Some notes regarding copyright violation already excisting on Queenzone

Dear all,

I do not want to personally attack anybody, just to start an open and fair discussion. Any input is welcome but please respond with facts that you can share on this matter. It is very easy to personally attack somebody, but let's get to the point regarding the following:


Under UK law (since Queen Productions (al though having its affiliates or rights distributed outside the UK) is subject to English law, I want to share the following

The question is: what is Copyright?

Copyright gives the creators of certain kinds of material rights to control ways their material can be used. These rights start as soon as the material is recorded in writing or in any other way. There is no official registration system.

The rights cover:

* copying;
* adapting;
* distributing;
* communicating to the public by electronic transmission (including by broadcasting and in an on demand service);
* renting or lending copies to the public;
* performing in public

In many cases, the author will also have the right to be identified on their works and to object if their work is distorted or mutilated!

But what is protected by copyright?

Copyright protects original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, published editions of works, sound recordings, films (including videograms) and broadcasts.

But how long does UK copyright last?

Copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (including a photograph) lasts until 70 years after the death of the author.

note: there are hundreds of pictures on Queenzone (on the server) which are SUBJECT to copyright... Of course Queen Productions won't take action, the fact DOES remain that copyright is violated already on Queenzone


* Is material on the Internet protected by copyright?

Yes. Under UK law (the position in other countries may differ) copyright material sent over the Internet or stored on web servers will generally be protected in the same way as material in other media.


note: it clearly says STORED (regarding YouTube material, there is no violation if Queenzone does not have the material STORED on it's website (as opposed to the copyrighted pictures which ARE stored on Queenzone.com)

So anyone wishing to put copyright material on the Internet, or further distribute or download such material that others have placed on the Internet, should ensure that they have the permission of the owners of rights in the material.

note: Hyperlinking is not the same as distributing!


note: It says CLEARLY: anyone who PUTS copyright material, or further DISTRIBUTES or DOWNLOADS such material has to have permission of the copyright owners!

1) whatever "bootleg" material is published or offered is STILL protected by copyright (well now, have a look at the announce forum regarding any "bootlegs" offered as downloads or torrents. The person who PUTS it on the internet is in violation of copyright)

2) the latest example is the demo of Brian May with "Marie's the name" , which was shared here on Queenzone (with a hyperlink!) ... (I enjoyed listening to the song), ... but the copyright of this music is protected by law. So anyone who distributes (rapidshare) or puts the file to be downloaded (on a webserver) is violating copyright. Queenzone in fact is NOT violating copyright since it is not putting the file on its server or distributing it ...


note: Be VERY AWARE that hyperlinking in certain way can not be legally seen as copyright infrignement.

I am only trying to point out that the UK law says very clear what copyright infrignment is ...and it does not clarify in any way shape or form that linking to (for instance) YouTube is illegal...

The whole World Wide Web consists of hyperlinking, without it the WWW would not excists. It is clear that putting a link on a certain site referring to another one does not necessarily mean there is a copyright violation (meaning the original site that puts up

First - comparing pictures, which QP probably had little intention to ever profit from, to music and videos, which they continue to profit from, is a stretch. In fact, brining that issue into the debate, in my opinion, weakens your overall argument. If you can't see the forest because of the trees, I can't help you.

Second - as I said elsewhere, give the same Youtube links you did the other day (all of those links to official videos) to QOL and see what they do. The point is moot until we see what they actually do. What QOL has allowed so far are snippets of rare things or more complete versions of interviews found on official product. But I do not believe anyone has provided links to videos that can be found on GVH1 or GVH2. Try it and see what the-powers-that-be do.


Besides, the question is not "what is copyrighted," but "what will get us in trouble"? QP and EMI are not likely to go after pictures, unless we start to sell them. But EMI has gone after some websites that publish lyrics, which are also copyrighted. As long as QZ does not hike its leg on the tree of Queen Productions, it will be ok. No need to stir the pot and attract undue attention.

We are no lawyers and even lawyers only know the laws of their own countries.

Richard decided that no official material can be posted on this forum and therefore no official material will be posted. The sharing forum gives fans an opportunity to share inofficial material with other fans. Richard has 10 years of experience and he knows what he is doing. Posting links to youtube is not sharing. Most people who post the links did not even upload the videos to youtube themselves.

I don't think it's a problem to post a link to youtube if something is discussed and it's useful that people see the material - and not all material on youtube is official. But posting links to usual, easily obtainable video clips is useless. This is a Queen forum and members should know the official video clips.

