Periscope films

[jcfx]

Yes they may own the medium on which the documentary is displayed. That, however, doesn't mean they own the copyright. Unless Shell transferred the copyright to Periscope, the latter doesn't have any legal rights to the film. In fact, if Shell's copyright still exists on the original they could sue Periscope for infringement. It's no different than when you purchase software for your computer. You own the medium on which a copy of the software exists. You do not own the software.

While on the subject of copyrights, the "Steam Channel" posts a lot of video on Youtube, some of which was shot at private clubs. "Steam Channel" claims copyrights on said videos, which in the case of video shot on private property without the formal consent of the individuals seen in the videos, is spurious. In fact, a good lawyer would cite invasion of privacy, given that some of the individuals in the videos may not have known their activities were being recorded and subsequently published for profit.

Does it really matter ? I'm just glad that old industrial films are preserved and are accessible.
I'll leave the ownership rights up to their respective lawyers.

[John Hasler]

>Yes they may own the medium on which the documentary is displayed.

To clarify, when you view one of their films on Youtube the medium on which it is displayed is your computer, which you own. What you are looking at is a copy which you made with their permission. If they own a copyright on the item you would infringe it were you to make copies of that copy, but that copy is yours. If the item is in the public domain you can anything you wish with it.

> You own the medium on which a copy of the software exists. You do not own the software.

Under copyright law a copy is a tangible object. The law grants the author a transferable monopoly on the creation of copies but once copies have been created they are ordinary physical property, outside the jurisdiction of copyright law. Thus you own the copy of the software that exists on your hard disk and therefor *do* own the software in that sense. Of course you don't own the copyright, but that just means that you can't go around selling copies without risk of being sued. US copyright law explicitly says that you can use software you own a copy of, including the making of such copies as are necessary to use it.

> While on the subject of copyrights, the "Steam Channel" posts a lot of video on Youtube,
> some of which was shot at private clubs. "Steam Channel" claims copyrights on said videos,
> which in the case of video shot on private property without the formal consent of the individuals
> seen in the videos, is spurious.

They still own the copyright despite the fact that they may have committed various torts in the process of creating the work.

[spro]

You guys are more smart. Realize this link , of any caliber is more than not seeing it.