CBS Gets Angry Joe's YouTube Review Of 'Picard' Taken Down For Using 26 Seconds Of The Show's Trailer
from the make-it-no dept
Joe Vargas, who makes the fantastic The Angry Joe Show on YouTube, isn't a complete stranger to Techdirt's pages. You may recall that this angry reviewer of all things pop culture swore off doing reviews of Nintendo products a while back after Nintendo prevented Vargas from monetizing a review of a a game. The whole episode highlighted just how out of touch companies like Nintendo can be with this sort of thing, given how many younger folks rely on reviews like Vargas' to determine where they spend their gaming dollars. Coupled with the argument that these commentary and review videos ought to constitute use of footage as fair use and it's hard to see why any of this was worth it to Nintendo.
Or CBS, apparently. CBS recently got Angry Joe's YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down, claiming copyright on the 2 thirteen-second videos of the show's publicly available trailer that Vargas used in the review.
Assholes at @CBS @CBSAllAccess Blocked Worldwide my Star Trek: Picard Review for daring to show 13 seconds of the Publicly Available Trailer too close to another 13 seconds of the Trailer. A Manual block btw. What happened to fair use? @startrekcbs @StarTrek @StarTrekNetflix #wth pic.twitter.com/qcZVKL3Us9
— Joe Vargas (@AngryJoeShow) January 27, 2020
This is normally where some folks would suspect that ContentID or some automated system saw the images, resulting in an automated DMCA notice. Except that, as Vargas points out in his Twitter post, this was a manual block. Somebody at CBS saw Vargas' use of the footage and manually requested that the video be taken down on copyright grounds.
And that's crazy. First, the use of clips like this to discuss a review or critique of content is squarely within the grounds of fair use.
Based on the screenshot, it appears that Vargas was discussing the clips while they were on-screen and Vargas argues that this should constitute fair use – a provision in copyright law that allows copyrighted material to be used without permission from the copyright holder for transformative purposes such as commentary and criticism.
Add to that the clips were from the publicly available trailer footage and this makes even less sense. The trailers are out there for anyone to see. Hell, the entire point of trailers is to be widely disseminated to entice interest in the show. Blocking their use would seem to be at odds with the marketing goals of CBS.
And, yet, here we are, with CBS taking down a video for using trailer footage in a way that is clearly fair use. But some say YouTube doesn't have a copyright enforcement problem? Please.
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: angry joe, censorship, copyright, fair use, picard, reviews, trailer
Companies: cbs, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
CBS is stupid
In addition to the copyright maximalism, this is also idiotic from a marketing perspective: why would I want to watch this show if CBS treats its reviewers like this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CBS is stupid
Because Star Trek!!!
We're gonna keep doing horrible things to this horse we beat the hell out of & keeping putting out content that is actually lesser quality than the fan created things they killed off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CBS is stupid
Piracy... er, borrowing from the local library is always an option. You don't have to consume media and give money to the corporations making it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CBS is stupid
"this is also idiotic from a marketing perspective"
It's like making the show wear a red shirt to the planet surface!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CBS is stupid
Considering how poorly CBS has treated its viewers in recent years (by which I mean CBS kills good shows and also delays entire last seasons of other shows they've killed) -- I'm surprised they have any viewers at all. I decided after the last episode of Elementary that I'd never watch any CBS show again. Indeed, these days I don't watch any new show on any OTA network for fear such shows may be too smart for programmers and the shows will disappear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a Marketing/Anti-Piracy Alliance at CBS, which itself is an acronym for this Alliance's strategy: Claiming BullSh*t. After all, the Alliance's mission is to boldly go where no copyright maximalist has gone before!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That and according to rumors, they know the show stinks, it's not like TNG but they are relying on Patrick Stewart's name to sell the show and to get people to subscribe to CBS All Access so they likely took it down because Joe likely said negative things about it.
