The Rest Of The Story: Fair Use School Created To Respond To YouTube's Questionable Copyright School

from the fair-use-tube dept

Tue, Jul 12th 2011 1:12am — Mike Masnick

Back in April, we were pretty surprised to see YouTube launch a "copyright school", with a video and quiz that seemed woefully limited, and at times, misleading -- especially on fair use. Google has traditionally been pretty good on copyright issues, so it was unexpected that it would put out one of those kinds of propaganda videos, especially one that implied fair use was something you shouldn't bother with at all, and that all videos should be entirely new and original. Public Knowledge responded by offering up $1,000 for whoever could create a better video.

The winner has been announced, and it's Patrick McKay for his "Fair Use School," that takes the same basic style and makes a video about fair use, and which explains YouTube's DMCA counternotice setup: Of course, it's fair to say that McKay (admittedly) simplifies things a bit in saying what is "probably" fair use, which is a big part of the problem. Since fair use isn't a hard set of rules, but rather basically whatever judges decide fair use is, it's sometimes difficult to assume what is and what is not fair use.

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, education, fair use, videos, youtube
Companies: google

47 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 2:23am

it was unexpected that it would put out one of those kinds of propaganda videos

But definitely not unexpected that Public Knowledge would put out an exponentially more propagandistic video.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 2:32am

I can't stand to listen to his voice. I understand you want a strawman video that's a counter to another strawman video, but please have someone else besides a nasally little teen with a frog in his throat record it.

Please?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xenomancer (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 3:17am

Re:
but... But... COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS7nqwGt4-I
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xenomancer (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 3:18am

Re:
but... But... COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS7nqwGt4-I
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 3:24am

Re: Re:
but.. But... CENSORSHIP!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 3:24am

Re: Re:
but.. But... CENSORSHIP!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xenomancer (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 3:25am

Re: Re: Re:
butt... Butt... PIRACY!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 3:29am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
butt... Butt... NEEDS TO GET A REAL JOB!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OVJNNR3s0U
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris, 12 Jul 2011 @ 3:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
This has gone downhill in a hurry...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 12 Jul 2011 @ 3:32am

Re: But-But ...
... OUTBOARD MOTORS!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mike allen (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 3:33am

If I put a video up on you tube I will pick music (if any) that fits the subject of the video as to copyright stuff it.I wont be dictated what i can use time you tube realised that many people think this way.RIAA two fingers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 3:50am

Re: Re: Re:
So, let me get this straight:

Taking cheap shots at people/organisations: good.
Telling cheap shooter from previous line to say something constructive or pipe down: censorship?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 4:08am

Re:
It's a silly respone to a silly 'original'.

Fair use should be the fucking default.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 4:19am

Re:
But definitely not unexpected that Public Knowledge would put out an exponentially more propagandistic video.
and absolutely certain that someone like you would display their ignorance of what exponentially means...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 12 Jul 2011 @ 4:31am

Re: Re:
Heh - good one.

The word exponentially is just one of many in the layman adjective arsenal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 12 Jul 2011 @ 4:32am

Re: Re: Re:
Do explain
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 12 Jul 2011 @ 5:36am

"Google has traditionally been pretty good on copyright issues"
Even if HAS, that's no predictor for the future.

Specifically to Youtube: of course they turn a blind eye to copyright when that's in their direct interest. -- I'm not saying Youtube is huge violator of copyright, merely that Google makes money off any copyright violations, IF there are any: they've a motive. -- And so you're only promoting your limited Pollyanna views of Google and copyright.

But Google with its book-scanning project still has the potential to lock up all those books: how many times have you complained that works are taken out of the public domain? You simply ASSUME, at best, that Google isn't just playing nice for now, and won't be revealed as a monster when it's consolidated and there are effectively no other choices.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xenomancer (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 6:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am sorry for the casual decline from educated parlance toward that of vapid trolls and the ever comedic ludite elitists. I had just awoken to these paragons of detailed insight and could not resist the urge to make an ass of myself. Though I suppose the commonly ignored [citation needed] might have sufficed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 6:45am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Epic polite win. And I lol'd.

