Let's talk about: Copyright
Introduction
Hi there, If you have been using Steemit for quite a bit, you may have noticed and realized that you need to learn a bit about copyright. Glad you came here, in this blog post you will get to know the most important information you need about Copyright so you know how you can prevent those demotivating down-votes and prevent plagiarism allegations. You will also learn how to properly credit the creator of a work that you'd like to use, even if you decide to credit work taken from platforms like Pixabay. After reading this -entire blog post you will know everything you need to start blogging on Steemit without breaking a sweat.
Educate yourself and fight plagiarism
Fighting plagiarism seems to be a huge issue worldwide. Tons of artists, creators and authors have worked hard to publish their work online. It's easy to just copy/paste these works, and use them for your own purposes. It's like finding a wallet with money in it, we might consider ourselves lucky to find that wallet and we are tempted to keep the money. We call it stealing if you keep the money, and it is expected that you should report it and return the money to its owner. Keeping the money is the same as finding great quality content on the world wide web and using it as it is your own. Hate to break it to you but you're simply stealing. It is damaging the creator in many ways, especially when you do not give credit, and even then it is wrong to use it without permission. You could even get sued for using their work without permission.
Copyright is a grey area for a lot of people and content creators mostly realize that. Although it can be tiresome to tell the same story over and over again, and you might be the fuse that makes us explode since our patience does not last forever. To prevent copyright allegations, all you can do is educate yourself. This may seem to be a boring topic to read about, but it will be beneficial for you in the long term.
What is Copyright?
Anything you see on the world wide web (www) is likely being copyrighted. Without owning the "copy"-rights you do not have permission (rights) to copy, duplicate, change/adjust, spread or publish the work that you have found. Whenever someone creates something like music, text, videos and photographs, Copyright is by law automatically allocated to that creator and only that person owns the exclusive rights to their work and can choose what to do with it. The creator can customize these licenses to their own or adjust to their client needing. These rights are described in different varieties of licenses that only the creator can grant to another person. By granting rights to another person, the creator still owns the work, unless he/she is transferring his rights to another person.
Earning money on Steemit.
Because you are earning money on Steemit, you will need a commercial license for -any work that you are going to use for your blog posts. The most common and easiest to use license to publish work that has a commercial purpose is the CC0 1.0 Universal license. These works are also known as "Public Domain" where the creator has waived their exclusive rights to the public and made the photograph available for anyone, in any way. This means you can also use these works for Commercial Use (earning money on Steemit).
What is Commercial Use?
If you're planning to publish work that isn't yours, you would need a license where it states that you can use this photograph for Commercial Use. Even if you earn $ 0.00 for a blog post, you still need this license, since the purpose of publishing the photograph is earning money, whether it is certain or uncertain that you would even earn a penny.
Creative Commons license
Creative Commons is a non-profit organisation that releases seven various licenses. Authors can share their copyrighted work, and give specific rights to their work. This allows their work to be copied, published, and sometimes be used for commercial use. Authors always keep the copyright of their intellectual property, unless they waive -all rights to their work. The licenses you want are CC0, BY, BY-SA and BY-ND. These licenses allow you to publish these works for commercial use. Keep in mind that most work requires you to credit the author properly, and some work may not be modified at any circumstances.
How to avoid plagiarism?
Anything you see on the web can be copyrighted. In most cases, you cannot use it on Steemit. So, how do you avoid plagiarism and possible downvotes?
1. Paraphrase.Whenever you would like to use information that you have searched for on the web, all you have to do is format the same information in your own words. Even when you find small phrases useful, do not copy them, either reword them, or rewrite it entirely. This can be a time-consuming process, but it is worth all the effort!
2. Quoting.
If you would like to use a quote, make sure that you use that quote exactly as how it has been written by that person and refer to the author. Limit the length and number of quotations. Use your own words and rewrite sections of paragraphs if you find them useful. You should never quote entire paragraphs or section of an article. Also, whenever you are quoting someone, this needs the mandatory quotation marks ("Quote" - Author).
