Echo Hub

to the glory of the Lord. Amen!?

You would think that anyone intelligent enough to re-enact something with such attention to detail, they could be troubled to come up with something original!

Yeah, it does seem like quite a lot of work to avoid $15 – If that was the motive. One possibility is that this person was trying to make himself the storyteller/spokesperson, in order to reach his audience. Which… doesn’t make this any less wrong.

I mentioned this in an earlier post, but I think it’s time Christian media professionals (ok, dabblers too) took a hard look at what intellectual property and fair use mean.

Often I see this sort of thing from people who are doing media but have not had a formal education in that area – people who have natural talent, and have picked the up the skills on their own. Learning on one’s own is a great and well-worn path to take, but avoids some of the harder academic discussions on fair use, attribution, and what constitutes an original idea.

Even for seasoned media pros the temptation is always there – “no one will notice this little clip in that layered composition”.

I like that the copied version is shorter. The original is way too long for my taste. I also think the copied version is too long, but at least, it is shorter.

I noticed no one had commented on YouTube yet. It’d be interesting to hear both sides of the story. Does the “guy on staff” know it’s creating a stir?

I am assuming that Igniter didn’t know about this, since Collide+Igniter are closely aligned. However, I do know of an example where our church did a re-make of a Lifechurch.tv skit, in which two people have a “co-habitation cermony.” There were a few reasons we chose to do this, however the main one was so that our pastor, who has currency with our congregation, would be in the video as the person “co-habiting” the couple. We did, however, speak with lifechurch.tv to see if this was ok with them, and they gave their blessing.

I agree that the ends do not just justify the means, and that we need to be respectful of the work of others in all forms of media.

Pat

Thanks, for your comments, guys.

I haven’t tried to contact the guy to get his side of the story yet, but I’ve given it some thought. Honestly, I don’t think there is anything he could tell me that would change my opinion that it is stealing. I understand the desire of a church leader to leverage his credibility with his audience by inserting himself into a video or a skit, really, I do. BUT, if a church leader has to steal in order to do that, he or she loses his or her credibility with those who know what really happened.

Why not contact the guy?

Keeping ourselves accountable as Christians can’t be a bad thing.

It might save him from doing it again.

It would be somewhat embarrassing though.

God might make something cool of it in the end.

this is all very interesting… Just noticed Igniters new product “igniter Tracks”. Awesome is the Lord Most High is very similar to some stuff I have seen at the Orange Conference, and The Catalyst Conference.

Is there an implication in there somewhere, Jonathan? My hope is that you aren’t equating Igniter’s release of a product similar in functionality to someone else’s product with someone copying a video word for word and prop for prop. A lot of companies make tennis shoes, but none of those companies claim to have invented the tennis shoe. They can be creative without stealing. However, making an exact replica of the Air Jordan and calling it the Fly Borden is different, right?

I’m implying that they are making a cheaper version of better quality stuff I have seen. I can’t imply much because I have only seen one particular video under the new product line. But that video was very similar in style, and motion to a lyric treatment created for the Orange Conference. obviously there are not many “new” ideas in the media world, but its pretty much a direct rip off

I know what Jonathan is talking about. I saw the same videos at Orange Conference and at bigstuf in daytona this summer. It does seem like a rip off and are very similar to what I saw. I know there are a bunch of examples in the media of people that copy each other, but under these circumstances it seems kind of weak to copy someone else so obviously.

Jonathan and Chris,

Your uses of the words “copy” and “rip off” reminded me that I wanted to re-post the link that got this whole conversation rolling last week: http://motionographer.com/2007/10/11/sony-vs-kozyndan-update/

Unfortunately, none of the Igniter guys can confirm any similarities in Igniter Tracks and the media used Orange and BigStuf because they weren’t there and thus haven’t seen it.

I tried to leave a comment on his youtube, but it has never shown up. I wonder if he has comments blocked. I just asked for him to check this website and give opinion, I didn’t make any negative statements.

In the world of music, we have something called a mechanical license that allows one person to record and distribute a piece of music that was authored by someone else which was previously recorded and released by someone. (That’s not the greatest definition of a mechanical license, but I think you know what I’m talking about.) If I recall correctly, if the music being recorded was previously released, a mechanical license is compulsory — which I think means the copyright holder must accept royalty payments and give permission to the new artist. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

Does such a thing exist in the world of video? If not, is there a reason why not? Distribution takes place on the same type of media these days.

Copyright stuff is way over my head, Jonathan, but I don’t think a mechanical license exists in the world of video. For instance, I love the movie “Almost Famous,” but I don’t think I can shoot and release a remake. Although it would be funny if Cameron Crowe was legally compelled to let me.

Should such a thing exist? I’m not sure. In the music world, covering songs is an accepted practice. In the video world, however, it’s just not done. Remaking something without rights is still stealing, as far as I understand it.

I think that we are missing a big part of the conversation here. I realize that I am coming into it a little late, but here is my 2 cents.

We as church staff, or Americans are busy people. It is definitely easier and less time consuming to copy other people’s creativity. Someone asks above “why would someone go through the time and effort to memorize someone else’s work” my answer to that is it is just easier. If a video has made it onto Igniter then there is even little chance for failure when making the video. He knows it will work. I can tell you that I have from time to time used stuff from very respected pastors around the world. Not only quotes, but concepts and sermons. I would not however rip one word for word. I believe that people like Rob Bell, Craig Groeschel, and Billy Graham have a lot of relevant things to say and I will use their ideas.

The main thing that I have learned when it comes to this subject is you as church leader need to be connected with the Holy Spirit. If you are then you do not NEED to read the latest idea for a series on lifechurch.tv or subscribe to Rob Bells podcast to figure out what you will be doing next. (Which I do, not to steal, but to learn) Your connection with the Creator of the universe, who created something from nothing, which no one has ever done since, will be more than enough.

Thanks for reading the whole post.

I love you…

Maybe you should call fire down from heaven on them.

[...] talked before about the fine line between stealing and creativity (here and here), but I wanted to share this egregious violation of intellectual property law and common decency. [...]