I still don't understand completely.  Are we safe to use the U Tube images that we access through Crowd Power?  Do we need permission to use those.  Are the only 'safe' images to use are the NP files? and our own of course?

I'll do my best to answer this, but Tina or Jordan do know a bit more about this than me.

Some YouTube videos are safe to use and some are copyrighted. For example, if someone posts a video of a BBC news report on their personal YouTube account, then that is not ok for us to use, but it's copyrighted and that person doesn't have permission from the BBC to display their content on YouTube in the first place.

If the BBC posts a news report on their own YouTube channel, then it's perfectly fine for us to use as they own the copyright to their own material.

This is the same for any news organization.

As for photos, it is not ok to use photos just because they are on the internet. Unless a photo has a 'public domain' license attached to it or a 'royalty free' license attached to it, that means it is copyrighted and owned by someone else. This usually includes all photos from other media organizaitons, so it's not a good idea to take the photo accompanying the news story that you are highlighting from.

Photos that are released by the government are ok however, as are mug shots and missing persons photos.

Traliers on YouTube are ok, unless they are being used in a negative way and then they are not allowed to be reprinted elsewhere on the web (so for example if you were slamming the movie 'Saving Private Ryan', you would not be allowed to post their trailer with your article.)

I hope this helps a bit, I know it's really confusing, but I'll ask the other staff to see if they can add to it to make it clearer.

As always, if you have questions about a specific piece of media, please feel free to ask us and we'll do our best to help you.

Not necessarily Barry. Think of it this way, the internet is not a free for all. Just because an image is on the web and you can right-click and save it for use on your computer does not mean it is "in the public domain." I know it seems confusing, especially when our tools allow such images and videos to be added, but copyright online is a grey area at best so the tool has no way to identify an image uploaded by a legitimate owner and something taken from another source. Here is a good way to think of this, ask yourself these questions:

Did I take this picture/video and do I still own the rights to distribute? (if you sold these rights you would know) Yes, you can use it. No, you can not.

Did I obtain this image/video from another site by the "right-click and save" method? If yes, you should not use it unless the site you took it from specifically says you can. Sites that allow you to use their images normally make it VERY clear.

Did I take this image by using the highlight tool? If yes, remove it from the highlight. Highlighting an image does not make it fair game, in fact doing this results in "hotlinking" or "bandwidth theft." Think of it as somebody using your electricity to steal your cable with only you paying a bill. More on bandwidth theft/hotlinking.

On YouTube it gets a little trickier. However, it is not impossible to know and most people can make a fairly good judgment call based on the above questions. Basically, as Amy says, if the entity uploading the video can reasonably be assumed to be the copyright holder or a licensee then it is fair game. If they did not want it shared they would not put it on YouTube as per the YouTube terms of service. However, if I copy a CNN video and upload it to YouTube it is NOT reasonable to assume it can be used (I clearly do not own copyright to CNN videos) so we should avoid using it. I know this can not be determined by our tool. This is why we only initiate this policy when a story is in the top (ie: it is drawn to the attention of staff). There is simply too much going on each day on the site and not enough resources for us to look at every uploaded image/video. 

Another grey area is public events, like a concert, live TV show, or an awards show. Have you ever been to a concert where it said on your ticket "no video or recording devices allowed" or "no unauthorized video" only to see people recording it without being stopped? This warning is in place to protect copyright, not to stop people from recording in the first place. So, if you are uploading a YouTube video taken by a person sitting in the audience at Oprah's show or the Oscar Awards or even a movie, the material is copyrighted and you should not use it.

That being said, there are exceptions to both images and videos being used.

Any video or image released for promotional purposes by the copyright holder can be used. The terms of this use are not unlimited. You can use this media to review a promotional product, be it a negative or positive review. You can use it to demonstrate something that has been recalled (but you had better be sure you are showing the right thing). In short, you can use it as long as it is reasonably within the intent of the promotional release.

Any and all images released by government can be used, this includes government headshots, government promotional imagery, mug shots and released crime scene photos.

If a photo of a missing child or person is released with the intent of alerting the public, it can be used to alert the public that said child or person has been found and can accompany any other derivative news. It can not be used, for example, to sell something or to report something about that child/person that is unrelated to the initial case for which it was released. 

You can also use images from photo services that specifically allow you to do so, usually these use an unrestricted Creative Commons license or are clearly designated copyright free.

This is in no means an exhaustive list of exceptions but it outlines those which we most commonly deal with at NP.

Basically, an excellent rule to go by is this: if you had to right click and save the image from another news site it is not fair use for you to put it on your story.

Tina

No, not everything is "safe" to use from YouTube. We know this is very difficult to tell when using our tool which is why we have initiated this policy. We do not expect you to recognize whether a copy of a video you upload was placed on YouTube by its owner. When a video comes to the attention of staff we will do that leg work and take appropriate action. All we ask is that you understand our position and respect that we want to respect copyright and are making moves to do so. It is not at all personal if we remove a copyrighted piece of media from a story, and you have done nothing wrong in adding it in the first place. All we ask is that you respect the call we have made, not take the removal personally, and not respond by uploading it (or another unverified copy of the same thing) again.

OK if I got it right.  U-tube, we play the odds.  You make the call whether it's copywrighted or not.  I guess I can live with that.  I have tried to determine myself since last night what is ok and what isn't and quite frankly on u-tube it's a mistery to me. I'll accept your decision.

Since Youtube does not take steps to actively police copyright on its own site, of course our Crowd Power tool cannot do so, either, relying as it does on what Youtube is able to tell it. This is where human eyes come into play, and this is what separates us from the crowd: responsible media attribution.

OK that's just fine with me.  I found it really confusing to decide about copyrights etc.  If you editors are ok with deleting offending material that's Aok with me.

What about an image in a press release, the same one that will turn up in all the morning papers.

Is that okay or does that belong to the PR company etc releasing it?

Yes, if you are an authorized person or entity on that press list and/or if the image is released for promotional reasons. If released for promotional reasons you can't use it in any other context other than promotional. You can use if for negative promotion (like a bad review of a product) that is fair game.

The image in question could not be used on an irrelevant post (like a picture of an iPhone released for promotional reasons could not be used to accompany a story about Naomi Campbell throwing an iPhone at an assistant).

Promotional imagery is generally in the public domain so long as it is used for that purpose. 

One thing to keep in mind when an image appears in "all the morning papers." Newpapers often pay to be part of a press service and often this is how they get the same images for publication. Just because an image is all over traditional media and affiliated websites does not mean it is in the public domain.

As a general rule if you obtain an image through right-click and save from a media website you should not use it. Even if it is on a private blog, you should stay away from it as that one was likely taken unethically. There are exceptions as noted above (ie: something that is definitely in the public domain like a government head shot).

Like I said before, this is very confusing and there are some really grey areas but we are trying to do our best to respect copyright. We very much appreciate everybody working with us on this as it is a learning experience for staff as well.

~ T

Thanks Tina.