3. Photographs.
There is a high chance that there is copyright embedded in the image that you would like to use for your blog post. You would need to purchase a license in most cases and credit the photographer. In all cases of uncertainty, do not use a photograph you have seen on Google. Try to get contact with the photographer. However, there are a lot of CC0 (Creative Commons) licenses available on the web that you can use without permission, and for commercial use.
4. Videos.
Videos that are on YouTube mostly contain plagiarism. YouTube is fighting hard to get rid of the stolen videos. Only upload videos to YouTube, DTube or Dlive that you have full ownership and or full rights to. There are CC0 licensed videos available that you can use freely, for any medium, for commercial use. Downloading videos from YouTube that aren't yours and that you put on @Dtube or @Dlive is strictly forbidden and considered as plagiarism. The easiest way to prevent plagiarism with videos is simply creating your own videos, or use CC0 1.0 Universal Licensed videos. Make sure to credit the creator of these clips in your description if you have to.
5. Music.
Basically, everything that is inside a song is copyrighted. You have to re-create everything yourself or find yourself free samples to work with. Because even old samples, from old songs, are copyrighted. Kanye West, for example, has covered many old songs, and has been accused of plagiarising other peoples work (He got sued for 2.5 million).
6. Referencing.
Referencing the right source is the most important way to avoid plagiarism allegations when you use CC0 1.0 Universal Licensed work. Be aware that Google is not a source, the people who have created the work hold the exclusive right to their work, and automatically own all rights of that source (work) whenever they have created it. They can only provide you with the source that you need and is sometimes hard to find. Always credit the creator and link the work to where you have found it. Make sure whenever you publish work on Steemit, the work is licensed and is available for Commercial Use.
7. Architecture.
Now, this topic is little understood since. Anything that has been created, especially landmarks, may contain copyright. This means you cannot use images of these landmarks without having the permission of the designer. The Eiffel tower is one of the most discussed topics about architecture and copyright infringement. While the copyright on the Eiffel tower itself has been removed, the lights on the Eiffel tower, however, do contain copyright. Work containing landmarks that you have found on-line needs a better understanding and are higher valued by its creator. In most cases the photographer needs permisssion to photograph a landmark and sometimes also for recognizable interior design.
Purchasing a license
Purchase a license from a creator. All you have to do is to get in contact with the creator and ask how much they charge you for using that work. After purchasing a license which allows you to use the work, you still need to credit the creator. And why is that? Well, if you don't credit the creator, how are we supposed to know? Also, it is mandatory, unless the creator agrees to not being credited.
The time of a license can be limited. Keep this in mind because your blog posts on Steemit are stuck in the blockchain, however, the images that are uploaded to Steemit are hosted by 3rd hosting parties, which makes it very difficult for us to manually delete these photographs after 7 days. It might not be rewarding to buy a limitless license, so you can publish it once and forget about it. It would be best to discuss the posibilities with the creator and explain that you only have 7 days to earn money.
How do I credit the creator?
The proper way to credit work that you would like to use is to mention the name of the creator or their business name, the name of the license (CC0 Creative Commons for example) and add a link to the work. The creator either has their work published and distributed on platforms that release licenses for them or it is available on their own website.
When you use work from websites like Pixabay (CC0 1.0 Universal Licensed work), you do not need to credit at all. But you can show appreciation to the author by mentioning and linking to his/her profile on Pixabay (for example). Crediting only Pixabay is -not crediting the creator at all, but actually a promotion for the Pixabay platform. If you are uncertain about a work that you would like to use, do not publish the work. It either has to be licensed under CC0 1.0, CC-BY 4.0, CC-BY-SA 4.0 or CC-BY-ND 4.0 (We discuss these licenses later in this blog post).
©2018 - X P O S E D - [ source ]
Why should you credit the author (even if you don't have to)?
