Should I feel flattered of violated?

Recently a new feature was added to Councilman Knode's web site). That feature was actually the video I shot of the Budget Committee meeting of 02/22/07. As that video was shot by me and originally appeared on The Overland Examiner it is copyrighted material. That particular video was poor in quality in my opinion (lens issue I believe). Also, Councilman Knode had his own camera setup at that meeting (but chose to use my video instead of his own). I guess I should be flattered.

I actually have no issue with Councilman Knode or anyone else using my material. As the Creative Commons License (in the footer section at the bottom of this web site) clearly states, people are free to use my material so long as they do not modify it, they attribute the work and they do not use it for commercial purposes. When using content from this site for non-commercial purposes all someone needs to do is reference that it originally came from John Moyle (or Overland Sailor) at The Overland Examiner and link back to the article it originally appear in (in this case: here). This was not done on Councilman Knode's site.

Originally I emailed and called Councilman Knode so we could correct this issue. I pointed out that all he needed to do to use that video on his site without violating my Copyright would be to attribute the work by adding that the video was copyright John Moyle of The Overland Examiner and provide a link to where it first appeared (here). However, considering the fact that Councilman Knode never calls me back when I call and he hasn't responded to email from me in months I decided to take a proactive approach to this violation of my rights. I pulled the video from Google video and re-posted it without the ability to embed it into a web site (as you might imagine, I have yet to hear from Councilman Knode on this issue). I still have no issue with Councilman Knode using that video if he would simply respect my copyright by attributing the work and linking back to where it originally appeared.

Councilman Knode's response to this situation is to post the following on his site in place of the video:

Sorry,

But the GOOGLE LINK to this previously uploaded video has been modified by complaining parties in order to prevent the viewing of the public February 22nd 2007 Budget Committee Meeting as previously available at this public link.

(...we must have hit a nerve or two....)

We continue to keep you informed.....

The above message, though it appears in the window the video previously appeared in on Councilman Knode's web site is not a message from Google. This statement completely mischaracterizes the situation as well. The public is not prevented from viewing this video (as it can be seen here). The change in hosting of the video is simply to prevent people like Councilman Knode for violating my Copyright and using the video without properly attributing it. For your review, the original article I wrote about the Budget Committee meeting of 02/22/07 where this video was originally linked can be seen here.

This appears to be yet another example of how little regard Councilman Knode and others have for the law and the rights of others. Something I certainly will remember on April 3rd.