7 ms·

Sony Filed a Copyright Claim Against the Stock Video I Licensed to Them

98 points by mayneack 11y ago

ilamont 11y ago
I recorded all of my phone calls with the person from Epic’s legal department. I knew that without his acknowledgment of the recording that the call itself might not necessarily be admissible in court (depending on the state statutes), but knowing how fallible memory is, it would still provide me the ability to revisit exactly what was said on the calls and help me prepare for a legal battle if it came to that. Besides the question of whether or not the contents of a recorded conversation is admissible in court, is it even legal to record a phone conversation without the other person’s knowledge?
- Natsu 11y ago
  Depends on the state... and in one state, it depends on whether or not you know it's illegal. I forget which state, but it came up a lot in the news during the Monica Lewinsky affair.
- jmiwhite 11y ago
  This guide is slightly old (Last updated May 2014) but seems fairly comprehensive: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-co...
- kjackson 11y ago
  I believe in some states it's a criminal offense to record phone conversations without the person's knowledge. So I would be very careful about doing this.
- oasisbob 11y ago
  Yes, in some states it's legal to record telephone calls with the consent of a single party. I read his disclaimer as "I'm in a one-party consent state, but the person I'm talking to may or may not be - and I have no idea how admissible this would be as evidence but I'm pretty sure I'm not breaking the law."
  - larrys 11y ago
    What matters is the state that you are making the recording in. So if your state is a one party consent state and you are one of the parties it doesn't matter what the rules in the other state are. Now what could get interesting is if you are in a one party state and you are calling on a cell phone and you hit a tower in another state. So then you claim that you are in State A and if they were to put in the effort to check or cell records they saw you hit the tower in State B then I would guess you would have to offer further proof of actually making the call in State A other than your statement that was the case. (As opposed to a land line where it's clear where you are located). http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-co...
    - deftnerd 11y ago
      I also wonder if it's where the person who initiated the recording is, or if it's where the recording is taking place. If it is where the recording is taking place, a VoIP provider could do all the recording on servers in a state friendly to the recording, regardless of where the participants in the call are.
    - rahimnathwani 11y ago
      What if you just route all your calls through a VoIP server in a one-party state, and record the call there?
      - larrys 11y ago
        Interesting thought. [1] Probably doesn't fill the letter of the law. Otoh that is what I would call "a leg to stand on". That is it gives some wiggle room and reasonable doubt that you weren't following the law. Would depend on the exact wording of each States law and how tight it was. Ianal but often things boil down to this type of thinking with other things as you probably know. [1] For that matter what if you conference in a friend and the friend is the one that did the recording.
  - tzs 11y ago
- chrsstrm 11y ago
  In these types of situations it doesn't even make sense to try and surreptitiously make a recording of the call. I routinely record _all_ calls between myself and attorneys, accountants, advisors, partners, etc. and after asking permission to record not a single time has any of these people denied me permission or even questioned why I would record the call. Most people even appreciate receiving a copy of the conversation afterwards as well. In business situations like this, asking to record a call for records purposes is not an anti-pattern and you shouldn't be afraid to ask the other party for permission.
tacotuesday 11y ago
>Explain that if they do not remove their copyright claim within the time allotted that I will revoke their rights to use my footage in their video due to a terms of use violation. The DMCA states they are filing the take down under penalty of perjury. It's very slippery though. If Sony says "This is A, and I own A. Take down Small Time's video." Then all is good so long as Sony actually owns A. If the content is B, it's a great inconvenience to Small Time, but there's really no recourse. However, what Sony did was say "This is B, I own B. Take down Small Time's video." The content IS B. Sony has misrepresented their ownership of B. Now they've perjured themselves. My understanding is that perjury is punishable by up to five years in prison. It seems like someone at Sony should now be under investigation for this little 'oops.' Even if Small Time is satisfied with the outcome, it sounds like someone at Sony still violated the law.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  No one ever gets charged under that, because it requires knowingly filing a false claim. Almost all of these takedowns are automated, and it's hard to say an algorithm knowingly lied. Even with a human in the loop (for example, the "copyright holder has confirmed the claim" from the article) it's hard to prove someone lied. "Idiot intern" makes a generally acceptable defense.
  - a3n 11y ago
    > Almost all of these takedowns are automated, and it's hard to say an algorithm knowingly lied. In the future I will write programs to break the laws that I used to break by hand, let them loose without any specific target and see what I rake in.
  - morganvachon 11y ago
    When it comes to criminal law, the standard is "knew or should have known". At the very least, Sony and possibly YouTube are liable for the results of a flawed algorithm causing them to break the law. It's been in (mis)use for many years now, and it's obvious it's a horribly inaccurate method of determining copyright violations. Without human intervention to investigate and ensure each and every claim is legitimate, YouTube and the copyright claimants are committing fraud and perjury on a massive scale.
redcap 11y ago
At the case closed comments, why is there no discussion of receiving payment from SME? Surely the time and effort chasing down a bad copyright claim is worth more than receiving credit.
Oatseller 11y ago
The YouTube notification contains: Due to a copyright claim, you are no longer monetizing the following YouTube video. It is still playable on YouTube, but the copyright owner could choose to show ads on it. The key phrase is "but the copyright owner could choose to show ads on it". Google is automatically transferring the benefits of copyright to anyone who files a claim? That seems ripe for abuse. Theoretically, you could claim copyright of a video, show your ads on it, and profit until the dispute is settled (if it ever is). A popular video could have hundreds of thousands of views before a dispute is settled and a company the size of Sony could probably claim some form of copyright infringement on thousands of videos. And there's no downside (other than the effort/costs of filing the complaints), a small content provider won't pursue the perjury clause in the DMCA, it'd be too hard to prove (if they know about it at all). They'll just be happy it's over and go on with their lives. </tinfoilhat>
- rspeer 11y ago
  The tin-foil hat is unnecessary. What you describe is happening, all the time. It's not even perjury. I was going to describe things that falsely take down videos as "perjury-bots" but then I remembered that major sites such as YouTube and Twitch have set up their own expedited process outside the legal system. They'll even find the content for you. You just have to say "This sound/video is mine, whenever it appears", and when a sufficiently high percentage of sound and video actually are yours, organizations will believe you whether or not it's true. So large content companies just claim everything they possibly can, regardless of whether they're allowed to or not. It's all upside (more revenue from videos!) and no downside (nobody will hold you accountable).
  - Oatseller 11y ago
    I agree with your conclusions, the 'tinfoilhat' was for my conspiratorial tone with no citations to back it up.
neurotech1 11y ago
I think Mitch Martinez(OP/content creator) did a good job of making it clear to Sony/Epic that false copyright claims are not acceptable. IANAL but maybe for next time he should include a "false copyright claim" fee (plus attorneys fees) in the original license agreement. On a related topic, Dreamworks were trying to get a license release for the Noisebridge logo[0], but apparently had difficulty understanding the concept of "fair use". It was pretty funny. [0] https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2013-January/034416.html https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/20...
- serge2k 11y ago
  What would be great is if you could add a clause stating that any assertion of copyright (by them), including automated systems, would result in a revocation of the license. Then whenever you get a notice from youtube respond by demanding take-down or monetization of their videos.

