6 ms·

By uploading a parody video of a Samsung Galaxy exploding, I don't understand how there is a law being broken? Can someone explain how this is a copyright issue

By uploading a parody video of a Samsung Galaxy exploding, I don't understand how there is a law being broken? Can someone explain how this is a copyright issue?

jnagro 10y ago
You're right. Satire is fair use.
- thinkMOAR 10y ago
  Unless you do satire about dictators and parties alike. And samsung is behaving a bit weird about this all.
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  This isn't even a fair use defense, and I'm utterly baffled why anyone (let alone most people) in this thread seems to think it is. Copyright does not protect Samsung from having their products rendered (in other words, I'm not breaking the law by drawing a picture of a Samsung phone) or their name mentioned. Copyright does not protect marks, that's Trademarks. Copyright does not protect basic look and feel. There's no fair use defense here because there is no legitimate claim of infringement. Just because someone at Samsung clicked the "this is infringing" box does not A) make it true, or B) require the video author to defend themselves. This is basically like Samsung trying to DMCA a newspaper from mentioning their name or publishing a picture of their phone.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Declanomous 10y ago
    >This is basically like Samsung trying to DMCA a newspaper from mentioning their name or publishing a picture of their phone. I have no doubt that companies would do that if they could. Fortunately such draconian censorship methods aren't as effective against print media, especially when said media is ephemeral in the first place. If the goal of the DMCA is to protect creative works, then it's a huge failure no matter how you look at it. Not only is it being used as a weapon against people who are actually creating innovative and original works, it is useless for protecting those very same individuals. The creative work of individuals is stolen and shared millions of times each day on sites like Facebook, imgur, tumblr, and instagram, generating ad revenue for the parent site, and followers for the pages and individuals committing the thefts, and leaving the creators of the content with nothing. You can submit a takedown request as an individual, but by the time it's honored the post was old news anyways. I don't have YouTube right now, but here's an article that gives a good rundown of the Facebook video controversy: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-facebook-is-stealing-billions-of-views-youtube-video-goes-viral-2015-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/how-facebook-is-stealing-bill... Edit: And another link which goes in to a bit more depth: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-copyright-infringement-facebook-content-id-celebrities-2015-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-copyright-infringeme...
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Quick clarification: Parody is Fair Use protected, Satire is not. There's a distinct difference. For a real-world, tech/music battle that showed how true this distinction is, research GoldiBlox vs. Beastie Boys (settled out of court).
Grazester 10y ago
I wonder if in the mod Samsung's name and Galaxy brand was used and if they would have a case therefore.
- matthewmacleod 10y ago
  No, this would not be the case.
- mickronome 10y ago
  Trademark defenses mostly only applies if it is a satirical or parochial product, and even then rather weakly. The song 'Barbie girl' is a good example where a trademark was used for profit, but the court upheld the parody exemption. Satire is in some cases more weakly protected than satire, but mostly if the satire is only using the mark, but not as much if it is critical at something covered by the mark. Found lots of interesting case references in http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506_outline.pdf http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectu...
amorphid 10y ago
I wonder if a larger Youtuber, someone who makes several thousand per video (advertising, Patreon, etc.), could sue (and win) for the takedown of a fair use video. If there was precedent for being liable for frivolous takedown claims, that might serve as a deterrent to additional frivolous takedowns.
pixelbath 10y ago
This is not a copyright issue, which is the problem here. YouTube allows "copyright holders" to file a DMCA claim which usually results in an immediate takedown and strike against the video uploader's account. It's a bit draconian, but you can thank US legislation for that beauty.
Mithaldu 10y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if the texture of the model in the mod is a photo published by samsung in some way, meaning they would have a copyright on the texture, and publishing a video made with the mod made with the texture would indeed be a legit copyright violation. Keep in mind that in general all gameplay videos are copyright violations because they display copies of textures belonging to video game studios, just usually the studios don't do anything about it since it's actually free advertisement.
- robterrell 10y ago
  That's not how copyright works. The forms of intellectual property protection that apply to the Note 7 simply don't apply to a texture in a video game that is video-captured. Even setting aside the broad protections given to parodies (in the US at least.) Whoever made the texture in the mod owns the copyright to that texture. Even assuming it's made from a photo of an actual Note 7, the copyright is still that artist's, not Samsung's. Think about the implications -- can Samsung assert copyright over any real-world photograph of any person holding a Note 7? Of course not. Samsung probably has some design patents on the Note 7, but that means you can't manufacture phones with the same design. It doesn't mean you can't distribute images of that design.
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    > Whoever made the texture in the mod owns the copyright to that texture. Yes, and i'm saying it is possible they didn't make the texture, but downloaded a jpg from Samsung's website and used that directly, in which case Samsung would have a solid and legit case. The entire rest of your post assumes i had said something else, so i hope you don't mind i skip it.
    - ghurtado 10y ago
      > The entire rest of your post assumes i had said something else, so i hope you don't mind i skip it. It's a shame that you don't have time to read the rest of the comment, because it explains why your view of how copyright works is incorrect. Your videogame footage example makes this very clear.
takeda 10y ago
YouTube goes beyond copyright, and totally ignoring fair use, there's also no neutral third party that you could ask to review. I had a situation recently by uploading a dashcam video recently, it had song played from a radio and it got flagged. I appealed from it that it is fair use (no monetary gain, it doesn't affect their sales (very bad quality, not whole song), it's not center part of the video (in fact I would prefer if it wasn't there). The studio owning the song responded that blocking it is still valid and youtube informed me that I can appeal again, but if I lose again I can lose my account, which at that point I gave up. I doubt that studio has any consequences for labeling things incorrectly.
beedogs 10y ago
It's not a copyright issue. What Samsung is doing (filing phony DMCA takedown complaints) is completely illegal.

