stories filed under: "takedowns"
20th Century Fox Sends Takedowns Over Its Own YouTube Mashup Contest
from the nice-one,-guys... dept
We're seeing this all too often these days, but 20th Century Fox is the latest company to force videos offline over copyright infringement claims on something they officially endorsed. In this case, it involved a mashup contest promotion, where Burger King and 20th Century Fox created a promotion asking people to create their own mashups of Seth MacFarlane's online animated series Cavalcade of Cartoon Comedy. So that's just what people did... and now at least one has had his account suspended due to copyright infringement claims from... 20th Century Fox. In this case, it was also a guy who had a vast history of using YouTube and all his videos are gone, with YouTube telling him he has no option to have his account reinstated. That'll really get people excited about participating in future contests. Update: Good news! Apparently all of the attention this has gotten has helped the user get his account reinstated. However, it's still quite problematic that it was taken down in the first place... and that it required publicity to get reinstated.Filed Under: 20th century fox, copyright, fox, promotions, seth macfarlane, takedowns, videos
Companies: google, news corp., youtube
Another Bogus Copyright Takedown: Can't Protest A Viacom Movie With T-Shirts
from the where's-the-infringement? dept
Boing Boing points us to the news that someone who was trying to protest the fact that a new Viacom animated movie was hiring Caucasian actors to play Asian or Inuit characters found that the t-shirts she was selling via Zazzle were taken down due to a claim that they violated Viacom's intellectual property. It's difficult to see what the violation of intellectual property here is. The shirts don't use any imagery from the movie itself. The t-shirts were designed by the woman herself. The only thing they have is a mention of the name of the movie -- but that shouldn't be enough to force the content offline. On top of that, plenty of the shirts don't seem to name the movie at all, but do name one of the characters. Again, it's quite difficult to see how this is an intellectual property violation, in any way. The explanation that Zazzle gave isn't entirely clear -- as it might not be a case of Viacom complaining directly, but Zazzle taking the matter into its own hands (which is equally troubling). Whether it's Viacom or Zazzle, this appears to be an overly aggressive attempt to stop perfectly reasonable public speech by hiding behind intellectual property claims. Update: Someone from Viacom stopped by in the comments to let us know that it has no problem with the shirts. Zazzle just took the shirts down on their own, and Viacom has asked them to put the shirts back up. Nice to see Viacom respond in this manner.Filed Under: copyright, movies, protests, t-shirts, takedowns
Companies: viacom, zazzle
CNN Follows Fox News In Using DMCA To Take Down Fair Use Videos
from the thin-skinned-much? dept
What is it with cable news channels for being thinskinned the second some bloggers start posting criticism? Earlier this year, Fox News used the DMCA to take down videos that were being used in commentary, and then sought to force the site to waive its fair use rights for future video usage. So, that give liberals a chance to laugh at "conservative" Fox news... but don't laugh too hard, because now there's the flipside. The "liberal" CNN has filed a DMCA notice to have video taken down that was being used by a conservative blog for commentary purposes -- again, almost certainly fair use. Also, it sounds like some of the video footage that CNN demanded be taken down wasn't even filmed by CNN, suggesting they don't hold the copyright on it. Either way, it's quite silly for either news station to file such a notice. In both cases it was clear that the sites in question weren't trying to use the video to "compete" unfairly, but to offer criticism and commentary. The fact that both news channels went the DMCA takedown route, makes it clear that they were simply trying to shut up critics. And, of course, in both cases, it backfired, bringing more attention to the stories (and just how thinskinned) cable news networks appear to be... no matter where they might sit on the political spectrum.Filed Under: dmca, fair use, news channels, takedowns
Companies: cnn, fox
Great Moments In AP Protectionism: Demands Takedown Of Videos It Purposely Shared With Affiliate
from the brilliant-work dept
A bunch of folks are submitting the latest and greatest in the Associated Press's attempt to become the RIAA of news. The AP, smartly, has a YouTube channel, where it puts up a bunch of AP videos, with the embed code enabled. An AP affiliate in Tennessee reasonably embedded some of those videos... and were promptly accused of "stealing" the AP's licensed content and ordered to take it down. There are so many things wrong with this situation it's difficult to know where to start:- It's the AP's own YouTube channel.
