Viacom Yields to YouTuber Who DMCA Counterclaimed

Jason the Weatherman writes "Two weeks ago Viacom charged Christopher Knight with copyright infringement for posting on YouTube a clip from Web Junk 2.0 on VH1 that featured Knight's zany school board commercial. Two days ago YouTube reported to Knight that his clip was back up and that his account wouldn't be punished. What happened? Knight filed a DMCA counter-notification claim with YouTube: something that happens 'all too rarely' according to Fred von Lohmann at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. From the article: 'Almost no one ever files a counter notice. That's the biggest problem we've encountered [with DMCA claims on sites like YouTube]. Most people have no idea that right exists.'"

No Idea at All

Most people have no idea that right exists.

I certainly didn't. Here's a DIY [cmu.edu].

Re:No Idea at All

'Almost no one ever files a counter notice...'

I don't think it's so much that nobody knows counter notices exist, it's that most people infringing are truly infringing. That small percent that aren't and are bona-fide content creators? They'd sure as hell know. Or at least better know if they're going to put stuff online on sites like YouTube.

That said, it'd be amusing if [e-mail] submits a counter notice about his upload (some awesome video he "found") and then gets sued to high hell since it's "under penalty of perjury" that he asserts there's been a mistake.

Re:No Idea at All

I don't think it's so much that nobody knows counter notices exist, it's that most people infringing are truly infringing.

Well, *I* think that most people are just reluctant to open themselves up to the possibility of having to defend that assertion in court. Easier to just let it be taken down (and email it to the people you really want to see it.)

There's also the amorphous nature of fair use and youtube's defacto 'place to post vids' status. If I'm writing a blog entry on a cinematic technique, say the use of a rack focus, I can absolutely put up a clip that shows that technique. But someone trolling youtube might not realize that's why it's there. And indeed, absent that educational component it might indeed be infringing. So how sure am I that the clip will be found non-infringing? Which context will be judged?

That said, it'd be amusing if [e-mail] submits a counter notice about his upload (some awesome video he "found") and then gets sued to high hell since it's "under penalty of perjury" that he asserts there's been a mistake.

That said, I'd love to see someone actually sued over issuing a take-down notice on what is clearly fair use.

Re:No Idea at All

I know next to nothing about the video making process. That said, I'd like to hear more about these videos featuring "rack focus." It certainly sounds interesting.

Re:No Idea at All

Most people have no idea that right exists.

I certainly didn't. Here's a DIY.

Whenever YouTube takes someone's content down, they should let them know that they can file a counter-claim if they believe they are not infringing. They should give them a link like you did. Problem solved.

Re:No Idea at All

Whenever YouTube takes someone's content down, they should let them know that they can file a counter-claim if they believe they are not infringing. They should give them a link like you did. Problem solved.

Why on Earth would they want to do a thing like that? Every claim and counter-claim costs time and hence money, you don't want to encourage people to make counter-claims.

And you certainly don't want to be piggy-in-the-middle between the RIAA/MPAA and [e-mail]

A class act

I'd highly recommend everyone actually read TFA (yeah, a possibly futile request), because his reasoned and sensible outlook would do many folks I know a lot of good.

Re:

I did read the TFA. I thought it was a bit mushy and goofy. I think Viacom does deserve some venom. Essentially they tried to steal someone else's content. Now yes, they screwed up, and it wasn't intentional (exactly), but still, I don't see any reason

A disservice to the rest of the world

Has Viacom (as a corporation) actually learned anything from this exchange? Probably not. They'll go on sending out questionable DMCA violations because most people will roll over and let Viacom have their way with no fight.

I'd much rather have seen him drag Viacom into court and cost them a lot of money -- because that's all that corporations seem to understand these days. Said loss of money would cause them to at least devote 5 seconds of some human's brain time to the question of "is sending out this DMCA takedown going to land us in court and cause us to lose a ton of money" before sending out future DMCA takedowns.

