PDA

View Full Version : YouTube, Copyrights? What copyrights?



Tim Wohlford
02-Jul-2007, 04:55 AM
I guess it takes a huge company to get copyrighted materials pulled from
YouTube. Every nite I see new posts of people putting together pirated
videos from various broadcasts, and using them to push traffic to their web
site.

Strangely, YouTube doesn't have a way to mark a post as "copyright
violation".....

Tim Wohlford

Jim Henderson
02-Jul-2007, 05:03 AM
I'm not a lawyer, and don't play one on TV even, but it seems that a lot
(certainly not ALL - maybe only "some") of Youtube uses would be covered
under fair use doctrine.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/
usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html covers a four factor test that is used
often enough that it was codified in the copyright code in the US.

In particular, there is mention in there of the use being for comment,
and the fact that many clips on Youtube are commented upon is
particularly relevant.

Probably many copyright holders don't mind the use (though obviously some
do) because it increases the visibility. Look what Viacom went through
when they pulled all Comedy Central clips pulled - even their own people
(Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert, notably) commented on the decision as
being a bad one. I believe the clips are back up now as a result.

Jim

Tim Wohlford
02-Jul-2007, 03:09 PM
I'm willing to accept the fact that Fair Use would cover the "artistic" work
of the "crash compilation" kiddies, and that Viacom et el are willing to let
people post their stuff.

However, I'm concerned about the ones that are used to drive traffic to a
web site. I've always used the theory that "Fair Use" ends when money
changes hands, or the copyright owner loses revenue. In my mind, these
YouTube posts are using the content created by people like me (I do a lot of
writing, and used to do radio) to get some personal gain. Normally, those
websites have banner ads, and therefore the owner is getting revenue.

Tim Wohlford






"Jim Henderson" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:oO_hi.1644$8i6.1460@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
> I'm not a lawyer, and don't play one on TV even, but it seems that a lot
> (certainly not ALL - maybe only "some") of Youtube uses would be covered
> under fair use doctrine.
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/
> usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html covers a four factor test that is used
> often enough that it was codified in the copyright code in the US.
>
> In particular, there is mention in there of the use being for comment,
> and the fact that many clips on Youtube are commented upon is
> particularly relevant.
>
> Probably many copyright holders don't mind the use (though obviously some
> do) because it increases the visibility. Look what Viacom went through
> when they pulled all Comedy Central clips pulled - even their own people
> (Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert, notably) commented on the decision as
> being a bad one. I believe the clips are back up now as a result.
>
> Jim

Jim Henderson
02-Jul-2007, 05:03 PM
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 14:09:25 +0000, Tim Wohlford wrote:

> However, I'm concerned about the ones that are used to drive traffic to
> a web site. I've always used the theory that "Fair Use" ends when money
> changes hands, or the copyright owner loses revenue.

Well, if you're the copyright owner, you can issue a DMCA take-down
notice. But you have to be the copyright holder to do so.

But the "theory" you use isn't actually what's codified in law. For
example, if Stephen Colbert takes a clip and uses it on his show,
obviously he's going to make money from doing that - but that usage is
covered under fair use (as parody or commentary). There are plenty of
cases where the user of the content can make money from someone else's
work without paying royalties. It's not common (so uncommon, in fact,
that people go to extreme lengths like clearing interviewing someone
wearing, say, an NFL t-shirt with the NFL - which I think is absolutely
senseless).

Jim

Tim Wohlford
02-Jul-2007, 05:17 PM
A good point -- but I thought that parody was a specially-covered class?

Someone really should clarify these laws.

Tim

"Jim Henderson" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:zl9ii.1808$8i6.987@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 14:09:25 +0000, Tim Wohlford wrote:
>
>> However, I'm concerned about the ones that are used to drive traffic to
>> a web site. I've always used the theory that "Fair Use" ends when money
>> changes hands, or the copyright owner loses revenue.
>
> Well, if you're the copyright owner, you can issue a DMCA take-down
> notice. But you have to be the copyright holder to do so.
>
> But the "theory" you use isn't actually what's codified in law. For
> example, if Stephen Colbert takes a clip and uses it on his show,
> obviously he's going to make money from doing that - but that usage is
> covered under fair use (as parody or commentary). There are plenty of
> cases where the user of the content can make money from someone else's
> work without paying royalties. It's not common (so uncommon, in fact,
> that people go to extreme lengths like clearing interviewing someone
> wearing, say, an NFL t-shirt with the NFL - which I think is absolutely
> senseless).
>
> Jim

Jim Henderson
02-Jul-2007, 05:36 PM
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 16:17:48 +0000, Tim Wohlford wrote:

> A good point -- but I thought that parody was a specially-covered class?

Parody is covered under fair use.

> Someone really should clarify these laws.

Every time a case goes to court, it becomes clarified more - though
obviously not always in a way that is good for everyone.

Jim

Brent Wolfe
02-Jul-2007, 05:37 PM
Now, see, there ya go again, expecting anything resembling "clarity" or
common sense from a bunch of lawyers.........

;-}

--
Brent

"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving
safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in
sideways, chocolate in one hand, martini in the other, body thoroughly used
up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"


"Tim Wohlford" <geek49203@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:My9ii.1822$8i6.433@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
>A good point -- but I thought that parody was a specially-covered class?
>
> Someone really should clarify these laws.
>
> Tim
>
> "Jim Henderson" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:zl9ii.1808$8i6.987@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
>> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 14:09:25 +0000, Tim Wohlford wrote:
>>
>>> However, I'm concerned about the ones that are used to drive traffic to
>>> a web site. I've always used the theory that "Fair Use" ends when money
>>> changes hands, or the copyright owner loses revenue.
>>
>> Well, if you're the copyright owner, you can issue a DMCA take-down
>> notice. But you have to be the copyright holder to do so.
>>
>> But the "theory" you use isn't actually what's codified in law. For
>> example, if Stephen Colbert takes a clip and uses it on his show,
>> obviously he's going to make money from doing that - but that usage is
>> covered under fair use (as parody or commentary). There are plenty of
>> cases where the user of the content can make money from someone else's
>> work without paying royalties. It's not common (so uncommon, in fact,
>> that people go to extreme lengths like clearing interviewing someone
>> wearing, say, an NFL t-shirt with the NFL - which I think is absolutely
>> senseless).
>>
>> Jim
>
>