Argus Live/Recorded election day feed.

Typical. Someone asks PP politely not to use their proprietary material and he decides to swipe it anyway. What a little mutt.

Bill, I never took you to be a tool of “the man.” Just because someone says something, does not make it correct. They’re basically posting it on You tube, and saying “oh! don’t embed that. We didn’t mean to share the content.”

But just in case anyone is in doubt about my ability to legally embed it at the SDWC, this is from the user agreement they agreed to as a condition of utilizing their service:

3.3 You retain all of your ownership rights in your Produced Content. However, by submitting Produced Content to Mogulus, you hereby:

(ii) grant each user of the Mogulus Service a non-exclusive license to access your Produced Content through the Mogulus Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, publish, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such Produced Content solely as permitted through the functionality of the Mogulus Service and under these Terms of Use.

http://www.mogulus.com/info/terms

If they don’t want people to embed their content, they should get away from the “you tube” stuff, and roll their own (I’ve done it myself, it’s pretty easy).

Besides. I’m sure the big dogs can stand a pup like me taking a nip at their heels.

(That being said, it doens’t come with a shut off switch, and that’s annoying as heck for those who want to load it only when they wish, so I’ll probably kill it on that basis)

This guy is not ready for prime time!

That guy should lay off the election feed.

PP-

There is a handy little on/off button in the bottom left hand corner to turn off the video feed.

(Anon – I went in the coding and defaulted the feed to “off,” so it doesn’t load automatically.)

As a creative person, I’m an advocate of the protection and respect of one’s intellectual property. Ethical rule of thumb: If you want to use, ask. If they say no, don’t.

It has nothing to do with the “man” but rather “manners.”

And Bill, I’m one of the unusual ones where if in doubt, I’ll ask, and I try to follow fair use guidelines. Why? Because I would want to be treated the same.

But when license is given contingent upon the material’s availability, notice is given to the creator of the free availability of that material’s use, and it invites a user to share, then why on earth would I assume the contrary?

It would be like you uploading an ad template to a “free ad template sharing” and then grousing when someone actually uses it.

Besides. If the doofs even bothered to look, the embed function can be turned off.

Fair use? Whatever, PP.

They sell advertising, you sell advertising. You compete for the same online audience. It’s like your swiping Bill Harlan’s photo of Sibby from Mt. Blogmore (which you did) and using it for cartoons on your site.

Legal perhaps, but not cool.

I know this, because I’ve been working in this field all my life.

Look, PP, I don’t care if you listen to me or not.

I’m just telling you how it is, and how creative people think of you when you steal their stuff.

It’s not really debatable.

It’s like you’re saying, “Molest her? Naw, I just squeezed her ass a little, no big deal. Besides, she had it stickin’ out there.”

Bill, when I refer to “Fair Use” I’m referring to the legal principles which allow the use of one portion of a work for a derivative work. It’s what most blogging is based upon.

(And if you didn’t care, why comment on it?)

I know what “fair use” is PP. I also know what “Droit Moral” rights are.
Do you?
I’m saying that I don’t care what your opinion is.
I brought it up to give you a lesson in ethics.
You can take it or leave it.

What is droit morale?

Droit morale refers to moral rights, which are personal rights that a creator has in their work (as opposed to the other rights that come with having a copyright, which are economic rights). In 1990, the United States Congress enacted the Visual Artists Rights Act, which amended the Copyright Act to include limited moral rights with regard to works of visual art created on or after June 1, 1991. Specifically, this act established two rights in such works of visual art – the right of attribution and the right of integrity.

Moral rights are retained by an author even if all of the other rights granted by the Copyright Act are assigned to another. In fact, moral rights cannot be assigned to anyone else by the author.

It seems to me the Arduous Liar is trying to have its cake and eat it too. If they have intellectual property and want to protect it, they should use their own system and not enter into agreements they don’t like.