stories filed under: "youtube"
Paramount Sends More Bogus DMCA Takedowns On Fans Filming Transformers 3 Shoot
from the who's-copyright? dept
Earlier this year, there was a reasonable bit of fuss over Paramount issuing a bogus DMCA takedown on someone who had videotaped a brief snippet of the filming of the next Transformers movie, which was going on in an alleyway right outside the guy's office. It was difficult to see what sort of "copyright" violation there was here. The guy, Ben Brown, had filmed it himself, and it wasn't like it was a private set or anything. Paramount never made any sort of statement, but the video did go back up a few days later. Apparently, the over aggressive lawyers at Paramount didn't learn their lesson. Apparently, a bunch of videos that people shot themselves of filming of the movie going on in Chicago were all taken down from YouTube under DMCA claims. Again, it's difficult to see how these claims are legit -- and this is especially troubling, seeing as it comes from Paramount, which is owned by Viacom. Viacom, of course is involved in a bit of a legal battle with YouTube -- but, more importantly, in a previous legal battle over bogus Viacom DMCA takedowns, Viacom had agreed to manually review all takedown notices to avoid bogus takedowns like this one.Filed Under: copyright, dmca, transformers, videos, youtube
Companies: paramount
Performance Rights Group Takes Down YouTube Video Of Auschwitz Survivor Dancing To 'I Will Survive' At Aushwitz
from the ah,-copyright dept
Benny6Toes points us to a story about an Auschwitz survivor, who went back to Auswitz with his grandkids and recently filmed a video of them dancing to Gloria Gaynor's I Will Survive -- as a way to celebrate life and the ability to overcome obstacles. The story is about the basic controversy over the video, as some folks find it offensive and others find it heartwarming. However, Benny notes that the video has been taken down. The video attached to that HuffPo story, when you click on it, says "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim made by APRA." APRA is a performance rights group for Australia, which raises a few questions as to why they're able to take down a video for the rest of the world. It's also not entirely clear if this was a YouTube ContentID match or a DMCA takedown (it would be nice if YouTube actually came out and said which one).Defenders of such a takedown will, I'm sure, point out that they used the whole song without permission. However, this is clearly not a commercial venture, and is really an attempt to give a life-affirming message. It's not as if they would have paid for the song otherwise. There is no money being "lost" here. In the meantime, it looks like the family has reposted the video while warning that it will likely get taken down again soon. At the time I write this, it is working:
Filed Under: aushwitz, i will survive, takedown, youtube
Companies: apra
YouTube's Three Strikes Rule Hits Again; Dance Company Has Over 300 Videos Taken Down
from the harm-done? dept
One of my big complaints with Google's YouTube is how it handles content takedowns based on copyright claims. If you get a DMCA notice, it can count as a "strike" against you, and when you hit three strikes, your entire account can be suspended. In an era where accidental infringement can occur pretty easily, those who use the site a lot may come up against those limitations pretty quickly. YouTube recently revamped its "strikeout" policy for community guidelines violations, but left the copyright strikeouts intact.There are multiple problems with this policy, starting with the fact that false DMCA complaints can count against users. We were recently pointed to a series of videos about a user on YouTube who is supposedly filing bogus DMCA notices on others' videos, and that's resulting in accounts being shut down. In a forum thread, the guy filing the bogus DMCA claims says that YouTube has hired him to seek out "useless" videos and get them removed. That's obviously not true at all, but the fact that someone so blatantly making stuff up was able to get away with filing bogus DMCA notices that got accounts suspended seems more than a bit troubling. Even if YouTube's policy is to say "file a counternotice," it appears that policy isn't really working so well.
Separate from that is the more common situation of those putting up videos where they think that what they're doing is legal. And here, there is great confusion also. We recently had a bit of a debate in our comments with a regular commenter on the site who insists that YouTube has said it's okay to upload videos without permission from copyright holders. In the ensuing comment thread, I pointed out that this simply isn't true, but the the commenter continued to insist that the only reason YouTube would have a ContentID system is if it's telling users they don't need permission. This is blatantly wrong, but the fact that even after it was explained to the commenter, she continued to believe it, shows how difficult it is to get otherwise knowledgeable people to understand that YouTube can and will cut people off and shut down their entire account, with little to no recourse, if they receive multiple DMCA notices (note: this is separate from Content ID matches, which don't count as strikes).
