5 ms·
It seems most of the content is under "Standard YouTube Licence"[1]. Since this is historical footage I would have preferred if it was under Creative Commons, s
by arocks 11y ago
It seems most of the content is under "Standard YouTube Licence"[1]. Since this is historical footage I would have preferred if it was under Creative Commons, so that it could be included in other videos. Anyways, this makes YouTube even more useful for preserving and making notable videos more accessible.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms
- timothya 11y agoYou can license the clips by going to the AP Archive website; e.g., this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjZ6NNLCdio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjZ6NNLCdio can be licensed from here: http://www.aparchive.com/metadata/youtube/c0016a30f75d456abfa018337ca69cb1 http://www.aparchive.com/metadata/youtube/c0016a30f75d456abf... (the link was in the description on YouTube). I assume they stuck with the Standard YouTube License because that lets them keep ownership of the videos and license them out separately under their own terms.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- JupiterMoon 11y ago> keep ownership of the videos and license them out separately under their own terms. The one you link to they surely can't own? 1906 => public domain.
- anc84 11y agoCopyright works in mysterious ways. They probably have copyright on the actual files as well as the product that they created when capturing the analog originals digitally.
- icebraining 11y agoCopyright requires creativity; just using a tool to convert from analog to digital and generate files doesn't grant copyright protection, AFAIK.
- zo1 11y agoIntuitively, yes. But unfortunately that doesn't guarantee it to be the case from a legal perspective.
- Schwolop 11y agoIIRC, US copyright law includes the ambiguous words "slavish copy" with reference to something that would not be copyrightable. For example, the Vatican sold copyright to the imagery that is the restoration of the Sistine chapel roof - self evidently a "slavish copy" by design! - to the company that paid for the restoration, so they could have exclusive rights to sell/license reproductions of this restored imagery. They've never taken anyone to court, (quite possibly because their case is wobbly), but they do assert their rights to this work and try to get people to buy licenses accordingly.
- JupiterMoon 11y agoInteresting. In some countries restricting access to the public domain is itself a crime. I wonder if there will ever be a test case here!