I can assure you they did not, so stop trolling such utter rubbish. I removed any such suggestions on the one or two occasions the email address "thedoctor@bbc.co.uk" was posted by anyone.
Are you done trying to wind people up, or??
Trolling? Winding people up? What on Earth are you talking about?
Are you now trying to deny that lots of your fans posted messages saying they were going to bombard the BBC with emails telling them how rubbish the official title sequence was compared to yours? Don't bother, lots of us saw those messages so pretending they never happened won't changes the facts.
Indeed. It is inarguably great work but you should focus on pushing the quality of your work in its own right rather than trying to call out the relative talents of those that made the existing titles. That's just unprofessional.
Under terms of "fair use", copyright work may be considered as used fairly when in the context of "non-commercial, transformative in nature and/or uses no more of the original work than is necessary for the video's purpose"
So many people were unhappy with the Peter Anderson title sequence that I took it upon myself to answer that critical point of view with something completely original of my own creation.
Far from being "bratty", I am quite obviously attempting to point out the reasoning behind the 40 days of hard work was designed to achieve.
Primary factors when deciding if fair use is valid is usually stacked up against the following:
Commenting on or critiquing of copyrighted material
Using copyright material for illustration or example
Capturing copyrighted material incidentally or accidentally
Reproducing, reposting, or quoting in order to memorialize, preserve, or rescue an experience, an event, or a cultural phenomenon
Copying, reposting, and recirculating a work or part of a work for purposes of launching a discussion
Quoting in order to recombine elements to make a new work that depends for its meaning on (often unlikely) relationships between the elements
I also think you should refrain from mentioning tbe quality of other peoples work. Your stuff stands on its own merits and you shouldn't slate others. Especially when they are a potential employer.
edit: I've just seen your explanation - it's part of your fair use reasoning. Ok. I'm not an expert in that.
Under terms of "fair use", copyright work may be considered as used fairly when in the context of "non-commercial, transformative in nature and/or uses no more of the original work than is necessary for the video's purpose"
Yes, but xander - you are using the BBC's brand and material in your work - and the BBC do have the right to say, no - we don't approve of your use of our property. Which, by their demand it be taken down - they are doing.
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.
Yes, but xander - you are using the BBC's brand and material in your work - and the BBC do have the right to say, no - we don't approve of your use of our property. Which, by their demand it be taken down - they are doing.
Take some time to read up on fair use of copyright material please.
Companies like the BBC often do turn a bit of a blind eye to this sort of thing because they understand it is harmless promotion for their show (others, such as Sony and MGM have proven not so lenient in the past!).
The trouble is if something is flagged to them they have to protect their copyright firmly because it could have a negative impact on later cases if it is shown previously that they knowingly let a copyright issue go.
I hope you understand that "fair use" is recognised only by US (and I think Israeli) law?
I have to say I couldn't remember anything in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act which allowed fanvideos such as this. As I said, I think the only reasons these materials usually stay is the companies in question don't go looking for them.
Companies like the BBC often do turn a bit of a blind eye to this sort of thing because they understand it is harmless promotion for their show (others, such as Sony and MGM have proven not so lenient in the past!).
The trouble is if something is flagged to them they have to protect their copyright firmly because it could have a negative impact on later cases if it is shown previously that they knowingly let a copyright issue go.
Thank you, claire2281. This is the point I was trying to make earlier. I have no doubt the BBC would have been happy to turn a blind eye, but by literally drawing their attention to the video, xandercom's fans have unwittingly forced the BBC to take action.
In general, I don't see how it's any different to the thousands of other videos on the net of fans using clips, music, images etc associated with Doctor Who and the BBC. It does seem to fall under the fair use policy.
You weren't pretending the imagery belonged or is your own original work but was a fan tribute.
But, it seems you were deliberately trying to "prove" the current title sequence wasn't good enough and a lot of your fans bombarded the BBC with emails so I can't blame them for acting.
Might have been better to just let it stand on its own without getting bratty about it.
By having your work removed, the BBC have deemed clearly that it constitutes an infringement of their copyright. And the owners of the server you uploaded it to agree, thereby meaning you have breeched those terms to which you point.
Should you have an issue with that your best course of action is to raise it with the administrators of the site you uploaded to and under who's Fair Use policy you submitted.
However - since they have removed the material, you haven't a leg to stand on.
Thank you, claire2281. This is the point I was trying to make earlier. I have no doubt the BBC would have been happy to turn a blind eye, but by literally drawing their attention to the video, xandercom's fans have unwittingly forced the BBC to take action.
And the online petition is just asking for trouble.
I hope you understand that "fair use" is recognised only by US (and I think Israeli) law?
The UK has something similar named 'Fair Dealing'
I can't be bothered to explain it, but here it is taken from wiki instead.
Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), fair dealing is limited to the following purposes: research and private study (both must be non-commercial), criticism, review, and news reporting (sections 29, 30, 178). Although not actually defined as a fair dealing, incidental inclusion of a copyrighted work in an artistic work, sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme doesn't infringe copyright.
Whenever I had copyright issues, I'd just submit a dispute using the following statement & it would 99% of the time be accepted & the video reinstated.
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
Companies like the BBC often do turn a bit of a blind eye to this sort of thing because they understand it is harmless promotion for their show (others, such as Sony and MGM have proven not so lenient in the past!).
The trouble is if something is flagged to them they have to protect their copyright firmly because it could have a negative impact on later cases if it is shown previously that they knowingly let a copyright issue go.
I have to say I couldn't remember anything in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act which allowed fanvideos such as this. As I said, I think the only reasons these materials usually stay is the companies in question don't go looking for them.
To be fair, in this age of "everything's free to download, who gives a s**t internet" for copyright owners it's a bit like King Canute. It's physically impossible to police every site, every server for breaches. I don't think it's tolerated so much as having to pick one's fights. I personally would slam a levy on the ISPs and feed this money back into the creative industries. Then we'd see how laissez fair BT & co would be about offering ever faster and wider bandwidth.
If you breach copyright and circulate infringing material among friends or private groups, you still breach copyright but it's relatively harmless. But the moment you go on YouTube, which is effectively becoming the world's TV station, you should anticipate the possibility of being closed down.
Heaven forbid one should be inspired by the source material to produce something original (if derivative)...
I just think xander should be wary of protests and petitions. As has been said let your good work speak for itself. You don't want to risk having your card marked as a problem by any future employers. You are clearly very talented and I take my hat off to you. But all this talk of fans and petitions and such will do you no favors in the long term. That's the thing with the internet. It has a long memory. You will go far based on your own skills and not your ability to critique fellow professionals.
I can't be bothered to explain it, but here it is taken from wiki instead.
Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), fair dealing is limited to the following purposes: research and private study (both must be non-commercial), criticism, review, and news reporting (sections 29, 30, 178). Although not actually defined as a fair dealing, incidental inclusion of a copyrighted work in an artistic work, sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme doesn't infringe copyright.
Whenever I had copyright issues, I'd just submit a dispute using the following statement & it would 99% of the time be accepted & the video reinstated.
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
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 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...
I actually agree that is it obviously breaching copyright, I was just stating the facts of the fair use as people seemed to be confused.
However as it's been stated BBC usually allow these kinds of things, so it's suspicious to as why they decided this was too much & decided to have it removed.
I actually agree that is it obviously breaching copyright, I was just stating the facts of the fair use as people seemed to be confused.
However as it's been stated BBC usually allow these kinds of things, so it's suspicious to as why they decided this was too much & decided to have it removed.
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.
I actually agree that is it obviously breaching copyright, I was just stating the facts of the fair use as people seemed to be confused.
However as it's been stated BBC usually allow these kinds of things, so it's suspicious to as why they decided this was too much & decided to have it removed.
Sorry, I misunderstood your intention re. quoting fair use.
You'd have to be inside the BBC to see whether they choose to allow anything, as opposed to not having time and resources to pursue everything. It is a valid question, though, to wonder how this piece came to their attention. That said, the problem is easily and simply avoided.
Anyway, I'll leave you lot to hash around a discussion of your own for a bit, I'm off to the pub!
Xander - seriously, you made a fine piece of work which has been well commended. I would have thought vimeo would be a far better bet for showing your CGI work anyway. Loose the unnecessarily contentious this-is-how-it-should-be-done overtones and you shouldn't have any problems.
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.
I'm also fairly sure he has, as in numerous other media he has uploaded, the description of;
"Undiscovered UK VFX Artist. Grab a cup of tea & relax for a while. Enjoy this? When people click an advert before my video, it helps me pay for producing these for you, but I'm not allowed to ask people to do that, so whatever you do, don't for god's sake support my work by clicking on an advert. #sarcasm"
If the uploader is earning through advertisements at the start of the video, then I see this as possibly being the main reason it has been pulled.
made by a fan for the fans and was 1000x better then the bbc made one prob why they tried to ban it if fans had more input in the show it would be much better imo keep going xandercom your work is brilliant
If the uploader is earning through advertisements at the start of the video, then I see this as possibly being the main reason it has been pulled.
Simple as that really.
Oh, hell yes. In a heart beat. That's tant amount to celotaping a large "Pwease Kick Me Hard - pwease!" sign to ones crotch and then complaining someone actually did.
Comments
Are you now trying to deny that lots of your fans posted messages saying they were going to bombard the BBC with emails telling them how rubbish the official title sequence was compared to yours? Don't bother, lots of us saw those messages so pretending they never happened won't changes the facts.
Under terms of "fair use", copyright work may be considered as used fairly when in the context of "non-commercial, transformative in nature and/or uses no more of the original work than is necessary for the video's purpose"
So many people were unhappy with the Peter Anderson title sequence that I took it upon myself to answer that critical point of view with something completely original of my own creation.
