The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Viacom kills youtube clip of... them infringing on a youtube clip
Recoil42
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I was wondering when this would happen.
CNN, VH1... You don't actually think they go after the original Youtube creators for permission to air their clips before they broadcast them, right?
But then, they see it as perfectly okay to take the reverse, and C&D when someone airs THEIR clips without permission on youtube. Bullshit.
Anyways:
http://theknightshift.blogspot.com/2007/08/viacom-hits-me-with-copyright.html
read onward, chortle, laugh, and cry at the absurdity of the whole thing..
CNN, VH1... You don't actually think they go after the original Youtube creators for permission to air their clips before they broadcast them, right?
But then, they see it as perfectly okay to take the reverse, and C&D when someone airs THEIR clips without permission on youtube. Bullshit.
Anyways:
http://theknightshift.blogspot.com/2007/08/viacom-hits-me-with-copyright.html
"Chutzpah" is a Yiddish word meaning "unbelievable gall or audacity". An example of it would be the story of the kid who murders both of his parents, then throws himself on the mercy of the court on the grounds that he’s an orphan.
That's chutzpah. So is this: multimedia giant Viacom is claiming that I have violated their copyright by posting on YouTube a segment from it's VH1 show Web Junk 2.0... which VH1 produced – without permission – from a video that I had originally created.
Viacom used my video without permission on their commercial television show, and now says that I am infringing on THEIR copyright for showing the clip of the work that Viacom made in violation of my own copyright!
read onward, chortle, laugh, and cry at the absurdity of the whole thing..
Recoil42 on
0
Posts
Wow, that is a remarkable level of 'slime' they've managed to find. Hopefully they'll provide detailed accounts of just what it takes to cram your head that far up your own ass, so that the scientific community and mankind in general can benefit.
If I understand that section of the Youtube terms of service correctly, then all Viacom would need is Youtube/Google's permission to air the clip.
That said, this gets a little bit complicated. When you put things on youtube you give them the right to allow themselves and other companies to use your content for promotion and advertising of youtube. If there is an agreement between yt and viacom to use youtube content on their program then they wouldn't need his permission to do so. The fact that he was the one that originally posted it hurts him, if someone random had just posted it then he would have a case against both youtube and viacom for unauthorized use of copyrighted works. Now, this is contingent upon viacom actually getting permission from youtube to use their videos, but if they hadn't been given permission I think youtube would have sued them by now independent of this guy.
So as stupid as it seems viacom could have a case here. Even if the clip in question was copyrighted by the guy, I'm sure there were layouts, original content, etc present in the clip that viacom would have copyright over independant of the clip itself. The guy might still have a case for using it though as part of fair use to promote his earlier work, but that comes down to a judgement call by a judge or jury.
Because he's not going to shell out for enough legal guns to combat Viacom over a freaking YouTube clip.
God Bless America
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
I don't think this is a case of 'evil corporations stepping on the little guy'. When you post something to Youtube, Youtube gets to use it as they see fit. You want to maintain control over your creations? Don't post it to Youtube! The missing information here is, did Viacom have Youtube/Google's permission. If so, then the guy is a douche. If not, then Viacom are idiots and the guy is still a douche.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Also, he MIGHT have given permission in a rather circuitous fashion. He certainly DID give YouTube the rights to the content he posted - he had to in order to even be able to put it up there, at least to the extent indicated in the quote above. Whether or not Viacom had the rights to use it depends on if Google allowed them to, and whether they have to the to demand it be taken off of YouTube are two separate questions entirely. Questions we don't have enough information to answer.
Yeah, no one seems to realise that you basically give up useful ownership of the video to youtube when you upload it. So it would seem that viacom are sitting pretty.
Of course this doesn't stop it being massively skummy, and disgusting, and foul.
Oh and not seeing the clip, I'm sure it would be a-ok to reproduce under fair use laws anyway. But Americas to busy killing them to care.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Because when he uploaded his video to Youtube FOR FREE USING THEIR BANDWIDTH TO PUBLICIZE HIS MATERIALS he gave them the right to redistribute that video AS THEY SEE FIT. He's a douche. He's irrelevant to this. This is a matter between Google and Viacom and I haven't heard Google say anything on this.
