You sought attention, and thereby invited opinions and criticism; you should be happy to get what you wanted... so few people do.
You are the one who intentionally posted a link to your own video, actively seeking attention, and seeking views for your video, and this kind of action should reasonably be expected to be answered with a wide range of critiques and opinions.
You wanted views and attention; now you're getting it.
You should be happy.
You didn't post your link in the dark; you posted it on a very busy and public forum, where we debate, critique, and share our opinions.
So, what a surprise, you invited critiques and opinions, and now you're getting critiques and opinions.
Again, you should be happy.
It would seem silly to invite critiques and opinions, and then act upset when you get them.
You wanted attention for your video, and you're getting it.
You should be happy.
In fact, you should thank me for taking the time to view your video.
My particular critique - it's all about ethics and prudence:
As this is a place where we share opinions, and you actively posted here to get views and opinions, I am sharing my opinions... a very normal and expected thing here.
I am sharing my particular opinion that although you can certainly do whatever you like, I am recommending that OTHER CHRISTIANS do not follow this example for creation and publication of derivative works.
Why?
1. A Christian should be above reproach, and do his very best to keep all things legal and above-board at all times... and although you could have EASILY just ASKED Bart Ehrman for permission to use HIS CONTENT, you never bothered to do so, and you just TOOK his content.
Even if you claim "fair use" as a LEGAL PROTECTION, that does nothing to alleviate the ETHICAL ISSUE that you simply TOOK someone else's content without permission, KNOWINGLY, and INTENTIONALLY, when you could have, and should have, sought that permission.
2. Bart Ehrman certainly does OWN the content on his OWN WEBSITES, and the manner in which he chooses to view and enforce this will be detailed in his terms of use.
There is no question that Bart Ehrman, not Jonathon Sheffield, owns the content on the Bart Ehrman sites... with any particulars and exceptions governed by terms of use.
3. When you contend that "I'm sure Ehrman knew what I was doing", that is just a ridiculous attempt at justification, when all you had to do was ask him for official permission.
A. You had no way to know exactly what was in Ehrman's head regarding your use of his content, unless he opened his mouth, and very specifically told you.
B. Unless you read minds, you have no way to know you had permission unless he specifically gave you permission.
C. This is just your justification for not getting proper permission.
This is like saying, "i borrowed my neighbor's car yesterday, and he didn't say anything, so I must have permission."
- No
- Maybe your neighbor isn't aware you took his car
- Maybe your neighbor is aware, but he's being a nice guy, and just hoping you won't do it again.
- We could think of dozens of similar reasons.
4. And so what about "Fair Use"... can't you just take other people's content and use it for your own purposes, as long as you claim it's parody or education?
No.
It isn't that simple.
A. Fair Use is fairly vague and nebulous, and it's contested in court continually.
B. People LOSE Fair Use lawsuits all the time.
C. If sued, you end up in a long battle over semantics, the exact terms and definitions regarding fair use, and what they "might" mean, and what precisely you did and did not do in your derivative work, and how you used it... it's not at all a simple or clear cut issue.
D. When creating derivative works, most people with any sense either acquire legal permission in writing to use other people's content, or they use other people's content in VERY SMALL AMOUNTS.... you did neither.
Conclusion:
1. You posted your video here seeking attention, and thus, inherently, inviting critiques and opinions.
2. All I did was acquiesce to your wishes, and view the content, and give my opinions.
I gave my opinion that it would be wise, and prudent, for other Christians to NOT follow your example of content creation and publication, in that they should seek legal permission before using another person's content.
3. Being a bit cautious and prudent in this matter both protects a person legally, and protects a person ethically, as they can't be accused of doing anything unethical which might ruin their Christian testimony. Therefore, I can only caution any readers to be very cautious, and circumspect, in their content creation.
I was talking about the 2-page debate on why and how the link wouldn't work...