So, I was surfing on YouTube and then I found this.
Click the start button on both at the same time.

Videos deleted by moderator.
Both videos at minute 0:15 display the copywrite warning stating that the video can only be shown for home use only. Since this is a public forum, it is considered unauthorized.

URLs added by mod.
We can post the URL. Just add http/www. to the following

The original
youtube.com/watch?v=4Le4Rd7GB5A
The copy
youtube.com/watch?v=kGiI1hTgBDo&feature=related

And here's a video that Mark Aspery posted earlier, posted months ago.
Stare the top video at 1:03 and the bottom one at 0:01

And here is one that "really looks the same" again, uploaded 2 days ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1ItHYUvYsM&feature=channel_video_title



Now....... What do you all think of this?

I think it's wrong, there are no references to the smiths who made that work and who made the videos. So, he takes credit for something that is not his.

I agree Joe. that is why some people copywrite their videos and pictures to try and keep others from abusing their efforts and work.

Thank you both for being on the ball!

We are members by choice and it should also be our choice to protect
this fine vehicle of information "I Forge Iron".

people amaze me with their lack of conscience... it is indeed wrong - i dont believe people who do this ACTUALLY benefit in the end though - that skill belongs to somebody else, and in this craft actual skill is all that counts.?

I dont think the guy claims the work as his own... certinly he should give credit and if it is copywrited then its theft regaurdless

Unfortunately if a smith wants to retain credit for a photograph, drawing or movie then a watermark or label within the image appears to be necessary. Personally I don't tend to mind the sharing of images that I produce, but I now place labels within the image so that pictures and other stuff is copied to other web pages, I still get the credit for creating it. Also unfortunately those labels within the images probably make the images less desirable to look at, and less likely to be copied to other web sites, but such is life.

Many of us here freely upload oodles of information - videos, printed material and so on and it it is frequently done without attribution. IMHO this happens without any desire to be seen as the "creator", but in our enthusiasm to offer up information to the collective we bring what we find. Perhaps this can be a point where we consider the implications of violating anothers ownership to an idea or concept - the copywrite if you will.

Violation of copywrite covers the misuse or theft of any original idea. The violation of copywrite is not often clear, hence trials to make determinations about copywrite viloations. Misuse can be defined very loosely and it is so rampant nowadays (since the internet) that actual prosecution is not that great. Einhorn's suggestion of imbedding a mark or identifier is a good one for visual stuff. We can also be supportive of another persons creative work by making full disclosure about where we found the info we put forth ... it's a good thing to give credit where it's due.

I am in possession of an idea for a tool that I cannot bring forward because it is not mine. If I were to get permission from the creator in writing then I could share it with anyone I care to. Often times we read books that have concepts that the author allows to be reprinted - with attribution. By providing the information for your source you can usually cover yourselve from any charge of violating copywrite.

in the caption of the second the poster said he hoped it would inspire people to pick up hammer never claims it is his own. Good catch Joe

in the caption of the second the poster said he hoped it would inspire people to pick up hammer never claims it is his own. Good catch Joe

Francis, I never said that he "claims" it to be his work, but he did post the videos without any references to the smiths, nor mentioned it isn't his work.

And everyone can put a few nice words under a video that isn't his own.

for sure Joe I will post a reply to his video you are right.

Indeed it is theft...

But, why post a video that's almost exactly the same thing? It seems kind of redundant, and putting yourself at risk for no reason. Well, I guess you get views and comments, but for a stolen video it doesn't matter much.

.
The Poster "MalitiaHQ", I believe is not trying to take any credit for it at all - just basically a re-posting as an informative suggestion to a way that things can be done in case.......the world goes to heck etc. Looking at all the other videos they have posted, I don't think blacksmithing is the main subject matter of their thinking.

I know their main subject isn't about blacksmithing. Nonetheless they or he, whatever, has footage that isn't their own. Again, no references to smiths, not mentioning that it isn't their work.
It would bother me if someone copied my videos and uploaded them.

As it also appears now, the sword video has been deleted by MilitiaHQ. So, that says enough I think.

My opinion that people should keep their hands off of each other's work, still remains.

