Youtube and Copyright Law

by Andrew on December 10, 2009

Youtube and Copyright Law

If you go on Youtube and look up any mainstream musician you can think of, you’re probably going to find hundreds of videos posted by fans, providing not only their popular, studio released music, but also, rare B-sides, live performances, and alternate takes of popular songs. This, in addition to interview footage, TV specials, and scenes where the musician had a guest spot on a popular TV show, or a cameo in a big movie.

Unless posted by the actual owner of the copyright, all of this material constitutes copyright infringement when it is first posted.

So why haven’t the music companies cracked down on Youtube like they have with Napster, Bearshare, and other file sharing sites and services?

Part of that may simply be that the vast majority of the material found on Youtube is actually not in violation of any copyright laws. Most of it is original footage created and uploaded by the same person. Trying to shut Youtube down would be completely unfair to, say, Ronald Jenkees, the musician who is making a name for himself by providing free content on Youtube, or independent, Youtube-distributed film production companies like Ubsey Movies.

Now and then, videos are actually removed from the site due to copyright infringement, but these cases are usually only when material is lifted directly from another source. For example, if you make a video where, in one scene, somebody is watching “Spiderman 3” on television, that’s not really a big deal to the copyright holders of the film, because nobody is really going to be squinting at the TV in the background of that video as an alternative to actually watching “Spiderman 3”. However, if you just post “Spiderman 3” on Youtube, you’ll probably see it taken down immediately, and you might even have your account suspended.

Now, that doesn’t mean that you’re not committing copyright infringement by including clips from a copyright protected film in your youtube video, it’s just that it’s not a huge deal to the actual copyright holder.

Another route taken by companies like Sony BGM is to simply allow copyright infringing videos to stay up, but to actually endorse those videos… in exchange for advertising space. If you’ve watched a popular youtube video recently, you might have seen a banner ad pop up on the lower half of the screen. A minor annoyance for some viewers, but it’s easily gotten rid of with a click of the “X” icon. Many of these videos being coupled with advertising are a result of the video’s author including a copyright protected song on the soundtrack, without permission, and then receiving a letter from the copyright holder giving the author the option of either A) removing the video, or B) allowing the copyright holder to advertise on the video.

It’s really a fair trade for many video authors. The vast majority of Youtube members cannot afford to actually license the songs they want to use in their movies, or to make fan-made music videos with, and so, offering to trade free soundtrack material for advertising space is a wonderful alternative for both struggling directors, and for copyright holders who see an opportunity where others only see a violation (because honestly, how many times have you been to the movies, heard a song on the soundtrack, and thought “Man, I gotta go BUY that album!”).

Besides blatant copyright infringement, much of the work on Youtube amounts to parody, criticism, or education, and as such, can get away with appropriating actual footage from other movies.

For example, one of the most popular Youtube content creators would be James Rolfe, who goes by the name of The Angry Video Game Nerd for his series of humorous, and profanity laden, video reviews of old Nintendo games. Rolfe’s work actually serves as parody (making fun of the actual video games), education (discussing elements of game design in an analytical fashion), and criticism (calling bad video games *@$% and *@!!#), and as such, his work is more than covered by the Fair Use Doctrine, which dictates that any work that serves as parody, education, or criticism is completely covered by the First Amendment. This allows Rolfe to use actual gameplay footage from the games he parodies and criticizes, without any of his work ever actually qualifying as copyright infringement.

Youtube, and similar means of internet-based self publication, are really the way of the future for today’s aspiring artists and creators. To get a little sappy here; to shut down Youtube or similar sites would be to stomp on the dreams of many young artists, only to stop a few media pirates, who could’ve easily been stopped by simply removing their videos. Youtube, and similar sites like Revver.com, are here to stay.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

{ 1 comment }

Video sharing

by Andrew on December 9, 2009

Copyright Law and Video Sharing Sites

We all know about Youtube and Google video, of course, and we all know that you can go on those sites and find tons of copyright infringing copies of copyright protected content.

The people who own the copyrights to the protected content know it, too.

So how does all that illegal content stay up?

The truth is actually kind of mundane: There’s too much of it to track. In order to eliminate every single incident of copyright infringement on Youtube and Google video, there would have to be a team of literally hundreds of thousands of people browsing those sites constantly to find every single incident of copyright infringement, and then a legal team would have to be given the task of issuing hundreds of thousands of cease and desist emails every single day.

And even then, many videos would slip through the cracks, carrying either copyright infringing video, or just copyrighted songs used on the soundtracks without authorization.

The cost of such a massive program would wind up being several times the amount of any actual income loss suffered by copyright holders thanks to copyright infringement and piracy.

So why not just shut those sites down, like with Napster?

Nobody really wants that. Youtube and Google video both insist that their users should not post copyright infringing material. Certainly, many users do so, anyways, but those users are violating their terms of use in doing so.

