Memo to Bloggers: Not Everything is Free.

This article will take approx 1 minute to read.

Just a small, possibly controversial, thought on Redlasso shutting their doors for bloggers to use their content.

NBC and Fox filed copyright infringement actions against Redlasso for allowing users search, clip, and post excerpts from copyrighted video content on their blogs. Redkasso (rightly) closed up their free service, but continues to supply to (paying) business customers.

There were some puzzled, angry bloggers out there wondering why they would keep their system up for the bigwigs, but close off access to the free “beta” service. Press releases crowing about Fair Use and whatnot.

Just because it’s a clip and you’re commenting on it does not make it fair use. Why?

Blame Google.

If you have AdSense ads, or any ads whatsoever on your blog, it’s not fair use. You’re making money. With someone else’s content.

Some people have a problem with that, other’s don’t. My flickr photos are Creative Commons licensed. I still have the Copyright, but I can decide how to license my content. Maybe one day I will decide that I want to charge for using them. But not yet.

Did you know that TV networks don’t always own their content? House, MD is broadcast on Fox but owned by NBC Universal. Even if Fox had no problem with RedLasso allowing House to be clipped, it’s not up to the broadcaster. It’s up to the content owner.

RedLasso might even have permission to be distributing clips to paying subscribers. I know at least one other service that does something similar. But those subscribers can’t do just anything with the clips. Especially if money changes hands.

I care about Fair Use. I’ve been involved in the issue since DeCSS hit the ‘net. Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt. Really. I do have a DeCSS T-Shirt.

I also know that copyright is a serious thing. Producing content, whether written, video, or audio is hard. If you pay for it, you do have rights. Fair Use. First Sale. Stuff like that.

Why are people so angry about losing something they didn’t have in the first place?

Comments

  1. says

    I don’t get it Andrew. Let’s take a print example—say the New York Review of books prints a short excerpt from a book so it can comment on it, that’s considered fair use, right? Yet there are ads running right next to that book review. So what’s the diff between that and showing a video clip on my website w/google ads in the side bar?

  2. says

    I don’t get it Andrew. Let’s take a print example—say the New York Review of books prints a short excerpt from a book so it can comment on it, that’s considered fair use, right? Yet there are ads running right next to that book review. So what’s the diff between that and showing a video clip on my website w/google ads in the side bar?

  3. says

    I don’t get it Andrew. Let’s take a print example—say the New York Review of books prints a short excerpt from a book so it can comment on it, that’s considered fair use, right? Yet there are ads running right next to that book review. So what’s the diff between that and showing a video clip on my website w/google ads in the side bar?

  4. says

    I don’t get it Andrew. Let’s take a print example—say the New York Review of books prints a short excerpt from a book so it can comment on it, that’s considered fair use, right? Yet there are ads running right next to that book review. So what’s the diff between that and showing a video clip on my website w/google ads in the side bar?

  5. says

    I don’t get it Andrew. Let’s take a print example—say the New York Review of books prints a short excerpt from a book so it can comment on it, that’s considered fair use, right? Yet there are ads running right next to that book review. So what’s the diff between that and showing a video clip on my website w/google ads in the side bar?

  6. says

    I don’t get it Andrew. Let’s take a print example—say the New York Review of books prints a short excerpt from a book so it can comment on it, that’s considered fair use, right? Yet there are ads running right next to that book review. So what’s the diff between that and showing a video clip on my website w/google ads in the side bar?

  7. says

    I don’t get it Andrew. Let’s take a print example—say the New York Review of books prints a short excerpt from a book so it can comment on it, that’s considered fair use, right? Yet there are ads running right next to that book review. So what’s the diff between that and showing a video clip on my website w/google ads in the side bar?

  8. says

    I don’t get it Andrew. Let’s take a print example—say the New York Review of books prints a short excerpt from a book so it can comment on it, that’s considered fair use, right? Yet there are ads running right next to that book review. So what’s the diff between that and showing a video clip on my website w/google ads in the side bar?

  9. says

    I actually agree with you on ad placement, Jonny. I think most of the time, ads placed around video content do not count as monetization of content. If the ads were interwove with the content (intro, outro) then there would be a problem.

  10. says

    I actually agree with you on ad placement, Jonny. I think most of the time, ads placed around video content do not count as monetization of content. If the ads were interwove with the content (intro, outro) then there would be a problem.

  11. says

    I actually agree with you on ad placement, Jonny. I think most of the time, ads placed around video content do not count as monetization of content. If the ads were interwove with the content (intro, outro) then there would be a problem.

