YouTube Dusts Off Granular National Video Blocking To Assist YouTuber Feuding With Toei Animation

from the 'bout-time dept

Hopefully, you will recall our discussion about one YouTuber, Totally Not Mark, suddenly getting flooded with 150 copyright claims on his YouTube channel all at once from Toei Animation. Mark's channel is essentially a series of videos that discuss, critique, and review anime. Toei Animation produces anime, including the popular Dragon Ball series. While notable YouTuber PewDiePie weighed in with some heavy criticism over how YouTube protects its community in general from copyright claims, the real problem here was one of location. Matt is in Ireland, while Toei Animation is based out of Japan. Japan has terrible copyright laws when it comes to anything resembling fair use, whereas Ireland is governed by fair dealing laws. In other words, Matt's use was just fine in Ireland, where he lives, but would not be permitted in Japan. Since YouTube is a global site, takedowns have traditionally been global.

Well, Matt has updated the world to note that he was victorious in getting his videos restored and cleared, with a YouTube rep working directly with him on this.

But shortly after, as Fitzpatrick revealed in a new video providing an update on the legal saga, someone “high up at YouTube’’ who wished to remain anonymous, reached out to him via Discord. Fitzpatrick said the contact not only apologized for his situation not being addressed sooner, but divulged a prior conflict between YouTube and Toei regarding his videos fair use status.

“I’m not going to lie, hearing a human voice that felt both sincerely eager to help and understanding of this impossible situation felt like a weight lifted off my shoulders,” Fitzpatrick said.

Hey, Twitch folks, if you're reading this, this is how it is done. But it isn't the whole story. Before the videos were claimed and blocked, Toei had requested that YouTube manually take Matt's videos offline. YouTube pushed back on Toei, asking for more information on its requested takedowns, specifically asking if the company had considered fair use/fair dealing laws in its request. Alongside that, YouTube also asked Toei to provide more information as to what and why Matt's videos were infringing. Instead of complying, Toei utilized YouTube's automated tools to simply claim and block those 150 videos.

The following week, a game of phone tag ensued between Toei, the Japanese YouTube team, the American YouTube team, Fitzpatrick’s YouTube contact, and himself to reach “some sort of understanding” regarding his copyright situation. Toei ended up providing a new list of 86 videos of the original 150 or so that the company deemed should not remain on YouTube, a move Fitzpatrick described as “baffling” and “inconsistent.” Toei, he concludes, has no idea of the meaning of fair use or the rules the company wants creators to abide by.

“Contained in this list was frankly the most arbitrary assortment of videos that I had ever seen,” he said. “It honestly appeared as if someone chose videos at random as if chucking darts at a dart board.”

While Matt regained control of his videos thanks to his work alongside the YouTube rep, he was still in danger of Toei filing a lawsuit in Japan that he would almost certainly lose, given that country's laws. Fortunately, YouTube has a method for blocking videos based on copyright claims in certain countries for these types of disputes. The Kotaku post linked above suggests that this method is brand new for YouTube, but it isn't. It's been around for a while but, somewhat amazingly, it appears to have never been used specifically when it comes to copyright laws in specific countries.

YouTube’s new copyright rule allows owners like Toei to have videos removed from, say, Japan’s YouTube site, but said videos will remain up in other territories as long as they fall under the country’s fair use policies. To have videos removed from places with more allowances for fair use, companies would have to argue their cases following the copyright laws of those territories.

And so Matt's review videos remain up everywhere except in Japan. That isn't a perfect solution by any stretch, but it seems to be as happy a middle ground as we're likely to find given the circumstances. Those circumstances chiefly being that Toei Animation for some reason wants to go to war with a somewhat popular YouTuber who, whatever else you might want to say about his content, is certainly driving interest publicly in Toei's products, for good or bad. This is a YouTuber the company could have collaborated with in one form or another, but instead it is busy burning down bridges.

“Similarly to how video games have embraced the online sphere, I sincerely believe that a collaborative or symbiotic relationship between online creators and copyright owners is not only more than possible but would likely work extremely well for both sides if they are open to it,” Fitzpatrick said.

That Toei Animation is not open to it is the chief problem here.

Filed Under: contentid, copyright, fair dealing, geoblocking, ireland, japan, matt fitzpatrick, reviews, takedowns, videos
Companies: toei animation, youtube

Upload Filters Will Always Be A Bad Idea, But Germany's New Implementation Of Article 17 Is An Attempt To Provide Some Protection For Users, Which Others May Follow

from the but-what-will-the-CJEU-say? dept

The EU's Copyright Directive was passed back in 2019, and the two-year period for implementing the law in national legislation is almost up. The text's contradictory requirements to stop infringing material from being posted online without imposing a general requirement to monitor users, which is not permitted under EU law, has proved difficult for governments to deal with. France aims to solve this by ignoring even the limited user protections laid down by the Directive. Germany has been having a rather fraught debate about how exactly Article 17, which implicitly requires upload filters, should be implemented. One good idea to allow users to "pre-flag" as legal the material they upload was jettisoned. That led to fears that the country's implementation of Article 17 would be as bad as France's. But the final version of the law does attempt to ensure that automated filters -- now admitted as indispensable, despite earlier assurances they were optional -- do not block user uploads that are not infringing on copyright. Communia explains:

the German implementation relies on the concept of "uses presumably authorised by law", which must not be blocked automatically. For an upload to qualify as "presumably authorised by law", it needs to fulfil the following cumulative criteria:

The use must consist of less than 50% of the original protected work,
The use must combine the parts of the work with other content, and
The use must be minor (a non-commercial use of less than 15 seconds of audio or video, 160 characters of text or 125 kB of graphics) or, if it generates significant revenues or exceeds these thresholds, the user must flag it as being covered by an exception.

Although it's good that this "presumably authorised by law" use is enshrined in law, the actual limits are absurd. For example, the name alone of the EU Copyright Directive in German is longer than 160 characters. Copyright holders can still challenge the legality of material, but platforms have to keep the uploads online until the complaints have been reviewed by a human. As former Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda writes on the Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte (Society for Civil Liberties) site, there's another feature of the new German law that might help keep upload filters in check, at least a little (original in German, translation via DeepL):

In order to enforce freedom of expression and artistic freedom against upload filters gone wild, the draft law provides for a right of association action for non-commercial associations dedicated to protecting the interests of users. These associations can take legal action against platforms that repeatedly block legal content. In addition, users will be able to claim damages against false copyright claims. The Society for Civil Liberties will use these possibilities if it becomes necessary.

Those are important new options for getting material back online, and discouraging over-blocking. Reda notes that there is also good news for popular online activities such as caricature, parody and pastiche, which will be permitted without restrictions:

This copyright exception includes memes, remixes, mashups, fan fiction and fan art. The German government's draft proposal was to restrict this right to remix in the German copyright reform, although it was adopted as mandatory at the EU level as part of Article 17. The German government's proposal that these uses should only be allowed "provided that the extent of the use is justified by the specific purpose" generated an outcry in the fan fiction community. This has apparently had an effect, because the [German parliament's] legal committee has removed this restriction. Fans in Germany can now look forward to a solid legal basis for fan art and remix culture.

The new German copyright law also brings in copyright exceptions for online teaching, and text and data mining. Cultural institutions such as libraries or archives will be permitted to make their collections available online if these works are no longer commercially available. Those are all welcome, but it is the implementation of Article 17 that is likely to have the most impact. As the Communia blog post notes:

the German implementation law sets a new standard for the implementation of the [Digital Single Market] directive. This is especially true for the implementation of Article 17. With the Commission having missed the chance to issue guidance for the member states in a timely manner [discussed previously on Techdirt], other member states who seek to implement Article 17 in a fundamental rights-compliant way should look at the German law for guidance.

Since the new Germany copyright law could become the model for other EU nations as they implement Article 17 -- except for France, of course -- it's good news that it has a number of positive elements. Those are likely to prove crucial if -- or rather when -- the EU Copyright Directive faces another legal challenge at the CJEU, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Poland has already lodged one). The complaint is likely to be that Article 17 cannot be implemented without violating the fundamental rights of users. In that case, the CJEU will have to decide whether Germany's innovative approach goes far enough in preserving them.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: article 17, censorship, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, fair dealing, fair use, germany, presumably authorized by law, snippets, upload filters

If You're Going To Defend A Satirical Song From A Copyright Lawsuit, Don't Try A Bunch Of Stupid Alternative Arguments First

from the bad-idea dept

Australian mining billionaire and former politician Clive Palmer has been hit with a $1.5-million judgement over unauthorized use of the song "We're Not Gonna Take It" by Twisted Sister. The suit was brought by Universal Music after, as part of a 2019 political campaign, Palmer made videos using a modified version of the song with the lyrics "Australia ain’t gonna cop it, no Australia’s not gonna cop it, Aussies not gonna cop it any more". Setting aside the rather questionable scansion, it's a pretty obvious modification of the famous song, giving it at least a chance of qualifying for the fair dealing exception for parody and satire that exists under Australian copyright law. But in a ruling today the court has rejected that argument entirely:

Justice Katzmann described the argument that the UAP works were for the purpose of satire as "ambitious, to say the least".

At first blush, this seems insane when the song is so obviously an attempt at some kind of satire or parody. But the background of the case shows why the court reached this decision — because Palmer originally tried out a bunch of different (and pretty crazy) arguments. First, he denied that his lyrics were even based on the song they are so obviously based on:

Mr Palmer was accused of lying during his evidence when he appeared before the court in October.

He claimed his lyrics, which included "Australia ain't gonna cop it", had nothing to do with the metal song but were inspired by a similar line in the 1976 film Network.

Justice Katzmann said that suggestion "appeared to take everyone else in the virtual courtroom by surprise".

Mr Palmer said he couldn't provide the notepad he originally scrawled his ideas on because it had been thrown out by his staff.