This feels like a classic case of silencing criticism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, I enjoyed the first episode. I thought it was really good. There was a ton of easter eggs in it. It's not STTNG, It's Star Trek Picard. A whole new series and I thought it got off to a great start. Generally, the first season isn't the best for StarTrek and that includes STTNG, Voyager, Deep Space Nine, and Enterprise which was really getting good until it got canceled.
But everyone has their own opinions and if this person doesn't like it, so be it. He shouldn't have his video taken down. It was fair use. It does just make the production company seem petty for doing the takedown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Except the show is actually very well done and is an excellent addition to the ST family.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CBS?
I know not who this is. Stopped watching that starry something show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its a shame there isn't any penalty for this obvious misuse of the law.
The created CBS All Access to "win" the streaming wars, but are so terrified of people seeing anything without paying them first.
Its like selling a video game with awesome graphics on the box and only after you pay & install it you discover... they ported ET form the atari.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't really have any leverage against CBS
It's not like I can boycott CBS or their Picard show or anything like that. I wasn't going to watch this misbegotten garbage anyway. And if I ever happened to see it, what I saw definitely would never be purchased content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube rewind 2019
But some say YouTube doesn't have a copyright enforcement problem?
If you watch the YouTube rewind for 2019 it is just a collection of content creator's videos arranged like a top 10 for a category.
Obviously there is fair use at play and YouTube probably has in their ToS that they can reuse anything people post. But what is interesting is people joking in the comments section that maybe the creators can get the video taken down for infringement because contentID is so bad.
The public recognizes the problems of contentID so why does YouTube not seem to care. It just makes YouTube appear hypocritical because of their re-use but how little they seem to care about their content creator's channels. At least the non corporate partners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YouTube rewind 2019
"The public recognizes the problems of contentID so why does YouTube not seem to care"
Because: a) it's about as good as it can realistically get with the level of hard data and volume of new videos that YouTube processes, b) they get attacked from both sides no matter what action they do or don't take, and c) the public aren't its paying customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: YouTube rewind 2019
Well, they can be paying customers—there is a paid option to remove ads and obtain other benefits—but I doubt that they make up the bulk of YouTube’s revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: YouTube rewind 2019
That is true, I was oversimplifying somewhere. But, on any service where there's a free ad supported version and a version where you pay up front, the ad providers are usually going to end up the biggest paying customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YouTube rewind 2019
Because the alternative to ContentID is Youtube being forced into bankruptcy by the legacy copyright owners.
This also doesn't seem to have been a ContentID issue but instead CBS seemed to have flagged the video on purpose and under the DMCA Youtube don't have much of a choice but to action the takedown, it's not Youtube's fault the courts have made it all but impossible to claim damages from false takedowns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: YouTube rewind 2019
This is a youtube problem. Their claim system is flawed. Once a claim is on a video, it gets demonetized and taken down; No human interaction. This is a clear Fair Use issue that is an example of acceptable use. This is blatant abuse of the horribly implemented youtube claim system by CBS and many others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The flaw doesn’t lie with YouTube’s claim system — it lies with the DMCA, which legally mandates a notice-and-takedown system for everyone. YouTube can’t fix its claim system until the DMCA’s takedown system changes to notice-and-notice. That won’t happen any time soon, especially not with people like you thinking the symptom is a bigger problem than the disease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The DMCA is definitely the source of the problem, but not quite in the way you've stated.
The DMCA does not mandate notice-and-takedown, it just makes it incredibly risky to not take the content down immediately by making the service provider liable if it ends up being found to be infringing. Since YouTube can't possibly evaluate every video it gets complaints for manually, it's not worth taking on that risk.
This is what allows people to pretend it's not required when there's really no other way to do it anyway. It's honestly worse than if it just mandated the takedown because of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The DMCA mandates that anyone who ignores any given takedown notice — even if it’s unlawful bullshit — accepts legal liability for leaving up the content listed in the notice. No one without the resources of Google or some other large corporation would dare ignore a notice and risk a lawsuit; even the large corporations don’t tend to risk lawsuits.
