is it really that expensive to just get a lawyer to file something in the court and then fly to my state since it wouldhave to be where the infringer is i talked to a copyright lawyer on the phone today about 10 minutes ago he told me that there is something in the law that states a copyright must be registered before becoming infringed on to make me liable for attorney fees also another thing the copyright lawyer said and this was prolly the best information out of all he told me that the trial is the last thing these guys want because it is huge and costly and that most of his experience 20+ years with only online copyright and intellectual property that this is where it would probably go to mediation before anything and then something would get settled but i am not willing to pay 10-15k for someone to hire a lawyer and get all these costs back just to stick it to me even tho they dont own the actual content there compiling also as subversive pointed out Even though compilations do have copyrights associated, it only works if the compiler lawfully used the related copyright works.
received 2 copyright strikes from different people need help!
- Thread starter Doug
- Start date
-
- Tags
- copyright strike
subversiveasset
Posting Mad!
the court will not care if you're indigent. If you're infringing, then you're infringing.
However, I have updated my comments from this thread with information about the limitation of copyright for derivative works such as compilations.
yes actually and i thank you very much sir i responded but it says a moderator must approve it , is it really that expensive to just get a lawyer to file something in the court and then fly to my state since it wouldhave to be where the infringer is i talked to a copyright lawyer on the phone today about 10 minutes ago he told me that there is something in the law that states a copyright must be registered before becoming infringed on to make me liable for attorney fees also another thing the copyright lawyer said and this was prolly the best information out of all he told me that the trial is the last thing these guys want because it is huge and costly and that most of his experience 20+ years with only online copyright and intellectual property that this is where it would probably go to mediation before anything and then something would get settled but i am not willing to pay 10-15k for someone to hire a lawyer and get all these costs back
also subversive i did look into there youtube accounts most are making a steady 2-3k or more a month from just youtube[DOUBLEPOST=1473650953,1473650686][/DOUBLEPOST]yes i saw that subversive and i thank you but how do i know if its unlawful what they used im pretty sure its all unlawful because its fox news clips and msnbc and cspan i guess im just gonna have to risk it for the biscuit
Shakycow
I Love YTtalk
It is an extremely safe bet that everything that comes out of FOX is fully and properly registered.
As mentioned, you could risk countering, but there's no promise that they wouldn't file it at a court... something that you would almost guaranteed lose at - no matter if they have the rights or not, you clearly do not.
It doesn't matter if or how much they may be earning on YouTube. That would be up to FOX to worry about, not you.
i spoke to a copyright lawyer 10 minutes ago he told me that in his all of 20+ years most of these go to mediation never trial for low amounts where theey try and get a settlement also he said if the work was not registered prior to me infringing then he cannot get lawyer fees also he does not believe they have the right to use fox news clips and wants me to file a motion for false dmca and get the 15,000$ that i lost during these strikes
Shakycow
I Love YTtalk
Wants you to file for lost income on the footage that you don't earn? Good luck with that one.
I'm done here.
i just want to showup to court and be like look these guys using fox news clips and stuff and doing no editing except shortening or lengthening these and i would like you to see that they do not own the copyright of this material and there fore cannot make claims to me about them pretending they own something they do not and have it thrown out basically[DOUBLEPOST=1473651469,1473651290][/DOUBLEPOST]ya i told him no i told him that i jsut wanted to know what i was liable for and he said that u are not liable for there attorney fees if it wasnt registered before u infringed and obv he just wanted me to spend money but there is a truth to if there making money off of news clips and so are tons of people just showing raw news clips then even if i dont own the original work they do not either so trying to strike me down and make me not earn money if they dont own it and i dont own it they still took the step to shut me down its not youtube u know so its kind of like the court might say ok yes u are right we are not going to deal with he said she said who owns this or not we determined no one owned these clips but we also determined youtube is paying you for fox news clips and u stopped this guy from getting paid[DOUBLEPOST=1473651540][/DOUBLEPOST]im definitely not going to go down that route but it is interesting because we would be going to court just to prove that they filed a false dmca and get the thing thrown out but from there showing someone made my account stop making money could be apossible route to take because its not about owning something then its about youtube and if i was going to get paid if that strike never occured -[DOUBLEPOST=1473651583][/DOUBLEPOST]kind of off topic here but thank you for all of your input i just wanted to really know if someone unlawfully uses footage and claims it as there own because they compiled it without owning it am i in the clear from there dmca take down thats basically it[DOUBLEPOST=1473651939][/DOUBLEPOST]its highly highly disturbing to me that people flood youtube with news clips full length and dont get dinged and have good views but as soon as i do i start getting copyright strikes from the people who are stealing from fox and such etc.. its like they take from fox then i take that news clip from there page and edit it and then they want to copyright strike me now??[DOUBLEPOST=1473652837][/DOUBLEPOST]Posting short news clips in order to comment on a current event
- This also falls under the commentary category of fair use, though there likely would need to be some original comment on the clip rather than just posting the straight unedited clip.
