The video is public domain, but the music isn't. Go look:
http://www.archive.org/movies/searchres ... 00&start=0
Some new video goodies
-
evomedia_
Be careful, public domain does not mean its copyright free, if you are using it commercialy then your breaking copyright, all the following notices appear on this site:
Access to the Archiveâs Collections is provided at no cost to you and is granted for scholarship and research purposes only.
You agree to abide by all applicable laws and regulations, including intellectual property laws, in connection with your use of the Archive. In particular, you certify that your use of any part of the Archive's Collections will be noncommercial and will be limited to noninfringing or fair use under copyright law.
you further agree :
(e) not to infringe any copyright, trademark, patent, or other proprietary rights of any person
Access to the Archiveâs Collections is provided at no cost to you and is granted for scholarship and research purposes only.
You agree to abide by all applicable laws and regulations, including intellectual property laws, in connection with your use of the Archive. In particular, you certify that your use of any part of the Archive's Collections will be noncommercial and will be limited to noninfringing or fair use under copyright law.
you further agree :
(e) not to infringe any copyright, trademark, patent, or other proprietary rights of any person
-
_
It does say clearly on that page: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/pub ... prelinger/
'You may not sell, represent, license, or charge for access to these films as stock footage. ' that means if your a vj charging for gig but using cut up clips from that site your breaking his copyright notice.
It clearly says must be given free of charge, thats the point, and I seriously doubt if your using as a source for video,that your not planning on using in a gig your charging for.
The law is simple enough, if your making money from someones media, without paying them a penny for the privaledge your essentally stealing from them.
'You may not sell, represent, license, or charge for access to these films as stock footage. ' that means if your a vj charging for gig but using cut up clips from that site your breaking his copyright notice.
It clearly says must be given free of charge, thats the point, and I seriously doubt if your using as a source for video,that your not planning on using in a gig your charging for.
The law is simple enough, if your making money from someones media, without paying them a penny for the privaledge your essentally stealing from them.
-
deleted_
Then underneath it says Any derivative works that you produce using these films are yours to perform, publish, reproduce, sell, or distribute in any way you wish without any limitations. Now to me thats a double standard, its a weird one as both suggests differing points.
However it doesn't mean all public domain footage is open to use, as this is a specific notice
However it doesn't mean all public domain footage is open to use, as this is a specific notice
-
NoddY_
-
Dan_
The notice about not charging for access to the footage does not conflict with the notice about derviative works.
Basically, what the license is saying is: you can't just take these clips and sell them as they are, but if you use them to create something new, the new work is all yours.
IANAL, but I would certainly read that as meaning that the clips are fully okay to use for a VJ performance (which is clearly a derivivative work), whether commercial or not.
In this case, I would say that the law is pretty clear that using these clips without giving a penny to the originators is NOT theft - the copyright owner has explicitly allowed it.
This dual license of not being able to sell the original directly but being allowed to freely create derivative works is very common when dealing with stock (photos or video)
Basically, what the license is saying is: you can't just take these clips and sell them as they are, but if you use them to create something new, the new work is all yours.
IANAL, but I would certainly read that as meaning that the clips are fully okay to use for a VJ performance (which is clearly a derivivative work), whether commercial or not.
In this case, I would say that the law is pretty clear that using these clips without giving a penny to the originators is NOT theft - the copyright owner has explicitly allowed it.
This dual license of not being able to sell the original directly but being allowed to freely create derivative works is very common when dealing with stock (photos or video)