And that, in my opinion, would have been very good thing.

Re:

Well, fortunately we have the concept of de minimis, which means the court does not get involved in trivial things. Everyone is free to file counter-notices, though people rarely do (perhaps because the content typically is, in fact, infringing?) Knowing

Re:A disservice to the rest of the world

>Has Viacom (as a corporation) actually learned anything from this exchange?

There's no guarantee that Viacom has actually given in as the title of the article indicates.

Yes, the article seems to indicate that Viacom has backed down, but, unless I missed something, there was no communications from Viacom indicating that they backed down. The communication in question was from YouTube indicating that the content had been reposted as a result of the counter-notice.

Keep in mind that, under the DMCA rules, the service provider has to take the content down when given a notice, but it is equally responsible to post the content again if counter-notice is filed. At that point, it is up to the party filing the original notice to file an actual lawsuit to continue to pursue the take-down of the content. Just because they didn't file a lawsuit and get a temporary injunction to maintain the take-down in the 10 days before the counter-notice takes affect, doesn't mean that they don't intend to continue to pursue this issue.

Perhaps there's more communications that are not yet public from Viacom indicating that they don't intend to push forward with this, but just because the content gets re-posted doesn't mean that they have necessarily given in.

As is so often the case, IANAL.

Jeff

Re:

You DO realize most clips they send notice to are totally the book example of why DMCA notice should be sent.

Mistakes happen on both sides. There's absolutely nothing to drag Viacom in the court about. Mistake happened, counterclaim files, clip restored. V

Re:

Don't count on the average person pulling this off, it takes real genius.

VH1's theft

As many know, I am anti-copyright to begin with, but I wonder why Knight isn't setting up to sue VH1 for "stealing" "his" content and rebroadcasting it.

Not only did they take his content, but they also attempted to defend his content via the (fraudulent) DMCA and call it their own.

Might as well go David vs. Goliath in this case, and settle the score with VH1 for the fully penalty of the law.

Re:

I wonder why Knight isn't setting up to sue VH1 for "stealing" "his" content and rebroadcasting it.

It might be difficulty finding a lawyer. A lawyer wanting a % may be hesitant when they know they will be facing a well funded corporation. The end result is

Unfortunately, Fair Use Works Both Ways

As many know, I am anti-copyright to begin with, but I wonder why Knight isn't setting up to sue VH1 for "stealing" "his" content and rebroadcasting it.

Probably because his assertion that they stole his content is just as laughable as their assertion that he stole their content. Unless they showed the whole thing, there is this concept of 'fair use' and, I'm sorry to inform you, it applies to companies as well as individuals.

If you make your own little film & a company releases snippets of it on their station with commentary (exactly what happened here), they should be protected just as you would be if you took 30 seconds worth of film from a Tom Cruise movie and over dubbed it with hilarious Scientology remarks at opportune times.

Not only did they take his content, but they also attempted to defend his content via the (fraudulent) DMCA and call it their own.

I think you should really read up on this. He can counter sue for the damages incurred from them demanding he take it down, maybe even cover his time and any legal fees he had but nothing more than that. And it would be awful hard for him to define a missing video on his YouTube site in terms of dollars.

Re:

If you make your own little film & a company releases snippets of it on their station with commentary (exactly what happened here), they should be protected just as you would be if you took 30 seconds worth of film from a Tom Cruise movie and over dubb

Re:

YouTube reserves the right to reuse, rebroadcast, repackage, and a lot more with any of the content you post for free on their site. They also reserve the right to sublicense these rights. It's quite possible Viacom did the Web Junk 2.0 show using his comm

Re:

IANAL, but that may be able to get deemed an unconscionable clause, seeing how one-sided it as, as well as the position that YouTube is in over the "signer". It's still one more thing in the way of getting a lawyer to actually take the case.

Re:

Unless they showed the whole thing, there is this concept of 'fair use' and, I'm sorry to inform you, it applies to companies as well as individuals.

