Many court cases have been made on behalf of Copyright and Fair Use, in regards to Youtube and it’s Content Creators. One such incident was Viacom’s $1 Billion claim against Youtube and its owner, Google, for damages brought on by their alleged infringements on Viacom’s Copyrights. The main argument here was that Youtube must be held accountable for its User’s actions, and that because of the large amount of Copyright infringements on its own servers, it and Google must pay for the damages these infringements have caused their company. Youtube’s argument against this was that, in order to retain a level of immunity, it had in place an automated copyright claiming system. Viacom counter-argued that the system was inefficient at dealing with the problem, since so many infringing cases can still be found succeeding, seemingly undeterred by its efforts. When broken down, what was being asked here is, “Was YouTube allowing these infringements or were they simply not caught by the automatic system in place?” Since this was in 2007, many changes have been made to and felt by the Youtube community. What is the current Youtube copyright environment like after implementing so many changes in response to this lawsuit? It’s been taken to the other extreme: Corporate bullying of Content Creators.
The Nostalgia Critic has recently (2016) organized the dialogue surrounding Fair Use on Youtube under the monicker: #WTFU or #Where’s the Fair Use. Doug Walker, the man behind Channel Awesome Productions and the Nostalgia Critic persona, is a longtime veteran of content creation via the internet. Having began around the same time as Youtube, his company has provided a variety of review based content for over 8 years. In late 2015, Walker’s main Youtube channel, Channel Awesome, was hit with a flurry of copyright claims which forced his channel to shut down temporarily, only to come back with severe limitations placed on it. Having been only one of an increasing number of targets suffering the same kind of legal scrutiny, Walker did the only thing he could: get the word out via Youtube video. Since his video released on Feb 16, 2016, video after video carrying the #WTFU have come up all over Youtube, all with their own stories, opinions and information regarding Youtube’s current policy. Everyone from attorneys to the lay consumer, from reviewers to music producers, have been a part of this discussion in the hopes of finding an answer.
Nostalgia Critic- “The time has come to start some dialogue about Fair Use and how it’s constantly being trampled on via the YouTube claim and take down system.”
- This video is mostly to highlights how flawed the copyright claim system is on YouTube.
- Some of the main flaws in the system include; no punishment for false claims against a channel, limited number of appeals but unlimited number of copyright claims or strikes. A channel has limitations put on it even before they have been proven guilty of copyright law. Claimants can claim the money that the video is making without even winning their claim case. This money is never refunded. (Solution: A side account for monetization claims, until the case has been won or lost.) “Hollywood” uses this as a way to censor out bad criticism.
- Some YouTubers have to deal with claims every other day.
- “Hollywood” is not recognizing “Fair Use”
Boogie2988-
- This video focuses mainly on the effects the YouTube strike and takedown system has on people who have chosen YouTube as a career choice.
- He discusses the fear that content creators have to live in because the system put in place to prevent copyright is so easily abused.
- There is more power in the hands of claimants, and almost none in the hands of the content creator.
- He talks about how smaller channels can be easily erased via copyright claims and strikes. And it really prevents the growth on YouTube.
- Focuses more on the emotional side and the real world impact these false claims have on people trying to use YouTube to make a living.
- Freund, Katharina. “”Fair Use Is Legal Use”: Copyright Negotiations and Strategies in the Fan-vidding Community.” Australian National University (2014): 1-17. SAGE. Web. http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/10/21/1461444814555952.full.pdf html
This article discusses the use of copyrighted material by remixers such as those in the “Fan-vidding” community. Fan-vidding started out as an underground community but with the emergence in the last decade or so of video streaming with sites such as YouTube it has allowed remixing to become an industry. The downside to this is that it has brought attention from the corporations who own the copyrights to clips and songs used in their work which has led to infringement suits. YouTube has also put together an automated system that can detect copyrighted music and removes videos in violation within hours of posting.
This is helpful to our research on the Jim Sterling case since he was battling the publisher of a game he gave a review on who wanted his videos taken down because of the negative reviews but was using copyright infringement as justification. However, YouTube found no issues with Sterling’s videos and even went as far to pledge funding if legal action was to be taken against him.
2) Wiggins, Benjamin A. “The Culture Industry, New Media, and the Shift from Creation to Curation; Or, Enlightenment As a Kick in the Nuts.” University of Minnesota (2013): 395-411. SAGE. Web. http://tvn.sagepub.com/content/15/5/395.full.pdf html
This article talks about the use of user-created media being used by mass media. In this specific case the MTV show Pranked using YouTube clips filmed by amateur pranksters. Before YouTube you wouldn’t be able to obtain the footage needed to have a television show without creating your own content of this sort. This is because you would not be able to legally cause psychological and physical pain to an unwilling participant. This is where it differs from shows such as Jackass who is all willing participants. Since the show is all user-created content they are able to have virtually no risk or insurance costs.