The judge was understandably extremely unimpressed by this, calling it "ludicrous" and "fanciful", especially when it was known that Palmer had sought a license originally:

But the trial also heard a representative for Palmer had originally sought copyright approval from Universal before baulking at the $150,000 fee.

In a scathing judgement, Katzmann rejected Palmer’s claims, finding that it was “ludicrous” of the mining billionaire to suggest his song was “created independently” of the Twisted Sister hit.

She found him to be “a most unimpressive witness” and that his evidence was “at times incredible”. She said Palmer gave “false evidence” during the trial including “concocting a story to exculpate himself”, indicating “that the need for both punishment and deterrence is high”.

Palmer's lawyers also threw in an attempt to invalidate the copyright on the Twisted Sister song for lack of originality, on the basis that it is similar to the Christmas carol O Come, All Ye Faithful. Only after all these arguments failed did Palmer invoke a fair dealing defense for parody and satire, which certainly explains the judge's characterization of it as "ambitious".

So while Palmer has nobody to blame but himself and his lawyers for this outcome, it's unfortunate for the rest of us that all their bumbling resulted in the fair dealing argument being so wholly and rapidly rejected. Twisted Sister's Dee Snyder has been loudly celebrating the win, after having appeared at one of the hearings last year to explain how Palmer's version "misrepresented the message" of the song and was "not good for my heavy metal image". But copyright isn't about protecting a musician's image, and parody and satire exceptions exist precisely to allow people to change the message of a work, which is a strange thing to describe as "misrepresentation" — and they don't just apply to people who change the message to something that the original artist (or anyone else) likes or approves of, as much as I can understand the frustration of having someone like Palmer use your work for his own political advancement.

It's impossible to say for certain whether Palmer's song would have qualified under Australia's fair dealing exceptions — as is so often the the case, they are narrower than they should be and leave a lot up to the judge's artistic discretion — but it would have been a lot better to get a ruling with an untainted exploration of this argument which is so obviously the most relevant one, and the one that should have been the focus of the case from the start.

Filed Under: australia, clive palmer, copyright, dee snyder, fair dealing, public domain, satire, twisted sister, we're not gonna take it

Canadian Broadcasting Company Hits Conservative Party With Questionable Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

from the attacking-partisan-hackery-with-copyright-hackery dept

The Canadian Broadcast Company is back on its copyright bullshit. The publicly-funded broadcaster sure seems to enjoy the benefits of fair dealing -- Canada's fair use counterpart -- but it doesn't seem to like others availing themselves of same copyright exception while using clips from CBC broadcasts.

Over the years, the CBC has made some extremely dubious copyright-related claims. It tried to enforce its self-crafted licensing terms to forbid anyone from quoting CBC broadcasts and publications without its explicit permission. It backtracked pretty quickly when everyone chose to ignore its stupid policy and its petty demands for licensing fees. It granted an exception to "bloggers," whatever that means, and then quietly stopped griping about licensing fees.

A few years later, it made Techdirt headlines again by threatening podcast apps for "rebroadcasting" its podcasts -- something accomplished by the apps utilizing the CBC's podcast RSS feed. In essence, the threat letters claimed the loading of a URL into a podcast app violated CBC's copyright. It was pretty much the same thing as claiming Google violated CBC's copyrights by showing CBC URLs in its search results. Once again, everyone shrugged off the CBC's idiocy and returned to their daily business of not actually violating CBC's copyrights.

Here it comes again. Only this time there's a lawsuit attached, so it's going to be a bit tougher to shrug it off. Michael Geist reports the CBC is suing the Conservative Party of Canada for including short CBC clips in its YouTube videos.

The CBC has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the Conservative Party over the use of clips on its Not As Advertised website and the use of debate clips on its Twitter feed. The lawsuit, filed yesterday in federal court, claims that a campaign video titled “Look at What We’ve Done” contained multiple excerpts from CBC programming in violation of copyright law. Moreover, the CBC also cites tweets that included short video clips of between 21 seconds and 42 seconds from the English-language leaders’ debate. The CBC argues that posting those clips on Twitter also constitutes copyright infringement.

The CBC does not appear to be in the right here. ([extremely Fry face] not sure if pun intended or not.) Fair dealing would seem to allow this use of CBC clips, especially in the context of creating videos criticizing liberal politicians. What appears to be driving this case is the CBC's dislike for the Conservative Party, rather than any solid legal footing. Even the isolated clips embedded in Conservative Party tweets could be considered fair dealing since their use (21-42 seconds each) is clearly minimal and does not devalue the content nor prevent CBC from monetizing its copyrighted content.

That being said, Canada's fair dealing exception might have to tangle with another law, one pertaining to fair coverage of elections. If so, the Conservative Party might come out on the losing end because it edited clips to conform to its partisan narrative, rather than simply distribute unedited footage from CBC programming.

From the lawsuit [PDF]:

The respondents' use of copyright-protected material in the Infringing Material diminishes the reputation of CBC/Radio-Canada, its journalists and producers, and takes advantage of their respected integrity and independence in a way that undermines public confidence in Canada's national public broadcaster at a critical time: during a national election campaign in which their coverage must be seen, more than ever, as trustworthy, independent and non-partisan.

