Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

“Blatant Censorship”

The liberal media darling turned villain. True media masters exposed. Thank you Michael!!!!
 
Was it banned because of content or because of comments, though? Or because people who don’t agree continually reported it until it was removed?
 
We will never know the thruth about the why, youtube is part of the Alphabet family and they always give a strang twist on the thruth.
Good to see it's still on Vimeo and many are uploading it on youtube with a slight different name, best marketing this docu can have (it doesn't matter if you agree with it, it just shouldn't be censored).
 
Mike P. said:
Was it banned because of content or because of comments, though? Or because people who don’t agree continually reported it until it was removed?
Click to expand...
Reminds me of my youth. When they passed the Marshall law in Poland in 1981 every time you picked up a phone you heard "this conversation is being monitored" I wonder how long till we reach this point here- only matter of time....
 
Jacek Zakowicz said:
Reminds me of my youth. When they passed the Marshall law in Poland in 1981 every time you picked up a phone you heard "this conversation is being monitored" I wonder how long till we reach this point here- only matter of time....
Click to expand...

I apologize for not understanding Jacek - why would they ever play a recording in todays world?
Assume all electronic signals are captured already. Amazing what we have learned via baby monitors, never mind Alexa (not the camera)

No need to escalate paranoia - it only becomes important forensically.
 
There likely will be an alternate cut where they get the correct permission to "fair use" copy-written material for it to be on YouTube.
 
Brian F Kobylarz said:
I apologize for not understanding Jacek - why would they ever play a recording in todays world?
Assume all electronic signals are captured already. Amazing what we have learned via baby monitors, never mind Alexa (not the camera)

No need to escalate paranoia - it only becomes important forensically.
Click to expand...
I think it was about scaring and intimidating the population to discourage protests. In the end it did not work but it was.an endless source of secret police jokes ;-)
 
I doubt all material used was copyright cleared. But the right to expose his opinion wheights in the "to allow" ballance IMHO.
 
Patrick Tresch said:
I doubt all material used was copyright cleared. But the right to expose his opinion wheights in the "to allow" ballance IMHO.
Click to expand...

The corporatocracy has been challenging and narrowing the scope of fair use speech rights for decades. YouTube is one of the worst abusers of editorial fair use rights for the kind of documentary journalism this film represents.
They will take down anything based on a complaint from a supposed copyright holder without any independent determination of whether it meets legal fair use standards or not.
There are no free speech rights on corporate media platforms under current law.
 
Why is this in the Cinematography forum? I see no discussion of cinematography.
 
DJ Meyer said:
Why is this in the Cinematography forum? I see no discussion of cinematography.
Click to expand...
REmoving content from delivery platform should be and is a concern for the content creators- i.e. film makers, Hence discussion on cinematography forum.
 
DJ Meyer said:
Why is this in the Cinematography forum? I see no discussion of cinematography.
Click to expand...

Agree.

Jacek Zakowicz said:
REmoving content from delivery platform should be and is a concern for the content creators- i.e. film makers, Hence discussion on cinematography forum.
Click to expand...

Disagree. I do think that topics like safety on set as related to smoke and haze *is* a cinematography issue. But I think that if we're going to talk about copyright abuse and cinematography, we should talk specifically about the recontextualization of the copyrighted work, be it a photograph, a car's exterior, a chair, a song AS IT RELATES TO THE CINEMATOGRAPHY IN QUESTION. Just posting a video and saying "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" is not really a cinematography discussion. (With due respect to Monty Python.)
 
If the First amendment issues have become a taboo in the USA one could argue that some of us prefer the russian social model...
 
Jacek Zakowicz said:
If the First amendment issues have become a taboo in the USA one could argue that some of us prefer the russian social model...
Click to expand...

First Amendment protects your speech from the government. It doesn't mean every private platform has to host your content, and it doesn't give one license to rip off copyrighted content.

Anyway, any thoughts on cinematography?
 
Not bad for a documentary. Maybe too much visual "urgency" but I think that was intentional- , Moore Style
 
I find it odd, especially on a forum full of content creators who don't understand the importance of licensed material being used without expressed written content.

There has been more than one content creator and owner of the material who called out that their footage was used in a feature length documentary produced with a budget.

You'll notice I won't discuss the message. You guys can chew the fat on that and whatever you side with.

Personally I deal with my footage being used without my consent often. Often in commercial and promotional ways. Being used in ways that I wouldn't allow on products and projects I'm not a part of. Being used in ways that who I produced the content for would clearly not allow.


Patrick Tresch said:
I doubt all material used was copyright cleared. But the right to expose his opinion wheights in the "to allow" ballance IMHO.
Click to expand...

Misha Engel said:
"fair use", Phil, you are really funny.
Click to expand...

Jacek Zakowicz said:
REmoving content from delivery platform should be and is a concern for the content creators- i.e. film makers, Hence discussion on cinematography forum.
Click to expand...


Here's a fun thought. If they knowingly used the footage and put it on a platform that is rather on top of copyright infrigement. Why not themselves just embed it on their website. The film is a very small footprint. I have unlimited bandwidth, why don't they? The answer there is bigger and can get their whole website shut down very easily.

It's also great advertising to produce a controversial documentary and get people to say "this was banned on YouTube" not really citing the real reasons a few people want it not shown at all until they are compensated or have their material removed.

Most just want to be paid for their time and effort. Especially when used in applications such as this.

I am a proponent of free speech. I'm always interested in learning new perspectives and counterpoints on various topics I'm cool with this doc, but you have to understand specifically if you are uploading to platforms that understand and obey copyright laws, you know what you're getting into if you knowingly have utilized any copywritten material without consent, composation, license, or image release.
 
When someone uses your content without explicit permission, you can contact them... or blatantly censor them.

All words and characters written in above, this and below scentence are cited and used by someone before, I couldn't reach all first users and license holders and I don't care.

Seven year old children who are trying to play a piece of Chopin on a piano and upload the recording to youtube to show it to Grandma and Grandpa are banned from Youtube, Facebook, etc.. and not for the horrible performance, but for license infringment (Chopin died in 1849, so he is not complaining).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top