Copyrighted videos deleted
About a week ago i got a warning from youtube about one of my Dark Angel fanvideos, saying it was copyrighted by Fox broadcasting studio and promptly muted, Today i got another warning and had to remove all the dark angel fan videos from my channel because if i did not my channel would be deleted. Eventually i will probably get flagged for using supernatural clips that i do not own in videos and the entire point of my channel would be pointless. I made fanvideos, I am not breaking the law..
Do you guys honestly think it's fair that my account is getting flagged?
Argentina
Australia
Belgium
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Egypt
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Hong Kong
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Jamaica
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
Maldives
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Republic of Korea
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sudan
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Venezuela
Vietnam
Virgin Islands, U.S.
Posts
Yes
ReplyDeleteyes. You used copyrighted content, for which you were warned more than once to take down. You refused to do so, so they removed them for you.
ReplyDeleteThis is probably one of the most complex issues facing the internet. Your videos are almost always a great mash up of content produced by others but there is considerable added value in the way it is done which could constitute it as an "art form" and hence free of some of the restrictions normally applied to copyright.
ReplyDeleteCopyright is a complex issue and the lobby in favor of it is relatively strong. As a result the so called "laws" are relatively broad.
Now there is the concept of "fair use" but this is more an abstraction than anything else and it is poorly defined at best in the "old world" and even less well defined in the "information age".
One (and i stress only one) of the standards that is normally used is if the content is doing harm to the original product. In your case, there is a strong argument that you are doing more good then harm. You create a new product based on the original content. It adds value but at the same time does nothing to damage the original product.
There are many who worship at the alter of the copyright Gods and they will be only too happy to point out the fact that it is the law. But a "law" is as much about the intent as it is about the words written down on paper. If we stifle creativity in the name of protecting commercial creative properties then what have we become as a society.
Content creator should think twice before alienating the very communities that support their work no matter what those words on paper say.
Anon anyone who has recorded a movie from TV or has ripped a CD has violated copyright laws in the strict sense of the law. Are you going to throw them all in cages if they fail to comply with words on paper?
ReplyDeleteOne thing you have to keep in mind is that not only would you be liable for copyright infringement but also YouTube. Copyright law allows for both contributory and vicarious liability. YouTube doesn't want to be sued for copyright infringement because of your video, so it's not going to fight for your 'fair use' claim.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, YouTube enjoys a specific protection under the DMCA 'safe harbor' provisions, which in order to maintain, it must quickly comply with a 'take down' notice, so it is in YouTube's best interest to yank anything that a right's holder objects to.
You can fight a take down if you believe you have a legitimate 'fair use' claim, you don't, which would lead to a legal dispute over the usage, which you would lose, but if you feel like objecting to those 'words on paper' as modelmotion describes US law, then go for it, lawyers need the work.
The issue is with the original copyright holder since Youtube does indeed need to comply with the words on paper known as the DMCA. (although of late the safe harbor status of Youtube has been questioned.)
ReplyDeleteIt should be noted that IP laws are quite different from "real property laws" which have more standing from a historical point of view. They were devised to give the holder an opportunity to receive fair compensation for their work. Not to go around crushing the creativity of others who might do a simple fan mash up video.
The founding fathers would turn in their grave. Then again they did give us the body of individuals that create the words on paper. A body that has now fallen under the influence of powerful highly paid political lobbys that twist the words to their own needs and desires to control and manipulate the commercial marketplace.
Last time I looked into fair use, and this was a while ago, I believe I saw something about being allowed to use 11 sec clips.
ReplyDeleteWell, its surely legal that they could make you take them down, but its stupid for them to do so in such cases. Fanvideos like yours increase the popularity of shows--I've yet to see any study which suggests that fan videos have anything but a positive effect.
ReplyDeletePosting fan mashups is different, of course, then posting whole episodes of shows online.
If you have an email for FOX that seems like a good place to complain, let me know and I'll let them know i think they suck.
Many copyright holders have approved the use of their material in fan videos, including EQAL.
