Threatened with legal action over a Youtube upload

[combatentropy]

The difference is that if someone takes your lawnmower, you don't have a lawnmower anymore. Not so with digital copying.

I'm not saying it should necessarily be a free for all, but I do believe that there should be limits --- especially since creative work isn't made out of thin air. All of your creations are based on stuff you have seen and heard. You are imitating things you have learned from others --- story ideas, camera angles, sound techniques, etc., etc. I'm not saying you straight copied. But you did, in a sense, copy.

Given that, I don't believe it's appropriate for you to have a god-like ownership over "your" creation for all eternity. I mean, the whole public performance fee for the Happy Birthday song is example of "intellectual property" taken to the absurd.

In this particular case --- which has some very particular things about it that do not apply to other times where maybe someone has outright lied to you, like you mentioned earlier --- this is a particular case of an abandoned work, where you provided no means of buying more copies, so someone made the copies for free for a group of fans. The work is already out there, on eBay etc. So the whole skeleton-in-the-closet argument doesn't apply much here. But anyway, the person then stopped providing them for free at your request, but you're still suing! That's very different from other cases, and so while I think in this particular case the person in practice hurt no one and in fact made many people happy, I am not saying (yet) that it's always okay.

 

[OldCorpse]

I say, leave it to the lawyers. I don't see anyone here advocating copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is a crime, full stop. No need to get excited, it's taken care of by lawyers, and this thread is a perfect example why we should indeed leave it to the legal process - terms like "stealing" are used, when they are clearly wrong (it's copyright infringement, not theft, which is a different crime), wrong analogies are used to physical objects when you are copying - if something is stolen from you, you no longer possess that object, a copy is a different crime; if you take a painting off the wall, you stole it, if you copy the painting, you committed a different crime. The consequences are all different, depending on the crime - of theft and copyright infringement or the unlawful taking of intellectual property, theft of services, loss of earnings, loss of potential earnings, loss of future earnings, control of economic value and so on ad infinitum. Bad analogies do little to enlighten - you need lawyers to address the specific crimes, so I don't see any reason to make false statements in the hope of influencing people's position on these issues - it is against site policies terms of use and moderator guidelines to promote, encourage, facilitate or advocate for breaking the law. Besides, it is very difficult if not impossible, to avoid veering off into politics when discussing the broader issues around copyright, which in turn is expressly forbidden here. Therefore we should limit ourselves to only discussing the strictly legal aspects. And that, I believe has been settled - the OP should contact a lawyer.

 

[Scott F]

@ David:

I got it....we can do another 5 laps around this track if you want. It's not right, it's not moral. Agreed. The morality police have always been quick to jump in on these threads. (When really...what is your takeaway from chastising "offenders" except a stronger sense of self? What are you gaining except for some wasted time on a message board? And BTW, I can't get enough of this thread so plenty of time wasted on my part as well)

The OP established his specific case is so picayune......200 VHS tapes or whatever. It's really just a case of some scumbag being greedy and trying to score some $$ through a potential lawsuit. And I know whether right or wrong, there has to be plenty of film/tv/music creators that are stoked that fans are putting their work up on youtube as Morox alluded to. This guy threatening legal action just happens to be a dick.

but I have on more than one occasion been the recipient of having my copyright work stolen.

Me too! A recording my band did in the US was bootlegged by some German record company and repressed as a CD. I gotta be honest, I was flattered! The time & effort of legal action wouldn't be worth it. Music, video...in these minor cases are we really looking at a whole lot of money?

David, I think you are shoehorning your own personal experiences into this thread, when you aren't the OP. You may have relatable stories and a lawnmower, but this thread isn't about you.

 

[combatentropy]

. . . it is against site policies terms of use and moderator guidelines to promote, encourage, facilitate or advocate for breaking the law. Besides, it is very difficult if not impossible, to avoid veering off into politics when discussing the broader issues around copyright, which in turn is expressly forbidden here. Therefore we should limit ourselves to only discussing the strictly legal aspects. And that, I believe has been settled - the OP should contact a lawyer.

It sounds like the only thing that can ever be said about copyright in this forum --- a forum of artists --- is "get a lawyer"?

