Okay so this video’s had two seperate copyright disputes lodged against it. The second one happened today and was revoked a few hours later after I sent back a dispute message along the lines of the phrase “what the shit guys?”
Anyone unaware, when you upload a video to youtube, it gets put through this automatic software that tries to detect a match to content in youtube’s library of copyright holders in order to determine if someone’s used third party content without permission. Youtube and a bunch of people working for youtube do this because they don’t want to get their butts sued by any multinational media corporations such as in this case the BBC. Depending on how much of an annoyance or a threat to youtube livelihood the video is in punishing the whole for actions of a few which if SOPA said anything, dickheads that don’t really “get” the internet are fully willing to do and could potentially happen if youtube’s used for straight up piracy. The video will get restricted presence because of this.
You can choose to acknowledge the claim and just let the penalties go or dispute it if you don’t think it should have penalties against it for a set list of reasons (that for some reason you can only choose one of) and sometimes it will be let go, most of the time they’ll just leave it for a bit and reinstate it.
The penalties vary. The video could be blocked in some countries like this one I uploaded mid-last year:
If you can see it good, if you can’t…well it wasn’t one of my better ones so it probably doesn’t matter. In some countries they can see it because the copyright laws work differently inside the EU and in the US and in Asia, there’s a minefield of differences to consider in blocking a video in a certain country. The above video review of awful eighties ET ripoff “Mac and Me” (the irony of being claimed to rip something off in a video review of a movie that openly was a ripoff is hilarious) and was blocked because I used the song “The Fast Food Song” by the Fast Food Rockers……I don’t even think the record label would care if someone used “The Fast Food Song” by the Fast Food Rockers in a video, let alone sue youtube over it. But I had to click acknowledge the claim letting it go because yes, I used that song to make my video seem a bit more professional and in keeping with the theme I was using so technically I was in the wrong.
The best thing you can hope for if you match third party content is the video is still available but now your account isn’t viable for advertising revenue that some get and an advert offering viewers to buy a song or TV show or movie featured will be placed by the video. So this penalty is pretty much harmless and mutually recognizes the video’s respect for its third party content included in it and was what happened to my review of the Doctor Who episode “Closing Time” before I disputed it on the grounds of fair use.
Fair use is the main get out of jail free card used in online video and is the main reason you see so many people posting video reviews of movies, TV, music etc as opposed to their own stuff. Cause hell, I’m one man with a camera, I can’t make much in the way of professional video or pay people, and I like talking about movies and stuff, and so reviewing was where I decided to go with online video and where most people do when trying to get people to listen to them without being called theives.
My Closing Time review had a second complaint lodged this morning a few weeks after the first one which was the next level of complaint penalty, effectively blocking the video from youtube. This appeared random, as it had been available and online for a while and the dispute had been resolved beforehand, and now it had gone to red alert. The dispute’s been dropped now so I have no visual evidence, but it claimed I was using footage from Doctor Who entitled “season 6 episode 5 The Rebel Flesh part 1 of 3” from BBC worldwide……I immediately lodged a complaint saying the obvious “no I didn’t” because I didn’t and won and we’re back online and viewable again.
See this is the problem when you use automated software to do copyright checks and don’t actually bother watching the videos, you’re going to stumble across the issue of what is and what isn’t fair use and what does and doesn’t look like piracy. I mean I fucking stated outright in the first ten seconds of that video I owned none of the rights to the footage and was using it for criticism and review covered under fair use and put it in the description, this is all I needed to do and yet still this video got shit on twice. I am more than entitled to say what the fuck to that. My other videos are a different matter as whether I’ve done some legal or illegal in the ones with account penalties next to them is a grey area.
When you’re utilizing footage to make a point about that footage or using it to demonstrate a separate point you’re trying to make, then its okay but when it comes to just using the footage or music to make a work better or seem more professional, then we call copyright into question…or do we? ….yeah who knows, but I have some quibbles with how this is applied to the youtube claim/dispute system.
Copyright literally means, the right to copy that work for commercial gains. IE. when an author has a book published by a publisher, they sign the right to copy that work to the publisher to print the book so technically the publisher is now the owner of that work. Its okay if you are aware that say Trent Reznor or anyone else open minded about online incorporation of their work into new work and thinks its okay, the publishers hold the cards and all the publishers care about is money, so it isn’t. The artist’s opinion doesn’t hold much water when we come to intellectual property law unless the artist is the one with all the copyrights.
Problem is, when copyright is handled by a multitude of greedy people, we get flimsy definitions of copyright pandered around in the bid to call people “thieves” which I think have quite a lot of holes in. When people like me use third party content on youtube, we are not claiming we made it, and this has nothing to do with copyright and has only been pulled out of thin air because you want to make people sound worse than they actually are. Because for some reason no one stops and thinks “hang on…that’s the dumbest piece of shit insult against people using third party content ever. A toddler could see why this accusation of claiming its yours doesn’t make the slightest ounce of sense and yet the claims system is set up in favour of this baffling reason.
Internet culture allows for parody, review and all that shit but unlike a lot of mediums, it also allows for third party use because we are not profiting from it and have no desire to call it our own work. If the automated software thought I was calling an episode of doctor who my own work then that is why the system needs reviewing because no real person anywhere EVER would think that I, a long haired childish yeti man who lives in some shithole in England with some office job, barely any friends and barely any money, personally made a rather expensive production with the words “DOCTOR WHO” and “OWNED BY THE BBC” on it. You would have to be completely fucking retarded to think I am calling the footage used my own work, especially since it contains the words “this is not my own work” and is a review of the work it contains footage of. I’m using the platform of reviews because I’m legally covered and also because I like making videos about stuff I find interesting, in this case TV, books and movies. And unless you hadn’t noticed, I’m not exactly getting a whole lot of attention for it that could be attention given to the creative work and publisher providing them business. If a video that uses footage or a song has about thirty views, I don’t think you need to worry that maybe people won’t buy your shit now that someone’s re-purposed it here. I’m not a serious threat and a pirate, I’m someone with an internet account and a hobby.
This is creative extrovertism, an exercise in time wasting no different in that respect to watching a movie, going to a pub, doing something outside that regular people do. This isn’t a business, its a hobby. Granted some people use the platform of videos for business but I’m not. I’m not getting any money from it and trying to resort to fair use as it means this shit won’t happen as much because software isn’t programmed with definitions of copyright law. I am not a business and I know there’s barely any chance of many people watching my work and liking it but its something to do and so that’s why I do it. Not because I’m claiming a bit of something I found and used in my work is mine or because I want people to watch me instead of buying the original work. I’m making and uploading videos and saying “watch this if you want to” on a budget of zero and including a list of where I got the stuff that isn’t mine from. I am no threat to your business. I’m not uploading full movies or TV episodes like a lot of youtubers, I’m making videos with bits of other people’s work in them because its something to do, not because I want to steal, there is a difference and this is the reason copyright claims and disputes of random arseholes like me on the internet does not work.
So dear people in charge of youtube copyright dispute system. You can easily differentiate a hobbyist from a pirate with one simple test:
WATCH THE VIDEOS BEFORE CRYING ABOUT THEM