Finally got my first Copyright Strike

[KatyAdelson]

It's nothing like robbing a bank. When you do that, you take something from someone else and they don't have it anymore.

I think the original idea behind copyright was protecting things that weren't necessarily tangible objects that could be stolen. Lets pretend someone writes a book...Without copyright, someone could take one's work, erase the original's author's name, slap their name on the cover instead, and print up a few hundred copies. It's not "stealing" all of the copies that were published under the original author's name, but it still is "stealing" the energy that the author needed to create the book. Just because there are plenty of copies floating around with the original author's name doesn't justify anyone else publishing the same book under a different name (at least not while the original author is living)...

That said, as much as I want to cheer copyright on, I truly believe it died when the Internet was born. Legally, it's still very much alive and should be respected, but with the world-wide mass-distribution available at a click of a finger, it died. x_x;;; Unless you are a business owner! Business owners usually follow the copyright law so they won't get sued, and I've noticed a lot of artists are starting to target their stuff towards them instead of the greedy public. ^-^

Not sure where I'm heading with my post (I'm getting sleepy..ZzzZz)...But he had all the right to flag your video! : o

 

[Tarmack]

I think its' premature for anyone here to say that you got what's coming to you. It could well be a fair use situation, and we've no way to validate that as you haven't told us what the video is, nor can we watch it ourselves.

I've had one strike in three years. It was for a Bloodborne video that was uploaded prior to the release date (with a valid copy I bought from a store that broke the street date). I got it removed because frankly, I was willing to dare From Software to take me to court. The reason was that they would have lost. By leaving up countless other videos, and maintaining a strike on my account, they were essentially setting two sets of rules. The strike came off quickly, as one would expect because for them to fight it, they would have to prove they made reasonable efforts to take down other video content after the release date as well, which they wouldn't have because free promotion is good.

 

[Idec Sdawkminn]

I think the original idea behind copyright was protecting things that weren't necessarily tangible objects that could be stolen. Lets pretend someone writes a book...Without copyright, someone could take one's work, erase the original's author's name, slap their name on the cover instead, and print up a few hundred copies. It's not "stealing" all of the copies that were published under the original author's name, but it still is "stealing" the energy that the author needed to create the book. Just because there are plenty of copies floating around with the original author's name doesn't justify anyone else publishing the same book under a different name (at least not while the original author is living)...

And I can certainly understand that. It also bugs me when I see someone copy my videos and pawn them off as their own. And in the case of copyright stealing, you are stealing their reputation and potential money they could have made if your copy didn't exist. You are stealing their market.

I'll stick with the book analogy. I read about someone rewriting the Harry Potter series with Harry as a girl and seeing how much that one difference changes the entire story, what with gender prejudices and everything. Obviously they are copying from the original work. I wonder if that would be fair use or not, but it is certainly a closer example of fair use in the sense of someone copying a book.

I think its' premature for anyone here to say that you got what's coming to you. It could well be a fair use situation, and we've no way to validate that as you haven't told us what the video is, nor can we watch it ourselves.

Well, I took Hap's original video (easily found by searching for 'hap palmer finger foods') and made the same types of edits as the one in my signature. I doubt he's worried about the impact of his potential market or that I'm trying to trick people into thinking that I made his original videos. Being a children's artist, he probably didn't like what I did to it and was disgusted by it.

 

[markkaz]

It is the same reason why I don't contact content owners before using their stuff.

I was getting to that point

We were having a good discussion so I didn't want to pile on and come across as attacking you.

Also, as a creator of content intended for kids, I am very careful with what goes on and around my content.

 

[Idec Sdawkminn]

We were having a good discussion so I didn't want to pile on and come across as attacking you.

Heh, half of my comments are people attacking me because of how I've ruined the song or video they like. I tell them to complain to their friends about what a horrible video I made and to show it to them.

Also, as a creator of content intended for kids, I am very careful with what goes on and around my content.

Yeah, I can see that. I've had a couple people upset at me saying that their younger sister or daughter clicked on my video and was scared. I apologize that it happened and tell them that I didn't intend to scare kids, but point out that the thumbnail very clearly shows a scary or creepy image. Also, the Hap Palmer video was a request by one of my fans who comments on almost every video I make.

 

[Shakycow]

Hopefully, for both our sake, he complies, because I have no problem issuing a counter-notification since I'm pretty sure I could use the Fair Use defense.

From looking at your other videos, I would be curious how you think you'd pass the four factors of fair use as they seem derivative rather than a transformation of the prior works.

