Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Consumerist)   When you post a network news report on You Tube, the network will drop a takedown notice to have it removed immediately, but if the network uses one of YOUR videos without permission (or even giving you credit)? Well that's just fine and dandy   (consumerist.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Dateline NBC, YouTube, date lines, NBC, permissions  
•       •       •

7887 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jul 2014 at 1:50 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



66 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-24 11:05:58 AM  
We don't know the ins and outs of this particular situation, but we did go ahead and publish this article anyway because we're just a moldering heap of shiat stacked in a fetid swamp, and we understand that the slack-jawed simpletons who read our dreck don't give two shiats about anything even remotely related to fact, and we really appreciate it when you halfwits out there link to this bullshiat because, frankly, how else would we get anybody else to come here? Most people don't like deliberately smearing feces all over their bodies and then rolling around in a swamp, and that's pretty much the experience we offer. So, thanks, we'll post something next about a guy who ate three-quarters of his overcooked steak at Sizzler and they wouldn't even offer him a refund, those cheap bastards. CONSUMERS UNITE *flush*
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-07-24 11:17:17 AM  
Has the original creator tried sending a letter, a takedown notice, or a package of anthrax? One of those might get action.
 
2014-07-24 11:35:27 AM  

ZAZ: or a package of anthrax?


How will sending the network a collection of 80's metal help the original creator?
 
2014-07-24 11:36:43 AM  
It's almost like networks copyright their stuff or something.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-07-24 11:38:51 AM  
ManateeGag: How will sending the network a collection of 80's metal help the original creator?

Just revenge. The network will be liable for up to $150,000 statutory damages for each illegally copied track in their possession.

(Not an intellectual property lawyer. Do not try at home. Not a stupid property lawyer either.)
 
2014-07-24 12:14:12 PM  
Only your lawyer knows for sure.
 
2014-07-24 01:54:33 PM  

Nabb1: It's almost like networks copyright their stuff or something.


You don't create copyright. It is inherent in the work itself.
 
2014-07-24 01:58:35 PM  
Approves (of MSNBC)

images.nymag.com
 
2014-07-24 01:58:51 PM  

exparrot: Nabb1: It's almost like networks copyright their stuff or something.

You don't create copyright. It is inherent in the work itself.


img.fark.net
 
2014-07-24 01:59:04 PM  

Pocket Ninja: We don't know the ins and outs of this particular situation, but we did go ahead and publish this article anyway because we're just a moldering heap of shiat stacked in a fetid swamp, and we understand that the slack-jawed simpletons who read our dreck don't give two shiats about anything even remotely related to fact, and we really appreciate it when you halfwits out there link to this bullshiat because, frankly, how else would we get anybody else to come here? Most people don't like deliberately smearing feces all over their bodies and then rolling around in a swamp, and that's pretty much the experience we offer. So, thanks, we'll post something next about a guy who ate three-quarters of his overcooked steak at Sizzler and they wouldn't even offer him a refund, those cheap bastards. CONSUMERS UNITE *flush*


Odd... link icon sure didn't look like the CNN logo...
 
2014-07-24 01:59:31 PM  

ManateeGag: ZAZ: or a package of anthrax?

How will sending the network a collection of 80's metal help the original creator?


The RIAA will sue the network for peer-to-peer file sharing.
 
2014-07-24 02:00:06 PM  
Was it the "Viral Video of the Week" segment?

/'Cause, yo dawg...
 
2014-07-24 02:00:09 PM  
They may not have the right to play your videos, but they sure to have more money and more lawyers to bankrupt you in legal fees if you tried to take them to court for it.
 
2014-07-24 02:02:02 PM  

ManateeGag: ZAZ: or a package of anthrax?

How will sending the network a collection of 80's metal help the original creator?


It will send the message that "I'm the man."
 
2014-07-24 02:02:07 PM  
I've heard of photographers sending an invoice to the newspaper/station that used their photo without permission, billing them based on stock photo prices, subject, uniqueness etc. Apparently it often works if the price is realistic.

http://gakuran.com/daily-mail-used-my-photos-without-permission-and- wi thout-payment/

http://petapixel.com/2012/04/20/the-daily-mail-stole-my-photos-and-i -g ot-paid/

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/culturebox/2013/09/buzzfeed _s teals_photographs_one_photographer_s_angry_response.html
 
2014-07-24 02:02:38 PM  
They have money, you don't.  Suck it up, citizen.
 