- This radio station is an AP affiliate.
- The AP turned on the embedding function
- When told all of this, the AP exec demanding the takedown had no idea it had a YouTube channel.
Filed Under: copyright, embedding, protectionism, takedowns, videos
Companies: associated press
Lawyers Realizing That Suing Gripe Sites Might Not Make Much Sense
from the it-took-this-long? dept
It looks like some lawyers may be realizing that suing so-called "gripe sites" (more commonly called "sucks sites") might not make very much sense (thanks to Bill Squier for sending this in). The lawyer basically points out what plenty of folks have been saying for years: these sites are usually perfectly legal. They don't violate trademark law, and almost every time such a case goes to court the company loses -- only adding more attention and legitimacy to the gripe site. Instead, the lawyer suggests ignoring the site is often the best course of action:The best course to deal with a gripe site often is to do nothing at all. The site itself actually might have a little impact on a company's business and the ferocity of its venom might obscure the reality that it is only one of millions of sites that has little traffic and that is visited only by the disaffected, whose business is ultimately lost anyway. Also, if the target pays no overt attention to the site, its operator may lose interest in this particular cause and direct his or her ire to more recent, emotionally appealing, or reactive targets. Non-action can be the most difficult course to take where there is a demand that something must be done.He also notes that sending a cease-and-desist is likely to create the opposite reaction, often encouraging the site to continue (though, while he mentions that cease-and-desist letters are likely to get posted to the sites, he doesn't mention that many site owners will use that to get more attention from others using a "they're trying to shut me down" alarm). Oddly, the lawyers' "final" advice seems like the sort of thing that shouldn't be "final" or a "last resort" but should be much closer to the top of the list:
Finally, the target might seek to engage the operator of the gripe site to find out just what his/her problem is and see if it can be rectified. This would be the cleanest, easiest, and cheapest solution. It might not work, but it has little downside risk and might, if not immediately successful, attenuate the ferocity of the attacks and might in the long run hasten the end of the site, by causing its operator's interest to wane.Wait... speak to someone like a human and see if you can fix their problem? What kind of advice is that?
Filed Under: cease and desist, gripes sites, streisand effect, takedowns
A Closer Look At How The Takedown Process Is Widely Abused
from the let's-look-at-the-numbers dept
Last week, we wrote about how, in a filing over the proposed three strikes rule in New Zealand, Google had filed a report pointing to widespread abuse of the DMCA takedown process. Plenty of others have noted the same thing, but some of the entertainment industry's lawyers are claiming my original report was false (it's great to feel loved). It's worth looking more closely at the numbers. Thankfully, one of our readers, Chris Brand, sends in the details of where Google's numbers came from. They did not -- as implied by the original report, on which I based my post -- come from Google's internal review, but from a report from two academics who studied the takedown process (pdf file).From that report, we learn that the original letter from Google (and the subsequent reporting in PC World) was a bit misleading, but the actual point remains largely the same. This is why the entertainment industry is nitpicking around the margins. They think that if they can raise doubts about the fact that someone reports 37% instead of 30%, the rest of their argument is incorrect. But, the analysis by the academics clearly demonstrates the point that Google is making clear with its filing with the New Zealand government: when you grant the power to commercial parties to "take down" content or disconnect someone because they feel "wronged," they will undoubtedly abuse that process. That's quite clear from the nature of the numbers in the report -- even if the original Google filing and resultant PC World article were a bit off on the specific numbers. So, from the actual report, we see:
As you can see, some of the numbers in the original PC World report (and Google's letter) were attributed to the wrong thing -- it wasn't about DMCA takedown notices specifically, but about link removal requests. However, link removal requests certainly would seem to represent a good proxy for DMCA takedowns. So, the overall point that Google is raising is still quite valid: these sorts of processes, whereby you allow a private entity to demand takedown, are wide open to abuse by those who want to take down things they have no legal right to take down. The entertainment industry lawyers will play a fun game where they pretend that because the numbers were slightly mixed up, the whole thing is fine to ignore -- but that's because they don't have any real argument concerning the fact that the DMCA (and other takedown) processes are widely abused. Furthermore, those same defenders of Hollywood's monopoly system will have great fun with the fact that these numbers are from academics rather than Google itself -- but since Google was using them in its filing with the government, it makes sense that the numbers are, in fact, consistent with what Google sees internally.On DMCA notices:
- Thirty percent of notices demanded takedown for claims that presented an obvious question for a court (a clear fair use argument, complaints about uncopyrightable material, and the like);
- Notices to traditional ISP's included a substantial number of demands to remove files from peer-to-peer networks (which are not actually covered under the takedown statute, and which an ISP can only honor by terminating the target's Internet access entirely);
On link removal notices:
- Over half--57%--of notices sent to Google to demand removal of links in the index were sent by businesses targeting apparent competitors;
- Over a third--37%--of the notices sent to Google targeted sites apparently outside the United States.