Creating work can take up a lot of time. Most photographers/content-creators who offer their work free to use do this without getting any compensation for it. By naming and crediting the author, you can help them by getting more jobs and getting their name out there. By linking to their website, you will boost their Google SEO ranking, this might not differ much, but if an image has been used 1000's of times, this can contribute a lot to the author. You're basically helping them to create more free and awesome work for you to use.
In my opinion, you should always give credit to the author who has produced work for free. Whether it is required or not. By doing this, you are showing appreciation and respect to the work produced by the author. It will help them to create a name for themselves, and people who are interested in hiring the author can get easier in touch with the author.
What licenses can you use on Steemit?
Works that fall under the CC0, BY, BY-SA and BY-ND license, are released licenses that make it possible for you to publish work on Steemit. These are the only licenses that allow you to use the work for commercial purposes unless you buy a license straight from the author. CC0 licensed work does not require credits, while the other three require a mandatory and proper naming. The BY-ND license does not allow you to adjust or modify the work, this means that you can't even crop the photograph.
CCO 1.0 Universal License
You are free to: Do anything that you would like to with the photograph. CC0 1.0 Universal Licensed works are Public Domain, therefore these works are usable for anyone.
CC BY 4.0 International License
You are free to: Copy, redistribute the photograph in any medium or format, remix, transform for any purpose. You must: Give proper credits to the creator, provide a link to the license and mention any adjustments made to the photograph.
CC BY-SA 4.0 International License
You are free to: Copy, redistribute the photograph in any medium or format, remix, transform for any purpose. You must: Give proper credits to the creator, provide a link to the license and mention any adjustments made to the photograph. You must: If you have made any adjustments to the photograph, this photograph falls automatically under the same license, free to use for anyone else that would like to use it.
CC BY-ND 4.0 International License
You are free to: Copy, redistribute the photograph in any medium or format, for any purpose. You must: Give proper credits to the creator, provide a link to the license. You may not: Adjust the photograph and publish it anywhere on the web.
Links to CC0 1.0 Universal licensed work.
So many rules! But don't you worry, we got you covered. These websites all provide CC0 1.0 Universal Licensed work that you can use here on Steemit.
Easy step-by-step guide.
So, you have written a blog post and you want to use work created by others. What to do, what to do. We use Pixabay as an example since this is the most commonly used platform to find CC0 1.0 licensed images.
Step 1. Finding a photograph.
I will search for "Copyright" and try to see if I can find images that I find good enough to use in this post.
Legend
- The Creator
- The license (CC0)
- Download option
- Preview
Step 2. Publishing the photograph.
Now that I have decided to use this image and checked who the creator is and what license is attached to it I have everything I know to publish and use this image.
- The Creator: PDPics
- The license: CC0
- Date of submission: 2014 (if you scroll down on the page, you can find the date of submission)
This is the easiest, and fastest way to properly source a photograph that you're going to use from Pixabay.
Breakdown of a proper creditation.
- © Copyright symbol with the date of submission/upload.
- What is the license?
- Where did you find it?
- Who took it?
© 2014 - CC0 Creative Commons - [ source ] - Photo by PDPics
But, if you truly would like to credit an author for using his/her work that is CC0 licensed, you can simply Google the author's name, check if the author has an own website and change the "by PDPics" by applying a hyperlink to their website. To set the focus and attention to the author, you can change "PDPics on Pixabay" into "[ source ]". It would look like this.
Have you found plagiarism?
Keep in mind that not everyone knows about copyright and how bad it is. Downvoting is a way to fight plagiarism, but educating people is even more valuable! Share this blog with them instead. We made an image for you that you can use and to make your comment stand out. Join our Discord channel and submit your findings. We will take a look and up-vote your comment for your hard work.
Copy HTML Code Below
[a href="https://steemit.com/photography/@xposed/let-s-talk-about-copyright">[img src="https://steemitimages.com/DQmXUEPCMDHcgtRgkC7XkARPEhtuoxJnAPxs1EEj2aEzRMN/learn-more-about-copyright-xposed.png"/> [/a>
Replace "[" with "<".
us for more photography related content, or you can buy us a 
.