98 points by mayneack 11y ago

I recorded all of my phone calls with the person from Epic’s legal department. I knew that without his acknowledgment of the recording that the call itself might not necessarily be admissible in court (depending on the state statutes), but knowing how fallible memory is, it would still provide me the ability to revisit exactly what was said on the calls and help me prepare for a legal battle if it came to that. Besides the question of whether or not the contents of a recorded conversation is admissible in court, is it even legal to record a phone conversation without the other person’s knowledge?

Natsu 11y ago
Depends on the state... and in one state, it depends on whether or not you know it's illegal. I forget which state, but it came up a lot in the news during the Monica Lewinsky affair.
jmiwhite 11y ago
This guide is slightly old (Last updated May 2014) but seems fairly comprehensive: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-co...
kjackson 11y ago
I believe in some states it's a criminal offense to record phone conversations without the person's knowledge. So I would be very careful about doing this.
oasisbob 11y ago
Yes, in some states it's legal to record telephone calls with the consent of a single party. I read his disclaimer as "I'm in a one-party consent state, but the person I'm talking to may or may not be - and I have no idea how admissible this would be as evidence but I'm pretty sure I'm not breaking the law."
- larrys 11y ago
  What matters is the state that you are making the recording in. So if your state is a one party consent state and you are one of the parties it doesn't matter what the rules in the other state are. Now what could get interesting is if you are in a one party state and you are calling on a cell phone and you hit a tower in another state. So then you claim that you are in State A and if they were to put in the effort to check or cell records they saw you hit the tower in State B then I would guess you would have to offer further proof of actually making the call in State A other than your statement that was the case. (As opposed to a land line where it's clear where you are located). http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-co...
  - deftnerd 11y ago
    I also wonder if it's where the person who initiated the recording is, or if it's where the recording is taking place. If it is where the recording is taking place, a VoIP provider could do all the recording on servers in a state friendly to the recording, regardless of where the participants in the call are.
  - rahimnathwani 11y ago
    What if you just route all your calls through a VoIP server in a one-party state, and record the call there?
    - larrys 11y ago
      Interesting thought. [1] Probably doesn't fill the letter of the law. Otoh that is what I would call "a leg to stand on". That is it gives some wiggle room and reasonable doubt that you weren't following the law. Would depend on the exact wording of each States law and how tight it was. Ianal but often things boil down to this type of thinking with other things as you probably know. [1] For that matter what if you conference in a friend and the friend is the one that did the recording.
- tzs 11y ago
chrsstrm 11y ago
In these types of situations it doesn't even make sense to try and surreptitiously make a recording of the call. I routinely record _all_ calls between myself and attorneys, accountants, advisors, partners, etc. and after asking permission to record not a single time has any of these people denied me permission or even questioned why I would record the call. Most people even appreciate receiving a copy of the conversation afterwards as well. In business situations like this, asking to record a call for records purposes is not an anti-pattern and you shouldn't be afraid to ask the other party for permission.

