Banned By YouTube: Fair Use Of Copyrighted Materials On YouTube
Ranked #29,817 in Computers & Electronics, #556,869 overall
Exploring The "Fair Use" Of Copyrighted Materials On YouTube
In early October 2006 I took two small excerpts from the PBS video "Triumph of the Nerds" and placed these clips on my Squidoo Lens about the lawsuit between Apple, Inc and Burst.Com, Inc.
http://www.squidoo.com/bursting
On March 20, 2007 I received the first of two email message informing me that both of these clips had been removed from YouTube.
===============================================
Dear Member:
This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by NBD Television Ltd. claiming that this material is infringing:
Great Artists Steal - Triumph of the Nerds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeNumls8hcE
Please Note: Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to avoid future strikes against your account, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube's copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.
If you elect to send us a counter notice, please go to our Help Center to access the instructions.
===============================================
No information was given to me that outlines what the possible infringement might be and no information was given about the third-party claiming the infringement: NBD Television Ltd.
The only recourse outlined in these emails was:
================================================
If you elect to send us a counter notice, please go to our Help Center to access the instructions.
Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability.
Sincerely,
YouTube, Inc.
=============================================
I do not believe at this point in time that what I placed on YouTube six months ago infringes on the copyright of "Triumph of the Nerds". I do believe that the "Fair Use" provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976 cover the excerpting I did six months ago.
This lens will document my experience in trying to understand:
Who is NBD Television and why are they saying bad things about me and my work to YouTube?
What are the specifics of my alleged infringement of these copyrighted materials?
What does "Fair Use" mean in today's electronic information world?
http://www.squidoo.com/bursting
On March 20, 2007 I received the first of two email message informing me that both of these clips had been removed from YouTube.
===============================================
Dear Member:
This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by NBD Television Ltd. claiming that this material is infringing:
Great Artists Steal - Triumph of the Nerds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeNumls8hcE
Please Note: Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to avoid future strikes against your account, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube's copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.
If you elect to send us a counter notice, please go to our Help Center to access the instructions.
===============================================
No information was given to me that outlines what the possible infringement might be and no information was given about the third-party claiming the infringement: NBD Television Ltd.
The only recourse outlined in these emails was:
================================================
If you elect to send us a counter notice, please go to our Help Center to access the instructions.
Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability.
Sincerely,
YouTube, Inc.
=============================================
I do not believe at this point in time that what I placed on YouTube six months ago infringes on the copyright of "Triumph of the Nerds". I do believe that the "Fair Use" provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976 cover the excerpting I did six months ago.
This lens will document my experience in trying to understand:
Who is NBD Television and why are they saying bad things about me and my work to YouTube?
What are the specifics of my alleged infringement of these copyrighted materials?
What does "Fair Use" mean in today's electronic information world?
GOD Has Spoken -- Upon Further Review It Was Just Cringely's Latest Column!
burstingsquidoo's 15 seconds of fame
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070329_001882.html
(Bob - I hope you will find that my screen cap falls under the DMCA "fair use" provisions. I'm not looking to get any more threatening emails.)
Great Artists Steal - Triumph of the Nerds - Revised
It usually takes YouTube about 20 minutes to "process" an upload. It took almost 2 hours for YouTube to process this "revised" version of the banned clip. The original clip was about 5 minutes long and the "revised" clip only uses 11 seconds from the "Triumph of the Nerds" DVD. This tells me that "fair use" is shorter than 5 minutes and probably longer than 11 seconds. Comments?
Email To Copyright Holder Oregon Public Broadcasting
(Part 1)
Rebecca Morris
Chief Counsel
Oregon Public Broadcasting
Rebecca:
Bob Cringely, host of the OPB program "Triumph of the Nerds", has said that OPB is the copyright holder of this material. I am a BIG Cringely fan and I own a copy of the DVD that I purchased from Amazon.Com.
On March 20, 2007 YouTube banned two clips I uploaded based on an infringement complaint from NBD Televidison. You can see more about this banning if you visit:
http://www.squidoo.com/bannedbyyoutube
I have written to YouTube asking for a status report on my banned clips.
I have also exchanged emails with Cringely. Here is one excerpt I will share with you.
================
"There were two reasons for excerpting the 5 minutes from the 3 hour DVD set.
1. I wanted to place the Steve Jobs quote in some context and not just do a hatchet job on Jobs. The introduction of the Macintosh in 1984 is a compelling story and your handling of this event was beautifully done. I liked the way you changed the music from "Chariots of Fire" played at the Flint Center event to some other music to get around any copyright issues. However, I was most interested in the 11 seconds when
Jobs does his Picasso quote.
