Over the years, a number of you have linked to my YouTube video re-presenting the infamous Calrog US 31W video in which he sings his ode to "US Federal Route 31-Dub" and pays homage to a little green shrub. I had snagged the video off his site and uploaded it to YouTube.
The video has been removed from YouTube and I now have a copyright strike that will expire in 90 days. Carl Rogers filed a copyright claim against the video and YouTube took it down.
I have no idea whether his wwtl.info garbage is copyrighted or not, and I have no means by which to mount a challenge, so I'm not going to contest it.
I can't find his original video on his site, and it was a couple of laptops ago when I saved the original video, so it may not be backed up anywhere.
Hopefully someone else has it and can re-upload it to a site where the hilarity can continue to be mocked for all eternity. I'll search my backups for it and if I have it, I'll upload it to the Millennium Highway Facebook page.
I honestly have no idea how he got wind that I had posted a copy of his video. I have had no contact with him for years, as he doesn't even post to what's left of MTR anymore.
YouTube only checks that content matches something that already exists and that they had it first. You can typically appeal fair use, not that they always know what fair use is themselves.
There have been stories of people getting copyright strikes for things in the public domain (e.g. Beethoven), but those typically get reversed on appeal with greater success than fair use appeals.
Does this mean Calrog is releasing the long awaited Little Green Shrub remix single?
^ It's probably more like Disney and Song of the South where the aim is to bury a work they don't want the world to see.
IMO such use of copyright should be illegal.
I still remember when the movie version of Little Green Shrub came out:
Quote from: 1 on August 16, 2022, 12:20:07 PM
YouTube only checks that content matches something that already exists and that they had it first. You can typically appeal fair use, not that they always know what fair use is themselves.
The entirety or majority of someone else's work, no matter how vacuous, stupid, or pointless is still a meritless Fair Use case. But Fair Use
might be a short sample of it; but the purpose is not intended to preserve something elsewhere, just because it doesn't exist on YouTube (or anywhere else), for that matter.
Copyright is implied, not something you request, unless expired or based on an already public-domain or other freely-usable work. So anything on that site is copyright unless otherwise disclosed.
"Yeah, but it's the Internet!" is not a valid argument.
I feel like I'm coming to the aid of
calcacolacrocsonic, or whatever the name is, and that makes me want to lay down.
Out of morbid curiosity, I checked MTR and lo and behold, Calrog has emerged...
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/xZZc9_zlAWc
If you don't have Google Groups access, here's the post:
Apparently some people miss the memo in life. It's a simple rule too. Don't steal another person's content... Should be simple, right?
Well, for whatever reason, H.B. Elkins thought he was exempt from this rule. He stole my video of US Federal Route 31W and uploaded it into his personal collection:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNenadZFOoU
H.B., you were wrong. And as such, you can click that link all day long and be reminded of your wrongdoing.
Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you can take their creative works and steal it. Whatever hillbilly moralistic narrative you had in your head does won't pan out in the real world.
To all the honest folks out there, you're always welcome to see this video at the Worldwide Transportation Library (WWTL):
https://wwtl.info/#us-31wv.html
We pride ourselves on respecting the copyrights of Internet creators. You're more than welcome to flip into our Map Mode to see a wide variety of Kentucky highway photos and videos.
It's a great big world and we accept you for who you are, wherever you may be.
Cheers,
Carl Rogers
"Environment first, transportology second"
********
Worldwide Transportation Library (WWTL):
https://wwtl.info
https://m.wwtl.info [Mobile]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Complete coverage of international roads and railways.
Since 2000, we have offered several photographs, videos and
Virtual 360 captures -- to each viatologist & transportologist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
********
I don't know whether to engage and tell him I didn't "steal" his video, but shared it so it could be appropriately mocked, or just let him think he accomplished something by getting it removed.
He was kind enough to post a link to it, however, which means I can snag it again and share it somewhere else where it can be ridiculed as it should be.
I guess poor Carl is too clueless to know when he's being made fun of.
And on top of it all, he's still paying a PR firm to pimp his site.
https://www.prweb.com/releases/2022/8/prweb18841288.htm#
Transportology?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2022, 04:28:23 PM
Transportology?
It's viatology but for all modes of travel!
(I guess; I don't have a clue what it's supposed to mean.)
Quote from: hbelkins on August 16, 2022, 05:03:40 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2022, 04:28:23 PM
Transportology?
It's viatology but for all modes of travel!
(I guess; I don't have a clue what it's supposed to mean.)
So basically the Calrog equivalent of the AASHO becoming the AASHTO.
Environmentology first, does won't pan out second.
I'm still with formulanone. Since this doesn't appear to be fair use (I previously wasn't sure if the short clip was the entire thing or a short segment of something longer), this is a copyright violation. If you host it elsewhere, it will still violate copyright.
