Our Twitter Video Used in Mainstream Media - Thoughts?

First let me say that I really respect your totally cool approach to this issue. You didn't take the angry executive angle and true to your craft, you're speaking in plain English. I must say that I have been so impressed by your product that I have linked to your YouTube videos in my forum for the New Home Building Industry, (www.newhomespro.net) if your curious. I had to take another look at those videos to make sure that your brand was visible because I'm a huge fan of copyright laws and trademark infringement. You created the product, you deserve the accolades. I can't imagine that the media sources you sited are that ignorant of such laws. Surely they aren't. This only communicates to me that they don't care. At the very least, it shows a huge degree of disrespect for all things Internet. They're all losing their a** to online media sources. Have you seen the ratings? They're in the toilet! I think you have a case.
Thanks again for creating such a simple and entertaining product!
Ed Doss

While I can absolutely agree that the video's use by the mass media isn't really a bad thing, the fact that they think they can use their size to get around true legal issues is a bit disheartening. The Creative Commons license states that this is a "Non-derivative" work, which (in my mind) means that it should be left in its entirety (something which the networks certainly did not do. It is also a "Non-commercial" license, and they make money off of their broadcasts, so that's a second violation. Regarding "Fair Use," I believe that, in this situation (a network that generates its own content putting something that it didn't create alongside everything else), they need to attribute the work to you.
As far as Twitter.com's use of the video, I think that's absolutely fine: they aren't violating the CC license (they're not making money from it; they haven't changed it), and the video itself is a link to you.
In short, the networks should have contacted you before they did anything with it.

First of all id like to congratulate with the good work that made it possible - and video valuable enough for the mainstream media to use. I also agree with Ed Doss on this on - you´re showing a good approach on this one - and the questions you are asking are highly relevant.
This is an example of one of the main big issues with the internett and the free flow of information. And im surpried that the big media companies arent able to show more avareness of it.
No contatct or attribution to you is plain out rude - guess they dont know what cc-lisens really is. Sometimes i wonder if (mainly in norway for my part) the mainstream media views the internett as a secret source it can use freely to inform the public. ;)
You wrote: "we can't help but wonder if these companies are aware that there is a small company behind the video, a company that has rules and expectations?"
I´d say: Dont these companies understand that as well as a company is behind the video? - there are people behind it. (i mean, it doesnt have to be made by a company - but it didnt get there by itself) No matter whos behind - someone is - and with all due respect - it should be plain common sense to get in touch with you before publishing it on national TV. It doesnt really matter if you have rules or expectations, the question is if these companies really have?
I guess they thought it was Twitter's video - since its found on the front page - At its best its poor research.

I agree with Ed above and give you kudos for being chill and open about it.

Still, I'd say something. Maybe they didn't know, and they'll start pursuing the proper channels in the future. Sucking it up and ignoring it does no one any good ... you may feel you're being nice, but they have no idea you even exist, apparently.

On the flip side, as a society I don't think we don't do enough to reinforce positive behavior. If you don't already, I'd make it a point to say thanks to those who do follow the rules. (Like sending a note to your representative saying thanks for voting my way, instead of just complaining when they're on another side.)

So my take on this is that your licensing agreement is pretty clear on all your videos. My guess is that the usage of the video in mainstream is largely due to ignorance and I'd personally contact the media companies in question.

The bottom line is this - if you used something of theirs and breach the licensing agreement or didn't credit you'd have had a legal letter on your desk sooner than you can say "lawsuit"...

While it may not be about money the more you let this continue the more desseminated the video is going to become. In the end no-one is going to know who actually made the video and that's a shame because people have an opportunity to watch the other videos...

Just my 0.02 cents worth...

I'm liking your style already. I'd have a chat with them. Give them a call or drop them a mail with a "Did you know we made that..." kind of note. Let them know it's not about the money but the attribution and see what you get.

I would've thought KOMO would've loved the chance to mention that you guys are local.

