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)

patent

Tagged as: copyright holder, copyright holders, copyright infringement, copyright law, copyright laws, music companies, video games

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

christina February 17, 2010 at 5:51 am

So If I were to do a parody using the backing track to a song by a popular musician with my own lyrics would it be copyright infringement?

Leave a Comment

Previous post: Video sharing

Next post: The Cost of Getting A Patent