It's great to see this. This means there is still risk of violating copyright laws even if we credit the source. I have also seen news sites where the picture was taken and credited from another. Sometimes, it makes a long chain and if there's violation or improper use along the way, it would be quite a process for the creator to trace it.
Happy to see you find it useful @hiroyamagishi, we tried to keep the post as compact and as understandable as possible. Copyright is a grey area and doesn't seem to have fully exploited the depths of context and discussion yet.
Newspapers often steal other peoples work and would love to pay with "exposure", which is the mandatory credit towards the creator of the work. This reason for this, in my belief, because of the rise of talented amateur photographers who did not receive proper education about Copyright law, who were happy to get their name exposed, and occurred during the global financial crisis.
There are often people who think content should be used freely, at any time. These people do not value the time spent by others and cannot see the bigger picture what it takes to create an image that is not just simply appealing to the eye. Luckily the law has given creators protection, that whenever the creator has created a work, it automatically is protected by copyright law. This would let creators decide on their own if this work can be freely used by the public or not.
Google and Tiny-pic has developed their reverse-image search techniques which makes it easy for the creator to trace their work published online. Also good implementation of EXIF-data can help in tracing their work.
You know what's an interesting event, the osmosis that happens is unidirectional because I have yet to hear someone who had recognized the abundance of absurdity with copyrights and has become a copyright advocate, it's always the same story: almost everyone who understands that nonsense inherently built in hoarding ideas has reached that point after believing that copyrights are beneficial, has nobody changed their mind the other way? I'd love to have a discussion with someone who has, or claims they have, it's quite stale in here with all the parroting of the copyright manifesto, aren't you interested in debating Intelectual Theft(oxymoron)?
Start a blog post about it.
You don't want to debate Intellectual Theft even though it relates with the post as the underlying logical premise? Odd.
We would be happy to debate this matter in a dedicated blog post about that topic, preferable written by yourself based on your own experiences.
This blog post is purely about educating the current nature of Copyright, not to discuss personal opinions/loopholes/specific country based laws or whatsoever. We think understanding copyright is more important than to deny it and trying to counter it, as we simply cannot change this overnight. If you wish to contribute to this blog post, rephrase your opinion in a question and we are happy to try to give you an answer that fits.
Currently, the contribution you have made so far, seem to be cries where you demand a different approach on Copyright from your point of view. You simply cannot change law, nor influence the current understanding of Copyright with pushing your thoughts about this matter and expect that the law bends to you whenever you would like to. It is as it is. It was as it was. If you want change, file it to the right people, we are certainly not.
At this current state, creators that are not on this platform, seek federal guidance to start the procedure to send Cease and Desist letters regarding their Copyrighted work, which is damaging the name of Steemit and would slow down its potential grow as this issue grows.
And again, all created work is protected by copyright by law upon creation. This does not mean it is protected for financial compensation for these 'damages' by default. You need to be a registered business in some countries, you need to register a license in other countries and sometimes proof of creation is enough to be illegible for financial compensation.
If you want to talk about logical underlying thoughts about copyright, simply start a blog post and invite people that you deem interesting to reply to.
You have to include that in your article because theres plenty of talk of how great copyrights are but no specific on this important detail? Why did you have to explain to people that people making art for free do it without compensation? But you couldn't spare a line to "Copyrights doesn't mean that the work if protected upon creation for financial compensation for unfair use, you have to register and "sometimes" proof of creation is enough to be eligible for compensation." But you really don't have to do anything because the bullshit "Let's talk about copyrights" was only meant to express "Let me tell you about copyrights". Cary on
The law matters? In what case?