Ignorance is no excuse but you've got to remember these guys are learning the ropes of social media too. Maybe they think it's OK to use stuff like your videos, assuming it's in the public domain.

I sense a "Creative Commons in Plain English" video coming on, or maybe a "Attribution in Plain English" video.

Take care guys,

Sid.

Do you think for one minute if you used their content without permission or licensing they wouldn't be sending you a nasty lawyer letter?

I would say, don't be a doormat. You should contact the companies that didn't ask permission and ask them not to do so again.

If you don't want compensation, just attribution, that's great! The publicity is probably worth more than any licensing fee. But you put your hard work out there and said explicitly what the terms are, and some companies ignored your terms.

I think Creative Commons is a great idea, but we need to speak up if people are going to take the terms seriously.

If people use your video for educational purposes, they should ABSOLUTELY display your brand and comply with Fair Use. I think on the Internet people generally do not put that much attention to "legal" side of their actions. Everything seems free, easy accessible.. so you can "borrow" it. As a result we can see our own images being used by some other individuals who don't even have courtesy to ask us about it.

People using your video for their own purposes might not be aware who is behind it and who it belongs to, but on the other hand there is a huge logo there, so how come they do not notice it? It's good you use your logo and mention your brand name in the video. If it's still not enough maybe you need to place some kind of statement at the end about proper attribution. Just say it's an intellectual property and in order to use it for educational purposes, users should comply with Fair Use.

Great video by the way, very informative and straight forward. Congrats!

Marta from vacation rental owners blog

Lee, you and Sachi have created an innovative product and, in my view, need to protect it proactively.

If you can charitably attribute the lack of either contact or credit to ignorance, just a simple letter from your attorney will notify the miscreants of their mistake. This may lead to an easy correction in most cases (caveat: I'm an optimist). I suggest 'from your attorney' because such a letter will carry more weight: though it should be addressed to the head honcho by name, it will probably be redirected to the legal folks at the offending stations/networks who will have their own stake in correcting things. Additionally, I'd recommend that you follow up the attorney's letter with a query of your own if you haven't heard back within a week, referencing the earlier communication. As to style, I believe your open-handed, straight-forward, plain speak cannot be improved upon.

I believe that any strategy that has you suffering in silence and hoping for the best is not viable for something as important as this. If you need people to write protest letters as a groundswell movement, I'd be happy to oblige: what's a happy and admiring public for if you don't use it?

Fair Use is actually a very nebulous idea for them to hide behind. Their goal as broadcasting companies isn't necessarily to educate the masses, though the fact that they do could be argued. That being said, even using the excuse of Fair Use means they should credit you, whether or not they asked for permission.

Given the way the Associated Press went after bloggers for quoting AP content, I would think that the news media would be a bit more careful about ripping off Internet content. I think you ought to at least make it a news story.

I can't add much to the above comments, but I wholeheartedly endorse them.
Your videos are excellent and you deserve the credit. Your attitude is exemplary and you deserve respect.
James Woodfield

Hi Lee,

First of all, congrats on getting mainstream attention!
Imho you have just done the best you can - a nice and fair blogpost about the whole thing.

'The world' will now know who is nice and fair in using others creative work. And those are the ones you need to focus on and give credit for being honest when using your material.

When it comes to the not-so-nice big networks, it most likely is due to ignorance or simply assuming it can commonly be used. Please let me think this is true....

Keep up the good work and focus your energy on the good stuff, ignoring the negative sad folks.

Han Tuttel

While I am not a litigious person by nature, I support the notion of sending legal nasty grams to all parties asking for compensation for their lack of attribution and use of copyrighted material without permission.

I work for a newspaper association and websites that aggregate new stories from new sites without compensation or attribution are suffering from lost revenue and weakening credibility.

Some bloggers are trying to justify their brand of journalism without speaking to sources directly or fact checking statements but who merely prey on someone else's work. So while newspapers bleed ink and money, careers are being lost and communities are losing a once strong voice by those who steal work and brush it off as no big deal.