  12. says

    I actually agree with you on ad placement, Jonny. I think most of the time, ads placed around video content do not count as monetization of content. If the ads were interwove with the content (intro, outro) then there would be a problem.

  13. says

    I actually agree with you on ad placement, Jonny. I think most of the time, ads placed around video content do not count as monetization of content. If the ads were interwove with the content (intro, outro) then there would be a problem.

  14. says

    I actually agree with you on ad placement, Jonny. I think most of the time, ads placed around video content do not count as monetization of content. If the ads were interwove with the content (intro, outro) then there would be a problem.

  15. says

    I actually agree with you on ad placement, Jonny. I think most of the time, ads placed around video content do not count as monetization of content. If the ads were interwove with the content (intro, outro) then there would be a problem.

  16. says

    I actually agree with you on ad placement, Jonny. I think most of the time, ads placed around video content do not count as monetization of content. If the ads were interwove with the content (intro, outro) then there would be a problem.

  17. says

    Most copyright statements make an explicit exception for short passages quoted in a review, for what it’s worth. It seems to me the law on this remains pretty unclear yet (I’m not a lawyer, though).

  18. says

    Most copyright statements make an explicit exception for short passages quoted in a review, for what it’s worth. It seems to me the law on this remains pretty unclear yet (I’m not a lawyer, though).

  19. says

    Most copyright statements make an explicit exception for short passages quoted in a review, for what it’s worth. It seems to me the law on this remains pretty unclear yet (I’m not a lawyer, though).

  20. says

    Most copyright statements make an explicit exception for short passages quoted in a review, for what it’s worth. It seems to me the law on this remains pretty unclear yet (I’m not a lawyer, though).

  21. says

    Most copyright statements make an explicit exception for short passages quoted in a review, for what it’s worth. It seems to me the law on this remains pretty unclear yet (I’m not a lawyer, though).

  22. says

    Most copyright statements make an explicit exception for short passages quoted in a review, for what it’s worth. It seems to me the law on this remains pretty unclear yet (I’m not a lawyer, though).

  23. says

    Most copyright statements make an explicit exception for short passages quoted in a review, for what it’s worth. It seems to me the law on this remains pretty unclear yet (I’m not a lawyer, though).

  24. says

    Most copyright statements make an explicit exception for short passages quoted in a review, for what it’s worth. It seems to me the law on this remains pretty unclear yet (I’m not a lawyer, though).

  25. Andrew Feinberg says

    But NYRB is not storing and archiving those books for anyone to search through and comment on, either. Nor would an author or publisher be very happy with such a service (remember the Google book search blowup?).The NYRB was also most likely provided with the text by the publisher. You were not provided with the video by Fox or NBC. You obtained it via RedLasso.If you yourself recorded, excerpted and commented on the same clip, we would have no problem.But a third party was involved, RedLasso. And RedLasso most likely had permission to redistribute under a limited set of circumstances, which their service presumably violated, prompting the lawsuit.TV -> you -> computer -> web == OK.TV -> RedLasso -> you -> web == not so OK.I am going to talk to another clipping service and a few copyright lawyers and see what they say.Hopefully I can get done with my “real work” to watch the Par-Tay tonight. Thanks for reading, Jonny!

  26. Andrew Feinberg says

    But NYRB is not storing and archiving those books for anyone to search through and comment on, either. Nor would an author or publisher be very happy with such a service (remember the Google book search blowup?).The NYRB was also most likely provided with the text by the publisher. You were not provided with the video by Fox or NBC. You obtained it via RedLasso.If you yourself recorded, excerpted and commented on the same clip, we would have no problem.But a third party was involved, RedLasso. And RedLasso most likely had permission to redistribute under a limited set of circumstances, which their service presumably violated, prompting the lawsuit.TV -> you -> computer -> web == OK.TV -> RedLasso -> you -> web == not so OK.I am going to talk to another clipping service and a few copyright lawyers and see what they say.Hopefully I can get done with my “real work” to watch the Par-Tay tonight. Thanks for reading, Jonny!