2. I also wanted to "tease" the viewers of the clip so that some of the viewers would go to Amazon and buy the DVD set. The "Triumph of the Nerds" documentary was an excellent presentation and deserves a much wider audience.
I don't expect an quick reply from YouTube or NBD television so I have done a "revised" clip and uploaded it to YouTube. The "revised" clip is
available at:
http://www.squidoo.com/bannedbyyoutube
====================
Chief Counsel
Oregon Public Broadcasting
Rebecca:
Bob Cringely, host of the OPB program "Triumph of the Nerds", has said that OPB is the copyright holder of this material. I am a BIG Cringely fan and I own a copy of the DVD that I purchased from Amazon.Com.
On March 20, 2007 YouTube banned two clips I uploaded based on an infringement complaint from NBD Televidison. You can see more about this banning if you visit:
http://www.squidoo.com/bannedbyyoutube
I have written to YouTube asking for a status report on my banned clips.
I have also exchanged emails with Cringely. Here is one excerpt I will share with you.
================
"There were two reasons for excerpting the 5 minutes from the 3 hour DVD set.
1. I wanted to place the Steve Jobs quote in some context and not just do a hatchet job on Jobs. The introduction of the Macintosh in 1984 is a compelling story and your handling of this event was beautifully done. I liked the way you changed the music from "Chariots of Fire" played at the Flint Center event to some other music to get around any copyright issues. However, I was most interested in the 11 seconds when
Jobs does his Picasso quote.
2. I also wanted to "tease" the viewers of the clip so that some of the viewers would go to Amazon and buy the DVD set. The "Triumph of the Nerds" documentary was an excellent presentation and deserves a much wider audience.
I don't expect an quick reply from YouTube or NBD television so I have done a "revised" clip and uploaded it to YouTube. The "revised" clip is
available at:
http://www.squidoo.com/bannedbyyoutube
====================
Email To Copyright Holder Oregon Public Broadcasting
(Part 2)
(continued from Part 1)
The 3 part "Triumph of the Nerds" DVD runs 165 minutes. 5 minutes represents 3% of the total program time, which I believe at least gives me a little room in arguing my "fair use" defense. After reading the "Cringley Doctrine on Fair Use" (30 seconds) I can see how my 5 minutes comes up way short of Cringely's view.
However, I cut the clip the way I did because this was a natural breaking point in the DVD. I also wanted to "tease" the viewer into buying the DVD from Amazon.Com, which I mention in the opening title and in the blurb that goes along with the clip. I actually looked upon my excerpt as being a 5 minute advertisement for the DVD.
It is my understanding that infringement is in the eye of the copyright holder and not in the eye of some third party like NBD Television.
What is OPB's view about the behavior of NBD Television?
I have uploaded a newly revised version of the Steve Job's Picasso quote to YouTube. This revised quote is now 11 seconds long and fits well within the "Cringley Doctrine of Fair Use".
I would like to see where OPB stands on my dispute with YouTube on the matter of a third party getting clips removed.
Where does OPB stand on this particular action taken by NBD Television and YouTube?
If you believe that it is in OPB's interest to file an "infrigment" notice with YouTube on the original 5 minute clip, then I will understand and accept your decision. I would then ask that OPB give me permission to use original 5 minute clip on YouTube.
Please let me know if you need to see the original 5 minute clip.
burstingsquidoo
The 3 part "Triumph of the Nerds" DVD runs 165 minutes. 5 minutes represents 3% of the total program time, which I believe at least gives me a little room in arguing my "fair use" defense. After reading the "Cringley Doctrine on Fair Use" (30 seconds) I can see how my 5 minutes comes up way short of Cringely's view.
However, I cut the clip the way I did because this was a natural breaking point in the DVD. I also wanted to "tease" the viewer into buying the DVD from Amazon.Com, which I mention in the opening title and in the blurb that goes along with the clip. I actually looked upon my excerpt as being a 5 minute advertisement for the DVD.
It is my understanding that infringement is in the eye of the copyright holder and not in the eye of some third party like NBD Television.
What is OPB's view about the behavior of NBD Television?
I have uploaded a newly revised version of the Steve Job's Picasso quote to YouTube. This revised quote is now 11 seconds long and fits well within the "Cringley Doctrine of Fair Use".
I would like to see where OPB stands on my dispute with YouTube on the matter of a third party getting clips removed.
Where does OPB stand on this particular action taken by NBD Television and YouTube?
If you believe that it is in OPB's interest to file an "infrigment" notice with YouTube on the original 5 minute clip, then I will understand and accept your decision. I would then ask that OPB give me permission to use original 5 minute clip on YouTube.