2014-07-24 02:03:37 PM  
From YouTube's terms of service w/r/t uploaded content:

"For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content 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 Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels...."

In other words, you upload something to YouTube and they can pretty much license the use of that to anyone they please. Pretty sure all of the major networks have licensing agreements with YouTube.

So, there's no recourse.

/not quite yet a lawyer..
 
2014-07-24 02:03:53 PM  

exparrot: Nabb1: It's almost like networks copyright their stuff or something.

You don't create copyright. It is inherent in the work itself.


This.

Although it sometimes is a good idea to take some extra steps.  Like, for instance, adding a little watermark of ownership to the bottom corner of the clip.  That's what all the news sources do.  It sort of helps to PROVE ownership.

Anyone can file a suit claiming that their content was stolen or improperly used.  But it's expensive.  So unless you can afford a lawyer, it's impossible to follow through.  Unfortunately, the people with the money know this all too well.  That's why they will sway you away like a gnat if you complain.

Intersting story.  Now, I don't know if it's true.  But it seems plausable.
I know of this guy.  A photographer.  He takes mad numbers of pictures.  He watermarks them, and makes them really easy to find on the internet.  Then he spends his days scouring the internet for people who are using his photos without permission.  He then sics his lawyers on them demanding money.  He makes about $10k a month doing this.

Now, that's a racket.
 
2014-07-24 02:05:05 PM  
The Golden Rule.
 
2014-07-24 02:05:13 PM  

spman: They may not have the right to play your videos, but they sure to have more money and more lawyers to bankrupt you in legal fees if you tried to take them to court for it.


So what you're saying is "Screw the rules they got money".
 
2014-07-24 02:05:22 PM  
Attribution for your YouTube video and two dollars will get you a cup of Starbucks.
 
2014-07-24 02:05:47 PM  

ManateeGag: ZAZ: or a package of anthrax?

How will sending the network a collection of 80's metal help the original creator?


Among the Living, we have a word: "Efilnikcufecin", which translates roughly to "Inside Out is Only as good as 1000 Points of Hate". I'm not quite sure what it means, but Friggin' in the Riggin' is culturally frowned upon as sloth. Everyone has to realize: "I'm the Man who's Got the Time to make a difference in this world. I am the Law", and work to change the world for the better.
 
2014-07-24 02:06:22 PM  

Freschel: spman: They may not have the right to play your videos, but they sure to have more money and more lawyers to bankrupt you in legal fees if you tried to take them to court for it.

So what you're saying is "Screw the rules they got money".


I'm not saying it's right, but yes, that's how it works.
 
2014-07-24 02:09:44 PM  
Pocket Ninja's Boobies diarrhea has been getting thin lately...
 
2014-07-24 02:11:04 PM  
HOOOO.


DAFUQUE.


CAYRES?
 
2014-07-24 02:11:42 PM  

miltoncharles: From YouTube's terms of service w/r/t uploaded content:

"For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content 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 Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels...."

In other words, you upload something to YouTube and they can pretty much license the use of that to anyone they please. Pretty sure all of the major networks have licensing agreements with YouTube.

So, there's no recourse...


...if YouTube gave the news outlet permission.
 
2014-07-24 02:13:44 PM  
Its not stealing if they licensed it from Youtube. It was stupid to upload something to Youtube and still expect total control if the video's use.
 
2014-07-24 02:14:33 PM  

spman: Freschel: spman: They may not have the right to play your videos, but they sure to have more money and more lawyers to bankrupt you in legal fees if you tried to take them to court for it.

So what you're saying is "Screw the rules they got money".

I'm not saying it's right, but yes, that's how it works.


Pretty much.

And it's not like this sort of thing is unique to situations like this.
Plenty of companies will literally rip people off knowing full well, that sooner or later, there will be a class action suit brought on.  But after the suit is finally settled, it costs them a fraction of how much they made.  So they still make a massive profit.
Wash.  Rinse.  Repeat.
 
2014-07-24 02:16:45 PM  

miltoncharles: From YouTube's terms of service w/r/t uploaded content:

"For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content 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 Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels...."

In other words, you upload something to YouTube and they can pretty much license the use of that to anyone they please. Pretty sure all of the major networks have licensing agreements with YouTube.

So, there's no recourse.

/not quite yet a lawyer..


I can tell you're not a lawyer. It clearly says it has to be in connection with YouTube and promoting YouTube.
 