Selectively editing various news items together to present a sensational and one-sided perspective against one particular political party may leave a viewer with the impression that CBC/Radio-Canada is biased, contrary to its obligations under the Broadcasting Act.

This is a stretch. This assumes people not familiar with the Conservative Party will assume the edited clips were assembled by the CBC to make certain politicians look bad. That these edited clips would most likely be found with the Conservative Party's name attached makes it far less likely the uninitiated will view these as a partisan hack job performed by the publicly-funded CBC.

This argument flows directly into the CBC's claim of violated moral rights. Supposedly, the edited clips have "damaged" the reputation of the broadcast's producers and journalists, turning them into mouthpieces of a partisan group. In an era where politicians are even quicker to claim journalists are partisan purveyors of fake news, it's a legitimate concern. But it's also overblown in this context, where CBC clips are being used to highlight statements made by politicians, rather than by CBC journalists.

But here's the ultimate concern: the CBC is acting against its own interest by engaging in litigation that could further narrow the scope of the fair dealing exception. The CBC is definitely a beneficiary of fair dealing as it allows CBC to assemble broadcasts using a variety of sources without having to worry too much about being sued for copyright violations. This is an extremely short-sighted move that may pay off in ways the CBC doesn't particularly like, even if it secures a judgment against the Conservative Party. Be careful what you sue for. You just might get it.

Filed Under: canada, conservative party, copyright, fair dealing, free speech
Companies: cbc

Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Celebrate Vancouver Aquarium Censoring Critical Documentary With Copyright

from the copyright-is-censorship dept

We've written many times about how copyright is frequently used for censorship, and just recently we wrote about law professor John Tehranian's excellent article detailing how copyright has a free speech problem, in that people using copyright to censor has become more common and more brazen. Whenever we write this kind of thing, however, I get pushback from copyright maximalist lobbyists and lawyers, who insist that no one really wants to use copyright for censorship purposes, but merely to "protect" their works.

I'm finding those claims difficult to square with the following story, which I only found out about because the Copyright Alliance -- a front group for the big legacy entertainment companies, and put together by some well known lobbyists -- tweeted out a link to a story on a blog by Hugh Stephens, entitled A Whale of a (Copyright) Tale. Stephens is a former copyright policy guy for Time Warner as well as a former diplomat, who blogs about copyright issues in Canada.

He happily tells the tale of how the Vancouver Aquarium has successfully blocked filmmaker Gary Charbonneau, who made a documentary critical of the Aquarium's treatment of dolphins and whales, from using clips from the Aquarium's website. In the original version of the documentary, approximately five minutes of the hour-long film came from clips he pulled from the Aquarium's own website. The Aquarium wanted to get the entire film blocked by the court, giving you a pretty clear vision of how they were looking to censor the film. While the courts have not gone that far, they did order Charbonneau to make a new edit and remove all of those clips.

Stephens not only thinks this is a perfectly grand solution, he mocks Charbonneau for not having thought more carefully about the copyright issues here (really):

Charbonneau may be facing substantial damages if he is found to have violated the Aquarium’s copyright. You would think that Charbonneau, as a film-maker and creator himself, would have given this greater thought. It would have been so much simpler and straightforward to have taken a little more care to consider the implications of using copyrighted content without permission, and accessing clearly-legal alternate sources if necessary. That is the true moral of this story.

Wow. It's as if Stephens has no idea that filmmakers regularly rely on fair use -- and that's especially true of documentary filmmakers. It's why, here in the US, there's been a big movement to build best practices concerning fair use to help better protect documentary filmmakers in making use of the works of others. Yes, this case is in Canada, rather than the US, and they have a somewhat different set of rules involving fair dealing, but let's cut through the semantics and get to the basics:

1. The Vancouver Aquarium did not need copyright to produce videos to put on its website. It made those videos to help market the aquarium.
2. The Vancouver Aquarium did not sue Charbonneau because they were concerned about copyright.
3. The Vancouver Aquarium did not sue Charbonneau because they were protecting the vast licensing market for the marketing videos they put on their website.
4. The Vancouver Aquarium sued Charbonneau because they don't like his film, wanted to make life difficult for him and wanted to censor the film.

And copyright maximalist lawyers and lobbyists are cheering this on. I guess it's good that they're making their true colors known, but it is rather sickening.

The details of the case just make this look more and more ridiculous. The Aquarium claimed -- and the judge accepted -- that leaving the clips up in the movie while a full trial happened would create "irreparable harm." What possible irreparable harm would happen here? Yes, the Vancouver Aquarium's reputation may be harmed, but that's not a copyright issue. Again, it's difficult to see what copyright related harm could possibly come from this. Would it harm the Aquarium's ability to license those clips? It's hard to believe there's a very big market for that. And, even if there were, that's the kind of thing where a monetary remedy would fix any such harm. The only conceivable harm comes from what would normally be protected speech if one actually supported freedom of expression.