Here's one that it doesn't matter, in a very visceral way:
And this was mentioned before that:
The point I've made a few times:
Also when you say "let's talk about copyright" in the very premise of that is threaded discussing the logical (or lack of it) premise underlying the concept of copyrights. I decline your invitation to discuss the matter at hand anywhere else, I'd rather keep it here, with all the uninteresting, who ought to feel free to come and go as they wish, as in any public forum, even the dullingotns that yapper on "amen, copying is stealing in lalaland".
Actually, people do this freely, not only for commission and numerous other sources that pay definitively for the work and doesn't milk the people for their benefit of sharing the idea, which is no more benefit anymore. Copyrights are not about protecting the author, they are about monopolizing on a work and by and large, this is done by producers who have acquired a serendipitously clever name. The only protections copyright offer is mafia style RICO worthy Monopoly protections which equate copying to stealing.
People cannot see the bigger picture of the logical fail of hoarding over ideas and the detriment that has been beaten to death ever since the first copyright laws to censor authors came about.
Hi @baah, please Google "Statute of Anne". Now, unless you still would like to think that paying the bills with salt is still possible, please re-consider the era you currently live in and come back to earth, with us, preferable by plane and not on a horse.
The creators of their own work now have the choice to waive their rights, to make it available to the public, for free, to make sure that that work doesn't milk the people for their benefit of sharing the idea/concept.
I would like to point out to you that this blog post is about explaining the current state of Copyright, not about the history of it. So I ask you to stay on topic as you are spreading personal confusion about the current laws on Copyright and how we are supposed to work with- and understand that law.
Looking forward to more history tutoring in a blog post that you have created. I would gladly join you there.
So my argument is invalid because of bringing up the true history of copyrights even though that was nothing more than a remark to how long the detriment of copyright has been happening? If coming back to your plane means idiotically mumbling copying is stealing I take a pass. And again :
Copyrights are not about protecting the author, they are about monopolizing on a work and by and large, this is done by producers who have acquired a serendipitously clever name. The only protections copyright offer is mafia style RICO worthy Monopoly protections which equate copying to stealing.
People cannot see the bigger picture of the logical fail of hoarding over ideas and the detriment that has been beaten to death ever since the first copyright laws to censor authors came about.
Furthermore if you follow the conversation sunlit7 was having below you'd realize that the post needs a major rework to pontificate that you cannot purse for damages unless you register, poking a giant gaping hole in the whole post and making the protection racket evident, the excuses for not mentioning that without registering you won't get protection is hilarious considering that it details so much, even that people putting out work for free means they do so without compensation, and it's nice to credit them, but how many times was it implicit that the work is protected? your work isn't protected by copyrights on creation, but you can wrestle out of that whichever way you want because the point cannot be evaded: copyrights are effective in protecting only if you register.
The final point to drive the meaningless of it is that your pedantic comment keeps up the myth that artists are protected, or that laws will recompense them for damages, they do, it's producers and publishers that pimp out artists more than anything who make the money off people Stealing the intangible.
What, no argument, only gestural disagreement, feel free to mistify this comment as well because do you think that flagging me is going to benefit and shut me up? Figures, you came off as a jerk with your "come down to earth where copying is stealing". You do realize this platform is open source, the community, by and large, is anarchist and free thinking and this little cesspool of fanboys monopolizing on art and ideas as a means to get compensated are like a walled off section that never reaches the mass with their art, but a post like this gets piled on by all the hoarders, who despite being conpensated with a place to share their art, and possibly even with a reward attached, they seek to affirm the nonsense that your WORK is protected without registering, which is repugnant to what I know from my musician friends: if you don't register it you might as well give it out for free.
Stop selling people false promises of protection while omitting the crucial and if you cannot form a coherent, logically consistent and on topic argument or specific objection to my argument then don't you think that you ought to consider what I said instead of trying to make it seems as if I was arguing that today's laws are the same as 250 years ago, when I used that only to specify for how long the laws, however much they have morphed and sprouted anew they still rely on a very very very very poor way to get compensated, and considering the detriment that locking ideas and art behind monopolized control one would understand that for every person that makes a buck from their registered work, there's 10 more that pay gravely for copying, and the people that benefit all the times are the courts and the publishers, the artist always second, it's immoral and illogical to constitute copying as theft simply because you claim a "License" which is another word for being allowed to do what you Shouldn't do, by definition and by LAW (as law concerns directly with definition AND the meaning of words).
