It is happening in a Facebook group, a videographer found out her film was being embeded in another company showing it's their own work. Since the source video is on Vimeo, and in Vimeo, you can replace the video file, I suggested her to replace the original video with something else.. here what she does.

Click on the video embeded on home page. That's just too funny.

Cupid's Films | Shooting Love (http://www.cupidsfilms.com/)

Great suggestion (and I'm glad it was taken). I expect they'll have this link down shortly. It's a shame that they'll probably continue business as usual and few people will know how underhanded they are.

Touché! Love it!

Beautiful!!! Too bad she mumbles the web address of her own site because as it is no one will be able to find her.

Excellent suggestion. :)

She needs to put her website up in the video since you can't understand what she says.

hehe :b, wonder how long it takes before they notice :) I couldn't understand either what she said about the website but after clicking the vimeo logo I got to her vimeo page anyway. I discovered a Belgian videographer some time ago that had a still-motion video in his portfolio, he re-edited it to cut out any reference but I recognized it as I saw it before on the site of the rightful owner. I also wonder if they use this to show the couples they have to provide the same standard afterwards and that they can't, otherwise you would not just shamefully rip from another site and claim it's yours. Just doing one wedding, even for free can provide you with a demo and then at least people know what to expect.

all i see is a sample wedding video, hoo films thing. Did she take down some funny video?

Watermark your work with your URL within the 4:3 TV safe area. You'll minimize these problems and help people find your work. It's a no brainer.

How was this discovered? Does Vimeo show where videos are embedded?
Is that only available with a Pro subscription?

The site is brand new, having been first indexed by Google this month. The home page is incomplete, there's no contact information, etc. This is website under development.

As a web developer, I know we'll quite often use placeholders (images, videos, text) to fill space until the client gets us real content. Now in this case, I'd probably put in some silly YouTube video of kittens or something instead of another videographer's work. Anyway, I'd be more inclined to blame the web developer than the videographer.

I'd be more inclined to blame the web developer than the videographer.

It's a wordpress site...

looks like it's "down"...

The PSA version of the video is working here. Looks like they added a banner with the website to it.

...
As a web developer, I know we'll quite often use placeholders (images, videos, text) to fill space until the client gets us real content. Now in this case, I'd probably put in some silly YouTube video of kittens or something instead of another videographer's work. Anyway, I'd be more inclined to blame the web developer than the videographer.
But would you go live and let the site be accessible from the 'net until it's complete and all the placeholders have been replaced with real content? I've always operated on the principle that the public should never see work that wasn't finished and as close to perfect as I could make it.

all i see is a sample wedding video, hoo films thing. Did she take down some funny video?

For some reason, you have to click the "HD" icon on vimeo player to see that video. Don't know why.

How was this discovered? Does Vimeo show where videos are embedded?
Is that only available with a Pro subscription?

Mark, on Vimeo page, you can click on STAT to see who's embedding the video.

UPDATE

The owner called Shannon. He was very pissed. He said it was his wife testing the size of the video placeholder on the web site before launch. And it wasn't meant to be stealing. He also demand a public announcement from Shannon saying it wasn't intentional...

Wow this guy has thick skin.

The site is dying. It won't handle all the traffic. If you missed it, here's a screen cast someone did earlier today.

Stupid Cupid Films Stole our work! - YouTube

It's a wordpress site...

WordPress is used on 60% of all new websites. Major sites like the New York Times and CNN use WordPress. Large development houses (and small ones like mine) use the WordPress CMS for web development. It's stable, it's mature and it's very customizable.

But would you go live and let the site be accessible from the 'net until it's complete and all the placeholders have been replaced with real content?

If you're doing it the correct way you wouldn't, but I'd bet 75% of web developers simply count on people not stumbling across a new URL.

Anyway, that's all moot because the owner of the site confirmed it was a site under development, but under development by his wife.

Don't know what you are refering to but my point was that if it's a wordpress site, the videographer is most probably also the "web developer", maybe I misunderdstood your earlier comment but didn't understand what the developer had to do with this.

Don't know what you are refering to but my point was that if it's a wordpress site, the videographer is most probably also the "web developer", maybe I misunderdstood your earlier comment but didn't understand what the developer had to do with this.

You are correct in this case that they were making their own site. However in my follow-up post I pointed out that a WordPress site is no longer a guaranteed indicator of a self-created site. Many, many web development companies use WordPress as a content management system - in other words, most websites, small and large, start with WordPress.

He also demand a public announcement from Shannon saying it wasn't intentional...