Do not wait for them to confess their sins. They heard the tune and now they gotta pay the piper.

The fact that you throw it out there for conversation tells me that you are analytical about not only the videos that you produce but how you see things from all perspectives. Amazing. Personally, I'm not really driven by the financial reward that surrounds doing business well, however, I am quite interested in placing credit where it is due. The style that you portray in delivering your message is easy to grasp. I suppose that is why Twitter finds it desirable and also why I have seen some commercials on television mimicking your style. Once again, it would be only fair to give credit to those responsible. After all, it is only because I learned how to subscribe to an RSS feed that I received this information in the first place and I learned how to do that through CommonCraft. Keep up the good work.

There are a lot of angles to this. I'll try to go over what I see as some of the critical ones.

First off are the fair use issues. You're going to run into a brick wall here. News coverage and journalism is right up there with education in terms of the flexibility they get with fair use. Since fair use is about balancing the rights of the copyright holder with the needs of the public, services like educational institutions and news companies get greater flexibility.

I watched the last few links and though they did use your video, in a decent portion, they used them as part of a larger reporting piece. That use would almost certainly be considered "transformative" under the current guidelines and would be seen as an extremely likely fair use.

It is impossible to say for certain as fair use is literally decided on a case-by-case basis, but it is hard for me to imagine any of these cases being successfully sued over (not that you're planning on it, we're just playing out hypotheticals).

The attribution issue is a separate one though. I agree that you should give attribution to every image, video, etc. that is used (Note: The last video did display your logo but only incidentally) but that isn't always practical in a journalism setting and many likely assume incorrectly that your video is by or done for Twitter as it is on their home page.

Attribution, in these cases, wouldn't likely affect any fair use issues. However, you might want to push Twitter to provide clearer attribution to your video so that news agencies will know it is yours. At least then they can choose to leave off attribution and not make a stupid mistake.

On that note, I don't think ignorance is an issue here. Every journalist worth their salt has been through a few law and ethics courses and knows full well that the video is protected by copyright. You might offer that excuse to a layperson, but journalists at least should know better.

Finally, as far as them being aware goes, I'd imagine not. I recently went to a conference of publishers and other journalist types and the understanding of CC was lacking. This is an area that there is going to have to be some outreach.

I hope that this helps!

It's your intellectual property and you should, at the very least, receive attribution. How ironic that NPR is on the list of those who didn't contact you. You might want to proactively send out a message to the legal departments at key media outlets putting them on notice.

I can somehow begin nothing with Twitter.

I would suggest, as other here have, writing the news companies that used the work and ask specifically for attribution in the credits or on their websites with a linkback to Common Craft. Specifically offer to grant permission for the use and future uses given a short set of reasonable conditions: attribution, link back and notification of new uses(add or change the list as you see fit). Make it easy for them to comply suggest where and how you you would like attribution give an example.

Fair Use:
Fair use is not limited to only using a small part. It is limited to only using as much of a work as is needed for the purpose. Generally the more you use the less likely it is to be fair use. Many of the uses in the list could be fair use, but most major media outlets would rather have permission then rely on fair use.

Licensing / Twitter use:
The twitter in plain English video linked from the Twitters homepage is not clearly stated to be under a CC-NC-ND license. I also see how someone would think was a work of twitter I would recommend adding the CC icon for NC-ND to the title frame and the closing credits. Without displaying the license it is tough for people to find it or realize what license it is under. The new videos on Common Craft follow the best practice of adding the license to the title credit.

Good Luck, let us know what type of responses you get.

Brian Rowe
3L Seattle University Law
Not Legal Advice, just practical

I recently looked into copyright, not for video, but for website content in general. You are automatically protected under the copyright law even if you haven't had your material copyrighted. There is a technical name for this but can't remember. Anyway, the law says that if you can proof that you own or created the material, which I assume you can, then you can make a claim.

