Tuesday, 20 November 2018

Article 13 - The EU have messed up.

Rough Cuts make video content for others to enjoy. We also make commercial videos as well as videos for local schools that are creative and fun.
You Tube is our number 1 sharing platform for these, we can create private videos, unlisted videos or public and we can choose whether it's ok or not ok to use copyrighted material. For anything commercial it really isn't ok. We respect that, it's part of our T&C's and with the exception of one client, for the most part, so do our customers.

But occasionally, sometimes, for non-commercial videos, someone else's song has to be used.

Case in point, in the week before last, I helped Ysgol Maesglas create a video. They raised over £200 for Children in Need and created a video to celebrate it in their school assembly. The song for Children in Need is Jamie Cullen's "Love is in the picture". For the video, the children held their drawings up in front of the camera and told us what they loved, for the most part this was their family. (Although if you look carefully, you might see Fortnite on one of the drawings!)

We were really pushed for time, we grabbed the footage in 45 minutes, and over the weekend, I stitched the video together, with the official Children in Need song as the backing track. In the assembly, we had tears and it was a real hit. NB. I gained nothing extra for creating this for the school and I worked for free over the previous weekend.

But, after the assembly, the parents wanted to see it again, so I changed the listing to Public on Youtube and the school and some parents retweeted it, one even CC'd Jamie in.

So, what about the copyright. Well as this video has Jamie's song in it, it is copyrighted material. My understanding is, from reading how things have evolved over the years, and with the emails Youtube send me after a copyright video is uploaded, that the responsibility for this upload is mine. As I don't possess copyright (which can be challenged) then I cannot promote the video for paid for adverts, but the record company who own the copyright can, and even though the video creation was mine, I am not allowed to profit from it. In the description, Jamie Cullen gets a link to his song and obviously, any sales from that, he makes money from it. And this is all fine and I respect that and I hope the artists do too? I guess opinions vary?

Article 13 is part of new copyright legislation currently being proposed by the EU. This legislation is supported and opposed by a number of large organisations. The crux of this new legislation means that the responsibility for managing the copyrighted material shifts from the end user, to the organisation. Which means Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Vimeo, Dailymotion, Reddit will have to screen every single upload for potential copyright infringement. Not only does it include videos, but music, images and WORDS too! This means no more meme's, no more song sharing, perhaps even no more joke sharing, no more ... sharing anything that someone else may have created!


Companies are going to have to be so careful that the workload will become unmanageable. Every post will require a disclaimer. Every upload will be screened and likely rejected if there is ANY doubt that any of it isn't original content. Currently the system works ok, and although I'm completely for better copyright protection for creators,  this poorly thought out part of legislation has the potential to destroy the internet as we know it.

As it stands now, people like Jamie Cullen can retweet our creations and make us, and the school feel like we made good use of it. I like things like this, and thank you again Jamie, for the retweet, it meant a lot to us and our school! Tweet #saveourinternet take and interest and watch this space to see if we can get the rewrite made better.

Google Drive for Desktop.