Please let me know if you need to see the original 5 minute clip.
burstingsquidoo
Email To YouTube On Banned Clips
Sent April 3, 2007
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 08:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Bursting Squidoo" <burstingsquidoo@yahoo.com>
Subject: Removal Of Clips From YouTube
To: copyright@youtube.com
Dear YouTube:
On March 20, 2007 you informed me via email that YouTube had removed two clips of mine because NBD Television was claiming this material was infringing.
===========================================
Dear Member:
This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by NBD Television Ltd. claiming that this material is infringing:
Great Artists Steal - Triumph of the Nerds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeNumls8hcE
Robert X. Cringely - Yahoo BRST Message Board
Superhero: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8UwNJRM8dc
==========================================
It has come to my attention that NBD Television Ltd. is not the copyright holder of "Triumph of the Nerds".
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070329_001882.html
It has been 14 days since my clips were removed and I'm writing you to find out the status of my banned clips.
Your email to me includes the following paragraph:
"Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or
disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability."
Here are my current questions on this matter:
What steps are being taken by YouTube to determine the liability of NBD Television, Ltd. in having my clips removed when NBD Television is not the copyright holder?
What liability does NBD Television face in having my clips removed when NBD Television is not the copyright holder of this material?
What proof did NDB Television offer that NBD Television was the copyright holder when they asked that my clips be removed?
What proof does YouTube require when clips are claimed to be infringing?
Can a non-copyright holder claim infringement and have clips removed from the YouTube site?
Do you have any plans to restore my original clips to the YouTube site?
Sincerely,
burstingsquidoo
From: "Bursting Squidoo" <burstingsquidoo@yahoo.com>
Subject: Removal Of Clips From YouTube
To: copyright@youtube.com
Dear YouTube:
On March 20, 2007 you informed me via email that YouTube had removed two clips of mine because NBD Television was claiming this material was infringing.
===========================================
Dear Member:
This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by NBD Television Ltd. claiming that this material is infringing:
Great Artists Steal - Triumph of the Nerds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeNumls8hcE
Robert X. Cringely - Yahoo BRST Message Board
Superhero: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8UwNJRM8dc
==========================================
It has come to my attention that NBD Television Ltd. is not the copyright holder of "Triumph of the Nerds".
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070329_001882.html
It has been 14 days since my clips were removed and I'm writing you to find out the status of my banned clips.
Your email to me includes the following paragraph:
"Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or
disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability."
Here are my current questions on this matter:
What steps are being taken by YouTube to determine the liability of NBD Television, Ltd. in having my clips removed when NBD Television is not the copyright holder?
What liability does NBD Television face in having my clips removed when NBD Television is not the copyright holder of this material?
What proof did NDB Television offer that NBD Television was the copyright holder when they asked that my clips be removed?
What proof does YouTube require when clips are claimed to be infringing?
Can a non-copyright holder claim infringement and have clips removed from the YouTube site?
Do you have any plans to restore my original clips to the YouTube site?
Sincerely,
burstingsquidoo
Email To CEO of NBD Television
Nicky Davies Williams
Chief Executive Officer
NBD Television, Ltd.
Dear Ms Williams:
It has come to my attention that you are the CEO of NBD Television. I recently received a DMCA notice from YouTube which informed me that NBD Television had asked YouTube to remove two of my video clips from the
Oregon Public Broadcasting program "Triumph of the Nerds". I am trying to understand why you chose to take this action and I would like to have you respond to the following questions.
1. How did NDBTV become aware of the appearance of the work in question on youtube.com. Who told you. And who told them, etc.
2. What kind of proof do you have that NDBTV created the work or purchased the copyright (per the British law) that gives NDB the right to claim infringement?
3. If you have no such proof, then please furnish proof that you were authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder Oregon Public Broadcasting as per the US law.
4. In view of the many other appearances of the work in question, and in greater length, on youtube.com, why did NDBTV assert its alleged rights in only this one case?
"I spent about 20 minutes looking for Triumph of the
Nerds video clips on YouTube and came up with 15. I am
sure there are others....There's a guy named
AppleRumorTracker on YouTube who recut much of
"Triumph of the Nerds" into a pretty darned good
five-part, 46-minute compilation of interviews with
only the occasional question in my voice sneaking
through. He removed me from my own show.
AppleRumorTracker even changed the title of the show.
Why didn't NBD Television Ltd. ask YouTube to pull
down those clips?"
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070329_001882.htm
I look forward to receiving a timely response to my questions.
burstingsquidoo
Chief Executive Officer
NBD Television, Ltd.