Hell, even the Aquarium more or less admits that it brought this lawsuit not because of any copyright issue, but because they don't like Charbonneau's message:

The Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre said in a statement it's pleased with the decision. The centre said it's seeking to protect copyrighted materials developed to raise awareness about ocean conservation.

"We feel strongly that the conservation, research and education programs we lead need to be fairly represented and protected from those who choose to deliberately make false claims," said the statement.

So sue him for defamation, not copyright infringement.

Stephens, in his blog, also suggests that it's no big deal for Charbonneau to re-edit the film without those clips, because Charbonneau was quoted elsewhere saying many of those clips "were filler." I must admit, I always find it quite comical how those who claim to represent the interests of artists then think that it's fine for lawyers and judges to make artistic choices for the content creators. Charbonneau had creative reasons for using those clips. We should be quite worried when lawyers, lobbyists, judges and diplomats suddenly think that they're in the business of deciding which creative choices are allowed and which are not.

So, remember this story the next time you see these people claiming that (1) they stand up for the artist or (2) that copyright is not used for censorship. They're lying.

Filed Under: canada, censorship, copyright, fair dealing, fair use, gary chabonneau, hugh stevens, vancouver, whales
Companies: copyright alliance, vancouver aquarium

Takedown First Means Takedown Fun: Toronto Mayor's Fun Kanye West Video Killed By Copyright

from the no-more-fun dept

When you assume a takedown-first posture regarding intellectual property and DMCA notices, that posture brings with it certain situations which make everyone look foolish. You get 80's music stars yanking six-second vine clips offline, for instance. Or you get radio blowhards using copyright to censor criticism online. And, of course, you get self-proclaimed representatives of aliens from the future issuing takedowns over images that said alien will be creating in said future. In each of those cases, the content was immediately taken down by the service provider, because thems the rules these days. And it sucks.

Just like it sucks when the mayor of Toronto can't make a funny little parody video mocking himself because it includes a Kanye West song.

Less than 24 hours after a ballcap-wearing John Tory bobbed his head to a Kanye West song through Toronto’s subway system, the joke video appears to have been taken down. The mayor poked fun at himself in the one-minute gag clip posted Thursday, after he mistook West, who is American, for a Canadian artist earlier this week.

“This Tweet from @JohnTory has been withheld in response to a report from the copyright holder.”

Yup, because the Mayor wanted to have a little fun with his thought that ol' Yeezy was Canadian, his video gets hit with a takedown. Perhaps it was caught by some kind of automated system designed to weed out content covered by copyright... but that would make this even worse. The video, as Tory's people are acknowledging, was supposed to be a form of parody, one which would be protected as fair use. But in the takedown first culture, that doesn't really matter. The content still comes down. If it comes down by an automated system, then there's literally no possibility any thought towards fair use would be had.

And that sucks. With more ways than ever to share content with each other, these kinds of harmless things are supposed to be fun. But the fun gets killed off by a copyright system designed to restrict first and maybe ask questions later.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, fair dealing, fair use, john tory, kanye west, parody, toronto

Book Publishers Whine To USTR That It's Just Not Fair That Canada Recognizes Fair Dealing For Educational Purposes

from the you-know,-like-US-law dept

A few years ago, Canada's Supreme Court made it clear that "fair dealing" should be applied broadly, especially in educational settings. Fair dealing, of course, is similar to fair use -- and, in the US, in theory, educational uses are also supposed to qualify for fair use. As Section 107 of the US Copyright Act states:

The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

Thus, it seems like the Canadian interpretation is very much in line with the US's statutory view of fair use. Of course, over the years, in the US, publishers have repeatedly chipped away at fair use, such that now that Canada has moved to a position more akin to what the US's is supposed to be, those same publishers are absolutely flipping out. Last year, we noted that those US publishers submitted a recommendation to the USTR claiming that fair dealing in Canada was simply piracy. This was the publishers' submission to the USTR for consideration in preparing its annual Special 301 Report.

Apparently, this "fair dealing = piracy" argument didn't play well enough at the USTR and didn't make this year's Special 301 charade. So, the publishers are pissed. Or so reports a recent bit in Politico's Morning Trade (I'd link to the actual story, but Politico apparently doesn't believe in making it easy to permalink to its Morning Trade tidbits, so it's no longer there), where it notes they've asked the deputy USTR (and former BSA boss) to do something.

Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Robert Holleyman is traveling to New York today to attend the opening ceremony of BookExpo America, put on by the Association of American Publishers. The industry group is steamed over USTR’s failure in a recent report to confront what it regards as Canada’s overly broad copyright exception for educational purposes. “Active engagement by the U.S. and Canada to remedy the damage should not be put off any longer,” the AAP said.

Think about that for a second. Here are American publishers flat out complaining about Canada setting up its laws to help people get educated. Do these publishers think even in the slightest about the kind of message they're sending out? "Fuck educating children -- we want more money."