Zeni/YV thanks for the input...

I need to comment on Zeni's post. Regardless of the fact if profit is made, pictures are still copyrighted, the same as with any audio material (being broadcasts as well).

Of course nobody will care too much if these pictures are on Queenzone, but the fact remains it is copyright violation.

Personally I just want to point out that some people on this site are screaming that we should not share official stuff (or even linking to it) while this site is already hosting stuff that is "officially" copyrighted and no complaints have been made to the people who have uploaded "official pictures" (I agree, why would we, but it's to proof the fact that if we complain we should stay consistent)

I agree Zeni that no profit is made, but that does not matter when we're talking about copyright.

I agree (since I own all the official cd's and dvd's myself) that SHARING or PUTTING official material on Queenzone should not be done, but to give you an example about Queenonline where the following links are published pointing to official material on YouTube:

- AOBTD , Wembley 86
- TATDOOL
- Under Pressure
- Freddie Mercury the Untold story (part 1-4)
- TMLWKY
- Foreign Sand
- Last Horizon
etc etc etc

These links are provided by users who are members of Queenonline. And as I said before the people behind Queenonline can see these links, and they allow it. In my humble opinion we should not freak out if on Queenzone the same is done (even when it concerns official material). Linking to something (official video's) which seems to be allowed by Queenonline, is not a violation of copyright.

Your Valentine I agree with your quote: " But posting links to usual, easily obtainable video clips is useless." Fact is that legally Queenzone won't be in trouble because of this. But there have been requests to "remove" the links to a certain official video, while there is no legal ground, unless the site-owner sets this straight.

I started this discussion to agree until some point that whoever PUTS material on a webserver of Queen songs/pictures/lyrics of any kind, is in violation of copyright.

But the strange thing occurs that when people upload a link to "Earls Court 1977" here on Queenzone (being Rapidshare/Torrent) this seems to be no problem. While the person who uploads the actual files is violating copyright as well, regardless of the fact if Queen Productions has published the work officially or not. It IS protected! (and it seems QP does not make an issue of it) ...

In this example all the songs which are played in this concert are protected anyway. But the rule seems on Queenzone that we do not think it's a violation of copyright, while the FACT remains it is.

If anybody else wants to have their input, please do. I just want to prevent the shouting or the anger of some people in case of "linking" to certain material. And yes, that means that there has to be some legal discussion.

I am aware that Richard does a great job, but the fact that some other people are "setting rules" whithout arguments was the initial reason for this post.

Stefan

As I wrote in other thread - it's not so easy about YouTube! FOM (Formula One Management) was going to sue YT for publishing videos from F1 grand prix. If YT wasn't closed to the date - that doesn't mean it's legal and allowed by copyright holders...

Serry I agree,

the thing was that "linking" on Queenzone is not by definition illegal (as seen on the forum of the official website Queenonline.com)

Stefan

Regarding pix I've got a question (to whom it may concern): who owns copyright from a photo? the one who's taken it or the one who's shown there?

I mean, if somebody takes a pic of me, am I the owner of that, or the one who pushed the button on the camera?

As a photographer myself I feel ashamed of asking that, but I honestly don't know and would like to...

Maybe this helps: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright
http://staticphotography.com/copyright-and-photography
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/personaltech/20050530-9999-mz1b30snap.html
http://www.trankin.com/advisor/photos.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_copyright_%28Germany%29

And in Queen's case:
http://www.denis.co.uk/acatalog/faq_11.html

Dear Lord, how do you do it?

Thanks

sebastian, I know that Queen Productions (and affiliates) and it's members are smart enough to copyright thes photographes.... Well since Queenzone is still sharing them , we should not worry about linking to YouTube ...!

Stefan

torrents are not illegal. www.torrentspy.com if it is they cant delete it than it is not there problem

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]TRS-Romania wrote: [/QUOTENAME]sebastian, I know that Queen Productions (and affiliates) and it's members are smart enough to copyright thes photographes.... Well since Queenzone is still sharing them , we should not worry about linking to YouTube ...!

Stefan
[/QUOTE]

Yes, although not all of those pix come from QP. For instance, "Brian with 'x' fan" belongs to 'x' fan, not to QP, as well as most of Brian-Roger-Paul tour.

I've got a doubt: what about a screenshot? Does it belong to the person pressing "Print Screen" or to the person who filmed the video?