 

[Idec Sdawkminn]

From looking at your other videos, I would be curious how you think you'd pass the four factors of fair use as they seem derivative rather than a transformation of the prior works.

The distinction wouldn't be "derivative versus transformation", but rather "derivative versus parody" and in either case, the degree of transformation. It is based on fiction so that hurts my case. I'm using the entire work so that hurts my case. I'm making money off it. But I'm not hurting the original content owner's potential market and my version definitely changes the meaning and message from the original. It adds a layer of sinister innuendo to every word and action in the videos. I've even shown it to an intellectual property lawyer and besides liking my version better than the original and saying he was going to share it with his co-workers, he said it could definitely get a "fair use" ruling in a court. But it could easily not get one as well, since the decision about it is very subjective to the interpretation of the judge and jury. It could very well hinge on if they liked it or not.

I did find an article from a recent court case that ruled in favor of "fair use". Here is one of the images, first the original and then the modified one:

It says they “manifest an entirely different aesthetic from Cariou's photographs” and "Prince’s composition, presentation, scale, color palette, and media are fundamentally different and new compared to the photographs, as is the expressive nature of Prince’s work…"

 

[Kirikou]

From looking at your other videos, I would be curious how you think you'd pass the four factors of fair use as they seem derivative rather than a transformation of the prior works.

What are the four factors of fair use?

 

[Tarmack]

the purpose and character of your use - (What you're doing and how you're doing it. So commentary, criticism, parody)
the nature of the copyrighted work - (What the copyrighted material you're using is, and how it relates to your commentary/critique/parody)
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken - (How much of the material you use)
the effect of the use upon the potential market - (How your work may affect the market for the copyrighted material)

So, for example. Let's say that you make a lyric video of song, that overlays on top of the song itself in a YouTube video. You fail the first test, because you are not creating a work of commentary/critique/parody. You have a mild argument on the second because you are adding some value in an on topic way to the source material and that in order to product a lyric video of a song, it makes sense to use that song. You used the whole song, which is generally harder to validate than if you used a small portion. And by uploading the whole song, you affect the market because people can get the copyrighted content for free through your video. Very unlikely to be considered fair use however because the first test failed, resulting in no fair use protection by way of what you are doing in the first place.

Second example, you do movie reviews on YouTube involving vocal track written and recorded by yourself, overlayed on top of video footage from the movie. You pass the first test by providing added value critique of the product. Movies are a consumer product of varying quality so the nature of the work matches your review and indeed, there is an obvious connection between showing video from a movie you are reviewing. You used only a small portion of the movie in your review. And lastly you impact the market by way of increasing or decreasing consumer purchase . The market effect is mitigated by critique being a protected avenue of content production and this is a rather clear case of fair use.

Essentially, the first test (commentary, critique, parody) is the catch all that really decides whether you are protected. Tests 2-4 are useful for situations that live in the grey area so to speak.[DOUBLEPOST=1441208159,1441207593][/DOUBLEPOST]Edited to add: I should have been a lawyer. Would have made a lot more money that way.

 

[WolfWraith]

This is why I never record games unless I have permission or there's something solid on the developer/publishers website that says they're okay with it. I learned my lesson years ago with WB & Batman Arkham Origins, but luckily the furthest they went was a content ID claim (I just didn't want the claims there), at the time I stupidly assumed a massive company like WB wouldn't mind people doing lets plays of games they publish, contacting them was going to be an absolute pain as well so I thought stuff if they'll be fine, I was so wrong. Years later I've grown to understand a little bit more about the complications of copyrights, I understand that the problem can span into the licensing rights, while WB is the parent company of both WB Interactive Entertainment and DC, there can still be licensing issues and trademarks they have to protect. I mean a subsidiary company can (and sometimes is even required to by law) sue another subsidiary even under the same parent company. I'm not even 100% sure that was entirely issue, all I know is I don't want to LP WB games until they say something official. I was lucky CDPR maintained copyrights on both their game and the music used in the game and got permission from them before I dared post a Witcher 3 video as WB published it in America. In fact numerous publishers touched that 1.

This guy could have any number of reasons for slamming that copyright on you, was there music in his video that was included in yours or images that he used himself? That music or image might have been copyrighted by another party and limited licensing may have been past to him, if he doesn't protect the content he himself can get into trouble for it. As I mentioned above some companies can be required by law to protect their trademarks and licensing agreements, even if they don't want to. It can be a common thing with games that are based off cartoons, tv shows or movies and the publisher might only have a limited license to make the game and that's about it, they can't even allow people to make footage of it.