This short video documents a vacation of a couple in what appears to be Adaaran Select Hudhuranfushi in the Maldives. It shows some interesting views of the walkway, plus some scuba footage of puffers, eels, and Gil.
I looked at one web site that was providing some pretty cool videos about marine life. I wanted to see if I would be allowed to embed their videos in my blog, so I read their license. The license said that the videos were only for "temporary, noncommercial, educational use." What a minefield! If I were to make a blog post, does the "temporary" requirement mean that I have to delete it at some point in the future? If I only store on my hard drive for individual use, exactly when would I have to delete it? As far as "educational", would a blog, celebrating the sea, written by a layperson constitute a sufficiently "educational" purpose? As far as "commercial", would a blog with ads constitute commercial use? Is a blog with no ads (but reference to a for-profit enterprise like Blogger/Google) sufficiently non-commercial? Yikes!
Similarly, a lot of video sites provide embed links to a video. It is my understanding that use of the embed code would be covered under fair use, and furthermore I'm making comment on the videos, and using a link provided by the site that goes back to the author's web page. (IANAL). But suppose there were a professional, scuba-diving videographer, whose sole income was based on his or her videos. How many of these links could I use before I start to take away glory from his or her page at the video site? Would use of embed codes on a site with ads constitute commercial use and ultimately detract from his or her income? Do you think I'm crazy to worry?
Flickr has always billed itself as a "photo sharing" website. Every photo had its own web page, which included a prominent button inviting the visitor to "Blog This!" The current FAQ still says, "Flickr and blogs go together like Captain and Tennille". There was a controversy that erupted about ten years ago where professional photographers objected to their work being spread across the web without their permission. Flickr eventually caved and a staffer clarified that the Blog This button was to be seen as a convenience for those users who had made prior arrangements with the photographer over the conditions of use of their work, not as a blanket permission. I remember someone came up with the solution of "You can always contact the photographer." Oi, vey! I'm imagining that videos posted by companies like National Geographic or the Discover Channel are similarly frought with danger.
That being said, I utterly detest actual piracy. Alex Wild, an entomologist who relies on his award-winning photography for income, has repeatedly complained about pesticide companies that take his photos, cut out watermarks, and even misrepresent the species of the ant. Major uncool.
Is there another way? Suppose you gave up and only made use of video links that you had alicense to use. Fortunately, there is such a thing. There are Creative Commons licenses, such as attribution which explicitly give one the right to: