TV Stations and YouTube

Mike Warren

Mike Warren

Well-known member
I shot some footage of a crocodile capture last Saturday and posted a short segment of it to my YouTube channel. Thinking that it might be of some interest to TV news, I put a watermark on the video and posted a link to my web site.

http://mike-warren.net/capturing-the-croc/

I found out a couple of days later that 2 TV networks had downloaded and used the video in news articles.

Since I was in the area filming for a documentary and not looking to make any money from the footage I don't care that it was used without payment, but I find it a bit rude that neither of them bothered to ask permission.

One of the News producers said to me "The footage was posted on You Tube, and your watermark was clearly visible in what went to air. If you did not want the public to show or use, it should not have been posted".

That seems like rather odd logic to me.

What do others think of the situation?
 
I thought Youtube has a licensing agreement when you post a video. E.g. just because you post something on Youtube doesn't automatically make it public domain.

I'm sure it's a sticky legal situation, though. Regardless, it was certainly in bad form. I see all the time news outlets showing popular youtube videos like, "This youtube video has taken the world by storm", but usually there's some reference of who created the content. If they didn't even reference you and kept your watermark...that's just odd.
 
LOL, request a copy of the news story footage they aired that night. Tell them, that since they used your footage, you would like to have a souvenir of that accomplishment. Definitely something to put on your reel. Hey, when life hands you lemons, cut 'em up and squirt 'em in life's eye.

Doc's Life Philosophy........no charge to you.
 
Brian_Rice said:
I see all the time news outlets showing popular youtube videos like, "This youtube video has taken the world by storm",
Click to expand...

In those situations the video itself is the object of the story. In my case the video was simply used to illustrate a story about the croc.

I have requested a copy of both news articles. One station just said they would be happy to send it to me. The other required I sign a form stating I would not use it for any commercial purposes. This is the same station where the producer thinks that anything on YouTube is fair game.
 
See, that sounds like a "checkmark" in the win column to me. The station requesting the form......that's actually pretty common. And on your reel is not "commercial", to my understanding. Commercial to me means you are making money off the product itself (i.e., selling their news footage copy or using the news footage in another film), rather than using it to demonstrate your ability and exposure. The material you shot however, is yours to do with what you want.

I see this as a good thing for you.
 
The youtube thing has always been a grey area. Since it was watermarked, by showing the watermark, you were credited. There could be an argument, like they used, that you put it out into the public for the public to view.

It's not cool to use without permission, obviously, and Australia may have different laws about Copyright Infringement. It may not even be considered infringement, if your fair use laws and laws relating to "public awareness/current events" give them an exemption for this type of thing.
 
Doc Bernard said:
The youtube thing has always been a grey area.
Click to expand...

I don't really think that's the case any more. By uploading a video, you are giving YouTube the non-exclusive right to use it. Embedding in other web sites is okay as the uploader has the option of denying that, but downloading and using in other media is not, IMO. What would happen if a TV station downloaded popular music clips from the Universal Music YouTube channel and played them without compensation?


Australia may have different laws about Copyright Infringement.
Click to expand...

Copyright is pretty similar in Australia to the US, but the fair use clause is a little more lenient, from what I've been able to tell. I try to keep abreast of the media copyright situation as I write software that protects music videos in commercial use as part of my day job.

It may not even be considered infringement, if your fair use laws and laws relating to "public awareness/current events" give them an exemption for this type of thing.
Click to expand...

Since this is not an important thing, I'm a hardly going to employ a lawyer to find out, but I do think they are pushing the envelope.

Another potentially good thing that came out of this is that a third network emailed me asking that I keep them in mind in the future for anything newsworthy I shoot.

I just wish one of them had offered me a job. :)
 
Mike Warren said:
..I'm just curious if anyone here can see the logic in them thinking it's okay to use my footage without permission and yet I am explicitly prohibited from using theirs.
Click to expand...

icon1.png

They copyright their material. Does your watermark claim a copyright? Put a big "Copyright, Mike Warren 2012. No re-use without written permission" if your don't want it used.

But that won't stop them anyway. Their attitude is; What are you going to do, sue me?

You put it on Youtube for the world to see and you don't think it's fair that they broadcast it?


http://copyright.cmich.edu/faqs.html​
 
Paul F said:
They copyright their material. Does your watermark claim a copyright?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. From the link you posted:
When does copyright begin?

Copyright begins as soon as something is fixed in tangible form. Until 1988, a work had to be either registered with the Library of Congress Copyright Office and/or identified by the © symbol or a copyright notice statement to be protected by copyright, but today copyright protection is automatically extended when a work is created.
Click to expand...

The same thing applies in Australia.


But that won't stop them anyway. Their attitude is; What are you going to do, sue me?
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's not worth the trouble and risk.

You put it on Youtube for the world to see and you don't think it's fair that they broadcast it?
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't. Do you? See my example above about Universal Music.
 
Mike Warren said:
Actually, I don't. Do you? See my example above about Universal Music.
Click to expand...

Going back to your original post ".... and not looking to make any money from the footage I don't care that it was used without payment, but I find it a bit rude that neither of them bothered to ask permission."

I think it normal to have some negative reaction to having someone use your material without you knowing about it. Yes, it is rude. The world gets ruder ever day.

The reality is that no show is going to ask permission if they don't need to. Especially a local (I assume) news show. They have to put out 30 minutes of crap (no insult to you intended) everyday and if they can entertain the lemmings with a youtube video for free, so much the better.

We know the rules of the road and we live with it. We don't have to like it.
 
Paul F said:
We know the rules of the road and we live with it. We don't have to like it.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it is morally or legally right for them to use anything they want from YouTube without obtaining permission.

I laughed when I first heard about it, flattered that they thought it was good enough to air, and on my contact with the stations I was quick to say I wasn't upset about it. The only thing that annoyed me was that one station was acting like it was their right to take what they want from YouTube. They didn't even say thank you until I pointed it out.
 
Last edited:
A quick read of the Youtube ToS eliminates the idea of a gray area.

5.b: Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content. You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content.
Click to expand...

It's really that simple. In this case it didn't really matter and it didn't hurt you, but that attitude is definitely not okay in a legal sense and they could get in trouble with other content creators if they continue with that same attitude. The watermark does help a little.
 
yeah, i'm not sure how someone could even argue that point. since when does public display or distribution of your own work entitle everyone else to display or distribute it?
 
All I know is that TV news stations grab footage from youtube as they see fit. They don't care about copyright. "courtesy: YouTube" makes it all seem legit.

I really don't have an opinion on it one way or another, to be honest.

More thoughts on the subject from a previous post: Link here




 
TV stations air all kinds of "home video" clips of news events - especially, if it's the only coverage of the story/event. Heck, more and more, it seems most of what I see is video from surveillance cameras and cell phones of spot news.

It's not necessarily a stamp of approval of your technical achievement or aesthetic sensibilities that they would do such. The fact it was on YouTube was just a convenience as far as the TV station was concerned.
 
I don't think it has so much to do with a concern or lack of concern for technical achievement versus garnering ratings.

Now that everybody is videotaping everybody, there's more of a chance of breaking news being captured as it happens. The shaky iPhone cam footage of a 4-alarm fire is sexier than smoldering ashes and an interview with the fire chief as the crew is putting hoses back in the truck.

Give me convenience or give me death…as they say.
 
We're not in disagreement. My comment on technical achievement was in response to the OP being flattered the TV station thought his video was good enough to air.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top