 

[Paul F]

The OP established his specific case is so picayune......200 VHS tapes or whatever. It's really just a case of some scumbag being greedy and trying to score some $$ through a potential lawsuit. And I know whether right or wrong, there has to be plenty of film/tv/music creators that are stoked that fans are putting their work up on youtube as Morox alluded to. This guy threatening legal action just happens to be a dick.

We have no idea what the full story is. There is no evidence that the person threatening action is greedy, a scumbag or a dick. I'd want to hear both sides before making an opinion. But let's take the story as it has been presented. Since everyone seems to agree that there is no market and therefore no money in the video, greed (where greed = big money) is out of the question and profit is certainly not a motivator.

Who's greedy here? The owner of the art or the person distributing the art without permission?

But what if I don't want my art accessible. Example: I made several shorts over a period of 10 years that were made with the specific intention of only showing them once. The were made for a specific audience and the subject matter was for a specific period iin time. I've been asked many times to screen them again or post them on youtube. But I won't do it. It would ruin what they are.

Combat - would you deny me this? Do you feel artists or owners of art should not have total control over their art? Would you post my shorts on youtube if you could (assuming you thought they were good)?

Can I copy someones web portfolio and put it on my web page as mine? Is that ok? Or is that a different case?

I'm being sincere in my questions. I'm not being combative here. I really like to learn about positions that are counter to mine.

 

[combatentropy]

Executive Summary

Well, okay. But just to be clear, I agree that the most immediate answer to the threadstarter's question is, indeed, talk to a lawyer. That is the practical answer. Now some people think we should go no further than that. Thread closed.

Introductory Blather

But I like to consider a forum like this not just as a question-and-answer site, like StackExchange --- like "What's the nominal voltage of the third pin on the Axomatic Wonderwidget?" "Answer: 12 volts." "K, thanks, bye."

Honestly I don't come here much anymore for technical advice. Sorry, I've been into video since 1990. I come here because it's hard to find people to talk to about video in real life. Or it's easier to do it by text message for me than face to face. I come here for socialization. Mild socialization, mind you. Lord help the man whose only friends are on DVXUser.com.

So I think it's okay for a thread to dovetail into a related topic. That's naturally how conversation works. Now that's different than someone hijacking a thread. In that case, you have an ongoing thread on one subject, and someone keeps interjecting a semi-related but contradictory argument, before the thread feels like it's finished. Actually even that's okay with me. I think we should not censor opposing viewpoints. But I think that the point that most people get annoyed is when the interjector says the same thing over and over. For example, in a thread about how to use the GH4, someone keeps saying, you don't really need 4K. Now I'm one of the people who agrees that you don't need 4K. However in this instance I would agree that the interjector, if he says it over and over, is just being annoying.

My naked opinion
I believe that the law is sometimes abused. I can't say I want zero copyright (yet). But I'm sure I don't want absolute copyright either. That just spirals into insanity. I don't know yet what it specifically should be. Infinite, no. Zero, no. Somewhere in between, sure.

A few anecdotes
Believe it or not I used to have a problem with being too legalistic. I was what most people would call a goodie-goodie.
- I once turned around to go get my driver's license, after getting a half mile from my house, on a date. Not because I was afraid of getting caught (very unlikely, really) but because it was the law.
- I struggled with a guilty conscience in high school about videos I made that had movie music in them. I did not sell the videos. I made them with my friends. A few of them were used, however, to advertise the high school play on the morning announcements at school (we had TVs in every classroom hooked up to a VCR in the library, and I was one of the main people who made video announcements for school plays, dances, etc.).
- I really got tied up about 10 years ago when I tried to really obey copyright to the letter. I wrote a record company for the right to put a song in a wedding video (never heard back). I started to wonder if I had the right to film someone with a Ralph Lauren shirt, for example, because I would therefore be using the Ralph Lauren logo in an independent film that Ralph Lauren had not yet approved (not that I was even thinking of doing anything controversial. Remember, I was a goodie-goodie).

