YouTube Tells User He Can Directly Resolve Copyright Claim By Contacting Himself
from the bots-also-observed-running-low-level-snipe-hunts dept
When bots handle copyright enforcement, things are sometimes going to get screwed up. YouTube's various algorithms do a lot of heavy lifting, sorting through the thousands of hours of video being uploaded every minute. Sooner or later, the bots hit a snag, as any automated process will during multiple iterations. But Hugh Atkin's video, which utilizes John William's instantly-recognizable opening theme from Star Wars, triggered a copyright claim from SME (Sony Music Entertainment)... and a conundrum. (h/t to Nate Hoffelder)
Here's what he received for resolution advice from the YouTube helper bots.
Hello,That's right. The dispute notices are coming from inside the house!
Thank you for your message.
The claimant has reviewed your dispute and reaffirmed its claim to your video. Specifics of the policy applied to your video are in the Copyright Notices section of your YouTube account.
You may click the underlined link to the right of the video's Edit menu to learn more about this claim.
If you are certain this claim was made in error, you may be able to appeal the claimant’s decision. Eligible users will see an “I want to appeal a disputed claim” link. Please note that an appeal may result in a copyright strike and the removal of your video.
Alternately, you may resolve this issue directly with the claimant at [MY EMAIL ADDRESS]@gmail.com
Please note that YouTube does not mediate copyright disputes.
Regards,
The YouTube Copyright Team
Whatever glitched in the dispute process managed to make Atkin's both the master of his own destiny and the victim of his own copyright dispute. The problem can't be resolved as it stands, at least not to Atkin's satisfaction. SME has reaffirmed its claim and lobbed the ball back into Atkin's court, apparently permanently.
Atkin has since fired off a reply to YouTube pointing out the error and asking for contact info he doesn't already possess (in every definition of the word), but so far has heard nothing back.
Now, Atkin could turn this over to YouTube via the appeals process, but that's largely automated and would result in a ruling in SME's favor (Sony Music distributes John William's Star Wars soundtrack work). Sony seems to have a valid claim as far as the use of William's track. Running this through YouTube's appeal process is almost guaranteed to earn Atkin a "strike."
Atkin appears to want to work around this automation (since it doesn't seem to be working properly) by attempting direct communication, but Sony's response team will probably be even less "human" about the alleged infringement than YouTube's bot swarm (both those scanning for infringement and those "manning" the help lines).
Unfortunately, a "strike" may be inevitable. No matter how well Atkin pleads his case to himself, he doesn't have the power to grant himself the permissions he's seeking. And with no contact information forthcoming, the clock will run out before he can extricate himself from this loop.
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, takedown, youtube
Companies: sony music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Okay...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Okay...
Fair use can only be used as a defence, which means that you have to already be guilty of copyright infringement before claiming fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Okay...
Do you want to read that agian, and fix it?
You have to be accused of infringement, then you present a fair use claim, the copyright holder could accept that claim, or litigate, at which point a judge would decided. Only if the judge ruled against you would you be guilty of copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Okay...
Time to play the word game
Fair use: Fair also means "just"
Just use: Laws are supposed to be just, which is why it's called the law and justice system
Lawful use: And here we are. Fair use is lawful use, which means you are not guilty of anything. It is logically impossible to both be lawful and unlawful at the same time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Okay...
Oh... I get it. Kind of like how you have to already be guilty of Murder before you can claim "Justifiable Homicide" because that is how it works ... oh, wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay...
> already be guilty of Murder before you can
> claim "Justifiable Homicide" because that is
> how it works ... oh, wait...
He's wrong about the guilt aspect, but he's right about the fact that Fair Use, just like self-defense, is an affirmative defense, which shifts the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant.
If you kill someone and plead self-defense, you're essentially admitting to the homicide, and then it becomes *your* burden, not the prosecution's, to prove by clear and convincing evidence why that homicide was legally justified.
The same process applies with Fair Use. You admit to the actions the plaintiff claims are infringing, and then you have the burden to prove they are justified based on the statutory elements of Fair Use. The plaintiff does not have the burden of proving you weren't justified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay...