Dear Ms Williams:
It has come to my attention that you are the CEO of NBD Television. I recently received a DMCA notice from YouTube which informed me that NBD Television had asked YouTube to remove two of my video clips from the
Oregon Public Broadcasting program "Triumph of the Nerds". I am trying to understand why you chose to take this action and I would like to have you respond to the following questions.
1. How did NDBTV become aware of the appearance of the work in question on youtube.com. Who told you. And who told them, etc.
2. What kind of proof do you have that NDBTV created the work or purchased the copyright (per the British law) that gives NDB the right to claim infringement?
3. If you have no such proof, then please furnish proof that you were authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder Oregon Public Broadcasting as per the US law.
4. In view of the many other appearances of the work in question, and in greater length, on youtube.com, why did NDBTV assert its alleged rights in only this one case?
"I spent about 20 minutes looking for Triumph of the
Nerds video clips on YouTube and came up with 15. I am
sure there are others....There's a guy named
AppleRumorTracker on YouTube who recut much of
"Triumph of the Nerds" into a pretty darned good
five-part, 46-minute compilation of interviews with
only the occasional question in my voice sneaking
through. He removed me from my own show.
AppleRumorTracker even changed the title of the show.
Why didn't NBD Television Ltd. ask YouTube to pull
down those clips?"
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070329_001882.htm
I look forward to receiving a timely response to my questions.
burstingsquidoo
The YouTube Clip That Wasn't Banned
There were three clips in my account and one remained untouched. This is a revised version of that clip. The original clip ran 1:55 and had about 300 views. This is a revision of that clip that runs 1:17 in order to fit into the "Cringely Doctrine of Fair Use" of 30 seconds of "fair use" content.
This clip makes no sense unless you have read the Apple and Burst.Com legal briefs on the topic of 'Time Compression Multiplexing' vs. 'Time Compressed Representation'.
This clip makes no sense unless you have read the Apple and Burst.Com legal briefs on the topic of 'Time Compression Multiplexing' vs. 'Time Compressed Representation'.
Banned Clip Still Available On YouTube
Why does this clip remain on YouTube while my clip was removed?
My five minute excerpt is found within the following almost 10 minute excerpt taken from "Triumph of the Nerds". As Cringely pointed out in his column there are several clips from "Triumph of the Nerds" that remain on YouTube. As far as I know only my two clips have been banned?
Why?
Why?
YouTube Responds To April 3, 2007 Email
(Look Carefully At The Way The Response Is Crafted To Avoid Directly Answering My Original Questions - I wonder if Jacob is a Google attorney?)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:02:52 -0700
From: "Copyright Service" <copyright@support.youtube.com>
To: "Bursting Squidoo" <burstingsquidoo@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [#132238329] Removal Of Clips From YouTube
Dear burstingsquidoo,
When we're notified that a particular video uploaded to our site infringes another's copyright, we remove the material as the law requires. If you feel a content owner has misidentified your content as infringing, you may file a DMCA counter-notification.
For more information, visit our Copyright Tips page,
http://youtube.com/t/dmca_policy.
Sincerely,
Jacob
The YouTube Team
From: "Copyright Service" <copyright@support.youtube.com>
To: "Bursting Squidoo" <burstingsquidoo@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [#132238329] Removal Of Clips From YouTube
Dear burstingsquidoo,
When we're notified that a particular video uploaded to our site infringes another's copyright, we remove the material as the law requires. If you feel a content owner has misidentified your content as infringing, you may file a DMCA counter-notification.
For more information, visit our Copyright Tips page,
http://youtube.com/t/dmca_policy.
Sincerely,
Jacob
The YouTube Team
Email To YouTube April 7, 2007
Dear Jacob:
The content owner did not file the DMCA infringement claim with YouTube. A third party (NBD Television) filed the DMCA claim of infringement. This is an important distinction that you are not addressing in your answer and also something that is not addressed on your Copyright Tips page.
Please do not just cut and paste an answer that directs me to the Copyright Tips page. The issue I'm addressing is not found on this page!
Let me see if I can clarify what I'm asking:
What happens if someone other than the content owner notifies YouTube that a particular uploaded video infringes another's copyright?
Doesn't the DMCA require that the copyright owner notify YouTube of the alleged infringement?
Where in the DMCA is it specified that a third-party (not the copyright holder) can file a valid infringement removal request?
What happens if the notification comes from someone other than the copyright owner?
What proof of copyright ownership is required when the DMCA removal is enforced?
You did not answer ANY of my previous questions about the liability of NBD Television. Why?
I still am waiting for your answers to these questions.
Although I appreciate the courtesy of your reply today, you didn't really address the issues I raised in my original email.