An artificial right

What helped me out of this spiral, which eventually would lock me up so much that I could never shoot hardly anything (I hope you can see how an absolute application of intellectual property law would lead to that) was the realization that copyright was an invented law. As opposed to a natural law, like the right to live. To discuss the difference between a natural law and an artificial law would take us not only into politics but also into religion, and the moderator is holding his finger above the trigger right as you read. It's in The Declaration of Independence, though, what natural right means, if you want to go look it up for yourself. Anyway that helped me. I don't run into too many problems trying to apply the right of everyone to life, no matter how extreme. Naturally though there are even situations there where people can argue (self defense, etc.) Anyway, thinking of copyright as an artificial right, as a means to an end, as the lesser of two evils, etc., etc., helped me.

Everything is a remix

The other thing that helped me is to realize just how unicorn is "an original idea, sprung from nothingness." Again I recommend watching Everything Is A Remix. If you still aren't even remotely with me after watching it, then there's nothing more I can say.

This particular case

The things I said about this particular case are different from what I would say about another case.

We have no idea what the full story is. There is no evidence that the person threatening action is greedy, a scumbag or a dick.

I agree that we don't know the full story, but I disagree that there is no evidence. We have analog_addict's testimony that the son of one of the original owners said that the current owner used deceptive means to get the rights. Now that's obviously pretty thin. But if you think about it, it doesn't matter. You are not sitting on the jury, you are sitting in an Internet chat forum. analog_addict has asked you to answer as if what he's saying is true. Since nothing you say will affect the real owner, you are free to take analog_addict at his word and answer hypothetically, if it makes you feel better to think of it that way.

But let's take the story as it has been presented.

Ah, okay, so we agree on what to do.

Since everyone seems to agree that there is no market and therefore no money in the video, greed (where greed = big money) is out of the question and profit is certainly not a motivator.

Have you forgotten the great sums of money to be made in a court of law? Why just today I read about a woman suing a restaurant for $25,000 because the restaurant, famous for tossing you a dinner roll, tossed her a dinner roll and hit her in the head. She said it scratched her eye. A dinner roll. $25,000. A dinner roll. $25,000. Are you getting it?

But what if I don't want my art accessible.

Ah, but you said "let's take the story as it has been presented," and here you are again straying from it. The video is already out there on videocassette. On eBay. And the current owner is not the creator. So the idea of the copyright holder being too embarrassed or whatever --- well, man you are really playing devil's advocate here. You're like Devil's Advocate from the Ninth Circle of Hell.

Combat - would you deny me this? Do you feel artists or owners of art should not have total control over their art?

See Everything Is A Remix for what I think when you say "their" art.

Would you post my shorts on youtube if you could

It depends. Probably not. It would have to be a special situation. Even then, I'm afraid of getting sued. So even if I thought I wasn't really hurting you or anyone else, I probably wouldn't because The Law.

Can I copy someones web portfolio and put it on my web page as mine?

You could, but I wouldn't agree with it. That's different. That's misrepresent- misrespre-.... That's lying.

 

[Mitch Gross]

I will state that I am familiar with "Everything is a Remix" and other similar arguments. And I disagree with them to my heart and soul. Copyright law may be seriously flawed and need to be overhauled, but the arguments for its general abolishment do not hold water for me. In the end the point is to provide some form of protection for the creators and funders of content, so that there is future incentive to continue to create content. You can argue as much as you want that the current system has been bastardized to no end and that certain countries are addressing it better than others, but the general concept that the value of content is in its accessibility is a fundamental misunderstanding of communication systems general and art & craft in particular. Content has value so therefore it should have a methodology to protect that value.

And for all the criticism laid on her when she said it, Taylor Swift made pretty much that exact same argument in a Wall Street journal Op-Ed piece almost exactly a year ago. And she was and is fundamentally correct.

 

[combatentropy]

Don't pull a straw man. Neither I nor the Everything Is A Remix video series calls for abolition.

Remarkably, neither I nor the video series ask for any specific changes. More like, sobriety and temperance, balance and prudence, moderation and fairness.

 

[Paul F]

Brilliant! (post 46) One of the few times someone doesn't lose their head and can have a good conversation on a topic and explain themselves well. So often these discussions get out of hand.

Ok, I see now where your coming from.