  27. Andrew Feinberg says

    But NYRB is not storing and archiving those books for anyone to search through and comment on, either. Nor would an author or publisher be very happy with such a service (remember the Google book search blowup?).The NYRB was also most likely provided with the text by the publisher. You were not provided with the video by Fox or NBC. You obtained it via RedLasso.If you yourself recorded, excerpted and commented on the same clip, we would have no problem.But a third party was involved, RedLasso. And RedLasso most likely had permission to redistribute under a limited set of circumstances, which their service presumably violated, prompting the lawsuit.TV -> you -> computer -> web == OK.TV -> RedLasso -> you -> web == not so OK.I am going to talk to another clipping service and a few copyright lawyers and see what they say.Hopefully I can get done with my “real work” to watch the Par-Tay tonight. Thanks for reading, Jonny!

  28. Andrew Feinberg says

    But NYRB is not storing and archiving those books for anyone to search through and comment on, either. Nor would an author or publisher be very happy with such a service (remember the Google book search blowup?).The NYRB was also most likely provided with the text by the publisher. You were not provided with the video by Fox or NBC. You obtained it via RedLasso.If you yourself recorded, excerpted and commented on the same clip, we would have no problem.But a third party was involved, RedLasso. And RedLasso most likely had permission to redistribute under a limited set of circumstances, which their service presumably violated, prompting the lawsuit.TV -> you -> computer -> web == OK.TV -> RedLasso -> you -> web == not so OK.I am going to talk to another clipping service and a few copyright lawyers and see what they say.Hopefully I can get done with my “real work” to watch the Par-Tay tonight. Thanks for reading, Jonny!

  29. Andrew Feinberg says

    But NYRB is not storing and archiving those books for anyone to search through and comment on, either. Nor would an author or publisher be very happy with such a service (remember the Google book search blowup?).The NYRB was also most likely provided with the text by the publisher. You were not provided with the video by Fox or NBC. You obtained it via RedLasso.If you yourself recorded, excerpted and commented on the same clip, we would have no problem.But a third party was involved, RedLasso. And RedLasso most likely had permission to redistribute under a limited set of circumstances, which their service presumably violated, prompting the lawsuit.TV -> you -> computer -> web == OK.TV -> RedLasso -> you -> web == not so OK.I am going to talk to another clipping service and a few copyright lawyers and see what they say.Hopefully I can get done with my “real work” to watch the Par-Tay tonight. Thanks for reading, Jonny!

  30. Andrew Feinberg says

    But NYRB is not storing and archiving those books for anyone to search through and comment on, either. Nor would an author or publisher be very happy with such a service (remember the Google book search blowup?).The NYRB was also most likely provided with the text by the publisher. You were not provided with the video by Fox or NBC. You obtained it via RedLasso.If you yourself recorded, excerpted and commented on the same clip, we would have no problem.But a third party was involved, RedLasso. And RedLasso most likely had permission to redistribute under a limited set of circumstances, which their service presumably violated, prompting the lawsuit.TV -> you -> computer -> web == OK.TV -> RedLasso -> you -> web == not so OK.I am going to talk to another clipping service and a few copyright lawyers and see what they say.Hopefully I can get done with my “real work” to watch the Par-Tay tonight. Thanks for reading, Jonny!

  31. Andrew Feinberg says

    But NYRB is not storing and archiving those books for anyone to search through and comment on, either. Nor would an author or publisher be very happy with such a service (remember the Google book search blowup?).The NYRB was also most likely provided with the text by the publisher. You were not provided with the video by Fox or NBC. You obtained it via RedLasso.If you yourself recorded, excerpted and commented on the same clip, we would have no problem.But a third party was involved, RedLasso. And RedLasso most likely had permission to redistribute under a limited set of circumstances, which their service presumably violated, prompting the lawsuit.TV -> you -> computer -> web == OK.TV -> RedLasso -> you -> web == not so OK.I am going to talk to another clipping service and a few copyright lawyers and see what they say.Hopefully I can get done with my “real work” to watch the Par-Tay tonight. Thanks for reading, Jonny!

  32. Andrew Feinberg says

    But NYRB is not storing and archiving those books for anyone to search through and comment on, either. Nor would an author or publisher be very happy with such a service (remember the Google book search blowup?).The NYRB was also most likely provided with the text by the publisher. You were not provided with the video by Fox or NBC. You obtained it via RedLasso.If you yourself recorded, excerpted and commented on the same clip, we would have no problem.But a third party was involved, RedLasso. And RedLasso most likely had permission to redistribute under a limited set of circumstances, which their service presumably violated, prompting the lawsuit.TV -> you -> computer -> web == OK.TV -> RedLasso -> you -> web == not so OK.I am going to talk to another clipping service and a few copyright lawyers and see what they say.Hopefully I can get done with my “real work” to watch the Par-Tay tonight. Thanks for reading, Jonny!