He is just plain stupid, why would you use a competitors video to testdrive your site when it's live, doesn't he have any own videos for testing purposes? I would have called him immediately if my work was ripped and give him a few hours to remove it, Shannon maybe should have as well but she doesn't owe him anything, he (or his wife) should have known better.

I told her, if there is a public announcement, it should be from him apologize to Shannon.

The wife is now at Hoo Film facebook page to ask for clarification... classy

Okay everyone, I... | Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/hoofilms/posts/114094105405172)

Thanks Taky. Commented from my business FB page.

Regarding the Facebook thread: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." An apt Shakespearean quote. A simple "Sorry, my bad" would have sufficed. :)

While I agree they did a very bad thing, I do believe their excuse.

Teapot.... Tempest... welcome to the web, noob...

Dumb mistake, probably "innocent", but the problem is the initial ATTITUDE - I've had pictures ripped off (eBay), and the jackwagon has the nerve to cuss me out when called on it...

People don't always "get" how public the internet is, how powerful a medium it is, and how quickly IP violations can be uncovered. Like a kid with his or her hands "caught in the cookie jar", the unfortunate first response always seems to be poorly thought out and defensive, sometimes it ends up in an even bigger mess, instead of being addressed and "fixed" thoughtfully and promptly.

Looks to me like the principals in this have resolved it, lesson learned, internet 101...people do silly dumb things every day, put it on the internet, instant 15 seconds of "fame"...!

best thing to do also is have everyone post one general blog on our own // tagging their names owner names associated with it, so people are aware and their names are always associated with stealing someones work
that way SEo always picks their name up

they can always start a new businessname, unless of course they change their real names

Don't know about that, as much as I despise people stealing it's not our task to be judge and jury, maybe it was a mistake, maybe they where just testing. On FB there was one reaction about the embedded video having the logo of the owner at the end, so why go through the trouble of stealing if everyone can see who's video it is? A real thief would have ripped the video and removed the logo at the end, only then you"d know their true intentions.

I see a lot of video's on Vimeo with music of which I"m sure they have not been licensed properly, I also see quite a few Beglian weddingvideographers using Vimeo instead of their own website to promote their video with a song from well known music bands, so technically they are all thieves as well but no-one makes a fuzz about it. Maybe we should start blogging about that and let them prove they are innocent in order to remove the blogpost again.

Don't know about that, as much as I despise people stealing it's not our task to be judge and jury, maybe it was a mistake, maybe they where just testing. On FB there was one reaction about the embedded video having the logo of the owner at the end, so why go through the trouble of stealing if everyone can see who's video it is? A real thief would have ripped the video and removed the logo at the end, only then you"d know their true intentions.

I see a lot of video's on Vimeo with music of which I"m sure they have not been licensed properly, I also see quite a few Beglian weddingvideographers using Vimeo instead of their own website to promote their video with a song from well known music bands, so technically they are all thieves as well but no-one makes a fuzz about it. Maybe we should start blogging about that and let them prove they are innocent in order to remove the blogpost again.

Still, one would expect a videography firm that was a going concern would have plenty of their own work to use as placeholders without having to grab something off of Vimeo. Something is fishy with their excuse.

Not suggesting that one should become a self-appointed copyright vigilante but it's in the self-interest of every creative professional to make a big deal out of protecting one's work and other's works by extension.. After all, the rights to one's work that one possesses is what gives that work ANY economic value and not making a big deal over the use of unlicensed music ultimately will lead to loss of any value one might obtain from marketing one's own work as it will become fair game to use anything one wishes for any purpose one wants whether you own the rights to it or not..

it's in the self-interest of every creative professional to make a big deal out of protecting one's work and other's works by extension..

That was my point, a lot of people are making a big deal out of one videographer using another ones work without permission, while there are a lot of Vimeo wedding videos out there that are used to promote a business with unlicensed music and nobody seems to care, that's the part that annoys me, sure I don't have any "hard" proof but whenever I hear a queen or u2 song I can't imagine a simple wedding videographer paying the rights to use that online, I once asked the price to play 15 seconds that was to be used for a trailer and projected onto a cinemascreen of a U2 song at a business event, EMI told me it was at least 15.000 euro...

I agree with Noa. We've got a dozen or more videographers on Facebook and here all up in arms over this, but the "victim" in this case is using popular copyright music in her videos posted on Facebook. Sure, they're lesser-known songs, but I recognize a few (from Mighty Kate and Lovelite.) I'm fairly certain she didn't license those songs. While she's not passing them off as her own, she certainly is profiting from their use. Do we go all "vigilante" on her and report those videos to the artists and/or publishers?

Do we go all "vigilante" on her and report those videos to the artists and/or publishers?

