I wonder just what Microsoft and IMAX might do if they were in the know about several of the most popular "dreams". Just because these "dream authors" are taking a small loop or fragment of the overall work and encoding it to a different medium and distribution, doesn't mean that they havent violated copyrights. Take many of the recent viacom / youtube issues. Many popular TV and movie clips, previews and fragments were ordered removed based on copyrights held by viacom, youtube complied rather than face the ugliness and likely negative financial reprocussions of the likes of the MPAA, RIAA, etc.
Several of the currently available "dreams", do in fact violate copyrights, in that they were "reauthored" and "displyed for public use and or showing".
Just because a video or video loop is made available on the web, be it as a sample or demonstration of an idea or technology. This doesn't remove nor negate the original authors copyright holding. It would seem as a rule of thumb that any of the "dreams" made publicly available here would need to have secured and submit proof thereof, a written release to redustribute the work, should the work be under copyright. If the work is not under copyright then the submitting party / "author" should attest to this fact when making the submission.
While I am a huge fan of this product and have even paid for the premium "dream", I don't think it is fair to the copyright holders, nor the "dream" community to have this issue unresolved and "grey". Some of the higher quality submissions that have been submitted that are on par with the first premium "dream" have been swatted down for "copyright violation", without verification that would have entitled the "dream" author to have rights to reuse / redistribute the content. Meanwhile, other "dreams" are clearly questionable on the same grounds are left intact and "approved". Seems that there is quite a bit of "selective" enforcement of copyrights.
Please Stardock, define this for the community.
Regards,
d: