Viacom Issues Bogus DMCA Over Fair Use Daily Show Remix... After Promising Not To Do That Any More
from the haven't-we-seen-this-before dept
Editor's note: The following was sent over by Jonathan and New Media Rights, concerning Jonthan's ridiculous situation of being held hostage by Viacom. What strikes me as particularly interesting is that Viacom has been sued about this kind of thing before (involving Colbert Show clips) and resolved that by promising to take fair use into account. Apparently that's gone out the window.
On February 3rd 2015 my remix video entitled "Too Many Dicks on the Daily Show" was removed from YouTube via a bogus takedown from Viacom claiming copyright infringement.
The remix is a transformative work critical of the gender disparities on The Daily Show and constitutes a fair use of copyrighted visual material as provided for in section 107 of the US copyright law.
This is the second time Viacom has abused the DMCA takedown process to prevent this particular fair use video from being seen. It's especially ironic considering each episode of The Daily Show relies on the fair use doctrine in order to satirically comment on mainstream news broadcasts. I am currently appealing this latest takedown with the help of my attorneys from New Media Rights.
Back in August 2013, after nearly 2 years on YouTube, my remix was also removed without warning by Viacom claiming infringement for "visual content" from The Daily Show. I immediately informed my attorneys at New Media Rights who in turn contacted Viacom to inquire about the takedown. Quickly thereafter I received an automated message from YouTube stating that Viacom had rescinded their copyright infringement claim. Viacom provided no other information or explanation but the video was again viewable on YouTube and so I assumed the matter had been resolved. Roughly a year and a half later I find myself dealing with the same exact situation.
As I explained in my original blog post, the video is presented as an episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart which is interrupted by a remixed critique of the show's gender imbalance and "boys' locker room" comedy stylings. The remix was created with clips borrowed from over 100 episodes of The Daily Show combined with a portion of the Flight of the Conchords song "Too Many Dicks on the Dance Floor" in order to subvert both sources.
Made in 2011, the video was meant to highlight the lack of women in on-screen or leading creative roles on The Daily Show over its 17-year run. At the time only 3 of the 12 regular correspondents/contributors on The Daily Show were women. Only 2 of the 16 writers were women and the numbers have not improved much in the 4 years since I published the critique (although Jessica Williams is a brilliant addition to the cast).
On both occasions Viacom has abused the DMCA takedown system to remove my video, which has resulted in an unjust strike placed against my YouTube account. On both occasions I've been temporarily locked out of my channel and forced to attend YouTube's copyright school and pass a test on fair use. This is particularly patronizing since just over a year ago YouTube invited me to their space in Los Angeles to give a lecture on transformative storytelling and to specifically highlight the fair use questions that arise when remixing video footage for the purposes of political parody.
I should also note that YouTube currently features another one of my remix videos as an example of fair use video on their official page explaining the fair use doctrine to their user base.
Again, I'm in the process of trying to get my video back online. For now you can watch it over at the Internet Archive.
One last note: New Media Rights has offered me invaluable advice and guidance throughout these battles. They are a small, non-profit, two-lawyer operation on a shoe-string budget fighting to make sure artists like me are heard. So if you can, please consider donating to them here.
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, clips, copyright, daily show, dmca, fair use, takedown, too many dicks
Companies: viacom
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
Dailymotion.com is fine, but apart from that it seems difficult to find a place with both content and users without unwanted restrictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
Name recognition and familiarity, a much larger potential audience, a lot of devices have YouTube built in but not the other services (e.g. my Blu Ray player has a YouTube button on the remote), integration with other services, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not surprised in the least
What is surprising is that YouTube doesn't protect videos that have been flagged, challenged, and then reinstated. Why would they waste time by letting the same company flag it again?
Having said all that, I find this guy a bit unlikable.
I would ask him how detrimental he believes it is to "only" have 3 correspondents and 2 writers being women. How many should they have? Should they consider replacing Jon Stewart with someone who's comedy style is more suited to delivering gender-neutral humor? Does he have any evidence of discriminatory hiring practices? Should they prioritize hiring women over hiring minorities? Does he have any evidence of a bias towards sexist content on the show? Has he actually asked any women if they find the show distasteful?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not surprised in the least
I recall a case many years ago when a company was sued for "discriminatory hiring" as they didn't have ANY women. Their entire defense consisted of "No woman has ever applied for the job".
So - maybe the questions should be "how many women want to work on the Daily Show?" and "How many have applied to do so?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not surprised in the least
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not surprised in the least
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not surprised in the least
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not surprised in the least
It shouldn't be normalized for all television shows to be produced primarily by men to the point that it's actually almost weird and worth pointing out if the gender balance were flipped.
It's good for the gender disparity to be pointed out so that people think about who is creating their media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not surprised in the least
I have always thought the best person for the job is the right way to do it, but we have weenies that want more women or men or blacks or asians. Enough is enough, time for it to be the best person for the job, end of story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I mean clearly they're protesting against its existence, why should they or anyone have the freedom to smite the freedom of expression without due process?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just curious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real Reason For Takedown...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I guess it doesn't make any sense to suddenly invite those who really need it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'How about NO'?
I really hope he told them to get bent, and then proceeded to point to the crap he's had to deal with over this video as the reason for his refusal.
'You want me to talk about fair use? Okay, how about I start by pointing out how utterly flawed and easy to abuse your system is regarding it? And how you make those accused of violating copyright take a class on fair use, but don't do the same for those that send claims that completely ignore it? Does that sound good to you?'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate Nitpicking...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]