Prominent YouTube Personality Locked Out Of His Account After A Bogus Copyright Claim
from the so-much-power-in-one-little-symbol dept
Another bogus takedown targeting a prominent YouTube personality. In other words, business as usual for the world's largest video platform. This time it's Jacksepticeye, a very popular creator of videogame-related videos, most of which utilize in-game footage, "Let's Play"-style, as well as plenty of related (and unrelated) commentary. At the risk of sounding like The Narrator in "Fight Club," I know Jacksepticeye because my boys know Jacksepticeye. [There is no generation gap because of cultural osmosis. Discuss.]
Jacksepticeye had put together a video featuring two bots carrying on a conversation. One was Cleverbot Evie. The other was Talking Angela, the female spinoff of the ultra-popular Talking Tom app. Fun stuff, probably, but we can't see it (at the moment) because of some unpleasant takedown shenanigans.
One of YouTube's most known gamer guys, Jacksepticeye, took to his Twitter account on Wednesday morning citing copyright claims against him. The claims were made by Outfit7 Limited, the entertainment company that created the Talking Tom and Friends franchise.Here are the tweets:
Apparently one of my Evie and Talking Angela vids copyright infringed on something and if I don't acknowledge it my account will be deleted
— jacksepticeye (@Jack_Septic_Eye) January 7, 2015
This wasn't some normal copyright strike either, I can't get into my youtube account now unless I answer copyright questions
— jacksepticeye (@Jack_Septic_Eye) January 7, 2015
So @Outfit7 are the ones who flagged the video. The owners of Talking Angela because I had her talking to Evie :/
— jacksepticeye (@Jack_Septic_Eye) January 7, 2015
If you can't read/see the tweets, they say (in order):
Apparently one of my Evie and Talking Angela vids copyright infringed on something and if I don't acknowledge it my account will be deletedNow, the question of fair use will be addressed here because the limitations of YouTube's system won't. Firing up an app to talk to a bot isn't copyright infringement. The app will talk to whoever will chat with it (and vice versa, in terms of CleverBot). Recording this interaction doesn't violate Outfit7's copyright anymore than someone recording their siblings/kids talking to it. The app exists to talk and presumably Outfit7 would like more people to download the Talking Angela app because in-app purchases is a numbers game. The more people that try it out, the more likely the chance that some of them will start tossing money into the company's revenue stream.
This wasn't some normal copyright strike either, I can't get into my youtube account now unless I answer copyright questions
So @Outfit7 are the ones who flagged the video. The owners of Talking Angela because I had her talking to Evie :/
So, why take it down? Who knows? But considering the outcome of this situation, it appears it may have been a mistake -- albeit the sort of mistake that is both a) far too common and b) engenders ill will towards the entity who screwed up.
This is Jacksepticeye's latest tweet on the takedown.
The copyright strike against me has been retracted and everything is back to normal :D
— jacksepticeye (@Jack_Septic_Eye) January 9, 2015
If you can't see/read it:
The copyright strike against me has been retracted and everything is back to normal :DNow, this doesn't necessarily mean Outfit7 came to its senses and walked back its erroneous takedown. It could be that YouTube pulled the strike because it wasn't actually an infringing video. But the former is much more likely than the latter, although there's been no public confirmation from Outfit7 itself.
The video itself still remains dead, at least at its original URL. Perhaps Jack will have to re-upload or he has decided to keep the video offline until he hears more from Outfit7… just in case. Either way, copyright gets in the way of creation again, and someone who makes a living on YouTube came this much closer to losing his source of income -- not the sort of thing that exactly endears IP rights to the general public.
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: censorship, cleverbot, copyright, jacksepticeye, takedowns, talking angela, youtube
Companies: google, outfit7, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yet again...
Another piece of evidence that we literally *need* reform to the laws governing takedown.
Anyone who submits *any* form of takedown request should be required to swear under penalty of perjury:
1. That they own the copyright being infringed, or are acting on the holder's behalf.
2. That each individual link or video they are requesting are in fact infringing.
3. That the content in question does not fall under critique, parody or any sort of Fair Use exemption.
Let's see some of the copyright abusers go to jail where they belong. Let's see some justice for a change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet again...
(f) Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yet again...
Unless it's copyright law, then ignorance of the law is the standard!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet again...
Another piece of evidence that we literally *need* to abolish copyright.
ftfy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright takedowns working as intended
Or lazily filed takedown notices that shoot first, ask questions later. However, the lazy rapid fire takedowns based on simplistic keyword searches are a symptom of copyright owners' mentality that everyone else should do their work for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright takedowns working as intended
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright takedowns working as intended
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright takedowns working as intended
yeah, I thought so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright takedowns working as intended
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright takedowns working as intended
That would be an improvement. Fewer bogus takedowns, more pressure on representatives to reform copyright law, and more people seeking out alternative entertainment that doesn't rely on RIAA and MPAA members. Of course this is a magic wand sort of solution since you haven't suggested how this would actually take place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Small but direly needed fixes
First and foremost, there needs to be a punishment for bogus claims. Those accused have their accounts on the line, the ones leveling the accusations should face at the very least similar repercussions if they are found to be making claims in bad faith, or for malicious intent.
