This would be a good opportunity to spread the word and give Viacom a taste of its own medicine.
mark
· 2 years ago
This post is on Digg already. Hopefully it reaches the homepage.
greasyguide
· 2 years ago
Or lets go a little bit deeper. Viacom sends out video clips in mov format to bloggers. Viacom's marketing department has sent me a total of 5 video clips and asked me to give them free exposure for thier TV shows. So I'm like ok cool...I'll do it. So I uploaded the clips to Youtube because Viacom doesn't give bloggers free hosting on Viacom's servers. So I upload the clip and I run it on my site. A few months later I get a take down notice from YouTube stating that I had illegal clips in my account and that they where removing them. YouTube then fully shuts down my YouTube account. After 6 e-mails back to YouTube they re-open my account but remove the clips send to me via Viacom's PR departments, Vh1's PR departments.
Boomer
· 2 years ago
This is good news. Now users can take copyrighted material and just add some commentary -- voila, fair use!
subface
· 2 years ago
i like the fact that no one has pointed out though that the politician's original ad was using Star Wars entities and whether that's copyright infringement as well.
either way though, viacom needs to settle down and grow up.
Rich Pearson
· 2 years ago
Another question to ask is how long can the industry afford to rely on a subjective analysis of Fair Use of content.
Left to their own devices and without an objective means to evaluate fair use, those who create and publish content and those who monetize it will always end up in opposite corners . . . and ultimately in the courts.
Phil Dufault
· 2 years ago
I think EFF should get involved -- tossing out cease and desist letters shouldn't be done lightly. Also, someone should follow up and make another example of people using the DMCA when they're not the copyright holder.
bacon
· 2 years ago
this is completely legal if youtube gave viacom the rights to air said clip.
read youtube's TOS
"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."
editor
· 2 years ago
RTFA! bacon
"He created a commercial where, armed with a light saber, Knight vowed to help fight against those that were destroying the education system. Viacom’s VH1 found it entertaining enough to feature on its show “Web Junk 2.0″ without Knight’s permission. Knight didn’t mind the extra recognition, and posted the clip from “Web Junk 2.0″ on YouTube."
Elq
· 2 years ago
I see this copyright fiasco as a problem with the disconnect with the law and business. Although the law and precedent may indicate that you have a winning lawsuit, it doesn't always mean a lawsuit is in your clients best business interest. This is something not taught in core curriculum law school. The decision to sue or not often depends on whether your client can afford the cost. Thus, you have companies suing their customers.
I would never, once I'm an attorney, recommend any of my clients to sue their customer base without first consulting with a PR firm. This way the client can get the bigger picture before just pulling the trigger. It makes no sense to take money from profits, to sue a potential customer. This is especially true for electronic media.
The better way for Viacom to handle this is too provide the content with commercials and advertising included. I think that this is a fair trade. The public gets to see what they want and Viacom makes a bundle from increased advertising profits. The hard part is being customer friendly. For example, if Viacom sees their content on a blog, rather than sending a threatening letter, it would send a revised clip with advertisements included. Problem solved.
This is hilarious, Viacom claiming the rights of work they did not produce. Now they'll copyright anything just because they have showed it on TV. http://chelomarco.blogspot.com/
Save Videos
· 2 years ago
stupid video, but hilarious blunder. If I were him I'd publicly humiliate Viacom. They need to be dragged through the mud enough so that they will always remember that they were built not by investors, but from the viewership and indie content that each one of their 'acquired' media purchases began as.
Jackson Ferrell
· 2 years ago
If I was the clip creator or the person in charge of Youtube, I would've gotten together with whichever one I wasn't and decide to put the clip back on Youtube in a week or so. If Viacom finds out again and gripes, do the same thing again, but maybe take a little longer to do it so they might stop checking for it... and so on like that.
Hyperbole
· 2 years ago
The media companies are badly losing the public relations battle. This fiasco just shows how sue happy the attornies are. Having the TV shows on Youtube only helps them build viewership. These guys are constantly shooting themselves in the foot in an effort to protect a dieing business model. One day, maybe they will wake up and actually do the right thing.
The people who had their video taken down can take Viacom to court, sue for damages, and the court will grant them.
There's a law on the books protecting people from having their video's taken down by anyone who claims to be the copyright holder, but is not. This means the victim can automatically collect damages from Viacom. It's been done successfully before.
Particularly for the gentleman who's video got taken down by YouTube, even though he is the creator, he needs to call any attorney versed in web copyright law. They'll take it on contingency, and Viacom will likely settle before going to court.
All Comments
either way though, viacom needs to settle down and grow up.
Left to their own devices and without an objective means to evaluate fair use, those who create and publish content and those who monetize it will always end up in opposite corners . . . and ultimately in the courts.
read youtube's TOS
"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."
"He created a commercial where, armed with a light saber, Knight vowed to help fight against those that were destroying the education system. Viacom’s VH1 found it entertaining enough to feature on its show “Web Junk 2.0″ without Knight’s permission. Knight didn’t mind the extra recognition, and posted the clip from “Web Junk 2.0″ on YouTube."
I would never, once I'm an attorney, recommend any of my clients to sue their customer base without first consulting with a PR firm. This way the client can get the bigger picture before just pulling the trigger. It makes no sense to take money from profits, to sue a potential customer. This is especially true for electronic media.
The better way for Viacom to handle this is too provide the content with commercials and advertising included. I think that this is a fair trade. The public gets to see what they want and Viacom makes a bundle from increased advertising profits. The hard part is being customer friendly. For example, if Viacom sees their content on a blog, rather than sending a threatening letter, it would send a revised clip with advertisements included. Problem solved.
Elq
http://www.iwantdollars.blogspot.com (Make money online)
Viacom claiming the rights of work they did not produce.
Now they'll copyright anything just because they have showed it on TV.
http://chelomarco.blogspot.com/
Visit http://www.newlifeauctions.com to learn how to start a successful eBay business.
The people who had their video taken down can take Viacom to court, sue for damages, and the court will grant them.
There's a law on the books protecting people from having their video's taken down by anyone who claims to be the copyright holder, but is not. This means the victim can automatically collect damages from Viacom. It's been done successfully before.
Particularly for the gentleman who's video got taken down by YouTube, even though he is the creator, he needs to call any attorney versed in web copyright law. They'll take it on contingency, and Viacom will likely settle before going to court.
Sue Viacom. It's free money.