Yes, in your case is indeed a case of fair usage. If you look it from the side of the original content owner, he might be getting request from all over the world both legitimate and ill legitimate. Why should he have someone to look into each request and enable them case by case basis?
I can think of a method that might be able to circumvent the detection but I like youtube so Iām not sure I would want people to be able to easily do this. Tell me what techniques youāve tried and Iāll tell you if it is the one Iām thinking of.
"I believe the problem is the length of your clip. 90 seconds is a long time in terms of both new media such as viral clips and the land of the animated gif as well but surprisingly also in traditional media where TV news segments are only 1 minute 10 seconds long. "
Why should a 1 minute news clip get copyright protection. Is the commentary really so valuable and insightful to deserve protection? I donāt believe their can be much substance given within 1 minute of news.
Blocking content on a region based criteria sucks for everyone not living in the US. Why can you guys watch some video clips and we canāt? We just have to download them illegally?
And the fingerprinting does have its use too. Take Last.fm. Every song I have in my library gets āscrobbledā after which its smart enough to identify the composer & song name. A great way to keep track of what youāre playing. It was only a matter of time until this can be done for videos.
Iām wondering what exactly you mean by saying your dispute was rejected. As far as I know, the only way a video can be taken down again after disputing the automated Content ID is by filing a DMCA notice, in which case there would be a strike against your account. In that case, you should be able to file DMCA counter-notice and get it restored. That might even work if there is no strike, though Iām not completely sure about that.
For anyone who wants to know more about fair use and copyright disputes on YouTube, I actually run a website providing tutorials about these issues: http://fairusetube.org
So something will be done again. If you want to do justice have to try to track who uses your shots and you judge them. The Internet will not solve it. Plagiarism on the Internet is something so commonplace that I do not think we will manage to eradicate it. rca ieftin 2011
Nobodyās misinterpreting anything. Fair use does notāabsolutely does notārequire that you be commenting on the copyrighted work. Any more that a college studentās paper needs the copyright ownerās permission to quote from a book or article not on the topic of the quoted book or article.
As Cory Doctorow puts it: Computers are devices for copying bits and itās never going to get any easier to copy bits than it is now.
Treating your customers like thieves isnāt likely to improve business, and file-sharers arenāt affected by DRM. I pay top-dollar for the latest movie and I get a crippled movie; if I download a copy, gratis, with the assistance of The Pirate Bay or another torrent tracker I get a copy someone (probably a script kiddie somewhere) has helpfully stripped the DRM from. Clearly the entertainment industry hasnāt thought this through well enough. I can, though I donāt need to be able to, remove the DRM myself, but why do that to a paid copy when itās easier to just download it without the DRM for free. This question is not academic, since the DMCA makes it illegal to remove the DRM, ONLY thieves get unhampered copies. Itās a great way to ensure that people who would otherwise pay figure they may as well steal it.
Clarkeās three laws:
1# When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.
2# The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3# Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
I like your writing and rational thinking a lot better than tabloid loving Mike Masick. The simple reason that your claim to fair use was denied is because you hosted the video on youtube. Raw without any critical review, parody etc. It wasnāt married to the content that would make it a fair use defense. What many people fail to realize is that fair use is a defense for accusations of infringement and not an offensive move or verb. You cannot āfair useā something (as waaay to many ignorant media producers claim to me all the time). Fair use is only a defense for alleged infringement. Regardless if the use fits the variables for fair use most major copyright controllers (see big music labels, publishers, movie studios) will at first claim infringement to try to scare everyone and then answer to the defense of āit falls under fair useā whether in real time or in the future in court (hopefully not).
It is not a good idea for the copyright holder to determine what is and isnāt fair use. However youtube is not a court of law and they give the copyright holder the option to respond to such claims so there is nothing illegal going on. I have little doubt that they do much more than deny most fair use defenses because most people wonāt fight back even if their media does fall within the fair use variables. Many times the initial defense of fair use is just a letter written in response to a Cease & Desist letter and the copyright holder may back down and not seek further recourse. If they donāt back down, like in your youtube case, then it can be escalated to a lawsuit (you could file AGAINST as well them if you feel they have inhibited your rights under the fair use clause).
Iām with Patti on this.
YouTube seem to be following Appleās way of thinking; āletās treat every user like a thiefā. By treating a user like a thief, we can protect our content and block any attempt at trying to do anything with that content. Weāll also swing our big corporate weight around and scare and intimidate anyone wishing to do anything we donāt like. Weāll fill the content with DRM and platform-lock as needed. This makes us more money.
Well, they can continue to think that. But removing DRM and platform-locks is not rocket-science and there are plenty of like-minded people doing the same across the web (Pirate Bay et al). People will very quickly return to āthe good old daysā of pirating (Napster 1999) if they canāt distribute material they have paid for across devices they own. The corporates are desperate to return to the vinyl, tape, CD cycle of yester-year by device and platform-locking.
YouTube are following this ācorporateā mindset with their policy for copyright material and it can only add fuel to the āpirateā fireā¦
So something will be done again. If you want to do justice have to try to track who uses your shots and you judge them. The Internet will not solve it.(<a href=http://www.rca-ieftin.com>Cel mai ieftin RCA)
So something will be done again. If you want to do justice have to try to track who uses your shots and you judge them. The Internet will not solve it.Cel mai ieftin RCA
Thanks (belatedly). Your post is one of the clearest Iāve read on this topic. Iām working on a presentation for budding young K-12 teachers, many of whom want to use YouTube and other Web 2.0+ in their classes. Weāre all trying to keep students engaged with media, use media when school networks arenāt allowing full access, stay legal, etc. You will get a hat tip.
Catch-22 for me is: Now I want to run the TED talk on short notice, so my presentation shouldnāt be uploaded or streamed! (though Iām sure I can get permission from them later)
Iāve seem to have noticed some people just mirror the image when reuploading youtube videoās that are already used on VEVO. It might cause the video to be undetected.
If you want to download the song and load it onto your MP3 player then youāll need a Youtube converter. This basically converts the content of the URL into a useable MP3 file. This system allows you to download the music you want and listen to it wherever you go.
rca ieftin 2011 is totally rightā¦ you have to solve the problem on your own. The rules on the internet are not very clarified.
Iāve seem to have noticed some people just mirror the image when reuploading youtube videoās that are already used on VEVO.asigurari locuinte
Personally I am really ticked off because I am posting NON-Copyrighted material that is getting flagged. Itās just me playing a song on my guitarā¦no drums, no vocals, no bass, no way in hell it should ever be considered copyrighted but they still want to block it. This is what happens when you give up human common sense that could see itās only 1 guy playing a guitar in favor of a flawed program that is given the power to decide if you are breaking the law.
How long before we move on to computerized judges with the power to put people to death in an attempt to speed up the court system? Scarey thought eh?
1 Like
Itās a 90 second clip from a full length movie, letās call it 90 minutes. So 90 out of 5,400 secondsā¦ about two percent of the movie. Itās fair use by definition at that point, because what harm would that possibly cause to the movie rights owner?
It is definitely not āthe entire thingā, and provable by merely looking at it even if there was no metadata, no title to the video, nothing.
(Now if you uploaded the entire movie in 90 second segments, thatād be a problem.)
1 Like