I look forward to a speedy reply to my original questions and the new questions I have added today.
burstingsquidoo
The content owner did not file the DMCA infringement claim with YouTube. A third party (NBD Television) filed the DMCA claim of infringement. This is an important distinction that you are not addressing in your answer and also something that is not addressed on your Copyright Tips page.
Please do not just cut and paste an answer that directs me to the Copyright Tips page. The issue I'm addressing is not found on this page!
Let me see if I can clarify what I'm asking:
What happens if someone other than the content owner notifies YouTube that a particular uploaded video infringes another's copyright?
Doesn't the DMCA require that the copyright owner notify YouTube of the alleged infringement?
Where in the DMCA is it specified that a third-party (not the copyright holder) can file a valid infringement removal request?
What happens if the notification comes from someone other than the copyright owner?
What proof of copyright ownership is required when the DMCA removal is enforced?
You did not answer ANY of my previous questions about the liability of NBD Television. Why?
I still am waiting for your answers to these questions.
Although I appreciate the courtesy of your reply today, you didn't really address the issues I raised in my original email.
I look forward to a speedy reply to my original questions and the new questions I have added today.
burstingsquidoo
YouTube Responds To April 7, 2007
Looks like YouTube can only handle one question at a time!
Dear burstingsquidoo,
Under the DMCA, and as described on our website at http://youtube.com/t/dmca_policy, a valid takedown notice must include a statement that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner. We received notice from NBD Television acting on behalf of Digital Classics Distribution Limited. Proof of copyright ownership is not required.
I apologize for not properly communicating this to you sooner.
Sincerely,
Jacob
The YouTube Team
Under the DMCA, and as described on our website at http://youtube.com/t/dmca_policy, a valid takedown notice must include a statement that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner. We received notice from NBD Television acting on behalf of Digital Classics Distribution Limited. Proof of copyright ownership is not required.
I apologize for not properly communicating this to you sooner.
Sincerely,
Jacob
The YouTube Team
Electronic Freedom Foundation Responds - April 11, 2007
Hi Burstingsquidoo,
Thanks for contacting EFF.
For general information on Copyright and the DMCA, I suggest that you
review EFF's site and the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse
site /www.chillingeffects.org>. CE is an online resource that
addresses multiple IP and domain issues. The FAQ sections go into
detail about situations similar to yours and how to tell if someone has
a legitimate claim against you. CE has a database of cease and desist
letters to which you can also submit copies of any take-down notice you
receive.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/
Copyright and the DMCA
http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/
Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers) about Copyright
http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/faq.cgi
Additionally, you should look at the Fair Use Network website. Fair
Use
Network explains the process of C&D takedown notices and counter
claims.
'Cease and Desist!': A Guide to Assessing & Responding to Cease and
Desist Letters
http://fairusenetwork.org/reference/cd.php
'Take It Down!': A Guide to Assessing & Responding to DMCA § 512
Takedown Notices
http://fairusenetwork.org/reference/td.php
EFF Staff Attorney Jason Schultz would like to speak with you further
about your situation. Is there a phone number that he can reach you at
to discuss the case?
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Julie
--
Julie Lindner
Intake Coordinator
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Julie@eff.org
415-436-9333 ext.111
Become an EFF member! -- http://www.eff.org/support/
-----
Please note that we have not had the opportunity to fully review the
facts and law applicable to your situation, so our comments here are
for your informational purposes only. That means they do not constitute
legal advice and do not create an attorney/client relationship between
you and EFF. They may still be privileged under US law, however, and
will be kept confidential by us unless you instruct us otherwise.
Please do not act upon this information alone; instead please seek a complete review of your case with a lawyer licensed to practice in your
jurisdiction.
Thanks for contacting EFF.
For general information on Copyright and the DMCA, I suggest that you
review EFF's site and the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse
site /www.chillingeffects.org>. CE is an online resource that
addresses multiple IP and domain issues. The FAQ sections go into
detail about situations similar to yours and how to tell if someone has
a legitimate claim against you. CE has a database of cease and desist
letters to which you can also submit copies of any take-down notice you
receive.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/
Copyright and the DMCA
http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/
Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers) about Copyright
http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/faq.cgi
Additionally, you should look at the Fair Use Network website. Fair
Use
Network explains the process of C&D takedown notices and counter
claims.
'Cease and Desist!': A Guide to Assessing & Responding to Cease and
Desist Letters
http://fairusenetwork.org/reference/cd.php
'Take It Down!': A Guide to Assessing & Responding to DMCA § 512
Takedown Notices
http://fairusenetwork.org/reference/td.php
EFF Staff Attorney Jason Schultz would like to speak with you further
about your situation. Is there a phone number that he can reach you at
to discuss the case?
