Copyright is a lot: to be strictly for tv makers, too lax for internetpiraten, a television producer Thomas Vanderveken. “We should Only Elvis remains sometimes exuberant amount to pay for snippets that are just on Youtube to circulate. That while we there is not a cent to earn.’
For day and dew sent Thomas Vanderveken, television interviewer and presenter of the Canvasprogramma Only Elvis continues, a tweet from a remarkable Youtubefilmpje under the attention brought …
For day and dew sent Thomas Vanderveken, television interviewer and presenter of the Canvasprogramma Only Elvis continues, a tweet from a remarkable Youtubefilmpje under the attention brought. In that movie clip – under the banner of ‘Save your internet’ and made by Youtube itself – warns the streaming service from Google for forthcoming European copyright legislation.
Youtube is especially afraid of article 13. That states that websites like Youtube itself, you are liable for all the videos that their users upload. To no penalties to risk, will Youtube, say that such strict filters to be applied that the free internet is in danger. Parodies, mash-ups and other internet-goodies belong to the past, allows the movie.
“Youtube is at an expensive campaign to keep bicycles in addition to copyright,” came Vandervekens comments on Twitter. ‘@Alleenelvis, we often can something not be broadcast or pay that still can be seen on Youtube. Copyright is a lot: at the same time too strict and too lax.’
“If tv producers were we really on a daily basis the absurdity of the auteursregelgeving,” explains Vanderveken on the phone. ‘For every second archive of images that we send we have to pay. We have people in service who, with nothing else involved than the clean images. Sometimes runs that process easy and the fees are fair. But increasingly it is an intensive process of negotiation. We note that rights holders (often large American studios, red.) ever-higher amounts ask for snippets that we want to show. That is a trend.’
It often happens that you pictures can’t show?
“It is a daily occurrence. Some fragments are so enormously expensive that they are de facto prohibitive for the VRT. Then come with us as a guest, which is on Youtube, a clip shows that he or she would like to be on the show wants. And then it turns out it is impossible to put it on television. While the so just on Youtube. I find that absurd. Because Youtube earns revenue through ads money with that footage and we didn’t. We give an interpretation to images that often iconic. We have a museum function.”
‘I must admit that we are very conscientious dealing with broadcasting rights. Everything should be fine. We have that luxury, because our deadline is not as dire as with the makers of programs that every night on the screen.”
Can you concrete examples of fragments that are unreachable become for tv makers?
‘All the clips from disney movies are too expensive for us to send. The same for international football, also there is no start. The head butt of Zinedine Zidane on the football world cup of 2006 will cost tens of thousands of euros. Often, it’s the usual suspects, but sometimes they are also small, obscure fragments of which the rights to big players turn to sit. And they become unreachable. A large part of thefootagearound Elvis Presley, for example, costs up to 100,000 euro per minute.’
‘The problem is that for many fragments with U.s. rights holders have to negotiate. That do not take into account our scale. We try to them to explain that the Flemish kijkersmarkt is small – not more than seven million people. But their contracts are not adjusted.’
What do you expect from these new copyright laws?
“I fear that nothing in our situation will improve. You can already see how companies like Google, there is plenty of against lobbying. While copyright legislation is really a great soup. Internetactivisten warn now already for the absurd consequences of this new legislation. So is there concern that people are not memes and gifjes more will be able to create and share. For that be screenshots or short clips from iconic movies and tv series. While those things just part of the free internet. So will that legislation, the creativity just restrict instead of protect.
But I would have you as a tv-maker nevertheless does not suffer from?
“We, as television makers, fear, especially that which strengthens for us the prices only go up. That is already going on, the prices in the last years ever climbed. So are we the first generation which has itself made it impossible to have something with his heritage. While the spirit of the internet is that it should be free. So shoot the legislation, its purpose is completely over.’
Should the law then not renew it?
“Yes, I do. She is very out of date and therefore absurd. That applies to the entire copyright law. For tv makers, for example, is the regulations are always based purely on the principles of fiction. Directors and screenwriters are only entitled to have a fee if a program is mounted. However, with programs such as Van Gils & Guests , or Only Elvis continues to exist also a lot of scenariowerk involved. It is absurd, but we must be careful that it doesn’t get any worse.’
Ivo Belet: “The problem of Vanderveken will unfortunately not be addressed’
Also Mep Ivo Belet (CD&V) has the video from Youtube seen. ‘It is outrageous how companies like Google and Facebook against the European copyright law lobbying. They use misinformation to law to obtain drugs, ” he says. ‘While she just very carefully drawn to authors to protect, without that the free internet is compromised. That balance is really in.’According to Prevents the hope is that the law, even before the end of this year, around. “But it is very complex matter,” he says. “The law is also meant to freeriders on the internet, the fare dodgers of the auteursregels, to the address. The problem of tv makers, such as Thomas Vanderveken, will unfortunately not be addressed.’