Copyright isn't going to expire any time soon. If a particular law in 1976 hadn't been passed, it would last 28 years, and I believe the video is old enough that it would only be a few more years. However, due to that law, it's the life of the author plus 70 years, or possibly 95 years from creation (I can't quite tell which category it falls under).
formulanone and 1 are correct. Regardless of the reason for doing it, taking someone's complete video and reposting it (as opposed to providing a link to its original location) violates the video creator's copyright, and it doesn't have to have been registered before copyright applies. Whether he had to be so abrasive about it is a separate matter.
Edited to add: It is mildly amusing that if you search YouTube for "hbelkins" it asks if you meant "Belkins." :-D
I would recommend downloading that video to your computer should he decide he doesn't want it up on his site anymore.
All this talk about Federal Highways got me inspired to catch up on some to-do list writing:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/08/federal-highway-gua-10d-southern.html
Now, what probably would be kosher is if we got one of the members of the community with actual musical talent to do a cover of it. :-D
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 16, 2022, 07:32:47 PM
Now, what probably would be kosher is if we got one of the members of the community with actual musical talent to do a cover of it. :-D
I want the Little Green Shrub metal cover.
I'm tempted to repost it with commentary interspersed within, which would make it "fair use."
Quote from: 1 on August 16, 2022, 05:38:30 PMIf you host it elsewhere, it will still violate copyright.
Ask me how much I care about violating that nincompoop's copyright. There's a reason he's the most ridiculed person in MTR history.
Quote from: vdeane on August 16, 2022, 12:36:35 PM
^ It's probably more like Disney and Song of the South where the aim is to bury a work they don't want the world to see.
....
I have a complete copy of that. On DVD, no less.
I'll need to see if I still have the Federal Route File Not Found video floating around. That may be the best of the Calrog parody videos, especially with the unscripted and totally random part with the woman driving by yelling "Hey sexy! Wooooo!"
Quote from: hbelkins on August 16, 2022, 07:41:35 PM
I'm tempted to repost it with commentary interspersed within, which would make it "fair use."
Quote from: 1 on August 16, 2022, 05:38:30 PMIf you host it elsewhere, it will still violate copyright.
Ask me how much I care about violating that nincompoop's copyright. There's a reason he's the most ridiculed person in MTR history.
Other than
cragnagabog calling every US Route a "Federal Route", his Very Special
viatrollogy word, what's the big deal that you can't handle like adults? Any serious challenges to your job, livelihood, roadgeek cred, or just some Internet arguments that he's failed to acknowledge that are over ten years old?
He's avoided most of the Facebook groups and seems to avoided this hangout altogether. He spares the world most of the nonsense anymore by just spouting harmlessly into his own little oddball corner of the Internet. It seems he's the equivalent of a chain letter writer, but one who really only addresses the mail to himself to feel important.
You're better than that.
Quote from: US 89 on August 16, 2022, 06:58:52 PM
I would recommend downloading that video to your computer should he decide he doesn't want it up on his site anymore.
Here's a direct link to the file to make that as simple as a right click and save as: https://wwtl.info/us-31w.mp4
Quote from: hbelkins on August 16, 2022, 12:16:45 PM
I honestly have no idea how he got wind that I had posted a copy of his video. I have had no contact with him for years, as he doesn't even post to what's left of MTR anymore.
It seems like it wasn't really a secret that some people were posting his videos without his permission.
I saved a copy of one of his videos years and years ago, but I don't remember if it was that one.
On the other hand, his doings were far from the worst thing occurring on the Internet at the time.
Also, does anyone still use MTR? I haven't viewed MTR in years.
Quote from: 1 on August 16, 2022, 12:20:07 PM
YouTube only checks that content matches something that already exists and that they had it first. You can typically appeal fair use, not that they always know what fair use is themselves.
There have been stories of people getting copyright strikes for things in the public domain (e.g. Beethoven), but those typically get reversed on appeal with greater success than fair use appeals.
Disney made a fourth-party copyright complaint against a video that showed Bert from 'Sesame Street', even though Disney has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Bert.
Quote from: 1 on August 16, 2022, 05:38:30 PMCopyright isn't going to expire any time soon. If a particular law in 1976 hadn't been passed, it would last 28 years, and I believe the video is old enough that it would only be a few more years. However, due to that law, it's the life of the author plus 70 years, or possibly 95 years from creation (I can't quite tell which category it falls under).
I think that depends on whether the work was made by a person or a corporation. I think that for a person it's 70 years after the person's death. I think that for a corporation it's 95 years after the work was made. In other words, works by corporations may be protected longer, if a person dies less than 25 years after their work was made.
Wasn't there a video of his where he recorded a banana in his car instead of the road?
Quote from: US 89 on August 18, 2022, 11:54:20 AM
Wasn't there a video of his where he recorded a banana in his car instead of the road?
I don't remember that. It turns out that I do have the US 31W video - and possibly others. I saved them because I was actually afraid they'd be taken down by people who didn't like him.
Quote from: bandit957 on August 18, 2022, 11:52:11 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 16, 2022, 05:38:30 PMCopyright isn't going to expire any time soon. If a particular law in 1976 hadn't been passed, it would last 28 years, and I believe the video is old enough that it would only be a few more years. However, due to that law, it's the life of the author plus 70 years, or possibly 95 years from creation (I can't quite tell which category it falls under).
