|Can the third party match / copyright infringement accusation system be fixed, because I constantly get falsely accused?||Sword7||12/13/09 5:39 AM|
My main channel is http://www.youtube.com/user/ForumsExtremeDotCom and I post Halo content including Halo trailers, which constantly get accused of copyright infringement by companies that are completely unrelated to Halo. The rights to Halo continued to be owned by Microsoft per their split with Bungie, though Bungie is still the producer. Halo has nothing to do with Viacom or Sanoma NL or anybody else I get accused of infringing on. The Halo trailers are fair use based on that they are disrupted for this purpose and fall under the Microsoft's Game Content Usage Rules found here http://www.xbox.com/en-us/community/developer/rules.htm (believe me I've called around and emailed Microsoft and Bungie to check to be certain), which allow you to re-post and even allows ads along side them as long as they are posted for free. Normally, I dispute the claims and after some trouble and restrictions it gets cleared, but the latest one was wiped out completely with no recourse and the claim was again attributed to Viacom. While the trailer debuted on Spike tv and Viacom owns Spike (which is the only connection I can think of), I didn't get the trailer off of Spike or record their show at all. I legitimately obtained it from Bungie, where it is posted for redistribution and use under Microsoft's Game Content Usage Rules. This is just getting really old. So, my question is can Youtube's third party match / infringement accusing system be fixed, so using Youtube won't be so annoying? I mean except of this reoccurring issue, I like Youtube. Also, I'm not sure how to proceed with the blocked vid. I'm guessing I'll have to repost it and change some of the wording, so it's hopefully not falsely caught up in the next sweep. It's just a big waste of time and I don't want my account to suffer needlessly either.
|Re: Can the third party match / copyright infringement accusation system be fixed, because I constantly get falsely accused?||Sword7||1/7/10 11:38 PM|
I hope someone from Youtube will respond to this ongoing problem more than the question, because it happened again with the same video after I reposted it (except it was not completely removed this time), but the thing is another completely different company (still unrelated to Halo) is now supposed to be the copyright owner, which again, on it’s face, makes no sense. The claim is supposed to be from both IMG Media UK and Sanoma NL. Once again, the rights to Halo content are held by Microsoft as stated above and the video falls under fair use as stated above. This is the video in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDw9xSRlYVI . In other words, you’ve had 3 separate companies that you say claim owner ship of a single video, when the truth is none of them have ownership, because Microsoft is the one that does. I think that’s case closed on that there’s a real problem here and that Youtube is the one with the problem.
Then it happened to yet another Halo video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s70Uv9yFTd4 claimed to be owned by both Canal Teuve and Channel 5 and there was no recourse for resolving this one. It’s almost as if you guys are just making this stuff up now. It’s getting a little ridiculous.
Can you please fix this problem?
|Re: Can the third party match / copyright infringement accusation system be fixed, because I constantly get falsely accused?||Landtat||1/8/10 1:31 AM|
YouTube has nothing to do with the claims.
The copyright holders report the vids, prove to YouTube they hold rights to them, and YouTube has to mark them and give a strike to your account.
Any and all images of Halo are not yours to "rebroadcast" and you may have used sounds, music, etc,,, that don't belong to you.
YouTube is for "original" content.
Halo was not developed by you so is NOT your original content.
Original means you made it, filmed it, created it from scratch.
|Re: Can the third party match / copyright infringement accusation system be fixed, because I constantly get falsely accused?||TLFU||1/8/10 2:56 AM|
Landtat is correct in this- YouTube is not the one to blame for copyright infringement issues. Unless you were to argue that as the broadcaster they HAVE to obtain mechanical licence for anything which they "host". But YouTube do NOT take the responsibility for the licencing. YOU do. This is different from any other broadcaster in as far as normally it is the "television station"/broadcaster who arranges licencing and not the filmmaker. BUT this is new territory and since YouTube do not control WHAT is uploaded by us they also do not take responsibility.
Fact is- if you upload that which does not belong to you (Fair Use is quite specific and something you could argue in a court of law, yes, but do you want to go to court to test this theory?) you are liable for any action against your account.
As a TV student I have learned that the whole is made up of so many parts it makes your head spin. If a Coke bottle appears in a film IT requires licence. If you film someone smoking in Scotland you can NOT screen it. Music piped through a radio in the background as you interview someone requires licence. And try to work out from whom... If you hear the DJ and then How Come You Don't Call Me as sung by Alicia Keys you need several licences/permissions.