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Julie
--
Julie Lindner
Intake Coordinator
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Julie@eff.org
415-436-9333 ext.111
Become an EFF member! -- http://www.eff.org/support/
-----
Please note that we have not had the opportunity to fully review the
facts and law applicable to your situation, so our comments here are
for your informational purposes only. That means they do not constitute
legal advice and do not create an attorney/client relationship between
you and EFF. They may still be privileged under US law, however, and
will be kept confidential by us unless you instruct us otherwise.
Please do not act upon this information alone; instead please seek a complete review of your case with a lawyer licensed to practice in your
jurisdiction.
Email To Electronic Freedom Foundation - April 11, 2007
(Asking For Help With YouTube)
Dear EEF:
A third party asked YouTube to remove two clips I uploaded to YouTube. The removal was done without the authorization from the copyright owner. This appears to me to be a violation of the DMCA infringement rules.
I have sent two emails to YouTube with several questions and the answers from YouTube are evasive and not germane to the questions being asked.
What options are available to me to get a clearer understanding of the YouTube DMCA removal policy and to get my clips restored on YouTube?
Thanks for your help in this matter.
burstingsquidoo
Links of interest:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070329_001882.html
(Robert X. Ciringely's Column)
http://www.squidoo.com/bannedbyyoutube
A third party asked YouTube to remove two clips I uploaded to YouTube. The removal was done without the authorization from the copyright owner. This appears to me to be a violation of the DMCA infringement rules.
I have sent two emails to YouTube with several questions and the answers from YouTube are evasive and not germane to the questions being asked.
What options are available to me to get a clearer understanding of the YouTube DMCA removal policy and to get my clips restored on YouTube?
Thanks for your help in this matter.
burstingsquidoo
Links of interest:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070329_001882.html
(Robert X. Ciringely's Column)
http://www.squidoo.com/bannedbyyoutube
Electronic Freedom Foundation Responds - April 17, 2007
(Part 1)
I've had a chance to look through your emails and website. While we
cannot provide legal representation to you on this matter, I've taken
the liberty to share some of my thoughts on it:
1) It would appear that NBD Television sent the take-down to YouTube on
behalf of Digital Classics Distribution Limited, presumably because
DCDL claims copyright in some of the video you posted. While Oregon
Public Broadcast may own the overarching copyright in "Triumph of the
Nerds", the series does use extensive clips from other copyrighted
works. For example, there appear to be clips of early conference talks
given by Steve Jobs when the Macintosh first launched. It is possible
that DCDL owns the copyright in these clips and thus, that could be the
source of the take-down request. Under the DMCA, the sender of a
notice does not have to "prove" they own a copyright but rather swear
under penalty of perjury that they are authorized to send the notice on
behalf of the copyright owner. Thus, by making such a representation,
NBD may have satisfied its obligations under the DMCA. Of course, if
it is not authorized or DCDL doesn't own any copyrights in the
underlying clips, it may have violated the DMCA.
2) That said, even if DCDL does own copyright in the underlying cilps,
it may well be a fair use for you to have posted those clips,
especially if OPB does not object to the posting. However, that would
be a matter for the court to decide, as fair use is determined on a
case-by-case basis and there has never been a determination of fair use
one way or the other for people posting clips to YouTube. In other
words, it is uncharted waters.
3) So, what are your options? The easiest option would be to send
YouTube a DMCA counternotice. I believe Julie has sent you information
on how to put one together. Once YouTube receives this notice, they
will generally re-enable access to the clip within 10-14 business days
unless NBD or DCDL files a copyright infringement suit against you and
notifies YouTube of that fact. Note, however, that if you do file a
counternotice, you run the risk of such a suit being filed against you.
You also will have to agree to submit to jurisdiction for the suit
where you live and/or where YouTube is located in the Northern District
of California. As such, you may wish to hire an attorney and consult
with them on the risks associated with a counter-notice. If you need
help findi
cannot provide legal representation to you on this matter, I've taken
the liberty to share some of my thoughts on it:
1) It would appear that NBD Television sent the take-down to YouTube on
behalf of Digital Classics Distribution Limited, presumably because
DCDL claims copyright in some of the video you posted. While Oregon
Public Broadcast may own the overarching copyright in "Triumph of the
Nerds", the series does use extensive clips from other copyrighted
works. For example, there appear to be clips of early conference talks
given by Steve Jobs when the Macintosh first launched. It is possible
that DCDL owns the copyright in these clips and thus, that could be the
source of the take-down request. Under the DMCA, the sender of a
notice does not have to "prove" they own a copyright but rather swear
under penalty of perjury that they are authorized to send the notice on
behalf of the copyright owner. Thus, by making such a representation,
NBD may have satisfied its obligations under the DMCA. Of course, if
it is not authorized or DCDL doesn't own any copyrights in the
underlying clips, it may have violated the DMCA.
