11–20 of 73 posts
I think he could have waited the two weeks to get an answer for his counter-notification before raising torches and pitchforks.
Basically it looks like YouTube is too scared of lawsuits to acknowledge any fair use rights exist at all. Either you agree with ads, or your content is getting removed, the whole appeals process may work only if the content is not actually copyrighted, but is completely useless for fair use grounds as claimant can just repeat their claim of copyright ownership (which is true) and have it deleted anyway.
That's absurd. Youtube provided extensive avenues of dispute and appeal. I think Lionsgate is wrong in this case (although I'm not wholly sure, because using their source material for ~30% of the video is pretty substantial in my view), but Youtube isn't there to act as a court or arbitrator. by law, it has to respect the claims of copyright holders. It is not the agent of those seeking to use copyrighted material on…
It's a bit of a side track, but: Any commentary on a work could reasonably be expected to feature that work substantially, couldn't it?
"Buffy vs Edward remix was mentioned by name in the official recommendations by the US Copyright Office (pdf) on exemptions to the DMCA as an example of a transformative noncommercial video work."Basically it looks like YouTube is too scared of lawsuits to acknowledge any fair use rights exist at all. Either you agree with ads, or your content is getting removed, the whole appeals process may work only if the content is not actually copyrighted, but is completely useless for fair use grounds as claimant can just repeat their claim of copyright ownership (which is true) and have it deleted anyway.
I think fear has little to do with it. They put in an automatic system because of the fact that they need to deal with so many claims. It's not that they fail to acknowledge fair use, it's that they err on the side of being restrictive in every situation because the law tells them to do so. When a DMCA takedown is filed they need to respond by removing the purportedly offending content. It's not their responsibility…
Buffy? Pfftt....how about Blade!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's absurd. Youtube provided extensive avenues of dispute and appeal. I think Lionsgate is wrong in this case (although I'm not wholly sure, because using their source material for ~30% of the video is pretty substantial in my view), but Youtube isn't there to act as a court or arbitrator. by law, it has to respect the claims of copyright holders. It is not the agent of those seeking to use copyrighted material on…
> although I'm not wholly sure, because using their source material for ~30% of the video is pretty substantial in my view It's a bit of a side track, but: Any commentary on a work could reasonably be expected to feature that work substantially, couldn't it?
Now I am in favor of fairly wide latitude for this sort of reuse, which is a big reason I favor much, much shorter copyright terms, and graduated copyright at that (eg exclusive for 20 years, mandatory cheap licensing for the next 30, PD after that - for example). But it's hard to ignore the rightsholder's concern that this work is less about commentary than simply hitching a ride on a currently-popular franchise. It's not cashing in, since the person isn't trying to monetize it directly, but the person is trying to build their creative reputation from rearrangement of others' work, while denying any and all revenue to the original creator.
As someone who has spent the last decade making films from scratch rather than remixing others' work, I think this is pretty weak sauce, just as I think that DJing falls far short of musicianship. I engage in both activities, but when I'm DJing I don't consider that to be creatively equivalent to composing something original. People who say all creativity is fungible are lying to themselves.
I think he could have waited the two weeks to get an answer for his counter-notification before raising torches and pitchforks.
He's been responding, and responding to counter-responses, and then responding to secondary-takedowns, then counter-responding to secondary takedown denials for quite a while. I think it's appropriate to bring this into the public view.
On a side note, he did post his video here with popups that are basically an "American Pie" like parody of popups in films... except that I think the popups are supposed to be serious. They make watching the remix utterly impossible though. http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/popupvideo/
The article links to an independently hosted HTML5 copy of the video, in case you want to see it first-hand. It's very cleverly done, quite amusing (at least if you're a Buffy fan), and definitely looks like fair-use: http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/popupvideo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's absurd. Youtube provided extensive avenues of dispute and appeal. I think Lionsgate is wrong in this case (although I'm not wholly sure, because using their source material for ~30% of the video is pretty substantial in my view), but Youtube isn't there to act as a court or arbitrator. by law, it has to respect the claims of copyright holders. It is not the agent of those seeking to use copyrighted material on…
> although I'm not wholly sure, because using their source material for ~30% of the video is pretty substantial in my view It's a bit of a side track, but: Any commentary on a work could reasonably be expected to feature that work substantially, couldn't it?