The latest example of this comes via Michael Geist who points us to the news of a Canadian dance company losing all 300 videos it had posted of its dance company choreography and classes and such, because it got hit with a third DMCA strike. As the guy notes, it's okay to use whatever music they want in the classrooms (I'm assuming they pay the basic licenses for that), but the second the videos go online, they risk takedown notices. Of course, with this three strikes policy, it means that even if 297 of the videos were perfectly fine, and the musicians were thrilled that the dance company used them and were online, it doesn't matter. They're gone from YouTube.
This seems unfortunate. Obviously, YouTube can set whatever policies it wants, but the three strikes policy on such notices, and then the removal of an entire account just seems to go too far in an age when unintentional copyright infringement happens all the time, and DMCA notices are sent without much thought.
Twilight Producers Aggressive IP Enforcement Strikes Again: Temporarily Shut Down Silly 8-Bit YouTube Game
from the oh-come-on dept
It seems that some creative folks put together an 8-bit Twilight YouTube video game. Yes, it's exactly what it sounds like. Using YouTube as their platform, they put together what looks like a classic 8-bit video game to the plot of Twilight. It's actually kind of neat that they used YouTube to make what's effectively a "choose-your-own-adventure" type game. But, of course, when it comes to any and all things Twilight, you have to deal with producers Summit Entertainment who are notoriously over aggressive in sending out the lawyers over pretty much any ridiculous thing they feel violates their rights.So... it didn't take long for Summit to issue a DMCA takedown on the game, which caused the game to disappear. Thankfully, however, after a conversation between Summit and the game makers, the game has been put back up. But, again, it does seem problematic when we need to live in such a permission culture, where doing something creative like this leads to takedowns and legal threats.
Filed Under: 8-bit, copyright, games, twilight, youtube
Companies: summit entertainment
Music Licensing Firm Offers Cheap Licenses For YouTube Videos
from the but,-um,-what-about-free? dept
The New York Times is reporting that music licensing firm Rumblefish is trying to help people making YouTube videos avoid takedowns or the dreaded YouTube ContentID "silencing" by offering music that can be licensed for YouTube videos at $1.99 per song (for non-commercial purposes only). While it's at least somewhat good to see music licensing firms recognizing that this market isn't going to buy hugely expensive licenses, and trying to adjust to handle this new market, it sort of ignores the fact that there are still a ton of Creative Commons and similarly licensed (or public domain) music out there that they can use. Since the Rumblefish catalog in this offer doesn't include any major label music or "big name" artists, it seems like those who might be interested in such a thing could probably find just as good, if not better, Creative Commons-licensed music. On top of that, this is the same Rumblefish who caused some problems last year when it claimed licensing rights over some public domain music, pissing off a bunch of YouTube users.Filed Under: licensing, music, youtube
Companies: rumblefish
Can One Guy Educate The World Via YouTube?
from the very-cool dept
This one is a bit personal. A dozen years ago, when I moved out to Silicon Valley from New York, I shared a house with two super smart guys, who had also just moved out to the area. One was a buddy of mine from college, and we needed a third guy to cover the third bedroom in the house we had just found. After asking around among friends, we were introduced to Sal Khan, who was looking for a place as well. We used to sit around and talk about cool ideas for businesses. I think we lived in the same house for a year, or maybe two, before going off in separate directions, though we ran into each other at the movies here or there, and every so often would email each other. About a year ago, Sal sent me an email mentioning a project he was working on called the Khan Academy, in which he videotapes himself teaching various educational lessons on anything from math to chemistry to history to finance and beyond. He even has a whole special section on the credit crisis, with an analysis of both former Treasury Secretary Paulson's plan, as well as current Treasury Secretary Geithner's plan.It's really impressive. And now a lot of people are noticing. Just a few weeks ago, I was literally out walking my dog, and started talking to someone else walking their dog, who was telling me all about this amazing thing, the Khan Academy. And, more recently, Slashdot had a nice post about it, noting that it's basically one "very, very devoted man" and a YouTube channel, which is now getting over 100,000 views per day -- all of which are under a Creative Commons 3.0 attribution-share alike license. The Slashdot piece was based off of an article from the San Jose Mercury News, which quotes Sal talking about how he's trying to teach people the way he wishes he were taught -- where they make subjects interesting and "show the beauty of what they" are teaching.