Users who persist in using copyrighted material without authorization, despite several warnings, usually have their accounts deleted by the operators of the site.

Many copyright holders use the site for their own means, as well. Most major record labels have taken to posting official music videos through their own, corporate owned Youtube channels. Youtube is a great resource for pirates to find music and steal it, but it’s also a great resource for legitimate copyright holders to advertise new albums. Not to mention the fact that probably the vast majority of Youtube and Google video users actually are posting original content, as that really is the main allure of these sites: Showing your own stuff off to the world.

Recently, a few alternatives have popped up on the internet, with the most well known probably being Revver.com.

Revver uses an actual compensation system for their users. By allowing Revver to place advertisements at the end of every video, authors are rewarded with a share of the advertising fees on a per-click basis.

Because actual money is changing hands, Revver has to be much more careful about copyright issues so as to avoid liability. Every video that goes up on Revver has to first be approved by the site’s staff. The video has to meet the criteria of belonging, in its entirety, to the person who uploaded the video, before it can go through and be displayed on the website.

Needless to say, Revver is a little smaller in scale than Youtube or Google video. Reviewing every single video that goes up takes time, after all.

Many believe that websites like Revver really are the way of the future when it comes to video sharing. Where Youtube allows directors to upload their own work, there is no compensation system in place. Furthermore, the website is simply too massive to really control in terms of copyright issues.

Note that, even on Youtube, Revver, Google video and every other video sharing website based in the United States, the Fair Use Doctrine stands. The right to fair use for the purpose of parody, criticism, or education is non-negotiable.

Which is great news for many on Youtube; Parody, criticism and education are three of the most popular types of videos on the site. One of the most popular authors on Youtube, the Angry Nintendo Nerd, actually does all three in his humorous video game review/essay videos.

Even on the internet, fair use can extend to incidents wherein a work is directly derivative of the work it parodies.

Really, every copyright law that holds true in print and on television holds true on the internet, as well. This means that everything you can get in trouble for in print is equally illegal on the internet, but it also means that any non-negotiable rights you hold as an American citizen hold true on the internet, as well.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

{ 0 comments }

US intellectual property laws

December 9, 2009

How are US Intellectual Property Laws Unique?
It’s probably fair to say that throughout most of the civilized world, copyright laws are kind of built on the same skeleton, more or less. The author or owner of a given work has certain exclusive rights with regards to publishing, distribution, copying, and making derivative versions of that [...]

Read the full article →

UK intellectual property laws

December 7, 2009

How do UK Intellectual Property Laws Differ from US Laws?
In many areas, the United States and the United Kingdom are pretty similar when it comes to intellectual property laws, copyrights, the public domain, and so on. However, there are some small differences here and there. “Small differences” sounds like they may be negligible, but we [...]

Read the full article →

Trademark

December 7, 2009

What Exactly is a Trademark for? ™
You always see those ™ trademarks all over everything from movie posters to toys to food packaging. If you ask most people, they’ll be able to tell you that the Trade Mark has “Something to do with copyright… doesn’t it?”
Licensing, copyright, trademark, intellectual property, it gets confusing trying to [...]

Read the full article →

Syndication

December 6, 2009

How Syndication Works
Simply put, in broadcasting, syndication is a way for the creators of a TV show to turn that show into an asset, rather than a sort of a one shot deal. By selling the rights to broadcast the show to any number of networks, the owners of the show are allowed to retain [...]

Read the full article →

Satire

December 6, 2009

Satire: What can I get away with?
You’ve probably heard all three of these words; satire, parody, and spoof.
Here we’ll get into satire, and furthermore, how it pertains to copyright law. More specifically, we’ll get into how far satire is covered by the fair use doctrine.
Satire is generally seen as a literary genre, though it is [...]

Read the full article →

Sampling

December 5, 2009

What does the Law think of Sampling?
Sampling is defined as the act of taking a small portion of one work of art, and then taking that piece and mixing it into an original work of art. This is probably most common in music, particularly in genres like hip hop, house, electronic, techno, and contemporary dance [...]

Read the full article →

Royalty fees

December 5, 2009

The Importance of Royalty Fees
For clarity, we’ll quickly define the meaning of royalty fees.
A royalty payment system is an agreement wherein, rather than buying the copyright to a work, or even buying the publishing rights outright, the licensee, or buyer, will pay the artist or copyright holder on a by sale basis.
The pay paid out [...]

Read the full article →

Royalties

December 4, 2009

The Rules of Royalties
Royalty payments are defined as a usage-based form of payment made by one party, referred to as the licensee, and another party, referred to as the licensor.
The licensor would be the artist or copyright holder of an intellectual property, though outside of copyright law, any real asset can be arranged to pay [...]

Read the full article →

← Previous Entries