Viacom breaks copyright-time continuum
DiscoZombie
Join Date: 2003-08-05 Member: 18951Members
Join Date: 2003-08-05 Member: 18951Members
in Off-Topic
<a href="http://theknightshift.blogspot.com/2007/08/viacom-hits-me-with-copyright.html" target="_blank">Viacom hits me with copyright infringement for posting on YouTube a video that Viacom made by infringing on my own copyright!"</a>
tldr: this guy put a video on youtube. VH1 took it and put it on TV without asking him. He took the VH1 clip and put it on youtube. VH1 is telling him to cease and desist for stealing their work.
amusing. that is all.
tldr: this guy put a video on youtube. VH1 took it and put it on TV without asking him. He took the VH1 clip and put it on youtube. VH1 is telling him to cease and desist for stealing their work.
amusing. that is all.
Comments
Anyone else feeling like starting an angry mob and marching on the Viacom HQ?
I'll go get my pitch fork...
The latter is often the former.
when you post on youtube, you give youtube the right to license out your video for other people to use. You still hold the copyright apparently, but you pretty much are saying that youtube is allowed to give out permission to use your work. Presumably they gave permission to viacom, so they were probably allowed to air the video on VH1 without seeking this guy's permission.
however, it's probably true that the guy had a right under fair use to post the video of the video back on youtube.
YouTube doesn't give a rats ass about fair use and neither does Viacom. Thanks to that, Viacom will have its cake and eat it too. The best course of action I can think of is to try to make this harmful for Viacom, spread the word, boycott, post this thing on youtube every 5 minutes under a different account (like they did on digg with the HD-DVD processing key), and just generally tell them to ###### off.
when you post on youtube, you give youtube the right to license out your video for other people to use. You still hold the copyright apparently, but you pretty much are saying that youtube is allowed to give out permission to use your work. Presumably they gave permission to viacom, so they were probably allowed to air the video on VH1 without seeking this guy's permission.
however, it's probably true that the guy had a right under fair use to post the video of the video back on youtube.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
to quote the relevant portion of the TOS (http://www.youtube.com/t/terms) He DOES retain all his rights to the content.
===
C. For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your User Videos from the YouTube Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of User Submissions that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable.
===
Further more viacom is in violation of the TOS
===
C. You agree not to access User Submissions (defined below) or YouTube Content through any technology or means other than the video playback pages of the Website itself, the YouTube Embeddable Player, or other explicitly authorized means YouTube may designate.
B. You may access User Submissions solely:
* for your information and personal use;
* as intended through the normal functionality of the YouTube Service; and
* for Streaming.
"Streaming" means a contemporaneous digital transmission of an audiovisual work via the Internet from the YouTube Service to a user's device in such a manner that the data is intended for real-time viewing and not intended to be copied, stored, permanently downloaded, or redistributed by the user. Accessing User Videos for any purpose or in any manner other than Streaming is expressly prohibited. User Videos are made available "as is."
=====
I think Viacom is only in violation of the TOS if they didn't get permission from YouTube first.
but I'm no lawyer.
... not the genre.
Unless I'm am misreading that portion.
Not sure as to the actual legality. But I would be willing to bet the guy has a reasonable court case here as well.
logically right?
What do you mean by that?
how does logic, in and of itself, dictate what is right here?
You obviously aren't using a legal point of reference for your logic, but I can't see what you are using.
Because someone taking your stuff, then you putting up a video showing someone using your stuff, shouldn't be wrong. "It's okay, we took yours, but you can't take ours." Thats logic imo.
Anyone else feeling like starting an angry mob and marching on the Viacom HQ?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are worse companies out there than Viacom.
Also, Viacom sounds like the name of a company that creates some kind of deadly virus. Aka: it's a pretty cool name.
Infact, putting something on youtube makes it public property does it not? By putting it on youtube he forfeited all rights to the video.
Did you read the thread at all? The relevant part of the youtube ToS is posted, and it certainly doesn't say that.
Really? Gee, didn't even think of that.
Guess they're off the hook.
I formulate all my responses by parsing every 5th word in the first post and any links there-in, then I use an algorithm to insert relevant parsed words in one of 20 response templates. It is a miracle that so many of my posts make any sense at all.
No, I didn't read the Youtube TOS. However, now that I HAVE:
I would assume that this show has probably worked out a deal with Youtube considering a majority of their content is Youtube based (Yes, I've seen it a few times. No, I'm not proud), so based upon that they can use the work legally.
Besides, does the fact that they used his work really entitle him to THEIR work? I would think not.
Finally: It's not like they are fricking sueing him, calm down people.
Guess they're off the hook.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I meant it in a "prioritise which corporate headquarters to plant explosive charges in" sort of way. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
We can blow viacom up later, we should be more concerned with the ones that are you know, killing people and stuff.
That's not logic. Replace "logical" with "moral" and then I'll agree with you.
You're saying that person A cannot deny person B from using something originally created by person B and modified by person A. That's fine, I agree that is a good policy, however, no one has put down a logical analysis that makes this a tautology.