"Have you forgotten the great sums of money to be made in a court of law?"

Yes, I did. In this instance, considering the story, the patent troll analogy being discussed seemed far-fetched. I have direct experience with patent tolls in the mega-million arena. But there are bottom-feeders at every level.

 

[Mitch Gross]

Don't pull a straw man. Neither I nor the Everything Is A Remix video series calls for abolition.

Remarkably, neither I nor the video series ask for any specific changes. More like, sobriety and temperance, balance and prudence, moderation and fairness.

At its heart the Everything is a Remix argument devalues content. My point is that content has value, until one tries to assert that it does not. As I see it, the opposition argument is that it does not have value until one can successfully assert that it does. This position puts the burden on content creators to have to fight constantly to protect and assert their value. In turn that means that only those with the financial strength to stomach such a fight will assert and retain protection. So by the very attempt to make access and usage "sensible" and fair" if fact what happens is that once again only large corporate entities win out.

You might consider it a straw man argument, but I consider it a realistic vision of the logical outcome would be for what some advocate. They will become what they beheld.

 

[Scott F]

A dozen years back, a friend knowingly used copyrighted music at a corporate presentation. He was warned, but he felt he was a "little guy," and the owner of the music wouldn't be bothered.

It cost him $12,500.00.

That is indeed a cautionary tale. I would suggest as a moderator of this site, you should get word to your higher-ups that threads like "What are you listening to now" and related be removed. The thread contain links to videos that were uploaded without the permission of the owners and/or content creators. In fact, I see in some cases, the links have been replaced with "this video is no longer available due to a copyright claim from ....." But there are certainly still many videos to enjoy that were wrongfully uploaded.

As a respected site, I feel it's guilt by association to be displaying these videos with an embed code. Or any threads with clips/samples from movies unlawfully uploaded. Or...you get the picture. DVXuser is a "little guy" but hey....this is a litigious society we live in. Someone could find a loophole.

^
Is this really the world we want to live in? Myself....I'm perfectly happy with youtube as a virtual jukebox so I can enjoy a rare concert from Miles Davis from 70s TV, or my daughter can watch a cartoon from My Little Pony (yeah...my daughter....that's it)

For all the people standing on the high moral ground with the "What you did is wrong, I condemn this"....I just have to ask, have you not ever watched youtube? Think about it. He who is without sin...

EDIT: In keeping with the "civil, upbeat and friendly" mission of this forum I'll do my part to stop the fighting by ceasing to post. It's true, all I want to do is rabble-rouse and make jokes...and DVXuser is not the place for that. So apologies for going way off topic, rude comments et al. You'll get no more from me in this or any other section. Bye for now.

 

[Barry_Green]

... and now we're entering the very territory we despise, the political argument... wherein a bunch of people will argue, with no possible resolution in sight, and the only possible outcome is a bunch of members now think that other members are douchebags. Which will then spill into other threads, when someone will pick a fight because their feelings about a particular member have now become tainted due to the prior argument. And everything goes downhill from there.

Already we've got members questioning other members on their morality, their superiority, etc. What possible good can come from this?

We are not an advocacy site. We don't "band together and protest" or anything like that. We assist, we share, we advise, we help. We don't argue and fight. We don't argue higher-stakes issues, we don't argue lower-stakes issues, and we absolutely prohibit the discussion of piracy -- which, whether you agree with it or not, is the very definition of taking a copyright holder's work and using it without their permission. And it is specifically illegal and prohibited; heck, even on YouTube's own upload page it says clearly that you may not upload material for which you don't own the copyright.

That is the law. We all know what the law IS. If you choose to violate that, we don't want to hear about it or your reasons for doing so; there is no good that will come from it here and the only possible outcome is ill will among the membership here. If you want to change the law, hey -- petition your lawmakers. Start a petition on change.org. Go argue the case on politics.com or start a forum called "reformcopyright.com" or something like that, that's fine. But until the law is changed, the law is what it is, and when someone asks "Can I do this" or "am I in trouble" the appropriate answers are what is in accordance with the law. Anything else begins the process of degenerating the thread, arguing, throwing accusations, personal insults, bannings, and thread closings.