Now, I may be biased since I'm proud to see my old housemate be so successful with his project but it's these sorts of projects that really do help demonstrate the kinds of powerful new opportunities the internet and things like YouTube allow. While giant companies like Viacom want to convince the world that YouTube's success is really all about people wanting to watch clips of Viacom content, and others tell us that without DRM or strict copyright no one creates useful or compelling content, here's just one guy, who is helping to educate the world and is flipping the basic model for educational information on its head by recognizing that great things happen when information is shared and more people are knowledgeable.
Filed Under: education, innovation, sal khan, youtube
Huge Victory: Court Rules For YouTube Against Viacom
from the wow dept
Well this is a pleasant surprise. Like many others, I had assumed that the court reviewing the Viacom/YouTube lawsuit would not accept either side's position for summary judgment and the case would go to a full trial. However, as Eric Goldman alerts us, the court has quickly ruled in favor of Google/YouTube, saying that it is, in fact, protected by the DMCA's safe harbors. Here's the ruling:The tenor of the foregoing provisions is that the phrases "actual knowledge that the material or an activity" is infringing, and "facts or circumstances" indicating infringing activity, describe knowledge of specific and identifiable infringements of particular individual items. Mere knowledge of prevalence of such activity in general is not enough. That is consistent with an area of the law devoted to protection of distinctive individual works, not of libraries. To let knowledge of a generalized practice of infringement in the industry, or of a proclivity of users to post infringing materials, impose responsibility on service providers to discover which of their users' postings infringe a copyright would contravene the structure and operation of the DMCA.The court points out that not only does this makes sense from the legislative history on the DMCA, but also from a common sense standpoint:
That makes sense, as the infringing works in suit may be a small fraction of millions of works posted by others on the service's platform, whose provider cannot by inspection determine whether the use has been licensed by the owner, or whether its posting is a "fair use" of the material, or even whether its copyright owner or licensee objects to its posting. The DMCA is explicit: it shall not be construed to condition "safe harbor" protection on "a service provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity. . . ."Not only that, the court finds that since Google is good about taking down content it receives DMCA notices on, it appears the system has been working just fine, and Viacom's worries are misguided:
Indeed, the present case shows that the DMCA notification regime works efficiently: when Viacom over a period of months accumulated some 100,000 videos and then sent one mass take-down notice on February 2, 2007, by the next business day YouTube had removed virtually all of them.Once again, making it clear that "general knowledge" of infringing behavior is entirely different from the specific knowledge required by the DMCA:
Although by a different technique, the DMCA applies the same principle, and its establishment of a safe harbor is clear and practical: if a service provider knows (from notice from the owner, or a "red flag") of specific instances of infringement, the provider must promptly remove the infringing material. If not, the burden is on the owner to identify the infringement. General knowledge that infringement is "ubiquitous" does not impose a duty on the service provider to monitor or search its service for infringements.The court also claims that the rulings in the Grokster, Isohunt and Limewire cases are not relevant here, as the situations in all three were entirely different. Amusingly, the judge quotes the rather damning email from Viacom's general counsel Michael Fricklas, where he stated, quite clearly, that YouTube was "staggering" in its difference from Grokster.
Basically, the court sides with Google/YouTube on every point and eviscerates the arguments of Viacom. This is a huge victory for common sense and the proper application of liability. Viacom will certainly appeal, so we're nowhere near done yet, but it's great to see the court get this one so thoroughly correct.
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, liability, safe harbors, youtube
Companies: google, viacom, youtube
Successful Content Creators Who Use YouTube To Get Around Gatekeepers Worried About Viacom Lawsuit
from the it's-all-about-the-gatekeepers dept
For the most part, reading the amici briefs in the Viacom/YouTube lawsuit has been fairly unenlightening. You have a few, of course, that present an extreme misreading of the law, but for the most part the briefs were pretty much what you'd expect. Entertainment industry giants like Disney, NBC Universal and Warner Bros., sided with Viacom that YouTube broke the law, while tech industry giants like Yahoo, Facebook and eBay warned that accepting Viacom's interpretation of the DMCA would massively stifle innovation.Perhaps they all cancel each other out.