First post is obviously some pro-copyright. Can't say he's a troll though since he was somewhat polite in expressing his opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 7:01am

Wow, I get jumped on for saying that commercial use really have no relation to fair use, a real beatdown (turns out the correct answer is "commercial use is rarely fair use, except in reviews". This person makes a video that says some stuff is "probably fair use", and pretty much gets a pass. Nutty!

Probably fair use is a reason to have a lawyer on speed dial. Probably don't cut it. It's horrible legal advice from someone who isn't a lawyer. When you get to probably, the answer is "don't do it... you will probably get sued or get your video taken down". If you aren't 100% certain, you know you are at risk.

It's a shame that a video like this would be held up as a good tool, it's mostly a way to lead the sheep to slaughter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 7:06am

Re: "Google has traditionally been pretty good on copyright issues"
That's precisely why MAFIAA shouldn't push too hard. Google is keeping the middle gorund, the status quo as long as the other involved parties don't push too hard. I can see how they'll show their claws and fangs if things go too far. Or at least I hope so.

Unfortunately, Larry and the others aren't eternal and may be replaced at some point. While they are at key positions on Google I'd say the company will be alright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 7:13am

Re:
Shows how copyright needs reform huh? With so many damn grey areas and the definition of commercial use being used so broadly by MAFIAA thugs makes sense he uses PROBABLY with so much emphasis?

If MAFIAA says that something is probably commercial use would it be nutty too if it passed?

BUT BUT... YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 7:38am

Re: Re:
The terms of fair use are pretty clear. Giving someone legal advice by saying "probably" is really not a very good idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 7:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Going after people who copy is not a real job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 7:44am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop taking cheap shots with your cheap comment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Boost, 12 Jul 2011 @ 7:44am

Re:
You come on here and never give your name (or even a handle)and never give a well reasoned argument for your side. You just troll. Why even try, it's just making your side of the story look worse than it already does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 7:46am

Re: Re: Re:
Oh they are? You know that any idiot can have ad sense in their blogs nowadays and that this is being used by MAFIAA to classify what would be fair use as commercial use? If fair use was so clear we wouldn't be discussing here and all judges would have the exact same interpretation of the law, which takes some minutes of reading into the issue to see i's not the case. Add jurisdictional problems to the mess and we have a huge problem. If it's clear for you then I'd love to know in which planet you are living now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A.R.M. (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 7:52am

That was the winner? No offense, but I'd hate to see the runners-up in this contest.

It's really stupid when such topics are dumbed-down to the point neither side is taken seriously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rstr5105 (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 7:53am

Not A Nasally Teen.....
Do you think they'd sue me if I re-recorded the voice over for them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nina Paley (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 8:01am

Re: Not A Nasally Teen.....
Do it! It's CC-BY, you can do whatever you like as long as you attribute properly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nina Paley (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 8:05am

Re:
PK only had $1,000 to offer. They didn't have enough to hire professionals. For an entirely free contribution, on a depressing subject with no guarantee of even winning the $1,000, I think it's pretty good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Huph, 12 Jul 2011 @ 8:17am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um... having commercials on your site would be the definition of commercial use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 8:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Having adsense on your blog indicates that you have a commercial business. Ask the IRS, if you don't declare that revenue they can get up your ass in a serious way. It's real income from a real commercial venture.

Fair use is remarkably clear about 99% of the time. What gets discussed here is the last 1% that sits right on the border. Typical of what goes on, the 99% is never discussed, and the 1% is held up as reasons to toss the other 99% of the cases out.

99% of the time, it's clear as it comes. The last 1% is always what will end up in court or on a blog. Just try to remember that on planet earth, 1% isn't a majority.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 8:44am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
i c wut u did thar
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 8:50am

Re: Re:
http://i.word.com/idictionary/exponential
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 8:51am

Re: Re:
It's only depressing if you insist on hitting your head up against that wall all your life. For the rest of us, it's actually pretty amusing to watch people like you go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 9:17am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Neither are pulling percentages out of your percentage hole.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A.R.M. (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 9:48am

Re: Re:
Not to be rude, but I find it odd the $1000 is the limiting factor here as though the only reason people got into it was to get as much of the $1000 as they could.

In other words: this was never about the issue from this contest's point of view.

That's how I'm seeing it. It's a bad attitude, I know, but it's also the reality and it's why I believe it trivializes the issue.

