Talk:Clipgenerator

The journal "MMR" in which the video messages created with the "clip generator" are discussed, seems to be a reputable journal on German law (ISSN 1434-596X)

http://www.beck-shop.de/productview.aspx?product=1584&catalog=1

This indicates a certain popularity and significance of the product. 93.83.21.202 (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be legitimate they would surely need to pay royalties to the songs owner, but as they claim it is free I cannot see how this could be the case.

The guys behind this have been spamming forums with articles: For example: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1522380 http://www.copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/topic499.htm http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=12871.0

.... and from this Wiki article – it looks like they got you too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.37.65 (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases the clips are adfunded. The application is only free for the end-user, not for companies which integrate the Clipgenerator as a subsystem on their websites for instance. So, the creation of clips is for free but not the commercial utilisation of the tool itself. The royalties are mainly paid in form of comissions to the publishers and labels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.143.119.50 (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the arcticle as well as this discussion. In my opinion the article is neither advertisement nor spam. As far as I understood the Wiki-guidelines, describing a company or their products / services does not automatically disqualify an article. The arcticles about Microsoft and Google are legitimate too... Fact is that the service is rather new in terms of technology and in terms of the business model. From what I understand the company does pay royalties to the licence owners of the music - including the artists. The money either comes from advertisement (free for the user but of cause then not free for the advertising company) or the user has to pay a premium to have the clip ad-free. I will try to find some external sources to confirm the business model. The article could then be extended and enhanced in this area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jungdrache70 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion initiated of an unknown writer complaining about spamin referring to 3 links is illegitimate. It is absolute standard to post general copyright-information referring to current legal issues and infringements of rights sued by law into these forums for discussion. To qualify one (!) legal explanation and exposé of an honorable copyright lawyer - well reputed in Europe f.e. in UK, Spain, etc - as "spam" is absolutely incomprehensable. The Clipgenerator technology seems to avoid all current legal problems accuring alongside with usergenerated content (especially with video format) and is of great general interest to any platform, social community or website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.54.126 (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Clipgenerator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]