Actually, fair use can apply to a use of any length. All else being equal, the more of a work, or the more

Re:VH1's theft

Perhaps you should have read the article, which answers this very question.

It doesn't look like this is going to wind up in any kind of litigation, and for that I am thankful. If I can die someday without having sued or been sued, then I will die happy. This ends just as I had hoped it would: with the clip back up and, I like to think, with Viacom and me getting to shake hands and move on and wishing each other well. I'll certainly harbor no hard feelings toward Viacom for the past two weeks.

Re:VH1's theft

He sounds undisclosed settlement happy.

Though I actually think he is ust over-nice.

Hey, I *am* a nice guy! :-)

He sounds undisclosed settlement happy. Though I actually think he is ust over-nice.

If need be, I would have pursued this however far it had to go.

But I'm glad that it didn't have to go any further.

There are other things that I would much rather spend my time pursuing and engaged in. All of this past year there are projects that I've

Re:

You didn't read TFA, did you? There he answers the question you just asked.

Actually

Most people have no idea that right exists.

Actually, most people don't have copyrights over the material that gets pulled off.

Re:

Actually, most people don't have copyrights over the material that gets pulled off.

Actually, most do. Most may not realize it, but copyright is pretty much automatic. You don't even need to post a copyright notice of any sort or register it with anyone, so long as you can provide reasonable proof of authorship. Of course, you can pay

Think of the goodwill

Google would receive in the community, if they enclosed a blurb with the standard C&D letter sent to people whose clips they take down, informing them of this provision.

Re:

That should read "if only".

I mean, how on Earth could people "not know" when it's spelled out to them?

Re:Think of the goodwill

Did you RTFA? "YouTube should be commended for notifying their users when they get take-down notices," von Lohmann continued. "They tell you that a notice has been received, and they tell you that you have the right to counter-notice. Not everyone does that."

Well You Could...

Most people have no idea that right exists.

Well you could post an electronic, easy to fill in the blanks, form or link on your main page. That would make for a good start.

I've filed a counterclaim

I once had a weird situation where I received a notice that somebody was claiming copyright of a photo I'd taken (a self-portrait of all things), on LiveJournal, by way of a DMCA notice.

LiveJournal told me that I could file a counterclaim, and if the original claimant didn't follow it up, I was free to reinstate the photograph. I did, they didn't, so I put it back up.

Re:

The follow-up question is did you get that somebody's information, and did you follow up w/ a DMCA abuse lawsuit? To place their takedown notice, they had to sign that under penalty of perjury that they own the content. Obviously they couldn't for your sel

Re:

Nope, for two reasons: one is that we were both situated in the UK (it was a DMCA notice because LiveJournal itself is in the US, and they were hosting the image), and the other was that I really couldn't deal with the headache at the time.

Re:

Obviously they couldn't for your self-portrait.

Actually copyright for a photo belongs to the photographer. A self-portrait, unless the photo clearly shows you taking the picture of yourself, is not obviously yours.

Re:

Actually copyright for a photo belongs to the photographer. A self-portrait, unless the photo clearly shows you taking the picture of yourself, is not obviously yours.

Your second statement not correct. (example: camera with a timer or remote control)

The c

Re:

By making a false DMCA declaration, Geller did more than expose himself to a civil suit - he also committed perjury, which is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison (18 U.S.C. 1621 [cornell.edu]). Why is he not being prosecuted criminally?

It's written into the law....

The reason most people don't take advantage of it is because most of the time they are infact infringing....
If anyone is interested read
(g) Replacement of Removed or Disabled Material and Limitation on Other Liability.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h [cornell.edu]

If You Aren't Willing....

To fight for your rights, then you don't deserve to have them. "Too many people don't know that they can counter claim", if they felt wronged they should have read up on the subject and they would find the counter claim documentation. Too many people think

Re:

I'm not sure I agree with your statement. A person may be willing to fight for their rights, but sometimes the fight just isn't worth it. A person has to pick their battles, especially if they, like you, would like to win the war.

