Topic: Concerns of Youtube and Copyrights

[Sapphirus]

Oaky I've uploaded a video containing the original Type O Negative song, Haunted (not the Descent version).  It's basically a video that I recorded in Fraps while playing AT1BT (Assault Tech 1: Battletech) and compiled the recorded clips and include trippy visualization with Windows Live Movie Maker (I know, use something better!).  And finally I got an email that I've been using a Copyrighted song.  So I deleted the video of mine that I putted up recently to prevent me from getting sued.  But the video has ingame sounds.

Here's what I got in the email:

Dear SapphireWolf3057,

Your video, AT1 Acid Trip, may have content that is owned or licensed by WMG.

No action is required on your part; however, if you are interested in learning how this affects your video, please visit the Content ID Matches section of your account for more information.

Sincerely,
- The YouTube Team

Has this ever happened to one of you (For those on Youtube)

I guess that AMVs (even though my video is not much of an AMV) are now unacceptable on Youtube

[NUMBERZero]

It's WMG. They have so many people pissed off. I won't get into how far they have a stick shoved....

[SaladBadger]

yeah yt's been going on a legal rampage as of late

and how do you stand anything with "Windows" and "Live" in its name?

[D2Disciple]

To my knowledge, it's supposed to be legal to use a copyrighted song in a non-royalty fashion for art (e.g. film). This depends on your definition of what counts as art, but it's not YouTube's responsibility, it's the end user's responsibility. Send 'em a message threatening legal action against them because YouTube is allegedly attempting to stifle artistic license with their draconian copyright tactics. They'll shut up, because they know they could just as easily lose in court as they could win. 

[Scyphi]

Actually, including said music in those videos can be infringing on copyrights, because people can use those videos to rip music from illegally.

And it really seems to depend on the circumstances. There are still plenty of AMVs out there that still have their music and no one's bothered with them. *shrugs*. Personally, I think it bites too, but I don't throw a fit over it.

[-<WillyP>-]

If you are using copyrighted material without permission... it's illegal. Doesn't matter if it's in a movie... That's like putting a wrapper on a copy of a cd and calling it your own. There is an exception... 'Fair Use'. Using a copyrighted sound or music as background for your video does not constitute fair use. An example of fair use would be a review of some copyrighted material including a short clip of said copyrighted material to illustrate a point made in the review.

A common misconception: Just because you are not making money or using it commercially... Does not make it okay.

And just because they didn't go after someone using some copyrighted material, doesn't mean it okay to use that material. It cost record companies a lot of money to go after someone, so they have to pick their battles, so to speak.

You-Tube has to aggressively police the material on their site because they are a prime target for take-down notices and follow-up lawsuits.

[D2Disciple]

Hm. I stand corrected, Scyphi. I always thought that art was exempt from certain intellectual property laws (such as having a starbuck's cup in a photograph). I thought that music was also included on this, but apparently it isn't... And you're right, people rip music from YouTube.

Under the fair-use exception, WillyP, is it considered infringement to open up a title or scene of a YouTube film with a copyrighted song if it's a short clip (15-20 seconds)? I'm curious now. Of course, I seriously doubt YouTube would bother trying to stamp such little audio out. I'm also curious to see if this will negatively affect individuals that are using copyrighted material in a way that is completely permissible by the copyright owners (e.g. music video-making contests from popular label-holding bands).

[-<WillyP>-]

If you take a photo of a Starbucks cup, then you own the rights to that photo. But if you take the Starbucks logo and apply it to your own cup, then you are infringing.

Opening your video with a clip from a copyrighted song is infringing. You are using someone's work in your own work, without permission. Even including a short clip as an example for review is risky. There's a lot of gray area. But the record companies have their hands full just going after the blatant violators and you probably won't even get a take-down notice unless you get millions of views. The record companies receive no compensation for sending out take-down notices, so it's a losing situation for them.

Originally You-Tube did not police any videos. The record companies sent take-down notices. But no sooner did a video get taken down then would 3 pop up to replace it, with the same song. Record companies sued and a compromise was struck. Now You-Tube has automatic filtering software. I don't know the details of how it works, I am sure that is kept secret to prevent people from gaming the system. Or at least slow them down, anyway.

Now, the last part... If the owner of a copyright wants to, there is nothing to prevent them from giving permission to anyone, or everyone in general, to use that particular material, as you said, in a contest. Or for that matter, any other use. Permission can be as restrictive or loose as the owner wants. Often permission is given, and the terms are vague, then it's up to the courts to decide if a given use is reasonable, under whatever terms are given. So, let's say a band's website says 'You can use this song for our contest' and no other terms are given. Someone makes a video with that song and posts it on You-Tube. The argument could be made that once the video is made, for the contest, there is nothing to prevent the video-maker from posting it somewhere else. But then the court would look at the wording of the website and have to determine what a reasonable interpretation would be.