I think that depends on whether the work was made by a person or a corporation. I think that for a person it's 70 years after the person's death. I think that for a corporation it's 95 years after the work was made. In other words, works by corporations may be protected longer, if a person dies less than 25 years after their work was made.
I think it's 70 years after the death of an author, and 95-120 years for corporate authorship. But that's for the US. Or someone just uses "sweat of the brow" to recreate something substantially similar, and it's all good. Weird.
Live a long life after creating something, get a longer copyright. If you die at the age of 20? ...tough luck, kid. And why not an even 100 years?
I think copyrights are too long; maybe 25-30 years is enough, but that's just my opinion.
^ That's about how long they were when the country was founded. Then Disney went on a mission to make sure Micky Mouse would never become public domain...
Quote from: vdeane on August 18, 2022, 12:44:49 PM
^ That's about how long they were when the country was founded. Then Disney went on a mission to make sure Micky Mouse would never become public domain...
I mean, it will technically go into public domain in 1928 + 120 = 2048, if I'm not mistaken. New laws before that?
But they redraw the little critter every few years, so I'd imagine that makes it a derivative work, since it carries the same name.
Quote from: vdeane on August 18, 2022, 12:44:49 PM
^ That's about how long they were when the country was founded. Then Disney went on a mission to make sure Micky Mouse would never become public domain...
Mickey Mouse is trademarked. The various movies and such featuring him are subject to copyright.
As the law currently stands,
Song of the South will enter the public domain in the USA in 2041. It already has in Japan, which is one reason it's possible to get a copy of it.
Quote from: US 89 on August 18, 2022, 11:54:20 AM
Wasn't there a video of his where he recorded a banana in his car instead of the road?
Yep. I think that's my favorite Calbog video. Especially since he posted it to MTR with all of the pomp and circumstance of his regular videos, calling it a "view of a potassium-rich snack" or some such.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 18, 2022, 01:37:12 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 18, 2022, 12:44:49 PM
^ That's about how long they were when the country was founded. Then Disney went on a mission to make sure Micky Mouse would never become public domain...
Mickey Mouse is trademarked. The various movies and such featuring him are subject to copyright.
Right, but what Valerie is referring to is how every time Mickey Mouse is about to fall into the public domain, like clockwork, legislation to lengthen copyright terms mysteriously appears in Congress...
Here's a really interesting application of copyright expiration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie_the_Pooh:_Blood_and_Honey
Quote
Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey is an upcoming independent slasher film directed and written by Rhys Frake-Waterfield. The film serves as a horror retelling of A. A. Milne's 1926 book Winnie-the-Pooh, and follows the anthropomorphic characters Winnie-the-Pooh and Piglet as they become bloodthirsty murderers when Christopher Robin abandons them for college. Development for the film began when the original book became a public domain work in the United States in January 2022, resulting in The Walt Disney Company no longer holding exclusive film rights to the characters first depicted in the book.
Upon its announcement, the film was met with mixed reactions and drew widespread attention due to its concept involving a character that had garnered a reputation for being a "beloved childhood icon". The film is produced by Jagged Edge Productions and distributed by ITN Studios.
...
The characters' rights had been owned by The Walt Disney Company since 1966 and, while Disney retains exclusive rights to the depictions of these characters from their 1977 film "The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh," as well as later characters such as Tigger, Winnie-the-Pooh went into public domain in January 2022. After the copyright lapsed, Rhys Frake-Waterfield began production on Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey the same year, with the film marking his directorial debut....While the drawings from the 1926 book went into the public domain along with its text, Frake-Waterfield had to avoid any elements that were unique to Disney's depictions of the character....In order to avoid copyright issues, Frake-Waterfield was careful to avoid Pooh's red shirt, and any other elements from Disney's depictions that could pose a copyright issue.
"Viatology" is a bastard word with Latin and Greek etymology: "via" meaning road in Latin, and "-logy" in Greek meaning the science of.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 16, 2022, 07:32:47 PM
Now, what probably would be kosher is if we got one of the members of the community with actual musical talent to do a cover of it. :-D
No promises, but...
Quote from: kphoger on August 23, 2022, 09:30:04 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 16, 2022, 07:32:47 PM
Now, what probably would be kosher is if we got one of the members of the community with actual musical talent to do a cover of it. :-D
No promises, but...
In addition to the Death Metal cover of Little Green Shrub I requested above I would like a Michael Jackson style remix as well. Rock With You comes to mind as the smooth mellow style I would like to hear Little Green Shrub worked into.
Quote from: kphoger on August 23, 2022, 09:30:04 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 16, 2022, 07:32:47 PM
Now, what probably would be kosher is if we got one of the members of the community with actual musical talent to do a cover of it. :-D
No promises, but...
Welcome back. :nod:
Quote from: kphoger on August 23, 2022, 09:30:04 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 16, 2022, 07:32:47 PM
Now, what probably would be kosher is if we got one of the members of the community with actual musical talent to do a cover of it. :-D
No promises, but...
You were the person I was thinking of when I wrote that. :D