The Org Redesign - What's wrong with the org?

[BasharOfTheAges]

The org should have no right to publish a creators work without the creators permission.
The creator owns the copyright on his editing.

Well, part of the upload process does say you are giving permission by uploading. The question is if you have the right to change your mind. Or, really, if the org is willing to risk the fallout of it ever becoming a big deal and the courts getting involved. The action taken (i.e. the reluctance to go to court over the issue) in the Wind Up Records fiasco shows we're very vulnerable to blackmail in that respect.

[Enigma]

Even on youtube, amvs barely get any traffic unless you didn't upload it yourself.

There are cases of people reuploading other's AMVs and getting x-times more views (x going to hundreds, sometimes) than the original creator. And there are many of such cases - mainly because "The best AMVs I have ripped and reuploaded without authors' content" profile will usually get more viewers/views than "My three AMVs (of which one is good and the other two rather not)".

Castor didn't you have an amv on youtube that had over 20 million views, I remember that precisely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9STD8KsQ_tA&feature=fvwk

[Knowname]

The org should have no right to publish a creators work without the creators permission.
The creator owns the copyright on his editing.

Well, part of the upload process does say you are giving permission by uploading. The question is if you have the right to change your mind. Or, really, if the org is willing to risk the fallout of it ever becoming a big deal and the courts getting involved. The action taken (i.e. the reluctance to go to court over the issue) in the Wind Up Records fiasco shows we're very vulnerable to blackmail in that respect.

if Zarx is not insane, and I don't believe he is, he is referring to the ORIGINAL CREATOR (Not God... but the creator of the anime... or maybe even the animation studio). This creator is rarely even aware of such works.

[Zarxrax]

No, I'm referring to the creator of the amv.

[Begi]

new0rgfurbagiplz

[Knowname]

than... how does he own said copyright?? I bet half the 13-yr-old editors around here don't even know what copyright is

[Ikore]

I bet half the 13-yr-old editors around here don't even know what copyright is

and their children neither...

org start dying when the first person decided to be honest, had his tea time and snob around.

[Pwolf]

than... how does he own said copyright?? I bet half the 13-yr-old editors around here don't even know what copyright is

You own the edits. Doesn't mean a whole lot if you're stealing the source material though. For instance, I can go out to a public park and take pictures of anything in the park and then sell my photos, i own the copyright to those photos (it would be smart to actually register them though). If I went to a private location and started shooting pictures without permission, chances are, even though my photos are copyrighted by default, i wouldn't be able to sell them or distribute. That's a pretty loose example but i hope it gets the point across.

[Knowname]

BUT WHAT if your editing program is illegal as well?? If you take pictures with a stolen camera do you than own those pictures... or are they EVIDENCE!!

[Pwolf]

BUT WHAT if your editing program is illegal as well?? If you take pictures with a stolen camera do you than own those pictures... or are they EVIDENCE!!

both.