BoingBoing reported that Wii came out with an advertisement encouraging young adults to engage in spanking games using the Wii device. The video was posted by Ubisoft on YouTube here.
YouTube now has the message
"This video contains content from Ubisoft, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."
It is odd that the poster of a video is blocking its own content on copyright grounds. If indeed, that is the grounds, was it a failure to get a synch license for the music for the US market? Did they send a takedown notice to themselves? See the video below:
Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here
Showing posts with label youtube takedowns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label youtube takedowns. Show all posts
Friday, February 25, 2011
Friday, July 16, 2010
Fair Use Friday: Holocaust Survivor Dances To "I Will Survive" At Auschwitz Death Camp
An extraordinary video, Auschwitz survivor dances with his grandchildren at Auschwitz to Gloria Gaynor's "I Will Survive".
News "Dancing Auschwitz" artist unbowed by criticism
Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook from West here
News "Dancing Auschwitz" artist unbowed by criticism
Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook from West here
Thursday, June 24, 2010
SDNY: YouTube Granted Summary Judgment on Copyright Infringement - No Contributory Liability
In Viacom Int'l Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 07 Civ. 2103 (June 23, 2010 SDNY), Judge Stanton granted summary judgment dismissing contributory copyright infringement claims against YouTube and upheld the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, 17 USC 512(c) for internet service providers (ISPs). This was so, even though, as Judge Stanton noted:
From plaintiffs’ submissions on the motions, a jury could find that the defendants not only were generally aware of, but welcomed, copyright-infringing material being placed on their website. Such material was attractive to users, whose increased usage enhanced defendants’ income from advertisements displayed on certain pages of the website, with no discrimination between infringing and non-infringing content.
At issue in the case is who bears the burden of policing for copyright infringements. Do copyright owners bear the cost, or do ISP's have to act as cops?
In analyzing the legislative history of the DMCA safe harbor provisions, Judge Stanton noted:
The tenor of the foregoing provisions is that the phrases “actual knowledge that the material or an activity” is infringing, and “facts or circumstances” indicating infringing activity, describe knowledge of specific and identifiable infringements of particular individual items. Mere knowledge of prevalence of such activity in general is not enough. That is consistent with an area of the law devoted to protection of distinctive individual works, not of libraries. To let knowledge of a generalized practice of infringement in the industry, or of a proclivity of users to post infringing materials, impose responsibility on service providers to discover which of their users’ postings infringe a copyright would contravene the structure and operation of the DMCA.
Judge Stanton appeared to be impressed that when Viacom gathered evidence of 100,000 infringing videos and sent a massive takedown notice, YouTube had the videos taken down by the next day.
I discuss Cease and Desist Letters and Declaratory Judgment Actions in Chapter 6 of my Copyright Litigation Handbook. In Chapter 7, Drafting the Infringement Complaint, I deal with Internet Service Providers. There is a growing body of case law saying that you have to be pretty specific with your takedown notices and follow the rules in order to trigger liability of an ISP.
In Viacom v YouTube, Judge Stanton notes that providing the URL (uniform resource locator) of the infringement is the type of information that would comply with the specificity required of a takedown notice.
Opinion below:
Viacom v YouTube
Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook from West here
From plaintiffs’ submissions on the motions, a jury could find that the defendants not only were generally aware of, but welcomed, copyright-infringing material being placed on their website. Such material was attractive to users, whose increased usage enhanced defendants’ income from advertisements displayed on certain pages of the website, with no discrimination between infringing and non-infringing content.
At issue in the case is who bears the burden of policing for copyright infringements. Do copyright owners bear the cost, or do ISP's have to act as cops?
In analyzing the legislative history of the DMCA safe harbor provisions, Judge Stanton noted:
The tenor of the foregoing provisions is that the phrases “actual knowledge that the material or an activity” is infringing, and “facts or circumstances” indicating infringing activity, describe knowledge of specific and identifiable infringements of particular individual items. Mere knowledge of prevalence of such activity in general is not enough. That is consistent with an area of the law devoted to protection of distinctive individual works, not of libraries. To let knowledge of a generalized practice of infringement in the industry, or of a proclivity of users to post infringing materials, impose responsibility on service providers to discover which of their users’ postings infringe a copyright would contravene the structure and operation of the DMCA.
Judge Stanton appeared to be impressed that when Viacom gathered evidence of 100,000 infringing videos and sent a massive takedown notice, YouTube had the videos taken down by the next day.
I discuss Cease and Desist Letters and Declaratory Judgment Actions in Chapter 6 of my Copyright Litigation Handbook. In Chapter 7, Drafting the Infringement Complaint, I deal with Internet Service Providers. There is a growing body of case law saying that you have to be pretty specific with your takedown notices and follow the rules in order to trigger liability of an ISP.
In Viacom v YouTube, Judge Stanton notes that providing the URL (uniform resource locator) of the infringement is the type of information that would comply with the specificity required of a takedown notice.
Opinion below:
Viacom v YouTube
Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook from West here
Friday, May 14, 2010
How NOT To Challenge a YouTube Takedown
This is a really funny, foul language rant by a guy who is furious that he bought a CD, he gave credit in his video, but someone named WMG still keeps taking down the music he BOUGHT and PAID FOR! Synch rights are the issue.
Better analysis in the previous video posted here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)