@RJGNYC
If you notice, too, the Vimeo video Dabitch posted is now marked "Private." Thats how to put something online legally.
That's the difference. The "making a mix tape," argument doesn't work because you weren't posting the mix tape online for millions to potentially copy.
As to whether Silk knowingly knew it or otherwise...well clients have teams of lawyers whose sole job is to check this stuff out. case in point, I shot a TV spot earlier this year in which there were fake brands in it, in the background. We're talking cutaway shots. Still the legal team of both agency and client had to go through the process of making sure the made up brand I named didn't exist or didn't infringe on copyright in some way shape or form. Now you can blame an overly litigious society but I would be quicker to blame a society that doesn't value the law anymore. At least not this particular law.
And the thing about the law is, theft is theft. they don't gauge intent. I may have stolen a car "Just for me," but I still stole a car.
I know it's hard to wrap your head around it. But that's the problem with the Freehadists. They have made this argument so. And it's stupid. No matter which way you cut it, your online life is no longer private. our lives have changed. Whether you want them to or not, the laws have not.
My point is that Wu's showing off his camera/skills on Vimeo, and whomever that participated in an unpaid pitch/competition that was never ever aired only hosted on a similar video site - both video sites have TOS-notices that everyone should read by the way - are being equally infringing. I don't think the competition being for a US national brand or being for a local non-profit rescue puppy center makes on iota of legal difference.
IANAL though, but I play one on this site sometimes. ;)
@Kidsleepy
After talking it out with @adland and @lesliebap (which is hard to do over Twitter, so good on them for explaining stuff so succinctly), I'll gladly concede the point that using the music can be (and most likely is) a copyright violation. In the end, everything from a dude posting a video of his baby dancing to All the Single Ladies to a guy showing that he's really good at using a wide range of (licensed) music in an effective manner to a guy playing with his video gear and then setting music to it as a personal project are all susceptible to being violations of copyright. It is, admittedly, just not something I probably just don't _personally_ see as a kind of copyright violation/threat/etc, because I can't imagine that kind of stuff causing any kind of financial damaging an artist/creator, but at the same time I'm pretty sure the law isn't based on my feelings.
That said, I still think that it's a bit unfair to label any of those examples as a pot/kettle situation, when comparing it to either the person who I believe literally lifted the video and slapped a Silk tag on the end, or Silk itself for hosting it with what appears to be the hope for it to go viral for the sake of free marketing (which seems to have been Silk's goal, based on the Zooppa project description).
To me, it's like saying someone personally giving a friend a mixtape without licensing approval (thus turning everyone in the 80s into copyright violators) and someone else using that music to soundtrack a major motion picture are doing the same exact thing. I think it's important to consider the scope/intent/damage that is done. Yes, they might have both been doing something that makes copyright protections frown, but there's notably more damage done when someone uses the music for commercial purposes than trying to flirt with the girl in the apartment down the hall.
It is also possible that Silk isn't responsible for someone else ripping the material, but that's more me just not knowing where someone's responsibility begins and ends when it comes to using work that was commissioned/submitted/etc.
@adland I'm not entirely sure using "At Last" in a personal creative work (admittedly online) is the same as a company using it publicly...— RJG (@rjgnyc) August 2, 2012
Adland® is a commercial-laden heaven and hell for advertising addicts around the world.
Founded in 1996, built on beer and bravery, Adland® now boasts the largest super bowl commercials collection in the world.
Adland survives on your donations alone. You can donate via Paypals yellow button, or Liberapay.