In the meantime, it's great to see yet another validation of what I've said in the past: when I post something, it's part of the conversation, and it's great to see the comments go back and forth to bring out how the original numbers were slightly off, allowing us to continue this conversation and clarify those numbers. You don't see that in the traditional press very much, do you?
Filed Under: dmca, false notice, takedowns
Companies: google
Google Provides Numbers On Just How Often DMCA Takedown Process Is Abused
from the quite-frequently,-it-appears dept
Some entertainment industry lawyers have been going around lately, pitching a fable that the DMCA isn't really that bad, since bogus takedown notices are somewhat rare. However, some new evidence from Google suggests quite a different story. Reader Slackr points us to some news about Google filing a comment on New Zealand's proposed new copyright law that would kick file sharers offline based on accusations rather than convictions. While New Zealand has agreed to hold off putting the law into place, while it hopes to work out a compromise, the government is accepting submissions from interested parties. While it's interesting alone that Google is participating in the process, even more interesting is what it has to say about its experience with DMCA takedown notices:In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.Google's point is that these types of laws are widely abused, and setting up such a system where punishment is handed out without any real due process is going to lead to an awful lot of mistakes. But, these stats are worth discussing just for what they say about the DMCA itself, and that myth that the process is rarely abused. From the numbers Google has seen, it's quite clear that the DMCA isn't just abused, it's regularly abused in ways that are both anti-competitive and chilling.
Filed Under: abuse, dmca, new zealand, takedowns
Companies: google
The Chilling Effects Of Warner Music's YouTube Takedowns
from the it's-about-chilling-effects,-not-lawsuits dept
The EFF is reporting on the chilling effects created by Warner Music's regular takedowns of videos of things like kids singing "Winter Wonderland" on YouTube. Due to liability issues, it's a very scary thing to contest a DMCA takedown -- as it could leave you open to paying statutory damages (up to $150,000 per song) and the recording industry's attorney's fees. Some entertainment industry lawyers think this is no big deal at all because Warner Music hasn't actually filed any lawsuits against anyone concerning these videos. But that misses the point (by an astoundingly huge margin). The chilling effects by such takedowns are huge, and are clearly inhibiting creativity -- the very thing that copyright was supposed to encourage. Saying that it's no problem because Warner hasn't filed any actual lawsuits (just takedowns), is the sort of thing that only an entertainment industry's logic could allow.Filed Under: chilling effects, lawsuits, takedowns, videos
Companies: google, warner music group, youtube
Rodeo Discovers That It Doesn't Own The Copyright On Videos Taken By Spectators
from the welcome-to-copyright-law dept
The EFF, in its continuing effort to push back on bogus DMCA takedown notices has successfully convinced the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association to settle a lawsuit that the EFF filed on behalf of some animal rights activists. They had been attending rodeos and filming things they believed represented cruelty towards the animals -- and then posting those videos on YouTube. The PRCA issued DMCA takedown notices, apparently not realizing that they don't actually own the copyright on those videos (whoever shot them does), and thus they were violating the DCMA (part of the takedown requires you to swear that you are the holder of the copyright). The settlement has PRCA not just admitting that it was wrong, but paying $25,000 to the activists and routing future takedown notices to the activist organization first. It's quite common for sporting events or other events to believe they own the copyright on any photographs or video shot during the events, but hopefully settlements like this will give them a quick lesson in how copyright law works.Filed Under: copyright, dmca, rodeo, spectators, takedowns, video
Companies: prca