It seems that most copyright extremists want the Murder definition to apply (meaning you're already guilty of committing an unlawful act and must prove you are innocent), rather than Homicide (you've been accused of committing an unlawful act) and have a chance to show your not.
I know it appears to be only an argument about semantics, but it does make a difference when you are proving your innocence, civilly or criminally, in a court of law. Especially when it comes time for a jury to decide.
Basically, I am saying someone can tell me I am accused of copyright infringement and attempt to sue me, but I don't like someone declaring I am already guilty of it before the trial even takes place. It only works that way on Cardassia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Okay...
Wow, I can't believe people are still spouting this BS claim.
"...which means that you have to already be guilty of copyright infringement before claiming fair use."
And even if your first point was correct, this next bit is just insanely wrong. If you have a valid defense, you are by definition not guilty. This is basic stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Okay...
True enough, but things are a little grayer when it comes to the DMCA. A DMCA takedown is supposed to take fair use into account. In other words, nobody should be able to file a DMCA notice against something when the use of the copyrighted material is "fair use".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay...
And it's a judgment call, which means that it's possible to win a civil suit by invoking it, but otherwise, as things stand today, for most users, it's more of a theoretical right than an actual one.
The big IP holders regularly lobby against 'Fair Use' in Congress. They want it removed from the law. In their IP enforcement actions, they treat all re-use of their IP as infringing. The IP holders don't recognize 'Fair Use' as legitimate, despite the DCMA and other statutes which grant users that right.
Because of the high cost of civil litigation, most users will simply give up and accept the takedown. I know of only one who has successfully fought YouTube takedowns using 'Fair Use' as a defense. There may be more like that user, but I think it's the exception, not the rule.
But my point here was simply to make AC aware that just because an IP holder launches an accusation of infringement in a takedown notice, it doesn't mean that the user is automatically an infringer and undeserving of sympathy. You can't know until you dig into each case and see if the 'Fair Use' doctrine might apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Okay...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Okay...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay...
Many, many takedown notices generated by YouTube are invalid under current statutes. I advise you not to jump to the conclusion that a particular case represents copyright infringement unless you've looked into the details and heard the arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Answer
2) Win by default when he conveniently steps out of court when it comes to testifying in his own defense.
3) Profit!
(Prenda Law is free to use this method, should it so desire)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple Answer
1) Sue himself and testify in open court against himself for millions of dollars in copyright violations.
2)
3) Profit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HA, HA! Automated anomaly strikes Youtube!
Actually, this isn't an anomaly outside of that as AC #1 already wrote.
Oh, wait. HERE'S an anomaly! Minion admits: "Sony seems to have a valid claim as far as the use of William's track." -- Only "seems", but the anomaly is there's none of the usual boilerplate for "fair use" and "counterfile"... Guess minion got too wrapped up in his wit: 'No matter how well Atkin pleads his case to himself".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HA, HA! Automated anomaly strikes Youtube!
Just look at the kind of people that use it routinely!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HA, HA! Automated anomaly strikes Youtube!
Soldier: It's an automated anomaly, sir!
General Oobt: CUUUURSE YOU MASNICK!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it just errs in favour of the one making the claim every single time by blocking the video upon receipt of the complaint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even band competition videos get notices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even band competition videos get notices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even band competition videos get notices
> band performance can't even be shared with
> friends and family?
You're lucky ASCAP didn't demand they pay royalties just for performing the music in public in the first place. They've been known to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A disaster waiting to happen.
The people behind YouTube should have never sold it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A disaster waiting to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A disaster waiting to happen.
On the flipside, I have no doubt that YouTube would have been shut down had they not had Google's resources to draw from in order to defend themselves from false accusations (e.g. the Viacom suit) or simply bullying killing them despite having provably done nothing wrong (Veoh).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SME's Contact Info
I checked my records and SME does have a working contact email for Youtube disputes, though I haven't had to email it in just over a year.
It is you.tube@sonymusic.ocm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since they do it
What we need to do is create the "Fair Use Certification Association of America", along similar line to the EFF, that issues fair use certificates. That way he can reply "Yes I have contacted the email you advised, they said it was OK, AND HERE IS MY FAIR USE CERTIFCATION".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am suprised no one else saw this but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]