i found this pretty interesting but i still have no idea what to make of this legal jargan i have underlined where im kinda hazy in regards to my specific case
II.B.2. Special Provisions
The special provisions for compilations and derivative works are contained in Section 103:
(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.
In the legislative history, the drafters explained those provisions:
The most important point here is one that is commonly misunderstood today: copyright in a “new version” covers only the material added by the later author, and has no effect one way or the other on the copyright or public domain status of the preexisting material. . . .
The second part of the sentence that makes up section 103(a) deals with the status of a compilation or derivative work unlawfully employing preexisting copyrighted material. In providing that protection does not extend to “any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully,” the bill prevents an infringer from benefiting, through copyright protection, from committing an unlawful act, but preserves protection for those parts of the work that do not employ the preexisting work. Thus, an unauthorized translation of a novel could not be copyrighted at all, but the owner of copyright in an anthology of poetry could sue someone who infringed the whole anthology, even though the infringer proves that publication of one of the poems was unauthorized. Under this provision, copyright could be obtained as long as the use of the preexisting work was not “unlawful,” even though the consent of the copyright owner had not been obtained. For instance, the unauthorized reproduction of a work might be “lawful” under the doctrine of fair use or an applicable foreign law, and if so the work incorporating it could be copyrighted.
Many works are protected by a number of copyrights. For example, when a movie is made from a best-selling novel, the material that comes from that novel is protected by the novel’s original copyright. The screenplay is a derivative work of the novel and has its own copyright covering its original aspects. (For example, added dialogue or the instructions for the staging of a scene.) Both are literary works. The actual movie, an audiovisual work, has its own copyright covering the things that are original to the movie and not in the screenplay, such as the director’s particular arrangement for a shot. The musical score of the movie also has its own copyright. In each case, the copyright covers only what is original to that particular work.
II.B.2. Special Provisions
The special provisions for compilations and derivative works are contained in Section 103:
(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.
In the legislative history, the drafters explained those provisions:
The most important point here is one that is commonly misunderstood today: copyright in a “new version” covers only the material added by the later author, and has no effect one way or the other on the copyright or public domain status of the preexisting material. . . .
The second part of the sentence that makes up section 103(a) deals with the status of a compilation or derivative work unlawfully employing preexisting copyrighted material. In providing that protection does not extend to “any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully,” the bill prevents an infringer from benefiting, through copyright protection, from committing an unlawful act, but preserves protection for those parts of the work that do not employ the preexisting work. Thus, an unauthorized translation of a novel could not be copyrighted at all, but the owner of copyright in an anthology of poetry could sue someone who infringed the whole anthology, even though the infringer proves that publication of one of the poems was unauthorized. Under this provision, copyright could be obtained as long as the use of the preexisting work was not “unlawful,” even though the consent of the copyright owner had not been obtained. For instance, the unauthorized reproduction of a work might be “lawful” under the doctrine of fair use or an applicable foreign law, and if so the work incorporating it could be copyrighted.
Many works are protected by a number of copyrights. For example, when a movie is made from a best-selling novel, the material that comes from that novel is protected by the novel’s original copyright. The screenplay is a derivative work of the novel and has its own copyright covering its original aspects. (For example, added dialogue or the instructions for the staging of a scene.) Both are literary works. The actual movie, an audiovisual work, has its own copyright covering the things that are original to the movie and not in the screenplay, such as the director’s particular arrangement for a shot. The musical score of the movie also has its own copyright. In each case, the copyright covers only what is original to that particular work.