They have the right to say no to your use of their property - you making the sequence for your own entertainment or private show reel, your choice - but your publicly distributing via social media, infringement of not only their property but also their property rights.
You basically have no rights in this issue. I'm sorry. Other than the fact you produced it. The work you produced was commendable, but at the end of the day it is making use of BBC owned owned property and trademarks which is straight forward copyright infringement.
Sorry.
This. R.E.D said it far better than I could.
You don't have a leg to stand on. You used the TARDIS, something I believe the BBC do own and have copyrighted. Using the actors names is probably a big breach somewhere too. Their music will definitely be copyrighted and you can't use it without their permission. The BBC aren't jealous of 'your' product, they are protecting their product. It deserves to be pulled from YT. I hope they do so again.
I'll be honest, when clicking on the link, I was initially expecting something amateur. However, this has blown me away!
Like others have said, the BBC should be hiring you. God knows how you made that?! Incredible work! Well done, it is much better than the current 'Big Bang Theory' style intro. Originality counts!
I haven't watched the sequence in question but it's clearly neither private nor research. Nor for criticism, review or news -- most fair clauses are to permit limited quotation in mags, books etc. There is nothing incidental about copying a programme's trademarked name. I also assume the sequence uses a version of Ron Grainer's melody. Clear breach of copyright.
I'd love to have you against me in court...
In that case Xander really has nothing to worry about because the theme the BBC owns the rights to was composed by Ron Granger.
(actually, most people know it wasn't really composed by him at all; it was mostly Delia Derbyshire, but officially, yes, it's credited to him. Can't have women going about getting credit for things in the 1960s BBC. It was bad enough having that dreadful Lambert woman refusing to make the tea)
Actually I just took a look at Youtube and the guy's a tw-t.
He uses actor's names, the BBC's trademarked TARDIS, renders a blatantly derivative sequence and has the nerve to write:
"It's my work, completely within the bounds of transformative fair use for the purposes of commentary and criticism, and is most defiantly not owned by the BBC"
What a tw-t. I hope the BBC bloody sue him.
But haven't you heard? Writing 'No copyright intended' (sic) on a video description on Youtube means it isn't illegal
In that case Xander really has nothing to worry about because the theme the BBC owns the rights to was composed by Ron Granger.
No, he really was called Ron Grainer. And the BBC don't own the rights to the theme. They are owned by Warner/Chappell and even the BBC have to pay to use it.
(actually, most people know it wasn't really composed by him at all; it was mostly Delia Derbyshire, but officially, yes, it's credited to him. Can't have women going about getting credit for things in the 1960s BBC. It was bad enough having that dreadful Lambert woman refusing to make the tea)
People don't know it because it isn't true. Grainer composed the theme, and Derbyshire realised it. True he was surprised by how it turned out, but anyone who has ever seen the original composition played in piano will recognise it immediately as the Who theme.
As someone else said, they turn a blind eye because it's essentially harmless and it's impossible for them to keep on top of these kinds of videos, there's thousands and thousands.
But when their attention is dragged towards something then they will act.
Basically, yes. There are THOUSANDS of fanvids out there and the vast majority don't get pulled by the BBC because they know it'd be a waste of their resources and would get them nothing. They play willful ignorance and that's fine because the creators of these vids are just fans doing stuff for fun. Same as any other fan work.
So why have they 'picked' on this. It seems however this intro sequence has wandered beyond the realm of simple fanwork (made by someone who seemingly wants to be a professional) and has also been brought to their attention in a way they can't ignore.
Obviously annoying to have your work pulled but got to be somewhat pragmatic considering the work does break the stated act of law.
Actually I just took a look at Youtube and the guy's a tw-t.
He uses actor's names, the BBC's trademarked TARDIS, renders a blatantly derivative sequence and has the nerve to write:
"It's my work, completely within the bounds of transformative fair use for the purposes of commentary and criticism, and is most defiantly not owned by the BBC"
I just watched it and I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Yeah, kudos to the guy for getting the attention he wanted, especially after all those countless hours working on that title sequence. Even if it's not as good as the current BBC one, not as professional-looking or sounding, he still might get hired by someone to make titles for another show (though he'll have to do it with a quicker turnover than that).
If it had been a little more imaginative and not used elements that tie it too closely to the current BBC title sequence (it couldn't exist without it's producer watching and apeing the current titles), as well as - and this is key - the trademarked Tardis image, I don't think the BBC would have given the video a second thought. It's a bit of a ludicrous statement by some saying they were 'jealous' of it. Why would they be? I think a more original video would be a much better use of someone's time.
People don't know it because it isn't true. Grainer composed the theme, and Derbyshire realised it. True he was surprised by how it turned out, but anyone who has ever seen the original composition played in piano will recognise it immediately as the Who theme.