The takedown system is mandated by the DMCA. The punishments for ignoring takedown notices are part of that system. To say notice-and-takedown isn’t mandated by the DMCA is to ignore how those punishments tend to weigh heavily in favor of the plaintiffs (i.e., whoever sends the takedown notice), especially when you know who tends to enforce copyright to its fullest extent. ProTip: It ain’t regular jackoffs like you and me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: YouTube rewind 2019
"Once a claim is on a video, it gets demonetized and taken down"
Yes, and the reason for that is that they get an insane number of claims. Even if they don't automate the response, the people filing them claims are automating their side. Even if it were possible to hire enough staff to manually go through every claim, they would still be filed faster than humans could process them.
"This is a clear Fair Use issue that is an example of acceptable use."
Bear in mind that one of the reasons why ContentID exists is because Viacom were suing them over content that Viacom themselves uploaded. The vagaries of copyright law won't keep them out of court, but assuming that copyright holders aren't lying their asses off when filing claims will.
"This is blatant abuse of the horribly implemented youtube claim system by CBS and many others"
Yes, so it's about time that they started facing consequences for lying and defrauding, rather than people just complaining about YouTube every time a mistake is made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YouTube rewind 2019
YouTube's copyright problem is called the DMCA. They can either take action when notified of a copyright claim, or risk being taken to court for copyright infringement because they did not act. The notice was not one that YouTube could ignore, because it was a valid, (in form and detail), notice from the copyright owner of the content identified.
YouTube's options were take it down, or fight it on fair use grounds. The latter course of action would almost certainly start with a fight over standing, because YouTube is not the copyright owner of the video in question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: YouTube rewind 2019
Why would Google fight their corporate buddies at CBS because some poor people got inconvenienced?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: YouTube rewind 2019
I know you want to hate all corporations really really really bad. That doesn't make any of what you just said make any sense, though.
The DMCA has made it far far more expensive to defend the poor people than to let them fight it out themselves. It's not worth imagining conspiracies when the simplest explanation is as strong as this one is. Either take the content down until the poor people explain why it wasn't infringing, or go out of business.
Google isn't the bad guy here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: YouTube rewind 2019
I’d like to offer a minor correction: the DMCA is one of its copyright problems. The others are ContentID (particularly the inability to appeal a match to YouTube) and the problems with moderation at scale in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One thing not mentioned in the article - how positive was the review? I could see this as being a hamfisted attempt to keep dissenting voices silent while CBS pimp for new subscriptions, since they apparently don't have much else for people to specifically sign up for, at least from my understanding. It makes zero sense if it was a positive review but I can imagine a department being told to kill bad reviews.
Personally, I thought the first episode was... OK. Nothing special but intriguing enough to continue watching. But then, where I live it's on Prime Video, so I didn't spend a penny extra or change my viewing habits in the slightest to watch it. I might think differently if I'd paid specifically for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"What happened to Fair Use?"
John Smith, Richard Bennett and Tero Pulkinnen lined up behind a glory hole...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advice please
Who should I be more angry at?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Advice please
Committee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yay, more "get back at trump" scifi.
I wouldn't mind if it wasn't all crap. When your motivation behind creation is childish hatred, your product will almost always be crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yay, more "get back at trump" scifi.
So, ignoring your idiotic childish need to insert your own politics into every thread where it doesn't belong - which sci-fi do you prefer? What should we be watching other than the generations-long running property that has always promoted progressive views, but apparently isn't coddling you toddlers enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yay, more "get back at trump" scifi.
All those serious takes on Heinlein? Oh, wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yay, more "get back at trump" scifi.
I only wish they had serious takes on Heinlein. I'd love to see Starship Troopers done in the same vein as The Big Red One. And some of his other stuff, too. They totally destroyed Red Planet trying to make it into an eco morality play for kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay, more "get back at trump" scifi.
You see, this is what I mean. While my politics veer in a very different directions and I did enjoy Verhoeven's take on on Starship Troopers, I'm always on the lookup for new viewpoints and I would happily delve into quality material that just happens to view the world in a different way that I do. I don't particularly care for outright troll or propaganda material, but I will happily look into something told from an honestly held alternative viewpoint.
