Threatened with legal action over a Youtube upload

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

analog_addict

Well-known member
Here is the background, there was a kids VHS tape I used to rent as a child. I've been trying to find a copy for years and eventually found one on Ebay. There is a Facebook group of people also trying to track down the VHS. I made a digital copy and uploaded it to Youtube for the little group of fans. The copyright holder contacted me and even though I have now removed it, threatens me with legal action for sales lost. I'm guessing he is just trying to freak me out but it is playing on my mind a little.

Here is some info about the VHS. 200 copies were made and sold in 1991 (it was originally a pilot for a TV series that never got picked up). The content has never been sold or distributed except for those original 200 VHS copies in 1991. The current rights holder used some underhand methods to basically steal the rights from the 2 original creators of the VHS according to one of the creators sons.

I'm assuming he doesn't have a leg to stand on but I'm still a bit unsure. I'm in the UK by the way.

Thoughts?
 
Tell him you love court and got to visit one when you turned 11 last year ��. Haha! Kidding....sort of.
 
The short answer is, if you didn't create it and you don't own the copyright for it, you have no legal right to upload it. Period. Doing so opens you up to copyright infringement.

The longer answer is that it doesn't really matter to this case how the copyright holder came to own the rights. If the original filmmakers want to fight that, it's their responsibility to do so. What matters, though, is who the law recognizes as the copyright holder.

Past that, you should consult an attorney who has experience with UK copyright law.
 
Assuming he is the genuine rights holder, he does indeed have several legs to stand on, and if he's serious, you need an attorney.
 
Meh.... I don't.

This sounds akin to a patent troll situation, but don't think the dude has a leg to stand on either. It was on youtube....it's off now....you're a 10 year old kid (lets bump the age down)....right?
 
I hate to sound like the bad guy here, but I have had to deal with issues like this myself. Agencies claiming they are only going to air a commercial on local TV so they only pay a local TV talent rate. Then post it online and refuse to pay the talent. We have had to either have the audio stripped in the case of a voiceover, or had the video removed in it's entirety in the case of an on camera talent. I would take this seriously until you hear otherwise. I keep an attorney on retainer because you never know what someone is going to do. For example, I had a TV station running my custom music package, news opens/bumps/close and the like, and when it was time to renew they declined. Come to find out they continued to use it for an additional 2 years.
 
My recommendation - if he is a copyright holder (it absolutely doesn't matter how he came into a possession of intellectual property), don't assume that he "doesn't have a leg." If he is a copyright holder, there are many issues at play here:
- His real intentions (for example, he just wants to get money from you without incurring court expenses)
- Specific damages he claims (in other words how much), and what are the circumstances/facts that support the number
- Actual legal practice (and precedents) to handle copyright claims in UK
- Potential punitive damages he may claim based on UK legal system and practice
- Who the guy is and how much money he has available to actually use to go after you
- How much money you have to go through the battle (if indeed it comes to this point)

Depending on answers to these questions, your options are from dismissing the whole thing as not serious to taking it very seriously.
 
Last edited:
Scott F said:
Meh.... I don't.

This sounds akin to a patent troll situation, but don't think the dude has a leg to stand on either. It was on youtube....it's off now....you're a 10 year old kid (lets bump the age down)....right?
Click to expand...

And how many "patent trolls" have sent multi-billion dollar major corporations with more legal resources than most state governments reaching for their wallets?

ANYONE can sue ANYONE for ANYTHING.


I don't agree with true patent trolls, I'm just saying that if someone is the legal rights holder and they decide to sue you because they think they can make some money or just want to make an example out of you, it's usually going to end one of two ways: settling before court($$) or fighting IN court($$$) and possibly losing($$$$x?).
 
And how many "patent trolls" have sent multi-billion dollar major corporations with more legal resources than most state governments reaching for their wallets?
Click to expand...

yeah, but still.
 
analog_addict, I'm sorry for your situation. According to real justice, you owe him nothing. He lost no sales because his product isn't for sale. This is why we need copyright reform.

There are many situations where I wanted to use copyright material but couldn't secure the rights. I'm talking a wedding video or even just a short film for me and my friends. How much is fair to use a song or movie clip in those situations? $5? $20? $100?

But the copyright compensation system doesn't work that way. You are either a big fish licensing a copyrighted work for hundreds of thousands of dollars or you pay $0, by just using it without permission. There is no in-between for small fish who justly owe between $0 and $100.

Believe me, I've tried. I've actually written letters to the copyright holder asking for permission to use a song in a wedding video. Guess what, I never heard back. So now I have the choice of whether to just not use it or to use it and risk one day getting sued for a million dollars by a copyright holder who wants to make an example out of me.