2014-07-24 02:17:00 PM  

miltoncharles: From YouTube's terms of service w/r/t uploaded content:

"For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content 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 Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels...."

In other words, you upload something to YouTube and they can pretty much license the use of that to anyone they please. Pretty sure all of the major networks have licensing agreements with YouTube.

So, there's no recourse.

/not quite yet a lawyer..


I think there is a really good disntiction that relevant here.
If you record a news broadcast, and upload it to YouTube, you stole it.  If you upload something of your own, and the news makes use of it, that is not stealing.

There really is a gigantic difference between those two things.
 
2014-07-24 02:19:45 PM  

durbnpoisn: miltoncharles: From YouTube's terms of service w/r/t uploaded content:

"For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content 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 Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels...."

In other words, you upload something to YouTube and they can pretty much license the use of that to anyone they please. Pretty sure all of the major networks have licensing agreements with YouTube.

So, there's no recourse.

/not quite yet a lawyer..

I think there is a really good disntiction that relevant here.
If you record a news broadcast, and upload it to YouTube, you stole it.  If you upload something of your own, and the news makes use of it, that is not stealing.

There really is a gigantic difference between those two things.


They can use it under fair use it is part of the story. Going out of your way to remove a watermark through probably is not fair use.
 
2014-07-24 02:23:05 PM  

Intrepid00: durbnpoisn: miltoncharles: From YouTube's terms of service w/r/t uploaded content:

"For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content 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 Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels...."

In other words, you upload something to YouTube and they can pretty much license the use of that to anyone they please. Pretty sure all of the major networks have licensing agreements with YouTube.

So, there's no recourse.

/not quite yet a lawyer..

I think there is a really good disntiction that relevant here.
If you record a news broadcast, and upload it to YouTube, you stole it.  If you upload something of your own, and the news makes use of it, that is not stealing.

There really is a gigantic difference between those two things.

They can use it under fair use it is part of the story. Going out of your way to remove a watermark through probably is not fair use.


I haven't seen the video, but it doesn't sound like it could realistically be claimed to be "part of the story".  It sounds more like it was used as a video form of clip-art or stock photography.
 
2014-07-24 02:25:22 PM  
durbnpoisn
If you record a news broadcast, and upload it to YouTube, you stole it. If you upload something of your own, and the news makes use of it, that is not stealing.
There really is a gigantic difference between those two things.


I hope that was just sarcasm that I didn't pick up; because both is redistributing copyright-protected content which was published by someone else.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-07-24 02:25:57 PM  
So what you should do is upload your friend's video to YouTube without his permission as far as anyone can prove. TV uses it, thinking they had a license from YouTube. But YouTube did not have a license from the copyright owner. Your friend sues the TV station because he never gave permission. Profit.

(Still not an intellectual property lawyer. Don't sue me if it backfires.)
 
2014-07-24 02:26:27 PM  

miltoncharles: From YouTube's terms of service w/r/t uploaded content:

"For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content 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 Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels...."

In other words, you upload something to YouTube and they can pretty much license the use of that to anyone they please. Pretty sure all of the major networks have licensing agreements with YouTube.

So, there's no recourse.

/not quite yet a lawyer..


It sounds more like the intent of the agreement is to do things like:

- allow youtube to actually stream your content without you suing them
- allow youtube to derive advertising revenue from the content you upload
- allow youtube to link your content to other content in their suggested viewing panes without needing your permission
 - allow youtube to use your content in promotional material for youtube

I'm not sure if selling your content to a news station is part of "the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business ".

IANAL
 
2014-07-24 02:26:37 PM  

Freschel: spman: They may not have the right to play your videos, but they sure to have more money and more lawyers to bankrupt you in legal fees if you tried to take them to court for it.

So what you're saying is "Screw the rules they got money".


Welcome to the real world
 
2014-07-24 02:29:52 PM  
WHaaaaaaaa!  I posted something to YouTube, and now I'm a whiny biatch because someone else used it!  WHaaaaaaaaa!

\Fair Use.
 
2014-07-24 02:31:49 PM  

Pocket Ninja: We don't know the ins and outs of this particular situation, but we did go ahead and publish this article anyway because we're just a moldering heap of shiat stacked in a fetid swamp, and we understand that the slack-jawed simpletons who read our dreck don't give two shiats about anything even remotely related to fact, and we really appreciate it when you halfwits out there link to this bullshiat because, frankly, how else would we get anybody else to come here? Most people don't like deliberately smearing feces all over their bodies and then rolling around in a swamp, and that's pretty much the experience we offer. So, thanks, we'll post something next about a guy who ate three-quarters of his overcooked steak at Sizzler and they wouldn't even offer him a refund, those cheap bastards. CONSUMERS UNITE *flush*


Wait, are we talking about BuzzFeed?
 