Instead, we have someone whining that a show that's always been left of centre and always commented upon issues of the day is not sufficiently bowing down to his favourite politician. Presumably without ever having seen the show, and almost certainly having lived through 8 years of Obama without uttering a word of complaint when he was being attacked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay, more "get back at trump" scif
I like Verhoeven's movies too, but I don't quite think the parody form suits Starship Troopers as well. That's why I'd like to see a more serious version - maybe I actually wouldn't like it as much, but we'll never know if it's not made.
As to Angry Joe, I like some of his videos, and hate others. He's kinda hit and miss as a reviewer in my opinion... which is only my opinion. I also haven't seen Picard yet, and with the abortion CBS made called Discovery, I might not ever see it unless some reviewer I trust give me reason to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay, more "get back at trump"
"I also haven't seen Picard yet, and with the abortion CBS made called Discovery, I might not ever see it unless some reviewer I trust give me reason to do so."
Which would make it especially ironic if Joe's review was such a review. But, I suspect not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay, more "get back at trump"
"Discovery" has actually been a very entertaining series. "Picard" has started off very well, was like sitting down with an old friend after a long absence. But then, I decide for myself what I like and don't like instead of letting "the internet" tell me what I should and shouldn't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay, more "get back at trum
You're entitled to your own opinion, no matter how wrong it is. ;) :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yay, more "get back at trump" scifi.
He goes for Lost in Space. It is not only his favorite sci-fi show, it is also his lived experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yay, more "get back at trump" scifi.
I loved Lost in Space! As a kid. That and Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica and Buck Rogers...
Lost in Space hasn't held up as well over the years compared to those others, but better than some later ones like Space Rangers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay, more "get back at trump"
Flash Gordon and similar shows were quite humorous with the clearly visible wires suspending the spaceship whose engine exhaust (smoke) rose up in the air. Never did understand why they did not shoot those scenes sideways. Oh - and when they had to go to the planet surface, they jumped out while in orbit floating down with the help of a cape.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay, more "get back at trump&qu
Fortnite in spaceeeeeeeeeeee!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That would explain a good portion of your comment history, then — including the comment to which I’m replying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So... I didn't even know this Picard thing existed until this post came up. And it's really some allegorical Trump-hating? (According to spill kit on aisle 5, anyway.)
As an aside: I don't understand what is so bad about hating Trump. He was an idiot child asshole 30 years ago, and still is today, just more so. Plenty of people hated him, and probably still do, who now find him at least a useful idiot for their party. They have really gone downhill, man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yay, more "get back at trump" scifi.
I’m sorry, but what does that have to do with anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yay, more "doesn’t understand what an allegory is " posts
“When your motivation behind creation is childish hatred”
That explains your entire posting history in one sentence bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand
Don't be too sure that this is what it appears on the surface. Techdirt and many online sites repeatedly mention the Streisand effect and have great public angst over bogus take down notices. I pose the possibility that this is a clever use of the TDN/Streisand effect in order to boost publicity.
Look at a marketing firm perspective: Most Internet users are aware of false DMCA take down notices, why not use that for publicity? Issue a bogus take down notice and let the fur fly. The item (Picard) being pushed will have greater public exposure.
I don't claim that this is the case, but I wouldn't put it past Hollywood to manipulate Techdirt and others this way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People usually want positive press for their projects. Having a project connected to a bullshit copyright takedown designed primarily to silence someone’s critical speech? Not so much with the positivity. If anything, knowing CBS pulled this shit makes me far less likely to watch Picard — even through piracy — never mind any other CBS show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most people have the attention span and memory of a goldfish. There is no such thing as bad press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Really? Do you think Union Carbide would agree? How about Enron, or Exxon, or the government of Flint, Michigan? Do you think Harvey Weinstein has been enjoying all his publicity lately, because there is no such thing as bad press? Or Matt Lauer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Good one, nasch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On the other hand
Unlikely in this case, I think. Picard is targeted at a kind of viewer who will not only be way more aware of what's going on than most, but be aware of the politics surrounding this kind of takedown. The type of person who's in the market for a Next Generation spinoff is almost certainly already aware of the show, and while they might be swayed by reviews, they probably won't be swayed by corporate abuse of the internet.