If that would be the case we should, it is the right thing to do when you find out someone has stolen the work from another artist and is using it without their permission. Does anyone has a facebook account with lots of friends so we can ask everyone to contact her to ask to remove the concerned video's? Maybe whoever has a blog should start blogging about it so everyone knows she is a thieve.
In the meantime I will start up a new topic here so we can follow up whats' going on.

Well, ok, maybe not, but IF she is using not licensed music, what's the difference between stealing a video and stealing music?

Youtube uses a "content id" system which recognises the used music in video's. This content id system contacts, messages the copyrightowners about the online use of their produced music. These content owners can take the video down or leave them up.
If you use a copyrighted musicpiece in a video, you're notified who the artist, owns it and states what you're allowed to do or don't: do nothing, remove it,.... So Youtube acts as copyright-watchdog. And this system will allow more music to be put online in the future (according to google-youtube managers).

The ads which appear in videos with copyrighted music are revenues for copyrightowners. That's why there are no ads in video's which contains not-copyrighted music.

So Youtube acts as copyright-watchdog.

Your post seems to suggest that you can use copyright material without permission, and if YouTube doesn't cry foul, everything is ok.

The system YouTube has put in place is simply a private company's attempt to find an amicable solution to a wide-spread problem. It's not a litmus test to determine if anyone rights have been violated.

Besides, there are an infinite number of ways to put video online without using YouTube.

As I mentioned in a previous post - copyright owners are already using technology to scour the internet for unlicensed use of their music and sending invoices. One of my former clients got a $1,000 invoice for such use.

The website now has a message from the site owner saying sorry - however, they keep mentioning in capitals it was ONLY USED AS A PLACEHOLDER - I fail to see how this makes it ok. We only stole your work and presented it as our own until we had something of ours to show instead?

Personally I loved how the owner switched the material and handled it.

ah whatever, time to move on, since no-one even responds about the supposedly unlicensed use of music thing I don't see why we should continue to drag this along, just close the thread and start filming again.

There is a difference in this situation. It's plagiarism.

Using music or using a video without the owner's permission is exactly the same for me.

No.. there is a big difference.

In this situation, it is using someone else entire piece of work showing as it's their own work. It's not a music licensing issue.

Similarly, if a college student submitted a thesis using word by word copying from other paper. That's plagiarism, not a copyright/licensing issue. If he/she quotes from other paper and citing the source, that's the right way to do. That student doesn't need a license nor permission from the original author.

If he/she quotes from other paper and citing the source, that's the right way to do.

Well, they did... At the end of the embedded video there was a logo from the actual owner, so then it's all ok, no?

No, it's not okay. I don't remember seeing the original video has watermark or logo on it. Even if there is a logo, it isn't being "cited" by the offending party. Vimeo makes it worst as at the end it shows 3 more videos from Shannon.

They embedded the video, this you know because the owner replaced the original video with her message which then showed up on cupid's site, every video the owner has online has her logo very big at the end..., so contrary what many say here and based on the fact that you clearly could see who made the video I do believe now it was NOT the intention to do wrong, otherwise you would rip the video and remove the logo, only then you could speak of "stealing".
If you want to believe otherwise, that's ok too.

It doesn't matter if there's a logo or not. It's the intention of Cupid's Film to use someone else's work on their web site making it like it's one of theirs. That's what it calls plagiarism. It's not exactly the same as using copyrighted music in a production, which in fact, both are wrong.

Ok, you are right and I was wrong, end of discussion.

It's not like that... just some healthy harmless rational discussion. :) and I was wrong using the word "stealing" in the thread title too. It's too strong of a word :)

best thing to do also is have everyone post one general blog on our own // tagging their names owner names associated with it, so people are aware and their names are always associated with stealing someones work
that way SEo always picks their name up


Hope you have a good lawyer who works cheap if you intend on doing that... Absolutely actionable. A good lawyer would see you in court over "besmirching" (not a legal term) the reputation of their client.

And remember, in court it isn't whether you are right or wrong, it's whether you have the legal resources (ie. CASH to PAY for your legal team) to influence the judge that you are right... or at least MORE right than the other party.

It doesn't matter if there's a logo or not. It's the intention of Cupid's Film to use someone else's work on their web site making it like it's one of theirs. Actually, it was the intention of Cupid films to develop their website and see some kind of wedding video occupying the space until they finished the site and put their own in it's place.

You're right, however, there is a big difference between what happened on the Cupid Films website and the wholesale disregard of copyright law in the practice of using popular music in wedding videos: the former is simply in poor taste, while the latter is blatently illegal and exposes the production company to huge fines and potential lawsuits.