This conversation has barely begun, bring some real critique if you can because what you have done is borderline trollish.
Nobody is trying to monopolize art. The typical wish is at least that the art created by them is not used for commercial use without a permission.
Art isn't being monopolized. Anyone can create art if they want without being attacked by artists.
You've said that nobody wants to monopolize art and then expressed exactly what monopolizing art is, you do understand that and then went to deny that there is any monopolization happening right after and asauge my "worry" that art is monopolized.
Art is monopolized, the act of Permitting only some people or only some uses of ideas is monopolization itself, it's the very act itself that you deny is not happening.
Oh, so you're talking about monopolizing single pieces of art, and not art in general?
Well that's just dumb in a different way.
And what the hell, use of ideas? Are you just ranting random stuff with no point?
I have no say about ideas and "permitting the uses of ideas". If you are talking about the ideas in art, if you see a painting of an eagle with face of an elephant, that's an idea. It's not monopolized as an idea.
You can use the same idea and create art based on the same idea.
If I would create a piece of art and you'd just use my art in attempt to make money for yourself, I would try to stop you with the tools I have. And you of course could go crying "BOO HOO YOU ARE TRYING TO MONOPOLIZE ART".
Exclusive Control is Monopolizing, Idiot.
Wow, so you are actually just stupid. I wasn't talking about complete power.
So you're just talking BS, claiming I'm talking about stuff I'm not talking about and calling me an idiot.
Congratulations on upvoting your own comments while doing so.
You are very special person and I can see that.
Extremely special.
You must feel proud of yourself.
Aka Exclusive Control over an Idea.
idiot.
Yes, yes you are.
Idiot, when you claim exclusive Control over an idea, as not allowing people to monetize it, you are monopolizing the idea idiot. That's a fact of life. Read "Government-Granted-Monopolies". How hard is that to get through your thicknelson.
I haven't been even talking about claiming exclusive control about ideas. It's been you all along.
Are your parents closely related or why you have so special way to think?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
You're an idiot:
You obviously do not understand that you're denying the very exclusivity while affirming that it exists while denying it again. Exclusive rights. Exclusive right you idiot means the same thing as monopolizing ideas, concepts, art, functions, abstractions of all names.
Still no. You're still talking just dumb shit and as I can see you're upvoting your posts, I'm using my power to flag it because this was special level of stupid.
That's because the laws were never intended to protect the Creator or benefit the creator.
I will help you if you vote for me. In this way everyone can help by voting for all. Waiting for you
How is that going to help him?
Informative facts!really very crucial elements regarding copyright.I also try my best not to have these copyright in my work on steemit and strive for creating my own creations.
Hi @angli, you're welcome and we are happy to see you on our XPOSED channel, we will try to inspire and motivate Steemians to create and publish original/unique work.
I also try my best to bring something new and unique....and thanks for motivation...
A thorough and well-documented post on the subject which will be roundly ignored by all the parasites currently engaged in sucking the reward-pool dry.
I wish it wasn't so, but honestly the tools to prevent this kind of thing happening are either deficient, overloaded or totally absent. Its a harsh truth, I know, but unfortunately it has to be said.
This ship is sinking unless there's some real change around here.
So if I am an artist publishing my original work that has been inspired by a real picture and then painted by myself, is this in copyright violation if the subject I am painting is unaware I did a portrait of them? Does that make sense?
For that matter, you would need a permission from the creator (unless the photograph can be built upon) and the portraited.
This is incredibly useful and informative, thank you so much! I was wondering what you think the parameters for cover songs are? I am a musician and i write and record my own material but I love to do a cover song too! How do you think copyright affect the covers I do? do i need to contact the label and ask?