Occam's Razor applies here - the most likely reasons are that CBS simply were a little overzealous over a bad review, or over their copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why does Techdirt keep insisting situations like this immediately grant fair use?
It's moronic.
The law is clear: only a court can determine if the use is fair. It's not a fair system, we can all agree, but the GUIDELINES were added so juries can decide if the use is fair and allowed.
It doesn't matter how many cases came before it. This is a civil matter, which means every case stands on its own.
Don't blame CBS for using the law against Vargas (who I enjoy).
Don't blame Vargas for being upset.
Blame the politicians who refuse to fix copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Why does Techdirt keep insisting situations like this immediately grant fair use?"
Because the type of usage here is explicitly allowed in the fair use parts of the law?
Yes, a court needs to be involved before these are affirmatively applied, but why shouldn't these situations be criticised for being the type of extrajudicial censorship they are?
"Don't blame CBS for using the law against Vargas (who I enjoy).
Don't blame Vargas for being upset.
Blame the politicians who refuse to fix copyright law."
Why not blame CBS for abusing a broken law? Yes, it needs to be fixed, but CBS still deserve criticism for abusing something that allows them to force people to defend themselves in court at great cost, for a use which is explicitly allowed in the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, the law says that people who submit DMCA claims are supposed to consider fair use before submission. Unfortunately, trying to prove that they don’t is virtually impossible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Keep in mind, one just has to consider it, not to make a judgement to any degree.
So, all one has to do is, ask oneself:"is this fair use" and the legal obligation has been fullfilled.
I wonder an AI doing so would suffice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr Legacy Publisher
We considered fair use, the only fair uses are the ones we approve of, and get paid for..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’ll blame the politicians who refuse to fix copyright law, sure. But I will damn well blame Viacom for abusing the law, too. The usage of those Picard clips is clearly protected by the principles Fair Use; the only reason we’ll never get a legal ruling in that regard is because Angry Joe most likely lacks the resources to fight a costly-on-multiple-fronts lawsuit against a corporate behemoth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe the ACLU can help?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
10/10.
It's worth remembering that Viacom is hardly the best entity to be casting stones over YouTube. Considering that they sued YouTube over videos that Viacom uploaded themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That’s like blaming the ISP for what the poster wrote on the websites forum.
Did you see what I did there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Ninth Circuit disagrees. See the opinion in Lenz v. Universal. The DMCA requires copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There should be an exemption in copyright law for promotional materials, disseminated for free by the copyright holder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Angry Joe in a miror Universe?
January 27 CBS issues Angry Joe a Takedown notice for his Youtube post with 13 seconds from the Picard Trailer.
January 30, arstechnica is reporting, "CBS makes Star Trek: Picard pilot free on YouTube for a limited time".
I can't verify that is accurate since I'm in Canada and am getting the message "Video unavailable. This video is not available." Presumably blocked like most other CBS/NBC on-line content because, um, the CRTC won't let us see the SuperBowl commercials ?
Maybe Angry Joe jumped hte gun and should have waited to link to the entire show instead!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Angry Joe in a miror Universe?
As I mentioned above, I'll bet it's the tone of the review that got him blocked, the footage was just the excuse.
"Maybe Angry Joe jumped hte gun and should have waited to link to the entire show instead!"
Nah, the way these things go, I'll bet he's attracted more viewers than he had before this happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They need to copyright strike their OWN account. it contains THREE picard trailers. and other content.
What moron hasn't sacked these "copyright protectors" already?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol who is he?
Why would anyone care what an unknown amateur on Youtube says...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
freaking awesome
that was great controversy, but why did CBS claim that, instead of having profit from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]