But reader Hephaestus alerts us to the EFF's highlighting of a brief by a group of content creators who have used YouTube to get their works seen and heard without having to go through the usual gatekeepers. The group refers to itself as the "Sideshow Coalition" in response to Viacom's rather demeaning claim that the interests of such legitimate creators was nothing more than a sideshow. But the brief (pdf) shows that they're not a sideshow at all, but people who were enabled to do great things because of YouTube, and that would be put at risk with a ruling in favor of Viacom:
- Barnett Zitron, who created "Why Tuesday," a political video blog focused increasing voter turnout that has helped register over half a million college students to vote.
- Mehdi Saharkhiz, who created a YouTube channel to spread awareness about government human rights abuses in Iran and frequently posts videos from contacts in Iran who record the videos on their cell phones.
- Phillip de Vellis, who created and uploaded to YouTube a video supporting President Obama's candidacy, hoping it would be viewed by a few thousand people. "Instead, millions viewed it and the San Francisco Chronicle described it as 'a watershed moment in 21st century media and political advertising.'"
- Arin Crumley, who could not get conventional financing for a film he wanted to make, and decided instead to self-produce it and post it to YouTube. The first full length movie ever uploaded to the site, it was viewed more than a million times, and then the Independent Film Channel picked it up.
- Dane Boedigheimer, who wanted to be a filmmaker since he was 12 years old and would spend hours each day with his parents' 8mm camera. "In the conventional media, it would have taken years before he might even have a chance to direct films. However, with YouTube, Boedigheimer was able to create a series called 'Really Annoying Orange' whose episodes have been viewed 130 million times."
Filed Under: content creators, dmca, video, youtube
Companies: google, viacom, youtube
Viacom Still Not Getting It -- Files Bogus Takedown And Kills Some Free Transformers Buzz
from the you're-doing-it-wrong dept
Ben Brown and Micki Krimmel stumbled upon the filming of Transformers 3, and from their office window, watched as cars were thrown across the air for one of the scenes. That's not something you see every day, so they broke out their cameras and filmed what they were watching. Not surprisingly, they posted their videos to YouTube to share what they had seen. Brown's blog post about witnessing the filming was filled with exuberant excitement, including the YouTube video. Except, now if you click play on that video, you get this:
Yes, it appears Paramount promptly filed a DMCA takedown -- which seems like a fantastic way to kill excitement for the movie. According to the takedown, Brown's video "matched third party content," which, of course, is impossible since Transformers 3 has yet to be finished (let alone released) and obviously Brown took the video himself. The filming took place in a public alley, so anyone around is totally free to take pictures or video and share them.
Now, not only is it ridiculous to claim that these videos are covered under Paramount's copyright, it's hard to fathom why Paramount would want to bother quashing these videos at all. After Brown and Krimmel posted their videos, entertainment blogs picked the story up and started to build buzz about the movie. Isn't that a good thing? Personally, I really disliked the last Transformers movie, and this latest round of DMCA shenanigans isn't doing a very good job of convincing me to give the next installment another look.
On top of that, this is Paramount we're talking about -- which is a subsidiary of Viacom. Viacom, of course, is in the middle of a big lawsuit with YouTube, where one of the things Viacom has been claiming is that Google should just know what content is infringing and which is not -- and yet, here, again, Viacom is falsely claiming that videos infringe. This was actually a big problem in the lawsuit, where Viacom had to withdraw clips from the lawsuit, after it was determined that Viacom had uploaded them on purpose. Also, after being sued for bogus takedowns earlier, Viacom came to an agreement with the EFF that it would carefully review content before issuing takedowns. So, with all of that combined, you would think that Viacom would be a bit more careful than to take down videos taken by others of something happening in public.
In the meantime, to make things even more confusing, while Paramount issued a takedown on Brown's video, it apparently left Krimmel's up... for now, despite being basically the same thing. You can see that one (while it lasts) here:
Filed Under: copyright, transformers, videos, youtube
Companies: google, paramount, viacom, youtube