What's really annoying about all this, is they could have asked to borrow the video with an acknowledgement to commoncraft and i'm sure you would have been more than happy to oblige.

Firstly congratulations on the use/re-use of your videos in mainstream media. I've long been a fan and in fact consider your style an ideal of simple effectiveness.

Since the issue seems to be only on the twitter video, which is hosted without the license agreement on the twitter site it seems possible that the media outlets have assumed that it belongs to Twitter - and therefore they're thinking they're well inside the fair use since it's part of a larger whole.

So first thing - update the video with the credits/license/watermark in that video as a priority and ask Twitter to upload this new version. This should help avoid future misuse.

Secondly send a friendly letter - that clearly sets out the limits you would like followed - to the marketing and legal departments of the companies. Asking them to please comply and pointing out the IP rights (get a lawyer to check the legal statements, but don't write a legal threatening letter at this stage).

Post your letter and any responses here, I'm sure it'll get their attention then.

(and Alex - as an independent blogger I get sick of other bloggers and aggregators "re-purposing" my content without asking and without giving me credit - it's not a revenue question for me just frustration.)

I have to agree with the majority on this one. Any material with copyrights deserves to be given, at the very least, credit. Anything less is pure ignorance and disrespect at the highest level.

Big media has pretty much done what ever they pleased in the name of "Fair Use". It seems that only if you are a big enough celebrity or organization do they pay attention. If you use a quote from a document in your written material and did not give it notation that would be plagiarism. Yet in the examples you give above is exactly what they did.

I would expect that in some cases the lack of notation was an oversight. Though the lack of response on the NPR is disquieting.

Maybe a little tweet is needed. One thing about social media it can get attention as Johnson & Johnson learned.

John Deck

I've dealt with this issue quite a bit in the realm of photography. Unfortunately, Fair Use provisions in the US give most of the power to the media. In the interest of informing the public, they are allowed to use pretty much whatever they want. Fair use, however, is a concept that doesn't really exist in Canada, despite the media thinking that it does. The only content that is protected in Canada by fair use provisions involves obvious parodies of the original work.

That being said, if I were you I would send invoices to each of the media companies that didn't ask for permission or give you attribution. It might not go anywhere, but at least might lead them to recognize that what they did, at least from a CC/moral standpoint, wasn't very cool.

Wow! Lots of responses and good advice here.

I agree that Fair Use probably covers this. All the networks excluding ABC are still at fault for not attributing the video appropriately according to its license. Therefore, you should educate them. Send a letter to each one explaining this. It can be a very courteous letter, but you should not let them essentially get away with this. They need to respect you, and by extension, web organizations and content found there.

In short, they just need to do and be the professional news organizations that they are expected to be. Reading about how ABC did contact you and no one else did says a lot about the professionalism of ABC and the lack thereof of all the other networks. Don't let the big guys get away with squeezing you into submission to them. You are clearly in the right here.

I've used quite a number of your videos in social media training sessions that I conduct for internal staff for my ex-company. In the course, we have both course notes and hands-on. In both, we attribute that the videos were produced by Common Craft and also the links to the videos used. I guess as a librarian, I had to ensure that we didn't contravene any of the copyright laws. :)

By publishing on the internet you have to take in to account that people are going to use your content. When I click on the link in your article I get an empty page, so I can't comment on the way you present your content. But when you have a clear disclaimer about the use of the video, I don't see any problems.

First off, I found the video to be most enlightening. I am new to this aspect of the internet, and you made it very simple. As far as useability, myself, I would never permit myself to use someone elses work, unless I specifically had their permission, or if by chance I did, I would at least give them the credit. That being said, I do feel, it is an infringement of copyright. However, if I was doing any sort of copyright material, not only would I leave my personal info at the ending of the material, I would also make my copyright notice on the starting page or frame. I realize that some people will not really like the idea of looking at copyright material, right off the bat, But it does take care of a few problems, like, I am sorry but I did'nt watch the whole clip. I thought it was cool, so I copied it, sorry.Also, you can explicitly state, no copy or use, without prior permission, or at least source credits.