Filed Under: book publishers, canada, education, fair dealing, fair use, robert holleyman, ustr
Companies: association of american publishers

Our Reply To A Totally Bogus Monkey Selfie Cease & Desist

from the monkey-see,-monkey-do,-monkey-needs-to-learn-the-law dept

Dear Icondia,

I am in receipt of your letter, dated December 22nd, but received earlier this week, in which you assert a number of things and demand that we "cease and desist" from "all infringing activities" concerning the now rather famous "selfie" image taken by a macaque monkey using a camera supplied by photographer David Slater. I am assuming you're familiar with this image -- as is much of the world -- but as a reminder, it is this one: We, as a news publication that frequently discusses intellectual property issues, have been covering this story since those photos first went viral in 2011, focusing specifically on the intellectual property questions raised by the photos, and the fact that under the law, they are unquestionably in the public domain. In fact, yours is not the first request to take down these photos, as a previous representative of Mr. Slater's, Caters News Agency, sent us a shorter demand letter in 2011. At the time we explained why we had no obligation to take down the photos.

That is still true today, even as you present your rather unique legal theories. I gather, from your website, that your organization was set up to try to cash in on the Image Rights (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Ordinance, 2012, specifically, in trying to make a big deal out of a new (and tremendously problematic) intellectual property concept known as "personality rights." It also appears that the world has not beaten a path to your door over this law, as one analysis shows that in the years since this new law passed only 51 registrations have occurred, three of which are related to this particular macaque monkey.

This law does not apply to us for a variety of reasons, just a few of which we will detail below. If we need to lay out even more reasons as to why your argument is absolutely frivolous -- such as in court -- we are prepared to do so.

First, we are a US-based company with all of our servers in the US, and the laws of the US apply to us. The laws of Guernsey do not. In the US, the image is quite clearly in the public domain, as we have discussed for years. While I recognize that some people employed by your firm have some rather unique legal theories for why this photo may not actually be in the public domain, the US Copyright Office disagrees with you. This past August, the US Copyright Office released a draft of its Compendium of Copyright Practices, which notes, rather directly, that a photograph taken by a monkey is not subject to copyright, but rather would be in the public domain. It is on page 54 of the document, though I'll post a screenshot here of the relevant portion (which I can easily do because, as a work of the federal government, this document is also in the public domain): On December 22nd -- the same day you sent your letter -- the Copyright Office further updated the Compendium so that it is no longer in draft -- and is now officially in its 3rd edition. You can see the document here. The Copyright Office actually extended its discussion on this matter, but as you can see on page 68, Section 313.2, it still notes that a "photograph taken by a monkey" is not copyrightable subject matter under US law. While it is unlikely you saw this official edition in time for sending out this letter, the draft edition was available for many months.

As the image is unquestionably in the public domain in the US, we are not infringing on the "exclusive image rights" of the image. Thus we will not cease and desist from posting that image. We need neither permission nor a license to continue to do so and we do not believe that either you or Mr. Slater have any legitimate property rights in that image.

Even if, for argument's sake, there was a possibility of a US copyright in the image, we would still not be taking the image down, as our use of it is unquestionably fair use. The times where we have posted the image have all involved significant amounts of journalistic commentary about the image (and, mainly, how the image is in the public domain). News reporting, commentary, and criticism are all quintessential examples of fair use, and our use of the image clearly meets those criteria.

Now, let's take this a step further, and assume (solely for argument's sake) that the law of Guernsey somehow applied to us -- which it does not. Again, the law would not apply to our use. First, the personality rights law that you rely on allows for someone to register their own personality. The image here is of the macaque monkey, not David Slater or Wildlife Personalities, and thus only the macaque monkey in question could potentially qualify to register the image. But, as with copyright law, the law in question states that it only applies to a "natural person" which means "a human being." Thus, you immediately run into the same issue as to why this image is in the public domain -- it was not authored by a human being and thus is not only not subject to copyright law, but similarly not subject to Guernsey's "personality images."

Second, even if we were to ignore that particular issue, which seems rather fatal to your argument, the image in question does not appear to meet the criteria necessary to make the claims you are making. Section 28 of the Guernsey law you are trying to apply here requires that the image must be "distinctive" meaning that it is "recognised as being associated with the registered personality." However, the "personality" in question appears to be "Wildlife Personalities Limited." While that may be David Slater's company, the image in question is not widely associated with that organization, and is certainly not recognized as such. In fact, nearly all of the public discussions in the last few years about the image are about how the image is in the public domain and emphatically not linked to Slater or any company he may have. The image is recognized as being associated with the monkey itself, but again, the law clearly states that such personality rights only applies to "human beings."

Third, and more importantly, even assuming (again, for argument's sake) (1) that the image is not in the public domain, (2) that we are somehow subject to the laws of Guernsey and (3) that the image in question is properly registered under Guernsey's laws, the law still would not apply to our use. That's because Section 32 of the law makes it rather clear that it is not infringement to use such an image for "reporting current events or news commentary." Here's the section of the law, in case you haven't read it in a while:

Fair dealing with a registered personality's image for the purposes of -

(a) reporting current events or news commentary (including criticism or review), or
(b) publishing or broadcasting any other bona fide journalistic material which is a subject of general or public interest,

does not infringe that registered personality's image rights.