Thanks for sharing! A link to your post was included in the Steem.center wiki page about Copyright. Thanks and good luck again!
Although your article is well written and contains many useful facts, you have overlooked one thing:
Just to read your article my computer had to make a copy of it.
In the Age of the Internet copyright is antiquated.
To reinforce this thought, remember that a rule is useless unless it can be enforced.
Thanks again for the info.
Copyright was never "in style", and the mental gymnastics of "you found a wallet and keeping the money is the same as copying: stealing." is about all that it ever had to substantiate its establishment. A rule is useless if it subverts reason and avails itself of magical thinking, you can enforce all kinds of useless rules and many are done without any due process, such as copyrights.
This is an amazing article btw, stunningly well put together explanation of how to avoid copyright issues whilst using this platform, but also helping the original creators get the credit they deserve. However I must be a dingus, I am a video art creator, and also make music; so heres my example.
I created the music entirely by myself HOWEVER the music video I cut up and re edited to fit the narrative of my song would this be considered copyright issues? I uploaded the video to youtube and did not get a copyright strike (even after months of being there) and for additional information, I am currently at an Art Foundation course at the UK that is covered by an educational clause in copyright law that allows me certain leeway when its comes to using other artists work if it is for educational purposes and a factor of my FMP (which it was)
TLDR; your input would be massively helpful as I want to promote and get a following on this platform but want to do it strictly by the book
MANY MANY THANKS BIG LOVE FROM THE UK <3
Hey @blockchainyouth, thank you! Glad that this blog post was educational for you! About your question: If the work of the video is free to use, for commercial purposes you're good to go. If you have purchased a license to use this work for commercial use, you're good to go. If you have ripped the video from the creator (or any other uploader), modified it, and have placed your own (copyrighted) audio channel underneath it, you're plagiarizing -if- you publish the work for commercial use. You're stating that the contents of the video can/may be used only for educational purposes, therefor it should not be published on Steemit, since anything we publish here is automatically seen as commercial use. Your best bet to publish this on Steemit would be using work that can be used for commercial use.
CC0 licensed videos on Pexels
CC0 licensed videos on Pixabay
AGHHH YES VERY TRUE I FORGOT THATS WHAT FORM TUTOR SAID, that I could have even have it on a giant projector in St.Pancreas but if it is used to generate revenue as you said......Okay so my best bet, is to publish song, with accompanying visuals that I have created and not use the original playboi carti video; and see thats the thing, its not hard to create these visuals yourself and enjoy the knowledge it is 100% I think that human laziness and a lack of motivation come into play here so no thank you for your insight I am determined to do this properly.
Yes, exactly! If you need some tips on how to create motion graphics I think VideoCopilot did some cool tutorials. But I believe you know how to create that already.
I replied to @blockchainyouth in regards to same but want to point out to you that there is a "decline payout" option you can use while posting to Steem blockchain - this would be appropriate for non-commercial/educational usage rights
Hey just want to build on @xposed's comment - you can actually publish a post here on Steem blockchain using the "decline payout" option - this would cover you as far as the commercial intent, so if you want to publish your educational posting here you can do that with decline payout if there is a question of usage rights being allowed for non-commercial/educational use.
I try to do a good job and get images from pexel or pixabay, I could have still sourced better. Thank you for pointing that out. I will try to do better at this. Upvote for useful info
Hi @drpuffnstuff, please understand that you do not have to credit work that fall licensed under a CC0 1.0 Creative Commmons International License. On Steemit, it can also be more rewarding for you since you will make it easier for Curators to find the source and CC0 license. Despite that, you also show respect and appreciation to the creator who has created the work.
I wish I had found this post earlier! I’m very heartened to see someone else standing up for copyright work and also for PROPER accreditation to the artists! I have written quite a bit about this in the past, but you have managed to gain a much bigger audience than I ever did! Well done!! I will continue to write about it now and again, because it is my dream to see copyright infringement dealt with by the Steemit community!