Party Video 2016

[lindanesocialist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HemZYkiXz4more than 1000 views in a week.Hopefully it may stimulate some thinking of those workers who watched it as they now know who the real socialists are 

[Anonymous]

Now up to 1135 views.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HemZYkiXz4

[Brian]

lindanesocialist wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HemZYkiXz4more than 1000 views in a week.Hopefully it may stimulate some thinking of those workers who watched it as they now know who the real socialists are 

Have it ever crossed your mind that several of these viewers could be considering to sue you for breach of copyright by using snippets of their efforts without permission?  They might try also try and sue the party seeing you have retained the logo for there's more prospects of a settlement there rather than raiding your bank account.

[Anonymous]

Brian wrote:

lindanesocialist wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HemZYkiXz4more than 1000 views in a week.Hopefully it may stimulate some thinking of those workers who watched it as they now know who the real socialists are

Have it ever crossed your mind that several of these viewers could be considering to sue you for breach of copyright by using snippets of their efforts without permission?  They might try also try and sue the party seeing you have retained the logo for there's more prospects of a settlement there rather than raiding your bank account.

Ah yes, of course – the likes of ALB, DL, BM and JS are more than likely to do that. Tut, tut, fancy overlooking that prospect. As far as the logo is concerned it's the property of the party and in particular of those members who use it quite legitimately in the furtherance of their committee activities.  In the meantime we'll look forward to receiving even more encouraging observations from members like yourself who favour Positive Socialist Activity.

[Brian]

gnome wrote:

Brian wrote:

lindanesocialist wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HemZYkiXz4more than 1000 views in a week.Hopefully it may stimulate some thinking of those workers who watched it as they now know who the real socialists are

Have it ever crossed your mind that several of these viewers could be considering to sue you for breach of copyright by using snippets of their efforts without permission?  They might try also try and sue the party seeing you have retained the logo for there's more prospects of a settlement there rather than raiding your bank account.

Ah yes, of course – the likes of ALB, DL, BM and JS are more than likely to do that. Tut, tut, fancy overlooking that prospect. As far as the logo is concerned it's the property of the party and in particular of those members who use it quite legitimately in the furtherance of their committee activities.  In the meantime we'll look forward to receiving even more encouraging observations from members like yourself who favour Positive Socialist Activity.

Cde Maratty is not on any committee or have you forgoten?  Also, are you willing to represent the party in court in the event of a legal action?  Such action would be cool but it's hardly positive.

[Bijou Drains]

Don't really understand how the viewers could sue, or am I being thick?

[Brian]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Don't really understand how the viewers could sue, or am I being thick?

Ever heard of copyright law?  If the holder of the copyright is informed by one of the viewers that they spotted a piece or snippet of their work they can take legal action against cde Maratty and the party.  Even if they request Youtube to remove it under the law the damage has already been done.

[alanjjohnstone]

The Small Party of Good Boys returns to the fray

[Brian]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The Small Party of Good Boys returns to the fray

What happened to the 'good girls'.  That particular phrase is now illegal I'd have you know.

[Anonymous]

Brian wrote:

Cde Maratty is not on any committee or have you forgoten? 

Oh, but he was when he made the video or have you forgotten?   And for his efforts his appointment to the Audio-Visual Committee was rescinded by a confused and misinformed Executive Committee.

May 2016 EC wrote:

MOTION 9. (Scholey and McLellan): “The EC disassociates itself on behalf of the Party from the clips off YouTube and elsewhere produced and published by cde V. Maratty for reasons of lack of prior consultation with the EC and unauthorised use of Party emblems.”Carried 8 – 0MOTION 10. (Scholey and Skelly): “In light of the above motion the EC rescinds the appointment of cde V. Maratty to the Audio-Visual Committee.”Carried 6 – 1 – 1 Division called: For: Skelly, Scholey, Craggs, McLellan, Thomas, Browne. Against: Cox Abstain: Foster.