2) That said, even if DCDL does own copyright in the underlying cilps,
it may well be a fair use for you to have posted those clips,
especially if OPB does not object to the posting. However, that would
be a matter for the court to decide, as fair use is determined on a
case-by-case basis and there has never been a determination of fair use
one way or the other for people posting clips to YouTube. In other
words, it is uncharted waters.
3) So, what are your options? The easiest option would be to send
YouTube a DMCA counternotice. I believe Julie has sent you information
on how to put one together. Once YouTube receives this notice, they
will generally re-enable access to the clip within 10-14 business days
unless NBD or DCDL files a copyright infringement suit against you and
notifies YouTube of that fact. Note, however, that if you do file a
counternotice, you run the risk of such a suit being filed against you.
You also will have to agree to submit to jurisdiction for the suit
where you live and/or where YouTube is located in the Northern District
of California. As such, you may wish to hire an attorney and consult
with them on the risks associated with a counter-notice. If you need
help findi
Electronic Freedom Foundation Responds - April 17, 2007
(Part 2)
If you need help finding an attorney, we can try to assist you through our
Cooperating Attorneys program.
The second option is to file a lawsuit of your own against NBD/DCDL for
violating the DMCA and for a declaration that posting the clip doesn't
infringe their copyrights. Again, you would want to talk to an
experienced attorney about the risks of such a suit.
Anyway, hope this helps. Let me know if you have any further questions
about this.
One quick note: If you have or can get a copy of the "Triumph" DVD, it
should have acknowledgments in the credits at the end regarding the
source of the underlying clips. I would look to see if DCDL is
mentioned there.
Electronic Freedom Foundation
Cooperating Attorneys program.
The second option is to file a lawsuit of your own against NBD/DCDL for
violating the DMCA and for a declaration that posting the clip doesn't
infringe their copyrights. Again, you would want to talk to an
experienced attorney about the risks of such a suit.
Anyway, hope this helps. Let me know if you have any further questions
about this.
One quick note: If you have or can get a copy of the "Triumph" DVD, it
should have acknowledgments in the credits at the end regarding the
source of the underlying clips. I would look to see if DCDL is
mentioned there.
Electronic Freedom Foundation
Copyright Notices Found In "Triumph of the Nerds"
No mention of Digital Classics Distribution Limited or NBD Television in the copyright credits
New Guestbook
submit
-
Reply
-
kimdpierson
Oct 11, 2011 @ 3:48 am | delete
- Awesome video....
-
-
Reply
-
kimdpierson
Oct 11, 2011 @ 3:48 am | delete
- Awesome video....
-
-
Reply
-
Dec 21, 2010 @ 2:43 am | delete
- Air Jordan Retro 16are loved by many, probably Jordan Retro 16the fact that Michael Jordan 16 Shoesstarted his Jordan 17 Retro season with a Jordan 18 Retro bang. Throughout theJordan 19 Retro years you needed a Jordan 20 Retro pair of Jordan 20 Retro to be in style, and was just apart of fashion. Michael Jordan and the Air Jordan CDP Shoes line have dominated the Air Jordan DMP, and many opponents air jordan 1 Nike Jordan series Air Jordan 2 Retro never, battle all 82 games, air jordan 3
-------------------------------------
Nike Jordan series air jordan 4 Nike Jordan series air jordan 5 Nike Jordan series air jordan 6 Nike Jordan series Air Jordan 7 will undoubtedly have a jordan 7 very pleasing designs The air jordan 8 was released to coincide with the 1992-1993 NBA season the jordan 9 model was the first Air Jordan model release after his retirement The
air jordan 10 represents an important landmark in Jordan's basketball career. The jordan 11 model was designed by Tinker Hatfield The air jordan 12 was inspired by "Nisshoki" NIKE King for the generation of air jordan 13 retro Michael Jordan This was the very last air jordan 14 retro model that Michael would sport in NBA before
-----------------------------------------------------
The Retro jordan 16 were designed by Nike's Senior Footwear Designer Wilson Smith. This shoe comes equipped jordan 17 with Keefer The designer of the jordan 18 was Jordan Senior Footwear air jordan 18 Designer Tate Kuerbis The jordan 19 used innovative materials The
-----------------------------------------------