John S.

I haven't read all of the comments, so I apologize if I am restating what scores of others have said but how long do you think they would be polite if you published their content? Jeez Louise I would get an attorney and fire off a bunch of letters. Roast their sorry a$$E$. Especially Twitter. Settle for a home page apology with a "followed" link at the very least from all of them.

I usually cite the source regardless of whether it’s a video or an article to give credit to the maker or writer. I believe that we must include this as a part of our routine, everytime we’re using other people’s intellectual property.

First off that was an extremely well put together and informative video!

As far as not citing goes, Lee and Sacchi's names as well as the hyperlink of the blog show up at the end of the video. Maybe these media outlets assumed that to be adequate citing?

Regardless, they certainly should have all contacted you before using your video. It's not like you are going to say no to ABC showing your video to millions of potential viewers that might not have seen it otherwise. It's a very mutual relationship, they get content for their show and you get your video shown to others and a boost in traffic to your site.

As fare as I know CNN itself is quite explicit about its content. Actiually, CNN is most explicit among all big broadcast companies. In fact, the "fair use" provisions of copyright law allows brief quotes from an article -- if you are, for instance, reviewing or interacting with the article. I doubt that it was your case so I think they was wrong that they did show the video without getting your permission.

They should have posted at least a link to tell people where the video come from and that it is not their work. Will they have agreed if we had did the same thing? I do not think so. It's sorry but people are like this. They are more interested in their own things. Anyway I will take it as a compliment that my video is of enough quality to be put before thousands of people. Be proud of this.

Edgar Boutaric

Using others video is not a big,big problem to be mentioned about as long as you give the credit of where's that video came from. Anything who is not yours and you used that, then you, as a respect for the owner, should give a 100 % credit to that person.

I recently discovered these awesome Custom Craft videos at a library conference that I attended in Kansas City. I am thoroughly impressed by your innovative way of explaining technology to the not-so-technologically savvy masses! I think you're being very generous in your assumption that these companies that have used your videos might not realize where they came from! At the very minimum, anyone who uses your videos should give you credit for creating them, and out of professional courtesy, it would be nice of them to let you know they are using your material.

People constantly forward videos, cartoons, jokes, blogs, and other material not owned by them via internet. It's impossible to track. As a writer, I occasionally google my name and titles of my stories to see whether they are being used inappropriately. I once discovered a link on a website about COPD to a story I had written about my mother. Although I was happy to know that someone thought the story useful enough to let others know about it, I was somewhat dismayed that the website owner never bothered to at least let me, the author, know they were recommending that others read it. Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean that we (the content creators) don't care what happens to it.

Hey, as long as they give you credit you get free advertising. Isn't that fair? If you decide to fight with them then you'll lose it. Simple as that.

Next time make your URL visible at the bottom of the screen ALL THE TIME.

Great video by the way. :-)

Your videos are great exampe of social media strategy.

More organizations are incorporating social media into their marketing strategy. Sharing videos on a social media site like YouTube builds the brand and awareness of commoncraft. Having other media companies use these YouTube videos benefits commoncraft, even if they do not give you immediate credit. This is viral marketing!!!! Think about how much it would of cost to put an advertisement on any of these sites. The media companies are in a grey area here, asking the question, do I need to ask for permission if the video is on YouTube. So don’t put up barriers on spreading your brand and awareness.

From Wikipedia Viral marketing
The buzzwords viral marketing and viral advertising refer to marketing techniques that use pre-existing social networks to produce increases in brand awareness or to achieve other marketing objectives

I believe you are protected by copyright law, but i think this only applies if someone try's to claim the video as there own. I would make sure the watermark at the end of your video includes some copyright blurb from now one. Cheeky i guess on the medias part, but all round good publicity.