Which is all a longwinded way of telling you that there is nothing for YouTube TO fix because they are not the ones breaking the law. :)
While copyright infringment claims may not be proven by the claimant (they don't HAVE to prove anything- you have to prove that they are wrong really) when they come from big companies such as Viacom and last but not least Channel 5 are you going to argue the toss with them?
I once had MY copyright breached by an American and my intellectual properties lawyer said that he was doing himself out of business but did I really want to proceed as the person who was stealing from me had means to fight my action against her to the death. It is sometimes not worth arguing with the big guys. Especially when you are the one in the wrong. :(
|IcemageJT||1/8/10 11:04 AM|
Actually Sword7 does have a point. While the legality of such videos is obviously questionable "in general", Microsoft (which wholly owns the Halo IP) has been quite permissive about fanservice creations and has not typically minded when clips have been made and rebroadcast using their software (see the channel RoosterTeeth for proof). If they DID mind, then the above posts would definitely be pertinent - but they don't seem to.
At any rate, I don't see any case where companies like Viacom would have any claim whatsoever on such video content, let alone smaller companies like IMG Media or Sanoma NL.
To Sword7: If you're sure you know that the claimants don't have any rights on the video, file a DMCA counter-notice to clear the claim and state in your reasoning that it is your belief that the claimant does not hold the copyrights in question.
|Zac1988||1/8/10 3:47 PM|
I believe that the real problem is that this has been happening more and more frequently over the past few months. Sword is not the only one who has been getting false claims by Sanoma NL, IMG Media, Canal Teuve and others. Doing a quick search on youtube, you will find these companies trying to claim many different IPs that they don't really own.
Filing a counter-claim may help, but in the long-run, a more permanent solution needs to be made - fixing the content ID match system to prevent people from abusing it and claiming content that they don't really own
|Sword7||1/8/10 5:12 PM|
To the first 2 respondents: you have to actually read the first post to understand the usage rights and if you still don’t understand, then follow the link given where Microsoft explains it more. No one, but the copyright owner should ever be able to claim ownership and since it’s Microsoft, then 3 other unrelated companies claiming it is either a fraud or a problem with the match system. The trailers are original files from Microsoft or their partner in this situation, but still wholly owned by Microsoft and they do allow fair use, so there’s nothing for any other company to claim. I suppose it’s possible these smaller companies are making false claims to get the ad revenue.
To the latter 2 posters: thank you for your responses. I just didn’t want to get into some big legal thing with the DMCA document, when the issue seemed so clear for Youtube to fix and even if I got something straightened out with these 2 videos, it wouldn’t stop these companies from continuing to do the same thing with future videos, as this is probably the 5th time I’ve seen Sanoma NL supposedly claim a Halo trailer.
|IcemageJT||1/8/10 6:31 PM|
Actually it's the task of the claimant, not the defendant, to prove that they own the copyright in question. This is one of those cases where a DMCA counter-notice should be "relatively" safe (hence why I mentioned above that the correct defense in this case is a DMCA counter-notice referencing the fact that the claimant does not have ownership of the material).
I have a feeling that there are a number of unscrupulous companies out there that are preying on YouTubers in situations exactly like this, garnering advertising revenue on material that they do not themselves control, and there's a lot of YouTubers out there who are just too uninformed/scared to fight back, even in the cases where it's clear that the claim is bogus.
This isn't to say that a lot of copyright claims aren't valid - many of them are. But in this specific instance, were I in the OP's shoes, I'd be filing a DMCA counter-notice.
|TLFU||1/8/10 6:36 PM|
I accept that, in a court of law a person is innocent until proven guilty. But in practice, here on the net, it most often doesn't quite work like that. The unscrupulous Copyright Of Some Description But Not Necessarily The One They Are Claiming companies do not have to prove anything. They file. :) Not saying it is fair, just how it is. YouTube won't check to see if they are genuine claims- only pass on that one has been made.
|IcemageJT||1/8/10 8:23 PM|
I should mention lastly that I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice; people out there reading this - anything you do is at your own risk. (this is my lega disclaimer).