Far from being "bratty", I am quite obviously attempting to point out the reasoning behind the 40 days of hard work was designed to achieve.
Primary factors when deciding if fair use is valid is usually stacked up against the following:
Commenting on or critiquing of copyrighted material
Using copyright material for illustration or example
Capturing copyrighted material incidentally or accidentally
Reproducing, reposting, or quoting in order to memorialize, preserve, or rescue an experience, an event, or a cultural phenomenon
Copying, reposting, and recirculating a work or part of a work for purposes of launching a discussion
Quoting in order to recombine elements to make a new work that depends for its meaning on (often unlikely) relationships between the elements
edit: I've just seen your explanation - it's part of your fair use reasoning. Ok. I'm not an expert in that.
Yes, but xander - you are using the BBC's brand and material in your work - and the BBC do have the right to say, no - we don't approve of your use of our property. Which, by their demand it be taken down - they are doing.
100% correct.
Take some time to read up on fair use of copyright material please.
http://fairusetube.org/guide-to-youtube-removals/3-deciding-if-video-is-fair-use
I hope you understand that "fair use" is recognised only by US (and I think Israeli) law?
The trouble is if something is flagged to them they have to protect their copyright firmly because it could have a negative impact on later cases if it is shown previously that they knowingly let a copyright issue go.
I have to say I couldn't remember anything in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act which allowed fanvideos such as this. As I said, I think the only reasons these materials usually stay is the companies in question don't go looking for them.
You weren't pretending the imagery belonged or is your own original work but was a fan tribute.
But, it seems you were deliberately trying to "prove" the current title sequence wasn't good enough and a lot of your fans bombarded the BBC with emails so I can't blame them for acting.
Might have been better to just let it stand on its own without getting bratty about it.
YouTube terms of use adhere largely to US law and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), unless a court order forces them to do otherwise.
My work is of course created and published accordingly.
By having your work removed, the BBC have deemed clearly that it constitutes an infringement of their copyright. And the owners of the server you uploaded it to agree, thereby meaning you have breeched those terms to which you point.
Should you have an issue with that your best course of action is to raise it with the administrators of the site you uploaded to and under who's Fair Use policy you submitted.
However - since they have removed the material, you haven't a leg to stand on.
The UK has something similar named 'Fair Dealing'
I can't be bothered to explain it, but here it is taken from wiki instead.
Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), fair dealing is limited to the following purposes: research and private study (both must be non-commercial), criticism, review, and news reporting (sections 29, 30, 178). Although not actually defined as a fair dealing, incidental inclusion of a copyrighted work in an artistic work, sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme doesn't infringe copyright.
Whenever I had copyright issues, I'd just submit a dispute using the following statement & it would 99% of the time be accepted & the video reinstated.
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
To be fair, in this age of "everything's free to download, who gives a s**t internet" for copyright owners it's a bit like King Canute. It's physically impossible to police every site, every server for breaches. I don't think it's tolerated so much as having to pick one's fights. I personally would slam a levy on the ISPs and feed this money back into the creative industries. Then we'd see how laissez fair BT & co would be about offering ever faster and wider bandwidth.
If you breach copyright and circulate infringing material among friends or private groups, you still breach copyright but it's relatively harmless. But the moment you go on YouTube, which is effectively becoming the world's TV station, you should anticipate the possibility of being closed down.
Heaven forbid one should be inspired by the source material to produce something original (if derivative)...
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...
I actually agree that is it obviously breaching copyright, I was just stating the facts of the fair use as people seemed to be confused.
However as it's been stated BBC usually allow these kinds of things, so it's suspicious to as why they decided this was too much & decided to have it removed.
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.
Sorry, I misunderstood your intention re. quoting fair use.
You'd have to be inside the BBC to see whether they choose to allow anything, as opposed to not having time and resources to pursue everything. It is a valid question, though, to wonder how this piece came to their attention. That said, the problem is easily and simply avoided.
Xander - seriously, you made a fine piece of work which has been well commended. I would have thought vimeo would be a far better bet for showing your CGI work anyway. Loose the unnecessarily contentious this-is-how-it-should-be-done overtones and you shouldn't have any problems.
I'm also fairly sure he has, as in numerous other media he has uploaded, the description of;
"Undiscovered UK VFX Artist. Grab a cup of tea & relax for a while. Enjoy this? When people click an advert before my video, it helps me pay for producing these for you, but I'm not allowed to ask people to do that, so whatever you do, don't for god's sake support my work by clicking on an advert. #sarcasm"
If the uploader is earning through advertisements at the start of the video, then I see this as possibly being the main reason it has been pulled.
Simple as that really.
Oh, hell yes. In a heart beat. That's tant amount to celotaping a large "Pwease Kick Me Hard - pwease!" sign to ones crotch and then complaining someone actually did.