LATELY -- compared to web radio app station playlists, on-demand ad-supported streaming with custom playlists seem to be preferred, since services such as YouTube and Spotify have grown more. Among the on-demand streaming player giants, July and March Billboard reports by Cherie Hu and Ed Christman suggest Apple Music and Spotify significantly pulled ahead with their advertising/subscription-based service model. Oftentimes, subscribing allows for unlocking enhanced features of music applications and stopping advertising from interrupting the music experience.
This isn't official advice from a lawyer, but after reading articles/reports about varying court decisions, it doesn't take a lawyer to see that loosely-enforced copyright laws regarding "fair use" are clear as mud. Supposedly, it is legal to photograph and film people without their permission, but only as long as they aren't the sole focus of the content. Ultimately, legality becomes an issue when the intentions and effects/results of content use cause damages or losses to the rightsholder(s). Someone else's copyright image(s) or exhibits are not the main part of this article. The factual captions below the images attempt to demonstrate various ways to (without needing permission) fairly use copyright images and other content for your articles.
In report writing, it is generally understood that each sentence, paragraph, and/or claim should be looked at individually and written credibly as a fact. For example, explicit permission is not required to fairly and simply state the fact that author Jane Friedman, and creator of article, A Writer’s Guide to Permissions and Fair Use, said, “you have to consider, for each use, whether or not it’s necessary to seek explicit, legal permission from the work’s creator or owner,” however; the writer’s guide and author, were still referenced/stated in "good faith" and credited. An italicized note said, “Remember that crediting the source does not remove the obligation to seek permission.” When something might not fall into the fair-use category, then experts agree to seek permission(s).
Is the content being stated as a fact? Titles, names, companies, and places are facts. When presented, interpreted, and credited, things other people said and their images also become stated facts for others to include and further analyze. Scribbling your name on someone else's work (claiming it’s yours) is lying, illegal, and unfair. Legal fair use is to identify/reference someone else and their work (attribution) and then (with your name) add more/do extra work to interpret it (commentary/criticism and/or parody of copyright material for a limited and transformative purpose).
Try to find examples of how others widely use the same content or same type of content. Businesses have different stances, however; since it can be difficult and expensive to follow up every case, as long as an instance doesn't become the company's biggest problem, there probably won’t be a lawsuit filed, however; by fairly crediting sources, and being a team player, it is easier to earn industry respect. The Associated Press said, "You are solely responsible for determining whether or not "fair use" or similar doctrines apply in various jurisdictions and/or whether any permissions, licenses, clearances and/or releases are required in connection with any proposed use of the Content. If You are unsure, You are responsible for contacting competent legal counsel." Do not source from uncredited photos/media or steal paid stock photo content. Some free stock photos that usually do not require attribution are available on sites such as Pexels and MorgueFile. Also visit the Creative Commons search page for seemingly limitless amounts of more free content, often with no attribution requirements from CC image sites like Pixabay, ClipSafari, and Flickr.
Links updated: 2020-01-02
For years, many have been wondering if it is really that important for a UPC's company prefix to match the company of the manufacturer. Online, there is so much misinformation, that it is difficult to determine who is telling the truth. While some have had negative experiences with non-direct GS1 UPC codes, it isn't as easy to determine the actual GS1 legitimacy of the codes, as most unhappy UPC code purchasers tend to buy large volumes from suppliers on eBay, however; usually the reason they are unhappy is because the codes purchased do not actually belong to a designated GS1 UPC company prefix/range.
Some companies stand by their UPC codes, saying that codes purchased from them, "can be used on Amazon, eBay, iTunes, and more." They even say that the codes are GS1-Verified, and that the company offers a, "money back guarantee within 30 days." The company prefix would register as something other than the official company name. Try searching for UPCs of products around the home or office using GS1's official GTIN search tool, available at: http://gepir.gs1.org/index.php/search-by-gtin.
Further research shows that while many commercial product UPC company prefixes do match the manufacturer name, however; some exceptions to that fact are with Walmart's generic stationery, in which the company prefix points to a company written completely in Chinese. Sometimes different UPCs are given to products based on the owner at the time or the distributor, as many product UPCs at Dollar Tree have Dollar Tree company prefixes, regardless of the brand being Jot, Greenbrier International, Inc. (in the US), or DTSC Imports (in Canada). With music, oftentimes a large company owns UPCs for countless albums. While discounted barcodes might lack some of the authenticity of direct GS1 UPCs, there is no guarantee of needing every product UPC to be a direct GS1 code. When the situation happens where a direct GS1 UPC code with an official company prefix is needed, such a code can be purchased.
Stepping beyond "just-in-time" inventory with a trend growing in the independent webstore market. The buzz words: "Dropshipping," and "Remote Reselling." Unleashing another level of business flexibility, resellers, no longer required to purchase large quantities in order to sell products, simply negotiate contracts with their suppliers to handle the inventory management for them. This networked strategy brings the customer (sale) one step closer to completing the supply chain, as they are connected to the supplier through the remote reselling/dropshipping process. For such orders, and for custom products, we inform our customers that deliveries can take several extra days to arrive.
How does it work? When a reseller sells a supplier's product, they forward that sales invoice to the supplier to fulfill the shipping request. As a standard procedure, generally after receiving a reseller invoice, and once products are shipped (hopefully on the same or next business day), then the reseller secures their commission earnings and pays the rest back to the supplier. Contract negotiation topics include: 1) commission percentage, 2) potential order processing/shipping delays, 3) returns policy (if allowed), 4) lifetime of contract, and 5) procedures for updating/maintaining store products.
At Ascendents.net, Inc., it is important that we actually can communicate with the people and businesses in our supplier network. Our reputation, income, and ability to grow business depends on seamless support/commitment from our dropshippers. Read more about "Dropshipping" at BigCommerce and ShopFactory.