Second, stop taking every claim at face value. A simple accusation should not be enough to get a video, or even an entire account removed. One way to help with this would be to expand the takedown system a bit, perhaps into something like the following:
1) Person or company makes a claim against Video A.
2) The account holder who posted the video can choose to either take the video down, or contest the claim. If they contest it, the video remains up. Whichever they choose, they do not get a 'strike' against their account at this stage.
3) At this point the original person/company can either drop their claim, or double-down, insisting that it is valid.
4) At this point, the matter is examined by someone employed by YT to weigh in on the matter(previous steps could be automated). If the claim is held as valid, the video is removed, and a 'strike' is issued against the account holder who posted it. If the claim is found to be invalid, the video remains, and the one who issued the claim is instead the recipient of the punishment(a 'strike' if they have a YT account, a temporary ban against using YT's claim system if not).
5) If, after having the matter resolved in favor of the account holder, the one who issued the original claim still believes that they are in the right, they can file a DMCA claim against the video, and attempt to have it taken down via that route.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Small but direly needed fixes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Small but direly needed fixes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Small but direly needed fixes
In the long run we need a complete overhaul of all IP forms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Small but direly needed fixes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Small but direly needed fixes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Small but direly needed fixes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Small but direly needed fixes
Now, while the above may or may not be entirely true(or at least the first half anyway, the second most certainly is), given how unbelievably lopsided the process is, it's rather hard to imagine it was anything but intentional. Screwing up a bit is one thing, doing so to that level takes willful intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Small but direly needed fixes
So true.
The harm of a first amendment infringement is far more serious than that of a copyright infringement.
One is an abrogation of basic human rights, as detailed in the 1st Amendment to the constitution and the damage is ALWAYS irreversible. When speech is impeded, that opportunity for speech is gone forever. Even if the ban is lifted later on, you can't restore the lost speech opportunity.
The other contravenes some mundane laws about commerce. It also is a problem for which there can be compensation, and there often is at ridiculously high amounts.
Yet the current system of control and enforcement is biased in entirely the wrong direction. Control and enforcement of copyright is AT ODDS with our laws and constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Small but direly needed fixes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Small but direly needed fixes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Small but direly needed fixes
Because copyright laws in their current form were literately written by corporations for corporation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Small but direly needed fixes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Can't buy it if I don't know about it. Can't know about it if I never see it. Can't see it if it gets taken down as infringing.
Now I only know them as the company that makes apps that are illegal to watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At what point...
It seems to me it ought to be an open-and-shut slander case. And a huge punitive-damage award would help pour encourager les autres.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At what point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I find those talking X apps pretty stupid and then when someone finds a nice use for them the company goes ballistics?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't read the tweets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't read the tweets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't read the tweets?
(But thanks to the Techdirt writers for posting text versions of quotes, especially when the original is an image—those are often useful.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't read the tweets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Taking down the video was a condition of the strike being revoked.
- The developers of Talking Angela objected to the swearing in the video. So, once again, DMCA being used for non-copyright reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh right, it isn't. Copyfraud strikes again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come to their senses?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Come to their senses?
"Infringe it!"
Carry on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Come to their senses?
You want to punish a company, really punish them? Ignore them. Don't give them your time, attention, or money. Act as though they don't even exist. If you want to go the extra mile, shoot them an email telling them so, that due to their actions you will now never purchase or use one of their products if you can at all avoid it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fair use or not
I re-spliced a movie intro into a different sequence, replacing the audio with a completely different song.
it's meant to parody the intro..
is it fair use? I have no idea.
but if I choose to challenge it via youtube,
I would get a 'strike'if I lose the challenge.
Or I could accept the take-down and keep my mouth shut.
not having enough grasp of the law, or thinking I can convinve youtube, with presumably actual lawyers on the other side arguing against me..
I'm keeping my mouth shut and hosting the video from another service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google is setup where you don't actually talk to anyone human. Try that route and you'll get nothing. It's a stone wall you're talking to.
Personally, I near never go to Youtube. So if it fell on it's face tomorrow, I'd not miss it. Someone would have to call my attention to the fact it wasn't there for me to notice.
As far as I'm concerned, Google has been poisoned by copyright concerns, enough to ruin it's business. Not that I had any use for Google in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm with you: I think I'd seen about a half-dozen YouTube videos last year. I avoid YouTube for a number of reasons, including that I don't want to support Google in their effort to appease the major content companies at the expense of actual people.
However, you and I appear to be in the minority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I don't want to support Google in their effort to appease the major content companies at the expense of actual people"
Google is the main lobbyist in favor of online rights - they have to obey existing law and stay in business despite those laws at the same time.
By boycotting Google for being less than 100% successful in their attempts to improve the law, you are punishing your best ally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I don't want to support Google in their effort to appease the major content companies at the expense of actual people"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "I don't want to support Google in their effort to appease the major content companies at the expense of actual people"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AWESOME
you lost 5 potential customers here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wtf is wrong with these control freaks.........i find various VIDEO reviews to be the BEST kind of review, to get the best feel for any given product i might be interested in, the only kind of review that peaks my interest in something i previously was'nt interested, the amateur review.......anyone that risks this new review style is a PRICK in my book
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hi
Well I was going through a site and I found some interesting offers, could you check it out and let me know.
http://youtube-promos.com/
Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]