I'm not talking about a court of law, I'm talking about what happens here on YouTube. Once you file a DMCA counter-notice, YouTube steps completely out of the picture. They claimant has two weeks to notify YouTube that they've initiated legal proceedings against you to protect their copyright, or YouTube puts everything back the way it's supposed to be. There is no middle ground, and if they don't have a legal leg to stand on, they're not going to file a legal brief and prosecute you when they don't own the copyright.
That's why I say it's the task of the claimant - once you file the counter-notice, they either have to bring suit or let the matter drop. And they can only bring a lawsuit if they actually own the material in question.
Of course, a lot of people on YouTube are misinformed about who owns what, precisely (I don't want the peanut gallery out there filing counter-notices out of the blue hoping that the other party will back down, because that's a good way to land yourself in a whole heap of trouble). But Sword7's case is pretty simple - the EULAs for Halo are pretty lax, Microsoft has never (to my knowledge) ever gone after a fanservice project of any sort, and they should be the only ones involved. No other claimant should have any legal basis to file any action whatsoever, assuming the information provided in the first post is correct.
|TLFU||1/9/10 2:19 AM|
Quoting IcemageJT: "I'm not talking about a court of law..."
Sorry, I was. I mean- I was trying to expand on my point about whose job it is to prove what. I think it didn't come across as planned first time around. :)
I have always been loath to recommend counter-claims as I really do not care for the other party to have my personal details (in the case where I could have done it- the details of my (minor) daughter) but it is up to everyone to do as their conscience and energy to fight (alleged) injustice dictates.
If there is evidence that all the claimants in this case do so fraudulently then it is a given that a counter-claim is a good way to finally get them to stop their nonsense.
However- if anyone of these are upheld in law (and I cannot say- I am not a lawyer either and don't have the evidence) then I am not sure having someone's personal details is such a cool state of affairs.
|Landtat||1/9/10 4:07 AM|
Try walking into court with that bucket of bullshit ice.
"fair use" is defined in court and unique in every case.
Microshit may say yes, but sub holders in the copyright will argue otherwise.
So, you advocate an average YT user spend thousands to find out?
And thousands more if/when they lose the case?
|Landtat||1/9/10 4:11 AM|
BTW, counter claims are sent to the original claimant and may bring a law suit anyway.
Just to argue your point in a counter claim may rack up the bucks.
|TLFU||1/9/10 4:49 AM|
Agreed Landtat- if they ARE so unscrupulous as to make false copyright claims does one REALLY want THEM to have one's personal details? I think not! o_O
|rewboss||1/9/10 6:12 AM|
Actually, issues like this are often more complex than they might at first appear.
It may well be that although the trailers are produced by one company, they may contain elements that belong to other companies and individuals, and their rights are protected, too. The Games Content Usage Rules you link to actually make this clear: "We often license those from third parties and don’t have the rights to pass them on to you." Additionally, Microsoft's rules relate only to actual gameplay footage, not necessarily to trailers which may use gameplay footage plus other things, such as music, sound effects, additional artwork, even fonts.
Another snag in the system is this: The way the law works, YouTube must remove the video if a credible claim is filed. There is no "wiggle-room" here: that is, quite simply, the law. YouTube has neither the resources nor, crucially, the right to determine whether the claim actually is valid -- that can only be established by the courts. YouTube is safe from legal action if and only if they adhere very strictly to the legal requirement to remove content on being informed of a possible copyright infringement.
Complicating the issue is the fact that Viacom are trying to sue YouTube to the tune of one billion dollars for copyright infringement. As long as YouTube dutifully follows the legal requirements, that lawsuit will almost certainly go nowhere -- that much has already been established in case law. The procedure is set in stone: a claim is made, the video is disabled, the uploader submits a counter claim, and if necessary, the issue goes to court. As far as I know, it's not known exactly what would happen if YouTube deviated from that procedure, but since losing that lawsuit would almost certainly spell the end of YouTube, it's not something they're going to want to try.
So yes, it sucks. However, YouTube must act in this manner, and there actually is a chance that you really are infringing somebody's copyright.
If a "Dispute claim" button is not available to you in the copyright notification on your account, you should still be able to file a counter notice by following the instructions linked to below.
|IcemageJT||1/9/10 11:35 PM|
I can not believe the level of fear-mongering on display here.