In short, under no possible interpretation of any law are we infringing on anyone's usage in posting the image as part of our discussion concerning how it is, unquestionably, in the public domain. Thus, we have to reject your assertion that we are somehow infringing on the image, while similarly refusing to sign your "settlement agreement" as we have nothing to settle and nothing to agree to.

I would wish you luck in your quixotic quest to create this new type of "personality right" but, frankly, I find it an offensive and dangerous expansion of theories that seek to lock up public domain information and a clear attempt to infringe on free speech rights here in the US and around the globe. If you have any further questions about any of this, I would be happy to discuss them with you or put you in contact with our legal counsel who I'm sure would be more than happy to review these points in even greater detail with you.

Mike Masnick
Techdirt / Floor64 Inc.

Filed Under: copyright, david slater, fair dealing, fair use, guernsey, monkey, monkey selfie, personality rights, public domain
Companies: icondia, wildlife personalities limited

UK Finally 'Legalizes' CD & DVD Ripping... But You're Still Not Allowed To Circumvent DRM

from the so-that's-kind-of-meaningless dept

As TorrentFreak is noting, the UK is finally modernizing basic user rights concerning copyright (what they call "fair dealing") to officially make it "legal" to make personal copies of legally acquired copies of digital content. In short, due to restrictive copyright law, it has always been technically infringement in the UK to rip a CD or DVD, but as of June that will change. This was one of the key suggestions in the Hargreaves report from three years ago, so it's good to see it finally being put into action.

That said, this is hardly perfect. It appears that the fair dealing rules still won't let you circumvent DRM in order to make those private copies. In the FAQ the UK government is distributing, we see the following: As that notes, if the media includes DRM, you're basically out of luck:

Media such as DVDs are often protected by anti-copying technology to guard against copyright piracy, and this is protected by law. Copyright owners will still be able to apply this protection. However, if copy protection is too restrictive, you may raise a complaint with the Secretary of State.

Right, so in order to rip a personal copy of a movie so you might, for example, watch it on your tablet, rather than in a DVD player, you first have to "raise a complaint with the Secretary of State" and hope they do something about it? That basically eliminates this new effort entirely. And that's always been the problem with DRM and anti-circumvention rules. They basically give content middlemen the ability to put a veto on user rights, blocking them from doing things that are perfectly legal.

Filed Under: anti-circumvention, cd ripping, circumvention, drm, dvd ripping, fair dealing, uk, user rights

US Copyright Lobbyists Equate Fair Dealing To Piracy And Copyright Infringement

from the also:-our-jacked-up-rates-no-longer-as-lucrative-as-they-used-to-be dept

Access Copyright, the Canadian collection society that licenses publications for use in Canadian educational institutions, increased its per student rates 1,300% back in 2010. Anyone with a passing familiarity with the term "pricing yourself out of the market" could have predicted the inevitable outcome. Faced with suddenly exorbitant fees (that even covered stuff nominally outside of AC's purview -- like hyperlinks), Canadian universities dropped Access Copyright and began working to license educational materials without AC's assistance.

Access Copyright thought being the "only game in town" would prevent a mass exodus, but it soon became clear universities would be more than happy to deal with the complexities of direct licensing rather than take the easy route and be gouged by AC. (Fun fact: rates jumped 1,300% but less than 10% of these fees make their way back to the actual authors.) 14 of Canada's top 25 universities had dropped Access Copyright by the middle of 2011.

US publishers aren't happy with the outcome of Access Copyright's rate hike, which has resulted in a considerable revenue drop. Of course, they don't blame Access Copyright. In its submission for the 2014 Special 301 report (the report that serves as the copyright industries' naughty/nice list), IIPA (the uber trade group representing all of the other copyright maximalist trade groups) blames everyone and everything but Access Copyright.

As the Canadian education community continues to shift away from the Access Copyright licence, relying instead on a combination of site licenses for materials, open access, fair dealing, and individual transactional licences, U.S. publishers are now urging the U.S. government to pressure the Canadian government to take action.

Yep, the problem here is fair dealing (the Canadian version of fair use), open access and the universities' willingness to swim in the convoluted waters of individual licensing rather than be extorted by Access Copyright. A few long paragraphs from the submission detail US publishers' unhappiness with the current situation and their expectation that the US government will "do something" to restore its access to exorbitant licensing fees.

U.S. publishers serving the educational market with textbooks, journals and other materials are currently facing a comprehensive collapse of an important element of their Canadian market: licensing revenue for permission to copy works for educational uses. Well-established collective licensing mechanisms for administering such permissions are reeling under the combined impact of adverse judicial decisions and drastic legislative changes.

Interrupted here to note that US publishers do not consider a steep rate hike to be the problem. Instead they call out "judicial decisions" and "drastic legislative changes," ignoring the economic reality that if you suddenly jack up prices, customers tend to flee.

