for example, is unlikely to tip the scales in the fair use balancing test. Similarly, “non-profit” uses are favoured in the fair use analysis, but it’s not an automatic defence by itself. Myth #4: If I add any original material that I created to someone else's copyrighted work, my use is fair use. Even if you’ve added a little something of your own to someone else’s content, you might not be able to take advantage of the fair use defence – particularly if your creation fails to add new expression, meaning or message to the original. As with all the other cases discussed here, courts will consider all four factors of the fair use test, including the quantity of the original used.

Of course he pulled it. The quality was fine (it's not the Sundance Film Festival), the music was just stolen. Don't lie and bullshit, just say that you'd made a mistake, it would probably do you some good.

So this got posted by Mr Callister today. Apart from being a bit self-indulgent: The ‘technical issues’ would have been the facebook algorithm that detects copyrighted music. It’s very clever and blocks your upload. He of course is breaking copyright law by using the music track ‘Whatever it takes by Imagine Dragons’ (https://www.imaginedragonsmusic.com/) on his video. Unless I’m mistaken and he has licensed the music from them. The hypocrisy of going after cottage industries using the TT brand and this MHK rips off a band signed to Univeral Records. Media training, lol. https://www.miksmusic.com/how-to-legally-use-copyrighted-background-music-in-video/ It'll probably get pulled...

I might have been exaggerating: http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=45126

Everyone run it's started... Suicide bomber at the bottleneck.

We celebrate it here with some human sacrifices off the cliffs, with some dancing round the holy turnip late into the night. Awens to you.

It's not that important obviously.

Saw some photos of the Bradda head fairy house today, with bits missing and damage to the roof. That must be about £2000 worth of damage, judging by installation costs.

He can't even find out how much his media training course cost.

Mr Skelly told questioner Julie Edge, the amount of publicity garnered by what he called "ambush marketing", far out-weighed the cost of the initiative. When you were reading that off the script Laurence, I doubt you understood it. It's not really 'ambush' marketing, probably loosely fits under 'guerilla' marketing. What competitor's marketing campaign were you stealing the spotlight from?

These are snip at £5485, reckon you'd get thousands of faeries crammed in. I'm on commission, so give me a mention if you buy. Evolution Insulated Composite Offset Door Garden Office https://www.gardenbuildingsdirect.co.uk/wooden-sheds/evolution-offset-composite-garden-office/26936

Aw man, what am I going to do on Sundays now?