Why don't we just not do all that?

 

[combatentropy]

Back on topic: One thing that I mentioned is Fair Use (in the United States) otherwise known as Fair Dealing (in the United Kingdom and certain other countries).

I think what many here are arguing is not whether one should break the law but whether a case like this falls under Fair Use.

Fair Use means that copying is illegal, except when it's not. It is a legal term, not just a phrase bandied about by the public. It is written down in the copyright law of the United States, the United Kingdom (as Fair Dealing), and in certain other countries.

However, it is maddeningly vague. Although the United States law about Fair Use has four guideposts, "There is no magic formula; an arithmetic approach to the application of the four factors should not be used. Depending on the specific facts of a case, it is possible that even if three of the factors would tend to favor a fair use finding, the fourth factor may be the most important one in that particular case."

 

[David Jimerson]

Well, it's not really on topic. The only genuinely good response to the topic is "get a lawyer." That's the only thing which is going to serve the OP (who's lost interest in the thread, apparently).

Anything else is speculation and arguing over what should and shouldn't be. And arguing over what should and shouldn't be in terms of the law is politics.

Anyway, the OP got what he needs, and he's not participating anymore, so there's no real point in the thread continuing.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I think what many here are arguing is not whether one should break the law but whether a case like this falls under Fair Use.

Yes it is 'vague' but at least such use is mentioned explicitly...

The Original Poster apparently uploaded the entire work. As such the 'fair use' defense would have to justify why the entire work was used, rather than clips, and attendant commentary/instruction, and it served some purpose such as criticism or education for example.

The usual examples of a teacher showing a class room filled with students a full length feature that had nothing to do with their school work, but just used as time filler on the last day of the term... is not 'fair use'.

On the other hand showing a full length feature, then using various elements to show how a full film story is presented, how cinematography reenforces the main story all the story elements in the feature... would probably be 'fair use'... but only after the lawyers were paid and much court time wasted.. if it came to that. In other words to use the entire work, requires a lot more criticism or educational content than just 'show the film'.

This is sort like the Fair Use where one takes a work and modifies it to some other 'art work'. The courts seem to accept that if there's a great amount of effort transforming the original into the work in question, that it is 'transformative' and that is Fair Use.

 

[combatentropy]

Well, it's not really on topic.

You have got to be kidding me.

 

[alex whitmer]

The thread that just won't die.

 

[OldCorpse]

The thread that just won't die.

Strange. I mean, what more can be said that's actually on topic? There is plenty to say on tangential or off topic issues, but then again, that's true of every thread, so nothing unusual here either. I'm surprised it hasn't been locked yet. Anyone want to start a thread on those tangential issues, go ahead and start one, but why pound this thread into oblivion?

 

[combatentropy]

... and now we're entering the very territory we despise, the political argument... wherein a bunch of people will argue, with no possible resolution in sight

Pffft, this discussion of copyright was tame. If you want a bloody nose, head over to BMCUser and say crop factor.

 

[paulears]

The problem with copyright is that in virtually every case the real answer is so simple, but we contextualise it into degrees of naughtiness, as if a little bend is ok, but a big cross the line is prison worthy, and the law is not like that, it's kind if binary. The links to YouTube are in my view helpful, as the visibility of the media is up to YouTube/Vimeo/et al. I can't see that the forum moderators could become involved in checking each link. We are not babies, and clicking in it is the viewers responsibility. If somebody has very strong beliefs on this issue, they just don't click. Others will. I have grand children, and there are complete episodes of Thomas the tank engine on YouTube. They don't even have the ads attached as many copyright breaches have. To a degree, as a small time copyright owner myself, with a few 'protected' works, I take the time to search for them every now and then, and when I find them, I don't get mad, I just fill in the copyright agency form saying where it's being used. Eventually I may get a few quid. I don't insist on removal or demand compensation or take people to court. Life is too short. It's the 'right' part of copyright that generates chest beating and shouting, and I hate it. The moral indignation that somebody used it without permission. We are all professionals who understand to a tiny degree copyright, doing it 100% correctly is sooooo hard! is it realistic to expect joe public to understand it?