Lonman wrote:
I'm sure Pillsbury doesn't give a rip if I made cookies from their package to sell - but that isn't the issue. To say something is not homemade just because he didn't actually record the instrumental & write the words is silly. He bought the instrumental & totally MADE the graphics to sync up with the song in the proper places. THAT IS homemade!
I see. So I can take an Eagles song I found online, add it to a video of dogs copulating from YouTube (I'm sure there's one there- seems to have everything, from what I'm told), and put it on some TV channel that would have it as a dog food commercial- and have absolutely no worries about litigation. It's homemade, because I combined the two, therefore it is my creation.
Got it.
At this point, YouTube is considered akin to television- public media. One cannot use others' creations there without expecting to require permissions from the creators. YouTube's reasoning was valid.
NO... actually, you are confusing the issues... Homemade IS made at home... with WHATEVER you gathered to make it EVEN IF some or all of the parts where created by others. THAT (as Lon rightfully stated earlier) IS homemade. HOMEMADE has nothing to do with legal or not legal... The parts that you use to make something HOMEMADE determine whether it is legal or not. Your creations where you did all the music and lyrics and everything is HOMEMADE and LEGAL. In the case of the original post... the person publicly posted works that they did not have the correct permissions to post... so their HOMEMADE creations were NOT LEGAL and therefore blocked. Legality and Homemade are not mutually exclusive!