A battle so costly that

That goodness

Well, it's about time that some of this "scatter shot" technique being used by the media companies in their so called war on piracy starts backfiring. I'd like to see them become some of the collateral damage, and for the lawmakers to reign them in and mak

Re:

Is there any idea of how many invalid/illegitimate DCMA takedown notices there are? I'd still safely wager most are assertions of legitimate copyright. If the scattershot effect is really bad, then I think fining millions of dollars per fraudulent takedo

We aren't lawyers...

So we can't exactly sit down with a cup of coffee and 'read' over the DMCA to understand our own rights. Of course, the big companies can! This works to the advantage of the big corporations because we don't know our own rights!

The world would be a much

Link to the clip in question

Link to the clip. [youtube.com]

It's a clip of a VH1 show that shows Chris' campaign ad for a school board.

- RG>

I had a video takedown

A few months ago I posted a video where I showed how to search for cheats and make game genie codes using an open source NES debugger/emulator called FCEUXD. My video basically showed how to do a cheat search in Contra and alter the game code (using a debu

Yahoo warns you to do that

I had a little copyright issue with a Yahoo Wideget .... (lifted a background image by accident:O )
When I got the notification it was written in the letter, that I have the write to file a counter notification in case I felt I was wrongfully notified (or f

Luck, not law

Legally his counter notice was nothing more than holding his finger against the inside of a coat pocket and claiming he had a gun. Knight got lucky that Viacom didn't call his bluff.

They Shouldn't Have Messed With Chris Knight

They're lucky they didn't get the airborne laser to the house full of un-popped popcorn treatment as well!

Copyright misperceptions

Almost no one ever files a counter notice. That's the biggest problem we've encountered [with DMCA claims on sites like YouTube]. Most people have no idea that right exists.

Usual disclaimer: IANAL. Most (or at least many) people have many misconceptions about copyright law, with far more important consequences.

One is that everything you distribute of your own creation is copyrighted (registration is not required except to back up your claim and allow for greater damages). How many people publish their videos to YouTube, get their content used (in full), and not realize that they have some control over whether that is a copyright violation?

Perhaps even more important, the very concept of fair use itself (in the U.S. at least). It wouldn't surprise me if people thought that many more things were copyright violations than really are. I'm sadly lacking in real survey info, but how many people have even heard of the four major tenets of fair use? If you haven't, read the Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] including the law in the U.S.

As for DMCA counterclaims, I suspect most individuals either 1.) feel that they probably were infringing (even if they could legally argue fair use) or 2.) aren't willing to fight a big corporation in court. As with so many civil and criminal cases, it's much easier just to fold than to fight it. The system is largely designed that way.

One major problem with modern U.S. copyright law is just how big the gray area really is. Are EULAs legal? What can they legally restrict? Are "promotional items" labeled "not for resale" really binding to those who receive them (for an ongoing case about this challenge to the first sale doctrine, see the EFF's page [eff.org])?

Part of this gray area is that infringement is hard to define except on a case by case basis. Some will happily exploit any gray area, while others will stay far from it and end up bound by fairly restrictive rules. I've heard (on "On the Media", about a year ago) that movie producers will sometimes pay royalties in documentaries for things like ring tones and casual music recorded by the video camera. Common sense suggests that somebody's cell phone going off during a documentary is fair use, but some companies are afraid of litigation.

The unfortunate result is that since fighting back is too much risk or too much work, people will just cave in to the big media companies and their takedown notices.

Re:

There is no fair use exemption for redistributing content. There is nothing that allows you to "build" on another's property to make your own in this context.

That's just simply untrue. Quoting from a book, showing a clip of a movie in a movie review show,

Re:

What "profit" is Viacom being denied by his action? Even if they are legally in the right to demand it, it gains them nothing and makes them look like assholes. It was a dumb move.