If you take the trouble to inspect the Terms of Reference of the Audio-Visual Committee you'll find that it is not required to consult with the EC before publishing Audio-Visual material any more than the SSPC is required to submit content that appears in the Socialist Standard prior to publication.  To confirm the point (but in direct contradiction to Motion 9 above) the EC carried this at another of its meetings:

Quote:

MOTION 6 . (Cox and McLellan): “The EC notes that a number of Committees of the Party already have the authority of the EC to produce and disseminate audio-visual material and maintain websites in accordance with their Terms of Reference.” Carried 4 – 0 with 3 abstentions.

(emphasis added)As for the "unauthorised use of Party emblems" and as a result of voting on the relevant 2016 Conference motion the EC directed thus:-

Quote:

It was agreed to ask the Acting General Secretary to write to branches and committees to ask them to use the Party logo as voted.

(emphasis added)For the time being I'll skirt around the EC's re-writing of Rule 17 and the fact that there is no provision in Rule to rescind the appointment of a sub-committee member.

[ALB]

gnome wrote:

For the time being I'll skirt around the EC's re-writing of Rule 17 and the fact that there is no provision in Rule to rescind the appointment of a sub-committee member.

Irrespective of whether they should have exercised it in this case, I would have thought that it was clear that as the EC has the right under Rule 17 to appoint subcommittees (of the EC) it must also have the right to "unappoint" any member of one of (their) subcommittee..  This would be the standard relationship between a committee and its subcommittee(s) in any organisation. I am sure that the EC  will have done this on some occasions in the past.

[Young Master Smeet]

gnome wrote:

Ah yes, of course – the likes of ALB, DL, BM and JS are more than likely to do that. Tut, tut, fancy overlooking that prospect. As far as the logo is concerned it's the property of the party and in particular of those members who use it quite legitimately in the furtherance of their committee activities.  In the meantime we'll look forward to receiving even more encouraging observations from members like yourself who favour Positive Socialist Activity.

IIRC the bit that includes me will be copyright the BBC (or the production company that shot it): the words are copyright me, and also performance right is mine: that said I was at a hustings, so I suspect the courts would be unwilling to enforce that part of the IP.

[lindanesocialist]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Don't really understand how the viewers could sue, or am I being thick?

 Vin said: It's becoming so pretty pathetic, Tim.  Have a look at other party videos, debates etc. ALL criticisms could be applied yo them. Brian and YMS have kept silence until nowI recieved permission from all concerned except Bill Martin, if he wishes to sue, that will be up to himVin was appointed at the time of video making by NERB to produce audio visual material and open Internet accounts  The Socialist Standard prints pictures of many politiciians and logos of other parties and extracts from other newspapers and BBC reprorta etc etcPermission from Mr Corbyn? Or any of these people ? Ever thought Brian and YMS that these people may read the SS and sue the party? There are a million and one copyright issues in the Socialist StandardOther people's and organisation's material   By the way If you do not have written permission from people like Peter Tachell and others, the party is open to prosecutionThe Video was produced my Vin anyway so the party can't be sued. It can sue me of course.  

[Brian]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Don't really understand how the viewers could sue, or am I being thick?

It's becoming pretty pathetic, Tim.  Have a look at other party videos, debates etc. ALL criticisms could be applied yo them. Brian and YMS have kept silence until nowI recieved permission from all concerned. The Socialist Standard prints pictures of many politiciians and logos of other parties and extracts from other newspapers and BBC reprorta etc etc Sour grapes and nonsense

You have not received permission to use the party logo.  Yet you continue to use it?  Is that sour grapes and nonsense?  By continuing to use the logo you are deliberately misleading the working class that the video is a party production.  It contains no diclaimer to this effect, neither does it state its your independent production. If you are so proud of your efforts how come you are not claiming ownership but seeking a free ride on the back of the party?You have dug yourself a hole which only you can backfill.

[Bijou Drains]

Perhaps a sensible way forward would be to set up a working party to produce a brief for the AV committee 9and perhaps the SSPC) with regards to the use of materials used in videos, the SS, etc.Or better still pay a professional organisation to come in and give us a full brief of what we can do, what we can't, where we should apply for permission, etc. (I am sure there are companies who have these ready as off the shelf documents). If we ensure that these service providers are fully competent and have full liability insurance. That way, if we follow their guidance and something crops up, then we have fall back to the liability insurnace provided by company that gave us the guidance. That might be a far better approach than relying on our own interepretation of the legal situation.

[Author]

Posts