jordan 20 was released in 2005 The jordan 21 model was designed The air jordan 22 model, designed by D'Wayne Edwards The air jordan 23 model had jordan 23
-----------------------------------
virtually eliminated the Jumpman logo family was jordan 2009 release dates released It's also called the jordan 2010 release The jordans flight 45 definitely conjurs jordan flight 45 some Nike Jordan Flight 45 he Jordan 6 Rings (also written as jordan 6 rings )
--------------------------------------------------
The Jordan Dub-Zero were a new Air Jordan Dub-Zero creation by The first jordan sixty pluses was released in August 2009 line by Jordan Retro Package release year and model us at
------------------------------------------
Nike Jordan Countdown Collezione the same time Nike Air Force 1 Low are continually nike air force 1 increasingly being issued Nike Nike Air Force one Mid particular sports sneaker Nike Air Force 1 , is a Nike sports shoes produced
----------------------------------------------
Nike Air Force 1 High is Nike Air Max 2009 often been referenced for you to ear these kinds of outstanding Nike Air Max 90 on our foot this morden society, the line of Air Max and Nike Shox now are quite Nike Shox NZ is a product of the desire to improve athletic depression Nike Shox R4 implies one simple thing Nike Kobe Bryant
--------------------------------------------
Nike LeBron James joined the Los Angeles Lakers Nike Kobe Bryant joined Nike Basketball the Nike Dunk High which belong to the huge family of Nike SB Dunk Low is especially Dunk High Pro designed with regard to skate Nike Dunk Low Shoes board Jordan Fusion, also known as Jordan AJF 3 Shoes Fusion The ordan AJF 5 Shoes Shoes is one of the lines of products of Air Jordan Jordan AJF 8 is a international brand of shoes produced by Nike originally Jordan AJF 12 Shoes Shoes is really a The Retro Jordan AJF 20 Shoes futuristic look mixed with Jordan Fusion, also known as Jordan Fusion
nike air force 1, is a cheap Nike dunk sb sports shoes produced. Nike Air Force 1 was born in 1982 new jordans, being deeply rooted in basketball. 6 was selected to speak for the shoe basketball players: Moses Malone (Moses Malone), Michael Cooper (Michael Cooper), Jamaal Wilkes (Jamaal Wilkes), Bobby Jones (Bobby Jones) Mitchell Thompson (Mychal Thompson)
-
-
Reply
-
Dec 5, 2010 @ 9:10 pm | delete
- Very nice and Informative.
Skillvance | White Card Training
SOS Removals | Sydney
Wonder Grass | Artificial Turf
-
-
Reply
-
Nov 29, 2010 @ 6:59 pm | delete
- Nice lens! I don't believe that the clip should have been banned. Whatever happened the freedom of speech and freedom of artistic rights!
Melbourne Plumbers
Domestic Plumbing Melbourne
Commercial Plumbing Melbourne
-
-
Reply
-
Baby Baby
Nov 28, 2010 @ 9:47 pm | delete
- Brilliant Lens!
Tiny Toys
Baby Prams
-
- Reply
-
Reply
-
Nov 1, 2010 @ 12:35 am | delete
- Good Lens !
_______________
Pallets Skip bin hire Sydney New Boats for Sale
-
-
Reply
-
Nov 1, 2010 @ 12:35 am | delete
- Good Lens !
_______________
Pallets Skip bin hire Sydney New Boats for Sale
-
-
Reply
-
buntyross Oct 25, 2010 @ 10:17 pm | delete
- informative lense.
__
Laser cut window tinting home delivery leaking showers
-
- Load More
Please add any links that are relevant to "Fair Use" on YouTube
Legit Online Jobs - Real Work At Home Jobs and Opportunities For Anyone!
Legit Online Jobs - Real Work At Home Jobs and Opp more...47 points
Start Getting Paychecks For Easy Work That Fits Your Schedule, No Experience Required
Start Getting Paychecks For Easy Work That Fits Yo more...47 points
http://www.topbudgetwebhosts.com
Top Budget Webhosts0 points
YouTube MP3
YouTube MP3 is an online video to mp3 converter. D more...0 points
by burstingsquidoo
burstingsquidoo
I am a retired high school teacher, school librarian, software developer (library automation) and an investor in Burst.Com, Inc.
- 0 featured lenses
- Winner of 2 trophies!
- Top lens »
Feeling creative?
Create a Lens!
Explore related pages
- Top 10 Internet Memes Top 10 Internet Memes
- The Best and Most Effective Way to Promote your Business...FREE Advertising! The Best and Most Effective Way to Promote your Business...FREE Advertising!
- Top 10 Funniest Youtube Videos Top 10 Funniest Youtube Videos
- The Best Free Online Video Hosting Sites The Best Free Online Video Hosting Sites
- How to Make Keyboard Symbols Using the ALT Key How to Make Keyboard Symbols Using the ALT Key
- Elephants Painting Pictures Elephants Painting Pictures