Landtat: Your post is so clueless I don't even know where to begin. Where did I say anywhere that this was a case of "fair use"? Answer: I didn't. Sword7's reasoning in his original post is that Microsoft is the only copyright holder involved, and he shouldn't be getting claims from anyone else, and that point still stands. If it were MSFT that was filing a claim against him, I would certainly not be advising him to file a counter-claim, but some no-name company that has no ties whatsoever to the material in question? You'd better believe it.
Stefanie Damm: It is unfortunate that the claimant does see a copy of what you submit, including identification, but that's the way the ball bounces. The flip side of the argument is, of course, that it is possible to turn the tables and file suit against the false claimant. It really depends on how important the issue is to the owner of the video.
I do think YouTube needs to find a way to stop these sorts of bogus copyright claims, though. Filing a DMCA counter-notice is a method of last resort, and in this case is like using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. It works, but it's certainly not an elegant solution.
|TLFU||1/10/10 2:51 AM|
@IcemageJT Of course it is the way the ball bounces. :) I agree completely because I am old enough and experienced enough to have seen it happen (the ball bouncing).
But it has to be factored in to the decision making for precisely that reason- how IMPORTANT the case is to the counter-claimant.
In an age of Big Brother and concerns about the information Google is "harvesting" from us (see the thread about "cellphone" numbers being requested from account holders) it does require mentioning. DOES the counter-claimant wish for their personal details to be held by a third party who may, or may not, have a legitimate reason for being given them (obviously the details YouTube pass on would NOT be acquired legitimately if the claim is bogus) by YouTube who also have a contract of confidentiality with us, their users?
As someone who has experience of her (design) copyright being breached and as someone with a minor who received a copyright infringement notification once I PERSONALLY would think carefully before agreeing to the possibility of meeting my accuser in court, especially if I am not 100% certain that they claimed against me with justification.
In other words- I only enter into legal debates if I am assured 100% change of winning. :)
I refer myself to rewboss most informative posting and yep- I PERSONALLY would not think it is so clear cut. One bogus claimant- maybe. "Constantly get accused of copyright infringement by companies that are completely unrelated to Halo" and these number more than four? Yes, the ball bounces but this is beginning to look like a scary dribble. :)
Besides- I am actually on the side of the author of the thread who, by the way, claimed fair use. Just want them to make their decision with as much forethought as possible. :)
|Zac1988||1/26/10 12:19 PM|
I thought I should add something since new information has been discovered.
Sanoma NL, one of the companies who has been filing copyright on videos that they do not rightfully own, has been uncovered.
Sanoma NL is a game-reviewing website who posts their reviews on youtube (found here - http://www.youtube.com/user/gamerNL). Apparently what they have been doing, is claiming visual copyright over their REVIEWS of games, and claiming that as their own. The problem with this, is that anyone else who wants to do a review(or whatever) of the game now gets automatically slapped with an automatic "visual copyright claim" suit by Sanoma. Sanoma NL does not own any of the content that they are attempting to claim. It belongs solely to the game developers/artists/designers
For those wondering how this is possible, let me explain: Video games all tend to have "intro"s to them. Video-game reviewers like to include these "intro"s in their review as an introduction to the game and what they have to say. Since Sanoma has this intro in each of their game-reviews, anyone thereafter who wants to do a review of the same game (and thereby have the video game intro) now gets automatically hit with a "visual copyright claim" from Sanoma.
|Linkaro||2/1/10 4:42 PM|
Right now, I just posted a new Lets Play and I get hit by this ad thing. And it is by some company called Sanoma NL. I doubt they own any Nintendo stuff...but it is annoying...how do I get it out of there.
|Verranicus||2/2/10 12:28 AM|
Zac1988, thank you. I just got hit by those Sanoma guys and was frantically checking to see if they were related to the actual owner of the game in question or not. Now that I know they aren't, I'll just dispute like I do every time these scumbag reviewers do this to mne and get the flag taken off.
|crazyfruitbat||2/22/10 2:50 PM|
Thanks for the info guys I had the exact same issue. But looking at their intro for their show - it has copyright material all over it.
Has anyone successfully managed to unblock these idiots and more importantly how can we get them banned from youtube for false claims?
|clockworktiki||3/17/10 11:11 PM|
Likewise Canal Teuve claims that the footage i used for an anime music video, from the series excel saga, which is actually owned by J.C.Staff Co.,Ltd and liscensed to ADV Films, as their own and i find that just annoying when research can prove they aren't connected to the footage, and most anime companies look at amvs as being a form of free advertisment.