.
Joe - Yes you are right. The bad thing with the web is that anything can be re-used and it can be a very long time before it is actually caught by someone. Personnal ethics goes a long way, but there are some that do not adhear to ethics.

Issue: Video Copyright V. Having Permission
This is just some thoughts about what we are seeing.
The first video was made by Mark Aspery “Jim Austin’s Bearded Viking Axe”
This first video also had copyright protection

The question is, was there permission given to make the second video?
If there was permission given, there is not a problem. We would not be likely to know what went on behind the business end of making the video.

If not (permission was not given), then it is between Mark and the maker of the second video who produced “Blacksmith Shaping A Battleaxe”
FILM SYNOPSIS
The second video was made by (looks like) Militia HQ “Blacksmith Shaping A Battleaxe”
This is about what the FILM SYNOPSIS said about this film (video).
Clearly the maker who produced this video intended for the recognition to go to them.
Here are some Key words and Phrase’s used to show intent by implying the following:
References: #1. “his forge” #2. “Shot live” #3. “This film was shot live following the making of #4. one specific weapon from its beginning to its completion.

In this 40-minute video from the "Steel-edged Weapons" series you will be invited by master swordsmith #4. Richard Kazda to his forge and guided through the half-forgotten world of swordsmithing.

In the film you will witness:
- - - - - - - - - Then, Several paragraphs in-between - - - - - - - - -
The film was shot live following the making of one specific weapon from its beginning to its completion. There is no acting involved, the footage shows only authentic production in a real forge.

The questions that come to my mind is as follows:
1. Did Mark Aspery give permission for this video to be produced?
If so, not a problem. If not! Then it would be between Mark and the
producer.
2. Was Mark also videoing the sword maker master swordsmith
Richard Kazda ?

My opinion is based on the face value on the information we have.
But it most likely not enough information to make an informed and accurate opinion.
We do not know The Who, What, When, How, How many, and Why.
Only the originators know about the details.

But reguardless of the outcome, I think it was still a good observation by TechnicusJoe and proper action taken by Mod 52.

.
Am I wrong about this? the video seems to have just had it's title revised - the video itself seems to be the exact same, clothing and all, no producing, just a title change and a reposting posting by malitia....

Jim Austin made that video. I am not worried about creit given to me about the tooling that he is using that I helped him out with or the tooling that he made by himself after we spent some time together forging, but what he did with that knowledge and understanding is his. Jim Austin made that axe, and he did an excellent job, and that is his property.

I also really noticed MilitiaHQ doesn't like what we're doing. I found some comments from a few IFI members yesterday that said he should remove the videos I showed you guys, but he deleted them all.
This does seem weird to me, as he commented in the video with the sword (which has been deleted) that he has a "respectable channel and never has had problems". I seriously doubt this now, since he hasn't only removed the IFI members' comments, but also other comments around them that had a "negative" suggestion, or whatever you want to call that.

I think it's really suspicious behaviour.

I just tried commenting on the copied video and I keep getting an error. They are both the same video. Why not just give credit to the people who made the video and did the work?

Does anyone know whether that video was made by

Richard Kazda? Or perhaps the forging? Because that is what he has put in the describtion.

Well it looks like they've disabled comments on the video. I am also getting an error when trying to post a comment :)

So, I was surfing on YouTube and then I found this. Click the start button on both at the same time. Videos deleted by moderator. Both videos at minute 0:15 display the copywrite warning stating that the video can only be shown for home use only. Since this is a public forum, it is considered unauthorized. URLs added by mod. We can post the URL. Just add http/www. to the following The original youtube.com/watch?v=4Le4Rd7GB5A The copy youtube.com/watch?v=kGiI1hTgBDo&feature=related

Hello Technicus Joe,

The video in question is of Jim Austin making the axe.

I shot the video for Jim at his forge. I posted the video on my channel (Mark Aspery) and on the Hammer's Blow channel to give Jim advertising. I believe that at the end of the video it states something like...

"If you want a full length dvd of this, contact jim"


There is nothing nefarious about my postings on YouTube - it was seen as a win/win by both Jim and myself - and was by agreement.

My apologies if this has caused offense to anyone.

I see that a third posting on YouTube has been removed by the poster - or the title changed.

Thank you for looking after my interests.

You are doing great work with your own videos - keep it up.