The reason why this is helpful to our research is because it shows that not only has user-created media gained respect with mass media but it has also come to the same level in some ways where it is supplying mass media with content and capturing an audience that mass media has not been able to connect with.
This article takes a step by step approach at understanding Copyright and Fair Use on Youtube. It mentions how you brand and name are protected under trademark and not under copyright, only assets. He argues that, though the DMCA is being abused, it was originally meant to help content creators with Copyright law. It addresses one of the main arguments against Youtube’s policy, that there cannot be a system in place to review the content before it is taken down, nor can be any appeal process beforehand. This is because Youtube will be held liable along with the user should this happen. He also explains how Fair Use is a defense and not a right, meant as a measuring tool when deciding in front of a judge if it’s legal or not. He also goes over the difference between Derivative work and Transformative work, in that the 1st is similar to the source material and can be seen as stealing, while the 2nd takes the source and adds, subtracts or innovates it into a new product entirely separate. Ultimately, there isn’t any ruling for what counts as “enough” when it comes to being transformative. The final bit is on repercussions against frivolous and faulty claims. It comes down to there not being much a person can do but spend all their money going to court, but there is hope in that when a claim is made it is “under penalty of perjury.” As unlikely as it is for a claimant to go to jail, it is a fight that can be made by people who are ready to take the stand and set the examples which will lead to the lasting decisions for amendments to clearer, better Copyright and Fair Use Laws.
This article breaks down common misconceptions about Fair Use on Youtube and clears up what’s possible, what’s unclear, and what’s not allowed. It starts by addressing that it got its information from a video made by Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project. In his explanation of fair Use, he describes it as being a set of factors for exceptions to the rules that allow a breaking down of the monopoly that copyright holders have on their content, allowing for a variety of uses with the content. It gives four main questions to frame what constitutes fair use: 1) What are you doing with the content, 2) What kind of content are you using, 3) How much are you using of the original, and 4) Will your work substitute in place of the original (is it transformative enough). It gives a warning about lawsuits and how the owners can pursue legal action if necessary. Then it debunks common misconceptions around Fair Use: Monetization does not factor into Fair Use, Giving credit is not required by law and it does not protect you either, and there are no precise numbers (no time restrictions) under Fair Use. The article ends with a list of genres and situations for videos that are at a high risk of being claimed. These include Background Music, Scenes and Clips for Reference, Parodies, Overdubbing, Video Games with Commentary, Using Copyrighted Content for News Coverage, Performing Copyrighted Music (Covers), Mashups of copyrighted material (collage), and posting the entirety of someone else’s video on Youtube. At the bottom is a link to the video where the information came from.
- Collins, Steve. “YouTube and Limitations of Fair Use in Remix Videos.” Journal of Media Practice 15.2 (2014): 92-106. Web
This article covers the basics of DMCA, and examples of how the fair use system in Youtube is broken. Some examples it shows include Buffy vs Edward a look at the gender roles in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Twilight.
Sources:
Mirchin, David. “Copyright: Viacom’s $1 Billion Claim Against YouTube.” Information Today 24.5 (2007): n. pag. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.
Pike, George H. “Fair Use Goes Crazy.” Information Today 32.9 (2015): 13-14. Infotoday.com. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.
Mike Stratton. “Online Copyright Infringement (DMCA).” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 9 Jan 2013. Web. Sun. 21 February 2016.
Leonard French.“Copyright attorney on #WTFU – Where’s the Fair Use?).” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 18 Feb 2016. Web. Sun. 21 February 2016.
AngryJoeShow.“Youtube Copyright Disaster! Angry Rant.” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 11 Dec 2013. Web. Sun. 21 February 2016.
AngryJoeShow.“Angry Joe Copyright Battle Update! (Good Guys/Bad Guys).” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 18 Jan 2014. Web. Sun. 21 February 2016.
Channel Awesome.“Where’s The Fair Use? – Nostalgia Critic.” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 16 Feb 2016. Web. Sun. 21 February 2016.
Copyright Infringement.” Internet and the Law: Technology, Society, and Compromises. Aaron Schwabach. 2nd ed. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2014. 52-55. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 20 Feb. 2016.
Morrison, Ryan. “A Layman’s Guide to Copyright, Fair Use, and the DMCA Takedown System.” Ryan Morrison Law. Ryan Morrison Law P.C., 2014. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.
O’Neill, Megan. “The Complete Guide To Fair Use & YouTube.” SocialTimes. Adweek.com, 16 May 2011. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.
Jim Sterling.“Corrupt, Censoring, Suicidal Indie Devs (Jimquisition).” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 4 Aug 2014. Web. Sun. 28 February 2016.
What Do Media & Communication Studies Teach Us? 