tacotuesday 11y ago

>Explain that if they do not remove their copyright claim within the time allotted that I will revoke their rights to use my footage in their video due to a terms of use violation. The DMCA states they are filing the take down under penalty of perjury. It's very slippery though. If Sony says "This is A, and I own A. Take down Small Time's video." Then all is good so long as Sony actually owns A. If the content is B, it's a great inconvenience to Small Time, but there's really no recourse. However, what Sony did was say "This is B, I own B. Take down Small Time's video." The content IS B. Sony has misrepresented their ownership of B. Now they've perjured themselves. My understanding is that perjury is punishable by up to five years in prison. It seems like someone at Sony should now be under investigation for this little 'oops.' Even if Small Time is satisfied with the outcome, it sounds like someone at Sony still violated the law.

ceejayoz 11y ago
No one ever gets charged under that, because it requires knowingly filing a false claim. Almost all of these takedowns are automated, and it's hard to say an algorithm knowingly lied. Even with a human in the loop (for example, the "copyright holder has confirmed the claim" from the article) it's hard to prove someone lied. "Idiot intern" makes a generally acceptable defense.
- a3n 11y ago
  > Almost all of these takedowns are automated, and it's hard to say an algorithm knowingly lied. In the future I will write programs to break the laws that I used to break by hand, let them loose without any specific target and see what I rake in.
- morganvachon 11y ago
  When it comes to criminal law, the standard is "knew or should have known". At the very least, Sony and possibly YouTube are liable for the results of a flawed algorithm causing them to break the law. It's been in (mis)use for many years now, and it's obvious it's a horribly inaccurate method of determining copyright violations. Without human intervention to investigate and ensure each and every claim is legitimate, YouTube and the copyright claimants are committing fraud and perjury on a massive scale.

redcap 11y ago

At the case closed comments, why is there no discussion of receiving payment from SME? Surely the time and effort chasing down a bad copyright claim is worth more than receiving credit.

Oatseller 11y ago

The YouTube notification contains: Due to a copyright claim, you are no longer monetizing the following YouTube video. It is still playable on YouTube, but the copyright owner could choose to show ads on it. The key phrase is "but the copyright owner could choose to show ads on it". Google is automatically transferring the benefits of copyright to anyone who files a claim? That seems ripe for abuse. Theoretically, you could claim copyright of a video, show your ads on it, and profit until the dispute is settled (if it ever is). A popular video could have hundreds of thousands of views before a dispute is settled and a company the size of Sony could probably claim some form of copyright infringement on thousands of videos. And there's no downside (other than the effort/costs of filing the complaints), a small content provider won't pursue the perjury clause in the DMCA, it'd be too hard to prove (if they know about it at all). They'll just be happy it's over and go on with their lives. </tinfoilhat>

rspeer 11y ago
The tin-foil hat is unnecessary. What you describe is happening, all the time. It's not even perjury. I was going to describe things that falsely take down videos as "perjury-bots" but then I remembered that major sites such as YouTube and Twitch have set up their own expedited process outside the legal system. They'll even find the content for you. You just have to say "This sound/video is mine, whenever it appears", and when a sufficiently high percentage of sound and video actually are yours, organizations will believe you whether or not it's true. So large content companies just claim everything they possibly can, regardless of whether they're allowed to or not. It's all upside (more revenue from videos!) and no downside (nobody will hold you accountable).
- Oatseller 11y ago
  I agree with your conclusions, the 'tinfoilhat' was for my conspiratorial tone with no citations to back it up.

neurotech1 11y ago

I think Mitch Martinez(OP/content creator) did a good job of making it clear to Sony/Epic that false copyright claims are not acceptable. IANAL but maybe for next time he should include a "false copyright claim" fee (plus attorneys fees) in the original license agreement. On a related topic, Dreamworks were trying to get a license release for the Noisebridge logo[0], but apparently had difficulty understanding the concept of "fair use". It was pretty funny. [0] https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2013-January/034416.html https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/20...

serge2k 11y ago
What would be great is if you could add a clause stating that any assertion of copyright (by them), including automated systems, would result in a revocation of the license. Then whenever you get a notice from youtube respond by demanding take-down or monetization of their videos.