Links and frames present problems that seem unique to the internet. While typical links to others' sites are unlikely to cause copyright problems under present law, several caveats are warranted.

First, if one directly links to content that would normally be framed elsewhere, its owners are apt to object. There is little law directly on point because the few parties involved in such disputes have settled. Still, if a linking page surrounds other's material with its own ads, cuts out another's ads or makes it appear that the linking site is the source of the linked material, trouble is likely. It is difficult to argue that otherwise implied permission to link could be reasonably expected under such circumstances.

Second, consider situations where linked material infringes another's copyright. Ordinarily, a copyright holder would act only against the directly infringing page; others would be unaware of the dispute. However, where direct infringers are, say, beyond the reach of local courts, and particularly where a site owner actively encourages use of an offending page, there is a solid basis for protest. Unless copyright infringement has been actively encouraged, however, prompt removal of offending links should minimize risk of suit.

Third, while most web owners would complain about copying, some may complain about linking when it burdens their servers or, in the case of images, because it does not credit them. If that information is not posted, it is best to ask the owner. Still, no one should copy, even from sites that urge it without considering whether site owners hold copyright.

Finally, copyright is not the sole legal basis for objection. Anyone who makes derogatory references to others (or their sites, products or services), however it is done, invites trouble.


There are two points here that you need to be aware of, firstly The law changes all the time and it only takes one case to be brought to court that states the law has been breached and the flood gates open. Should a company such as QP decide they have had enough they CAN take action and in theory at least they CAN get websites shut down.

This has already happened, take for example sites linking to pornographic content, particualrly offensive content involving children, in cases such as these both hosting sites and those linking to the material have been sanctioned or shut down. So it is wrong to say that simply linking material is breaching no law.

Finally, it is Richards site, he sets the rules and you are politly asked to adhere to them. I don't understand why you find that difficult?

I have promised to keep quiet about the use of official downloads - and true to my word I have, but I think it is about time some reality was brought to this discussion.

First: Sharereactor - a Swiss P2P network was closed down for copyright violation, and it, like Queenzone, did not host any files:

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/5085.cfm

ShareReactor shut down by Swiss authorities
16 March 2004 19:53 by dRD

Well-known P2P site ShareReactor has been apparently shut down by the Swiss authorities. According to news sources, Swiss Judical Inquiry Department of Thurgau has SHUT DOWN the site due copyright infringements. The site was probably the world's largest site that listed direct LINKS to pirated material in P2P networks, using so-called ed2k links that work with eDonkey2000-compatible clients (such as eMule).

The press release by the Swiss Judical Inquiry Department of Thurgau, translated by an individual third party:

Internet-Site taken offline

FRAUENFELD (kapo) Due to the suspicion of breach of copyright and trademark laws the cantonal judicial Inquiry department of Thurgau has taken down an Internet-Site that served as a LINK PLATFORM for filesharing offerings. A process concerning these matters against the 25 year old owner from Frauenfeld is underway.

The Internet-Site located in Frauenfeld was online for about 30 months and last had over 220.000 hits per day bevor it was taken offline by the Thurgau officials. The in search engines toprated site worked as a anchorpoint for LINKS to downloads of copyright and trademark protectet games and movies that were offered on the filesharing network.

After a complaint from several large corporations, represented by the swiss association against piracy, the cantonal judicial inquiry department of Thurgau initiated an investigation, seized the servers in Frauenfeld and had the site TAKEN OFFLINE.

The responsible owner, a 25 year old swiss proved to be very cooperative in explaining matters at hand. The inquiries continue and will take some time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/852283.stm

Likewise, the most famous P2P LINK network, Napster shut down - although, that too hosted NO files of it's own...

Controversial music-sharing website Napster has been ordered to SHUT DOWN by a judge in a San Francisco courtroom.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) won a temporary injunction pending a trial over whether the company is violating copyright law.

When the infringing is of such a wholesale magnitude, the plaintiffs are entitled to enforce their copyrights.

Federal judge Marilyn Patel
Napster allows users to download software which allows them to access MP3 files on each others' hard drives.

The legal battle, which has already prompted congressional hearings, is being closely watched by internet music fans and the music industry and may have far-reaching implications.

The RIAA, which represents companies such as BMG, Sony Music, Warner Music Group and EMI, called Napster a "hijacker" of intellectual property and claimed it had cost the music industry more than $300m in lost sales.