Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 188 posts

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#81

Post by falcolas »

j-c-hewitt wrote: post #22
monadic2 wrote: post #8

At what point can you file a suit for bad faith DMCA claims?

You can file a counter claim through Youtube: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en Generally this should be done under advice of an attorney, because these counter notices set a ticking clock of ten business days during which the copyright holder must either sue the Youtuber for copyright infringement or the complaint will be cancelled. Not all Youtube claims related to copyright are counter claima…

A quick note - the 10 day period is for a manual claim, if you get a Content ID claim, it can be up to 30 days for the appeal to move to the DMCA process.

Why the two are different is beyond me.

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#82

Post by mlyle »

jandrese wrote: post #41
outworlder wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not of a 50 minute show, it was footage from the trailer itself.

So it's footage spread out across the entire season then? More like 0.07% of the show? If that can't qualify for fair use then it seems the entire concept of fair use is moot.

Fair use has basically nothing to do with whether Google decides to keep distributing your video.

(And, the portion of the work used is only one part of a multi-pronged test of fair use...)

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#83

Post by mlyle »

squarefoot wrote: post #58
outworlder wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not of a 50 minute show, it was footage from the trailer itself.

Even if it had been the whole trailer looped 100 times it is utter stupid to take it down. The purpose of a trailer is advertising plain and simple: the more it is seen around the more audience it attracts to the real show. CBS shot their own foot on this one.

If it's a review, and you'd rather people see different reviews of your show, and you can get youtube to remove it based on using a few seconds of your footage, though...

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#84

Post by patmcc »

macinjosh wrote: post #27

I am seriously surprised how long it is taking for YouTubers to realize the YouTube platform is failing them and in some cases it is pitted against them. When you get down to brass tacks they only care about their advertisers. CBS is a big advertiser and partner for YouTube so they and those like them will always win. Social and legal norms be damned I do get encouraged when I see some creators going their own way li…

YouTubers absolutely realize, but YouTube is the biggest game in town by a huge margin. If you're making non-porn videos on the internet, it's very very hard to be successful outside of youtube.

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#85

Post by moron4hire »

henryfjordan wrote: post #18

Youtube has it's own system outside of the DMCA to handle copyright claims in which the claimant has all the power. If the poster of a video wants to appeal a copyright claim, they appeal directly to the claimant who gets to decide. You can then appeal to YT directly (good luck with that) but in the meantime the claimant can issue a "strike" on your account. 3 strikes and you are out. So instead of fighting claims, p…

Well, it's not fair use if you're making money off of it.

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#86

Post by iso1631 »

henryfjordan wrote: post #23
legitster wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a 40 minute video. 26 seconds is barely anything. Not that it should matter for the purposes of fair use. > especially for a product of this caliber Do more valuable IPs get more legal rights? Or is the implication that this property transcends normal importance?

To use copyright material as fair-use you [edit: usually] need to transform the work or add value in some way. A reaction video where you show the full trailer and just say "wow" would not be protected. 40 minutes of discussion is almost certainly enough. There's a balance though, and the more "valuable" or "hot" the IP is the higher the bar is probably going to be set. You also have to use as little of the underlyin…

I understand it's a review of the 45 minute episode, not the 30 second trailer. Having seen the episode, the "heart" of the episode is certainly not in any of the trailers.

I haven't seen this review, but 1% of the total runlength for a review seems quite reasonable.

Apparently it's quite common on youtube for people to take entire pieces of someone elses work (like 30 seconds of a 30 second piece), say "hmm, that was interesting", and post it online. MxR Plays v. Jukin [1] was a recent case, where they refused to pay the really reasonable license fee for the video, posted the video in full, said "no, not funny" or something, and then sold it for profit. The original video is something like 10% of the entire piece rather than 99%.

The couple of question then posted videos admitting they were breaking the law. My knowledge of this case mainly comes from LegalEagle reviewing it [2]. To me they haven't got a case (unlike this angry joe guy), but apparently they might have.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-51090857 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A_i-sB9H0Q

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#87

Post by mnm1 »

The main assholes are Youtube, not CBS. CBS can request shit like this and they are expected to in today's copyright climate. Youtube clearly does not believe in fair use. That's what it boils down to. It doesn't matter that fair use is protected by law or anything because Youtube can do what it wants with its platform. So fair use is essentially up to the platform. In other words, it really doesn't exist anymore for people who are not willing to host their own content.

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#89

Post by amylene »

iso1631 wrote: post #77
dx87 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sort of. They built a video platform that they couldn't effectively moderate, so they built Content ID because they don't have the manpower to manually review everything. Content ID is just a side effect of Google relying on algorithms to do everything.

> because they don't have the manpower to manually review everything. Because they don't want to pay for the manpower to manually review everything. Youtube gets 250-300 million hours of video uploaded every year. At $20 an hour to review it, that's $6b. Call it $10b. Alphabet made $86b last year.

It’s possible that a human review system would be even worse. Have you seen the studies that show how insurance adjusters, working from the same inputs, with clear evaluation rules, have spreads of > 40% for the same case?

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#90

Post by darkarmani »

moron4hire wrote: post #85
henryfjordan wrote: post #18

Youtube has it's own system outside of the DMCA to handle copyright claims in which the claimant has all the power. If the poster of a video wants to appeal a copyright claim, they appeal directly to the claimant who gets to decide. You can then appeal to YT directly (good luck with that) but in the meantime the claimant can issue a "strike" on your account. 3 strikes and you are out. So instead of fighting claims, p…

Well, it's not fair use if you're making money off of it.

> it's not fair use if you're making money off of it.

Nope. Completely untrue. Commercial use weighs against the fair use argument, but it doesn't prevent fair-use. See 2 Live Crew's parody of Pretty Woman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65GQ70Rf_8Y

Post reply on HN