Absolutely. Composing and arranging (and playing) are totally separate. Composer retains rights (unless he sells them or it was work for hire etc...). That said, performers have rights in their specific performance -- which is why so much muzak is by naff cover artists. Pay so much for Beatles music and so much more for the actual Beatles version. As employee I suspect Derbyshire's work for the BBC was/is their property.
Basically, yes. There are THOUSANDS of fanvids out there and the vast majority don't get pulled by the BBC because they know it'd be a waste of their resources and would get them nothing. They play willful ignorance and that's fine because the creators of these vids are just fans doing stuff for fun. Same as any other fan work.
So why have they 'picked' on this. It seems however this intro sequence has wandered beyond the realm of simple fanwork (made by someone who seemingly wants to be a professional) and has also been brought to their attention in a way they can't ignore.
Obviously annoying to have your work pulled but got to be somewhat pragmatic considering the work does break the stated act of law.
Quite. This work is not fair use. It's an original work (and not parody, review or comment) that uses a clip, elements of the title sequence, copyrighted music, parts of a copyrighted arrangement of that music, a copyrighted logo, the trademarked police box, the inside of the TARDIS etc. And it was brought to the attention of the BBC.
They can't challenge everything, but they have to challenge things that come to their attention and infringe in so many ways. It's a legal necessity.
Quite. This work is not fair use. It's an original work (and not parody, review or comment) that uses a clip, elements of the title sequence, copyrighted music, parts of a copyrighted arrangement of that music, a copyrighted logo, the trademarked police box, the inside of the TARDIS etc. And it was brought to the attention of the BBC.
They can't challenge everything, but they have to challenge things that come to their attention and infringe in so many ways. It's a legal necessity.
This. One might hope the maker of the video can at least see the error. What a tosspot! xD
Actually I just took a look at Youtube and the guy's a tw-t.
He uses actor's names, the BBC's trademarked TARDIS, renders a blatantly derivative sequence and has the nerve to write:
"It's my work, completely within the bounds of transformative fair use for the purposes of commentary and criticism, and is most defiantly not owned by the BBC"
What a tw-t. I hope the BBC bloody sue him.
I've just noticed how aggressive this guy gets on YouTube when someone makes "fair use" of his work (even though his work is derivative of other people's anyway). Here's one of his posts:
"Anyone who re-uploads [any of my work] or butchers it into their own work gets a copyright strike against their account, or blocked from using youtube again if they have already had strikes in the past. I take down about half a dozen thefts a week on here. Most people get the idea though."
So he's keen to stop anyone abusing his copyright but he has a fairly relaxed approach himself when it comes to using other people's copyright?
"It's my work, completely within the bounds of transformative fair use for the purposes of commentary and criticism, and is most defiantly not owned by the BBC"
What a tw-t. I hope the BBC bloody sue him.
This I agree with. It's one thing when videos say "No copyright infringement intended" or whatever it's one thing, at least they're acknowledging the work doesn't belong to them.
But to outright say "defiantly not owned by the BBC" is just stupid and incredibly egotistical.
Absolutely. Composing and arranging (and playing) are totally separate. Composer retains rights (unless he sells them or it was work for hire etc...). That said, performers have rights in their specific performance -- which is why so much muzak is by naff cover artists. Pay so much for Beatles music and so much more for the actual Beatles version. As employee I suspect Derbyshire's work for the BBC was/is their property.
It is, yes. As a BBC employee her arrangement is owned by the BBC (see also poor Ray Cusick and the Daleks), but the BBC can't use it without permission from Warner/Chappell (who notoriously charge a lot, such that for both the 1996 movie and the 2005 return serious consideration was given to having an alternative theme).
It is, yes. As a BBC employee her arrangement is owned by the BBC (see also poor Ray Cusick and the Daleks), but the BBC can't use it without permission from Warner/Chappell (who notoriously charge a lot, such that for both the 1996 movie and the 2005 return serious consideration was given to having an alternative theme).
Cool, I didn't know that. Presumably they manage Grainer's rights?
I've just noticed how aggressive this guy gets on YouTube when someone makes "fair use" of his work (even though his work is derivative of other people's anyway). Here's one of his posts:
"Anyone who re-uploads [any of my work] or butchers it into their own work gets a copyright strike against their account, or blocked from using youtube again if they have already had strikes in the past. I take down about half a dozen thefts a week on here. Most people get the idea though."
So he's keen to stop anyone abusing his copyright but he has a fairly relaxed approach himself when it comes to using other people's copyright?
I wish I hadn't complimented his work in another thread, he seems really pretentious and arrogant.
I've just noticed how aggressive this guy gets on YouTube when someone makes "fair use" of his work (even though his work is derivative of other people's anyway). Here's one of his posts:
"Anyone who re-uploads [any of my work] or butchers it into their own work gets a copyright strike against their account, or blocked from using youtube again if they have already had strikes in the past. I take down about half a dozen thefts a week on here. Most people get the idea though."