Before I go to my comments I want to THANK YOU for wonderful, wonderful In Plain English videos. You guys ROCK!

The case you have here with the usage is quite interesting. It's also not at all surprising that (i) you ended up in this situation and (ii) that you have the questions that you do.

Aside from general misunderstandings (or ignorance) about basic issues in copyrights (that fair use has its limits) and Creative Commons licenses (that it's not the same as use as you please) this highlights awfully well the difficulty of the non-commercial (and the non-derivative clause, too, in certain ways) of the Creative Commons license(s).

There are a bunch of good texts on these topics. Some of the reasons include situation such as here:

• NC quite clearly forbids showing the clip in full on CNN without asking for permission (even if they would attribute you). But the kicker of NC is that (at least according to CC-endorsed instruction) "Using a (CC-licensed work) on an ad supported website = Commercial" commercial. So, the NC-clause forbids people uploading your videos to any sites that show ads (nearly all of them) or to embed them to their blogs if they run ads (not as high a % but pretty high, nevertheless). Similarly,
• the ND clause forbids even more clearly making _any_ derivative work out of the your video. ND means that if it's not fair use (where quoting doesn't apply) the video must be shown in full length. Every second of it (which is why you want to have those CC logos in the beginning &/or end of the video. ND also means that you are not allowing (without specific permission) any radio station to play the clip (except for fair use which you couldn't forbid even if you wanted to) because not showing the video but only playing the audio is -- to my understanding -- a clearly derivative work. Furthermore, the ND clause also forbids e.g. translating your videos to other languages (because translation is a derivative work)

... So, now it's my turn to confess my serious crime: I've translated your Google Reader video to Finnish ... even though, looking at the video in dotSub - it seems to be marked without the ND clause and I have thus not sinned, which is good for me but in contradiction with your website. .. And taking in consideration that it's uploaded by the nick "Lee Lefever" someone could argue that it's a deliberate choice to distribute the video without the ND clause but with the share-alike SA clayse, which is in many ways better choice -- and the only reasonable for translations!

.. But the point is that ND forbids all (or doesn't allow any) derivative works (w/out permission) and that includes translations. .. This is, btw, something that also TEDtalks (that I adore even more than you if possible) has just a "wrong". Except that they've just recently announced a translation program with dotSub ... that their license doesn't allow -> CC-by-nc-nd) ...

So: So what? .. I think that everybody understands the great ideas behind these licenses but as always, the devil is in the details.

The Creative Commons Foundation is well aware of the NC-issues (/ misunderstandings / how different people understand commercial usage in a different way). They have recently conducted a non-commercial study.

I think this is something that would make sense to check with the CC foundation in any case. If you or TED have _any_ misunderstandings (or even just unclarity about any of these things) then it's quite evident that 90% of the users don't understand the details. Which is good for no one.

Then again, it might just as well that I'm the only one who doesn't get it..

HI Lee,

I refer folks to your blog and video's everytime I speak. I have used them on my own blogs giving you credit before it is embedded.

Should you expect less from Main Stream Media?

I would have an Intellectual or Copyright Attorney send them a letter ASAP. The quicker they take it down the less you will charge them. I said less not that you would not.

We read so much about Copy Right on Activerain and how to handle the violation.

You so willingly share when asked that I believe it is a wrong they used it and gave you no credit.

That's my two cents, you are in busines.

Very interesting what is happening here. Tough spot to be in. Can you put something in the video that says you want to be given credit for creating, but that it's free to distribute?

http://twitter.com/franswaa

I use twitter for creating some presentations for my brother and even journalists aren't just joining Twitter; they're also writing about it and explaining it to those who might not be in the know. Articles about Twitter have exploded recently (just do a Google news search). One of our own bloggers here at Switched even lent his expertise to the Staten Island Advance to help explain Twitter and its many perks and pitfalls.