Again, I mean no offense to anyone. This is merely my personal opinion. Feel free to disagree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwg, 12 Jul 2011 @ 9:51am

Re:
Someone PROBABLY beat you down for that "commercial use is rarely fair use" because it's fucking stupid. There are four factors in the fair use inquiry, and the commercial use one is, obviously, only one fourth. So basing your analysis on it is worthy of a beatdown. Any lawyer worth anything can work with the other three factors to show fair use, where it exists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwg, 12 Jul 2011 @ 9:53am

Re: Re: Re:
AHHHH!!!! Stop it!!! Dude, "the terms of fair use are pretty clear" is almost as good as "commercial use is rarely fair use." And I mean good meaning bad, not good meaning good. [insert citation for paraphrasing of Run DMC.] Dammit, man--you're misinforming people left and right. Better to shut it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BeeAitch (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 12:18pm

Re: Re: Re:
Just because you know how to look it up doesn't mean you're capable of understanding it.

Just sayin'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BeeAitch (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 12:19pm

Re: Re: Re:
Yet another basic comprehension fail.

Why don't you prove to us that you can look it up?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 1:19pm

Re:
Wow, I get jumped on for saying that commercial use really have no relation to fair use, a real beatdown (turns out the correct answer is "commercial use is rarely fair use, except in reviews".

Your "correct answer" is also false. Please, stop pretending you know fair use. You do not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt, 12 Jul 2011 @ 2:10pm

video not accurate
That video is not accurate and very misleading. Just the fact that he used the word "probably" about 8 times, shows that even he knows what he's saying is not true.

Best example, doing a Remix or a Mash-Up does not in ANY WAY constitute Fair Use. If you use ANY portion of the original copyrighted music without written permission of all of the copy right holders, then what you are doing is illegal. That's the law. If you don't like it, work to change it.

But as someone who has made his living as a Remixer, Producer and DJ for over 20 years, Just because I can get my hands on a Madonna, Rihanna, Beyonce A capella (and I can and do all the time) and do a "remix" of it, doesn't me I have the legal right to make it or release it on YouTube. The law is written in the following manner: As a producer/DJ I could do a remix and use it out at my gigs. They won't come after me for that even though technically you are not legally allowed to even do that. But as soon as I release it to the public, it automatically is competing with the original. If just one person doesn't my a 99 cent download because they downloaded my unauthorized mix or mash-up, then my version is competing. So his video is false and misleading.

It's really unfortunate that the Internet has created an entire generation of child-like thinking and mentality that just because I want it, I should be able to have it. You can't walk into a car dealership and take the vehicle without paying for it, nor can you walk into a grocery store and take food, or books, or dvd's or CD's without paying for them. It's stealing. So why do people think it's OK to steal music and movies off the intenet, or use pieces of other peoples work without asking?

Most artists would gladly give their permission for people to use bits of their material into something new. In fact, I just sent a email off to a major 80's UK New Wave icon the other day asking to sample a 10 second verse of one of his hits and he said "sure, just put it in writing and I'll sign off on it." People get pissed off when you just do it without asking. Now sure Madonna is probably not gonna say yes. But it's her right to say no. She labored long and hard to create her work. And by releasing it doesn't release her of control of it. I see very little difference between music and children. They are both labors of your love, work, sweat and tears and just people don't have the right to steal them, hurt them or destroy them just because they can get away with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 4:55pm

Re:
It's funny, TAM, how you (still) refuse to admit you were blatantly, 100% wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kawika, 13 Jul 2011 @ 7:17am

Re: Re: Re:
Only lawyers can give legal advice, and no lawyer is going to give formal legal advice online; Patrick McKay's "probably" line is actually necessary to follow legal ethics while still helping normal Americans understand what the law is aimed at.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derpentine, 13 Jul 2011 @ 4:51pm

Fair Use
Just like the chuckleheads that submit fraudulent take down notices, I would suggest everyone just submit a counter-notice automatically, even if you don't think it's fair use.

Why should you be held to a different standard then the one set by the original notice. Just abuse the weasel phrase "Knowlingly" like they do. Or blame an underpaid functionary; eg My dog improperly submited that notice.

I've yet to see any real punishment on the the fraudulent dcma notices submitted daily.
[ link to this | view in thread ]