2014-07-24 02:33:13 PM  

The Voice of Doom: durbnpoisn
If you record a news broadcast, and upload it to YouTube, you stole it. If you upload something of your own, and the news makes use of it, that is not stealing.
There really is a gigantic difference between those two things.

I hope that was just sarcasm that I didn't pick up; because both is redistributing copyright-protected content which was published by someone else.


I wasn't being sarcastic.  And you're correct.  But the argument would be made that a person has signed over their rights to distribution once they marked the clip "public".
For what it's worth, at any time, you can report violations on your videos to YouTube, and they respond.  I have a bunch of clips up there, short films and stuff, where I used music that wasn't mine.  I go to my control panel, and I see that people have reported the clips, right to the timestamp where the music begins, and shows the author and ownership.  This immediately flags my clip so I cannot monetize it.  I would have to dispute and prove ownership to have that flag removed.

So it's not like YouTube is just sitting there paying no attention to stuff like this.  They take copyright VERY seriously.
 
2014-07-24 02:37:50 PM  
Addressing the matter Fair Use,
we sought out a case of abuse.
We found that the law,
like most laws we saw,
was haphazard, contrived, and obtuse.
 
2014-07-24 02:43:58 PM  
Seems like pretty cut and dry fair use, to me.
 
2014-07-24 02:45:57 PM  
Here's the difference: When most people post TV news reports to YouTube, they are not analyzing/critiquing or altering the report in any way. They're just copying, and that is a clear copyright violation.

In contrast, news programs are taking your YouTube videos, usually only small snippets, and placing them in context of a much larger story. That's Fair Use.

Having said that, it's a dick move to crop out or mask the YouTube owner's graphic. As a professional courtesy, any clip shown on TV should have the source identified.
 
2014-07-24 02:46:28 PM  
You grant Youtube a license to do whatever they want with what you upload, including licensing it to others.

https://www.youtube.com/t/terms Paragraph 6(c)
 
2014-07-24 02:53:57 PM  

R.O.U.S: I've heard of photographers sending an invoice to the newspaper/station that used their photo without permission, billing them based on stock photo prices, subject, uniqueness etc. Apparently it often works if the price is realistic.

http://gakuran.com/daily-mail-used-my-photos-without-permission-and- wi thout-payment/

http://petapixel.com/2012/04/20/the-daily-mail-stole-my-photos-and-i -g ot-paid/

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/culturebox/2013/09/buzzfeed _s teals_photographs_one_photographer_s_angry_response.html


Color me surprised. Of those three links two are the Daily Mail and the other is Buzzfeed, whose CEO has just been hired by the Daily Mail...
 
2014-07-24 03:09:58 PM  
I've uploaded a few CNN reports to my Youtube channel, they've been up for years with 1000s of views and they haven't tried to take them down.  I thought news reports were covered under fair use doctrine.
 
2014-07-24 03:14:10 PM  
There was one particular case where a news station aired a viral video in its entirety and without giving any credit to the original creator.  Then they turned around and issued a DMCA take-down notice against the original video on youtube.
 
2014-07-24 03:15:45 PM  

TheOtherMisterP: In contrast, news programs are taking your YouTube videos, usually only small snippets, and placing them in context of a much larger story. That's Fair Use.


When they go out of their way to avoid giving any credit to the original artist/creator, it can hardly be called fair use.  No, I don't even have a GED in law.
 
2014-07-24 03:22:20 PM  

Nabb1: It's almost like networks copyright their stuff or something.


I'm sure this has been covered by now, but under US law copyright is automatic when a work is created. Uploading a video to YouTube requires accepting terms of service that give YouTube a license to redistribute it, but there are limits on further redistribution. I'd have to go dig up the YouTube TOS for the details, of course.

/DNRTFA either, so if this isn't in the US feel free to point and laugh
 
2014-07-24 03:26:25 PM  
Youtube EULA: You upload it, it's theirs now.
Lesson: Don't upload stuff to youtube that you want control over.
 
2014-07-24 03:46:47 PM  

Fano: The Golden Rule.


Ah, yes. He who has the gold makes the rules.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report