Activist Group Uses DMCA To Take Down Video Exposing Its Fake Concerned Citizens
from the dmca-abuse? dept
We've definitely seen cases where activist groups, upset with what people were saying about them, used the DMCA abusively to remove content that they had no real say over. However, this latest story is a bit strange. Before we get to it, though, I'm going to ask, politely, that the comments stick to the copyright issues at hand, rather than the political issues... Apparently, a group called The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) put together a video of "ordinary people" worrying about the impact of gay marriage being allowed. It turns out that everyone in the video is an actor, and the fact that they're "fake" received plenty of attention earlier this week, including being shown on the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC, which included clips of the audition tapes of the actors. The clip of the MSNBC segment was then put on YouTube. And here's where the copyright questions come in... the video was of the MSNBC segment, but NOM put in a DMCA takedown request, which YouTube obeyed.That raises all sorts of questions... MSNBC reporting on the videos is almost certainly fair use of NOM's videos. But, it was someone else who uploaded the MSNBC clip to YouTube. MSNBC is still running the clip on its own site -- but, if anyone had any sort of DMCA claim on the video, one would think it would be MSNBC... not NOM. So, then, is NOM abusing the DMCA takedown process, in demanding an entire video (most of which is not its content) be taken down? Seems like you (or, say, the EFF) could make a pretty strong case for that...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, takedown
Companies: msnbc, nom, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
OMNOMNOM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Respectfully?
(thats lolcat speak for 'ok, I wont discuss the political message')
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maddow had a field day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maddow had a field day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Et tu, youtube?
Here's what I don't get. Why doesn't google press charges against these, essentially perjured, take downs? How the hell hard is it to understand that advocating for your users (at least when they're clearly in the right) is job number frakin' one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Et tu, youtube?
I'm not a lawyer, but it also seems possible to me that such actions could pose a risk to YouTube's safe harbor status. With ongoing lawsuits against them, they don't want to risk losing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The stories these actors are telling..."
The commercial and some thoughts pertaining to copyright can be found at:
http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/04/anti-gay-marriage-group-sends-dmca.html
As for who owns what regarding the commercial and the auditions, the best I can do is note that NOM, its ad agency and the actors (in the commercial and in the auditions) may each hold some piece of the copyright "action". Of course, this depends upon the contracts between the actors/auditioners and the ad agency, and the contract between the ad agency and NOM.
BTW, it is quite commonplace for ad agencies to retain casting companies to conduct auditions from which the eventual participants in a commercial are selected. In this case you can add the casting company to the above mix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why NOM filed
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/04/is-nom-worried-about-being-sued-by.html
Not sure what to make of it, myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i find it entertaining..
Gay marriage??
They are jealous that the GUYS look better then their Husband??
1 less Guy/gal to hit/screw/marry on??
OTHERS souls??
If they THINK the other person is going to HELL?? is it of YOUR OWN concern?? dO YOU think THAT THEIR incongruity IS GOING TO INVOLVE you AND FORCE YOU into hell??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NOM also removing mashups from users
The "It's Raining Men" mashup has been removed, much to my disappointment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube needs to change policy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
toast. omnomnom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The copyright question, already
All politics and the fact that the takedown process is faulty aside, what's controversial with the copyright question here? Someone requested a takedown of a video they held a copyright interest in.
NOW has a video they likely hold copyright to. MSNBC copys, transmits and distributes (parts) of it in its own video. Someone else copys and distributes the MSNBC copy (which contains the NOW video.) Now says 'hey that video contains (parts) of my copyrighted video, take it down.'
Unless the youTuber claims fair use, (or maybe possibly some marginal "too short to constitute an infringement" claim) it seems like a pretty clear infringement.
You're not suggesting that the fact that MSNBC's use was excused has any bearing on the YouTuber's use, are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]