From his site:
He isn't upset that they ran it, he's upset that they wouldn't let him be happy about it on his blog.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Fair use doesn't mean what everyone who uses the term on Internet message boards seems to think it means, because people generally aren't using it in the context of excerpting copyrighted material for purposes of criticism, education, parody, etc.
Pfft, total douche.
Let me ask this, if it was someone else, another blogger, who used that clip of VH1 on their blog and then got upset when the clip was pulled even though they weren't the original author of the original youtube clip, would this still matter?
All right. Dickhead? Jerk?
Perhaps I'm being less than charitable.
I'll go with plain stupid for trying to go back on his agreement with Youtube.
It enriches, it doesn't superseed. Considering it was part of a blog about his election campaign, and the progress it was making, then I would say that was fair use - as the larger work the blog, youtube channel are detailing the progress the campaign is making.
Most documentaries can show news footage of coverage of events by other channels - because that is fair use, a case could be made that this is the same thing.
Hell it's even about education, so that could hold, if you were pedantic enough.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
It's the fact that he's trying to paint Viacom as a Big Bad Evil Corporation (tm) for his own inability to read what he's agreeing to.
It's not worth this.
Jeaz.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Well he agreed to youtube running it, last time I checked youtube is not Viacom, so in effect he's upset about viacom taking his work then not let him keep his work posted? And then you are all "he's a douche because I don't see his side to this and I feel better insulting people for trying to stick up for their rights".
pleasepaypreacher.net
To be fair, Viacom is Satan.
Viacom are a Big Bad Evil Corporation though.
EDIT: h5
That's not right at all, Preacher. No one is removing HIS clip that he made. The only clip that got removed is his unauthorized recording of a Viacom owned show. If 'sticking up for your rights' means 'I can post copyrighted material with the thinest of excuses', then yeah, I guess I am.
But they used his material without asking for his permission? Again youtube /= viacom. Ergo them using his shit was wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, but it doesn't make him a douche.
pleasepaypreacher.net
You mean the clip that was an unauthorized use of his copyrighted material?
If Viacom had Google's permission, it wasn't unauthorized. Did Viacom not have Google's permission?
You mean the coffee that had received numerous complaints beforehand that were all ignored and then subsequently melted the fabric of her pants to her legs requiring major skin grafts?
Oh shit! Hot coffee is hot?
EDIT: Also, thieves who enter houses, hurt themselves on broken glass or whatever, and then sue, and WIN?
Look, I've never been sure if I approve of her winning or not, just that I've been burned by coffee before and it has yet to melt my clothes. So that case isn't as ridiculous as people claim.
In this case, this guy is trying to blame Viacom for the fact that he gave up exclusive control of his content. That makes him a jerk to me.
I mean I'd hate to think the dudes who did Bro Rape lose their rights so that SNL can parody or outright steal another one of their sketches.
pleasepaypreacher.net
But I think this Viacom thing is ridiculous. Sure, it's within their rights to be a lawsuit factory, but it would be even more okay not to be petty corporate thugs intent on clubbing everyone over the head with their intellectual property rights. In my view, "Yay, I'm on TV!" would normally be an okay reason to want everyone to see this video. But not in Viacom-world, which is apparently run with the mentality that people are just bipedal meatbags out to suck the life out of their corporate betters.
Uh, that's not the fact for which he's trying to blame Viacom. He's calling them assholes for taking his clip and showing it, but HE can't show a clip of them showing his clip.
The fact that Viacom might be legally right in this case doesn't mean they are actually right. If you are not a Viacom shill, you NEED to admit that they are assholes.
Anyway, it doesn't matter, since Viacom used YouTube's/Google's content and not his. YouTube/Google would have to do something about it, and they won't. Why doesn't he just host the video himself if he is so damn proud of it? I sense a lot of entitlement coming from this guy.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
He puts a video he made up
It gets put on a viacom show
He puts video of viacom showing his clip
Viacom c and d's the vid off youtube
He gets mad at viacom
He finds what is possiblely a bullshit reason to get into legal action with them.
I say he's doing what any of us would do until the end there, and he DID send off a inquiry to Google/Youtube asking about the incident