So he's keen to stop anyone abusing his copyright but he has a fairly relaxed approach himself when it comes to using other people's copyright?
A bit like a kid stealing another kid's chocolate bar and then complaining when the teacher takes it off him for trying to eat it during class really.
Comments
This. R.E.D said it far better than I could.
You don't have a leg to stand on. You used the TARDIS, something I believe the BBC do own and have copyrighted. Using the actors names is probably a big breach somewhere too. Their music will definitely be copyrighted and you can't use it without their permission. The BBC aren't jealous of 'your' product, they are protecting their product. It deserves to be pulled from YT. I hope they do so again.
Like others have said, the BBC should be hiring you. God knows how you made that?! Incredible work! Well done, it is much better than the current 'Big Bang Theory' style intro. Originality counts!
In that case Xander really has nothing to worry about because the theme the BBC owns the rights to was composed by Ron Granger.
(actually, most people know it wasn't really composed by him at all; it was mostly Delia Derbyshire, but officially, yes, it's credited to him. Can't have women going about getting credit for things in the 1960s BBC. It was bad enough having that dreadful Lambert woman refusing to make the tea)
But haven't you heard? Writing 'No copyright intended' (sic) on a video description on Youtube means it isn't illegal
Nice one
I suspect KHAAAAAAN!
Okay, this question's worth a thousand pounds. Is RON GRANGER your final answer?
No, he really was called Ron Grainer. And the BBC don't own the rights to the theme. They are owned by Warner/Chappell and even the BBC have to pay to use it.
People don't know it because it isn't true. Grainer composed the theme, and Derbyshire realised it. True he was surprised by how it turned out, but anyone who has ever seen the original composition played in piano will recognise it immediately as the Who theme.
Basically, yes. There are THOUSANDS of fanvids out there and the vast majority don't get pulled by the BBC because they know it'd be a waste of their resources and would get them nothing. They play willful ignorance and that's fine because the creators of these vids are just fans doing stuff for fun. Same as any other fan work.
So why have they 'picked' on this. It seems however this intro sequence has wandered beyond the realm of simple fanwork (made by someone who seemingly wants to be a professional) and has also been brought to their attention in a way they can't ignore.
Obviously annoying to have your work pulled but got to be somewhat pragmatic considering the work does break the stated act of law.
Yeah, it's the old internet loon breaches rights then acts all indignant. "But... but... IT'S THE INTERNET!"
Love the ST ref.
This, I'm with this guy
If it had been a little more imaginative and not used elements that tie it too closely to the current BBC title sequence (it couldn't exist without it's producer watching and apeing the current titles), as well as - and this is key - the trademarked Tardis image, I don't think the BBC would have given the video a second thought. It's a bit of a ludicrous statement by some saying they were 'jealous' of it. Why would they be? I think a more original video would be a much better use of someone's time.
Absolutely. Composing and arranging (and playing) are totally separate. Composer retains rights (unless he sells them or it was work for hire etc...). That said, performers have rights in their specific performance -- which is why so much muzak is by naff cover artists. Pay so much for Beatles music and so much more for the actual Beatles version. As employee I suspect Derbyshire's work for the BBC was/is their property.
Quite. This work is not fair use. It's an original work (and not parody, review or comment) that uses a clip, elements of the title sequence, copyrighted music, parts of a copyrighted arrangement of that music, a copyrighted logo, the trademarked police box, the inside of the TARDIS etc. And it was brought to the attention of the BBC.
They can't challenge everything, but they have to challenge things that come to their attention and infringe in so many ways. It's a legal necessity.
This. One might hope the maker of the video can at least see the error. What a tosspot! xD
"Anyone who re-uploads [any of my work] or butchers it into their own work gets a copyright strike against their account, or blocked from using youtube again if they have already had strikes in the past. I take down about half a dozen thefts a week on here. Most people get the idea though."
So he's keen to stop anyone abusing his copyright but he has a fairly relaxed approach himself when it comes to using other people's copyright?
Good catch, I didn't notice that.
Earning money, however little, from it is obviously breaking the law.
This I agree with. It's one thing when videos say "No copyright infringement intended" or whatever it's one thing, at least they're acknowledging the work doesn't belong to them.
But to outright say "defiantly not owned by the BBC" is just stupid and incredibly egotistical.
It is, yes. As a BBC employee her arrangement is owned by the BBC (see also poor Ray Cusick and the Daleks), but the BBC can't use it without permission from Warner/Chappell (who notoriously charge a lot, such that for both the 1996 movie and the 2005 return serious consideration was given to having an alternative theme).
... and a Freudian slip.
Cool, I didn't know that. Presumably they manage Grainer's rights?
I wish I hadn't complimented his work in another thread, he seems really pretentious and arrogant.
300 years in a cryotube and he's lost his marbles!
Complicated Bondian plot blah blah blah, Federation war mongers blah blah blah. Klingons in funny hats blah blah blah...