It's either a legal problem or a technology problem to solve. But there needs to be a clearinghouse that handles micropayments for copyrighted works. The trick is getting all of the copyright holders in the world to register their works in this clearinghouse and agreeing on sane payments: 25 cents for a grade schooler to use a song in their class video project, seen only by their class. $0 to use in an independent film seen by nobody, until I show it, then small percentage of sales, up to a cap (I'm talking $25-100 for most of the low- or no-budget films. Most of them never get seen by more than a few hundred people). Some small percentage of Youtube ad revenue for a work that uses a copyrighted song (something like (length of song used) divided by (length of video) divided again in half).

analog_addict, I would say according to justice you owe the copyright holder $0, since he wasn't selling it. At the very worst case scenario, for someone who sides with the owner as much as possible, you cannot sanely think you owe him more than $100. But the problem is, with the way our current legal system works, you'll either pay $0 or thousands of dollars, especially if you include lawyer fees.

Reform copyright.
 
If you receive a letter from an actual law firm then you will know that you have trouble and will need a lawyer. If you took it down and haven't made money from any sales then you may be lucky enough that he is just seeing what he can get from just a threat. Don't do it again.
 
Run&Gun said:
And how many "patent trolls" have sent multi-billion dollar major corporations with more legal resources than most state governments reaching for their wallets?
Click to expand...

The game of patent trolls is to get a few large corporations to pay up, given that the licensing fees will be less than the lawyering fees, and that then supports their claims when dealing with others who may think about going to court to break the patent.

In the case of patents, patents can be 'broken', but the requires a lot more lawyering than most either are willing to pay, or have to pay in the first place.

In the case of copyright trolls, there is very little to do if the paper trail leads from the original producer of the work to the one demanding licensing.
 
analog_addict said:
I made a digital copy and uploaded it to Youtube for the little group of fans.
Click to expand...

This my laymen's 2 cents.


I'm not aware of the copyright laws in the UK but your copying of the VHS tape (if it had copy protection/Macrovision on it) may have been in violation of UK law and by uploading it to YouTube you distributed it to billions of potential viewers across the globe. That's pretty much the definition of breaking copyright (the right of the owner to determine how, when, where, etc., his/her work is used, distributed, etc.,). Whether or not the owner can successfully seek damages from you depends on a many factors, but if the owner wants to press the issue (as opposed to just scare you with a letter/email) you could be forced to go to court to defend yourself.




-Andrew
 
I find it peculiar that some people on a web site such as this are in support or don't condemn analog's actions. You distributed copyrighted material on youtube and facebook without permission. You're wrong, no matter the circumstances. How is it that people in this business feel ok to distribute others works without permission? Why are you looking for advice on a forum that should be in defense of copyrighted material? I'd be pissed if it was my material. I'd threaten action as well.
 
On a practical level, this particular case was harmless. On a philosophical level, everything is a remix anyway. Copyright is not an absolute and total right. It is an invented right, given for a limited period of time, and to a limited degree (for example, "fair use" is legal copying), and only for the benefit of the general public: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (U. S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8).
 
I actually like the idea of feigning to be an 11 year old kid haha.

Well maybe just sign up for prepaid legal right NOW so it's not a withstanding issue - it's good to have anyway, can get you out of traffic tickets etc. and random crap. Not too spendy. You can always cancel.

ANyway, whatever. "Lost sales". He sold 200 anyway. If he was going to extrapolate that you would have to show the cost of average sales lost over time etc. to have to pay towards his "lost sales". He has a case but I don't think there's much threat here other than an annoyance and lawyer fees. At worst.

Have you actually responded to anything?
 
Paul F said:
I find it peculiar that some people on a web site such as this are in support or don't condemn analog's actions. You distributed copyrighted material on youtube and facebook without permission. You're wrong, no matter the circumstances. How is it that people in this business feel ok to distribute others works without permission? Why are you looking for advice on a forum that should be in defense of copyrighted material? I'd be pissed if it was my material. I'd threaten action as well.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with the above...

More than likely it's not going to happen... but what if this person was making a deal to re-release it... now you posted it on the net... so its out there... then someone else reposts it... then someone else does it... its a never ending battle to keep it off the net... trust me the buyers go on the net all the time and check these things out as well...

How do I know we go on You Tube and others all the time and have to have our features removed off of their because someone posted it... so it hurts us in sales... maybe to you its only 200 copies... but to us that might be another grand to pay back investors for example... maybe that was the break even point... so the producer could least say we broke even...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top