The Copyright Modernization Act added “education” to the list of purposes (such as research and private study) that qualify for the fair dealing exception. Because “education” is not defined, the amendment creates an obvious risk of unpredictable impacts extending far beyond teaching in bona fide educational institutions (and far beyond materials created specifically for use by such institutions).

Entities heavily vested in copyright protection hate exceptions…

Even before the fair dealing amendment came into force, some of the decisions in the “pentalogy” of copyright decisions issued by Canada’s Supreme Court in July 2012 posed a direct threat to the educational licensing market. These decisions underscored, among other things, that Canadian courts are to treat fair dealing, not as an exception, but as a “user’s right,” subject to a “large and liberal interpretation”; that the purposes of the putative user, not those of a commercial or non-commercial intermediary that actually makes the copy and supplies it to the user, are of primary relevance in determining whether a dealing is fair; and, that factors such as the availability of a license to make the use, and even the overall impact of widespread unlicensed use on the actual or potential markets for the work, carry much less weight in Canadian law than they do in U.S. fair use jurisprudence.

Canada has gone considerably farther than the US, viewing fair dealing both as a right and something subject to "liberal interpretation." The complaint here boils down to that last sentence: Canada's law isn't as restrictive as the US's and, therefore, must be forced into compliance by the US government.

Although the Alberta Education v. Access Copyright case in the Supreme Court’s pentalogy directly affected only a marginal aspect of the educational copying collective licenses — reprographic copying of a few pages per student per year of short excerpts of already purchased supplemental texts by K-12 teachers for use in class instruction — its ultimate impact has been much more destructive.

Only in the fevered mind of a maximalist is expanding fair use exceptions considered "destructive." Keep in mind that this is an industry that is actively begging its respective governments to help it make it more expensive to educate students.

Lawyers for primary and secondary school systems across Canada, giving both the precedents and the new fair dealing amendment the “large and liberal” reading that the pentalogy decisions encouraged, concluded that fair dealing now eliminates the need for them to obtain any license from a collecting society such as Access Copyright, including for uses such as copying of primary textbooks or of newspaper articles, course packs, digital copying (including digital storage and distribution through learning management systems), and copying for uses outside the classroom. Consequently, as soon as the new Act came into force, virtually all K-12 school boards across Canada cancelled their licenses with Access Copyright.

The publishers once again fail to consider the possibility that lower rates might have helped it retain more licensees. This isn't just because of legislation and court decisions. This is also the bleeding that normally results from an enormous, self-inflicted wound.

Anticipated 2013 annual licensing revenue of at least C$12 million to right holders and authors — much of it destined for U.S. publishers, which enjoy a large market share in the educational sector – evaporated. Similar legal advice was provided to post-secondary institutions, and many of them have declined to renew their Access Copyright licenses as they expire. Access Copyright negotiations with two of Canada’s largest universities — the University of Toronto and Western University – collapsed in recent weeks over this issue. The licensing revenue stream from higher education – historically larger than the K-12 revenue – is thus in immediate jeopardy...

Just in case anyone reading the submission might be unsure of whose interests are being protected, the publishers spell it out in black and white.

After stating its case against fair dealing, the publishers move on to their demands for government intervention.

Publishers are already re-assessing their planned investments in new materials for this core market. We urge the U.S. government to engage with Canadian authorities to ameliorate this threat to the entire educational publishing market in Canada, which is already having deleterious impacts on publishing revenue, investments and jobs on both sides of the border.

In other words, punish the Canadian government for Access Copyright's sins.

But all of this above isn't even the best/worst aspect of this submission. This long complaint about the whirlwind Access Copyright reaped after its 1,300% fee increase makes up the bulk of a subsection in the IIPA's submission. Guess what subheading the US publishers chose to place their attack on fair dealing under.

The Piracy and Infringement Situation in Canada – Offline

That's right. US publishers feel fair dealing exceptions are inseparable from piracy and infringement. Legal exceptions also known as the rights of users, backed by Canadian legislation and judicial decisions, are discussed (well, complained about) in a subsection supposedly dealing with infringing activity. By the time the US publishers have finished griping about fair dealing, there's hardly any room left to discuss actual infringement or piracy. But if you have any doubts about the mindset of US publishers when it comes to fair use exceptions, check this out. This is the last sentence of the last paragraph dealing with Access Copyright and fair dealing.

Even if some expanded uses are permitted, the appropriate balance must still be struck so that educational publishers are duly compensated for their works, thus ensuring a viable domestic \ marketplace for commercially-published educational materials.

This is the first sentence of the immediately following paragraph.

Serious piracy problems persist in Canada’s offline marketplace as well.

The annual Special 301 reports have always been a joke -- albeit an in-joke created by lobbyists and subservient government officials. If there was ever any doubt US copyright industries are lobbying hard for the US government to remake the world's IP laws in its own image, this long complaint about the "unfairness" of another country's fair dealing laws completely erases it.

Filed Under: canada, education, fair dealing, fair use, licensing, publishers, special 301 report, ustr
Companies: access copyright, iipa