Eqal took the approach of using a non commercial creative commons license which seems like a productive direction.
ReplyDeleteOne problem on Youtube however is that their business model requires the use of paid ads laid over the video which are not under the control of the user. This might violate the creative commons license unless the party that issued it has an "arrangement" with youtube.
For your reference: http://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals
ReplyDeleteThanks Anon.
ReplyDeleteRemember that just because there are words on paper does not make them right or just or fair. There are plenty of examples in history where the words on paper were just pure evil.
ReplyDeleteAnd lets not forget what we have seen recently. Votes for sale to the highest bidder. Are these the type of people whose words on paper you really want to control your life and your liberty?
Michelle makes great mash up videos. The so called "rights owners" should think about that before they go throwing their automated fingerprinting around.
It doesn't really address the original question, but YouTube is not the only site to which you can upload your vids.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to play it safer you could try backing up the videos to http://drop.io and then sharing with friends privately.
ReplyDeleteOk that falls far short of the freedom once provided on the interwebz but limited distribution use is far more protected under fair use. For example a teacher can photocopy a few pages of a book for limited distribution in a classroom even though it is a violation of the words on paper known as "copyright law". That usage is considered "fair use" because a limited portion of the original work was copied and the distribution is limited and for educational purposes.
It should be noted however that according to the strict interpretation of the "words on paper" even the limited use on http://drop.io would most likely fall under the description of copyright infringement. When you deal with entertainment it is far more difficult to qualify as "fair use".
Wtf is up with you calling the law "words on paper." Are you trying to make it seem less important? Everything is jut words on paper. Your right to free speech is just "words on paper." If people found themselves above that, your house could be torched for your free speech on this blog since the whole free speech RIGHT is just "words on paper" and it would be totally fine.
ReplyDeleteWtf is up with you calling the law "words on paper." Are you trying to make it seem less important? Everything is jut words on paper. Your right to free speech is just "words on paper." If people found themselves above that, your house could be torched for your free speech on this blog since the whole free speech RIGHT is just "words on paper" and it would be totally fine.
ReplyDeleteThey are just words on paper because the entity that created them is just a legal fiction.
ReplyDeleteI hope that eventually they gather that fan videos do little harm and are just that, fan videos.
ReplyDeleteBut if i were you I'd upload the videos to a non-youtube site and then make a video linking to them.
Or you could do a video-compiler aka Ventrillo Harresment and create a new account for each video and link to them by adding them to your favourites.
You're saying Congress, a legal entity that the founding fathers specifically laid out, is just "legal fiction." Wow. Be careful what you say mm, according to you, your right to free speech really is just "words on paper."
ReplyDeleteSpeech is a natural right of all humans.
ReplyDelete"Free speech" was an attempt to curb the ability of the body created by the founding fathers to curb the natural right of humans.
In other words humans were not given "free speech". You always had it. But people were afraid that the "elected body" would write words on paper that would take it away from them so they made sure there were words on paper that would curb that ability.
If speech were a "natural right" then everyone everwhere would have it. Instead, historically and today, people can be put to death for voicing views that go against their government.
ReplyDeleteYou are talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Some laws are necessary for the peace and prosperity of humankind.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't one of those laws.
Regarding Freedom of Speech, it isn't a law, it's an amendment and it does have limitations. Try threatening a president or yelling Fire in a crowded building and you'll see what I mean.
"The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights and recognized in international human rights law in the international covenant on civil and political rights.
Freedom of speech is basically saying the government can't make laws limiting your public opinion on political matters.
As modelmotion already stated, this amendment was put in place to protect us from those words on paper.
As for the matter at hand. I say, screw 'em. If they delete your account open a new one again and again and again.
You should also keep in mind that America's forefathers were law-skirting rebels themselves.
ReplyDeleteIf speech were a "natural right" then everyone everwhere would have it. Instead, historically and today, people can be put to death for voicing views that go against their government.
ReplyDeleteThe problem here is that governments undermine the "natural right" .
The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."