By uploading a parody video of a Samsung Galaxy exploding, I don't understand how there is a law being broken? Can someone explain how this is a copyright issue?

jnagro 10y ago

You're right. Satire is fair use.

thinkMOAR 10y ago
Unless you do satire about dictators and parties alike. And samsung is behaving a bit weird about this all.
1_2__3 10y ago
This isn't even a fair use defense, and I'm utterly baffled why anyone (let alone most people) in this thread seems to think it is. Copyright does not protect Samsung from having their products rendered (in other words, I'm not breaking the law by drawing a picture of a Samsung phone) or their name mentioned. Copyright does not protect marks, that's Trademarks. Copyright does not protect basic look and feel. There's no fair use defense here because there is no legitimate claim of infringement. Just because someone at Samsung clicked the "this is infringing" box does not A) make it true, or B) require the video author to defend themselves. This is basically like Samsung trying to DMCA a newspaper from mentioning their name or publishing a picture of their phone.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Declanomous 10y ago
  >This is basically like Samsung trying to DMCA a newspaper from mentioning their name or publishing a picture of their phone. I have no doubt that companies would do that if they could. Fortunately such draconian censorship methods aren't as effective against print media, especially when said media is ephemeral in the first place. If the goal of the DMCA is to protect creative works, then it's a huge failure no matter how you look at it. Not only is it being used as a weapon against people who are actually creating innovative and original works, it is useless for protecting those very same individuals. The creative work of individuals is stolen and shared millions of times each day on sites like Facebook, imgur, tumblr, and instagram, generating ad revenue for the parent site, and followers for the pages and individuals committing the thefts, and leaving the creators of the content with nothing. You can submit a takedown request as an individual, but by the time it's honored the post was old news anyways. I don't have YouTube right now, but here's an article that gives a good rundown of the Facebook video controversy: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-facebook-is-stealing-billions-of-views-youtube-video-goes-viral-2015-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/how-facebook-is-stealing-bill... Edit: And another link which goes in to a bit more depth: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-copyright-infringement-facebook-content-id-celebrities-2015-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-copyright-infringeme...
6stringmerc 10y ago
Quick clarification: Parody is Fair Use protected, Satire is not. There's a distinct difference. For a real-world, tech/music battle that showed how true this distinction is, research GoldiBlox vs. Beastie Boys (settled out of court).

Grazester 10y ago

I wonder if in the mod Samsung's name and Galaxy brand was used and if they would have a case therefore.

matthewmacleod 10y ago
No, this would not be the case.
mickronome 10y ago
Trademark defenses mostly only applies if it is a satirical or parochial product, and even then rather weakly. The song 'Barbie girl' is a good example where a trademark was used for profit, but the court upheld the parody exemption. Satire is in some cases more weakly protected than satire, but mostly if the satire is only using the mark, but not as much if it is critical at something covered by the mark. Found lots of interesting case references in http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506_outline.pdf http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectu...

amorphid 10y ago

I wonder if a larger Youtuber, someone who makes several thousand per video (advertising, Patreon, etc.), could sue (and win) for the takedown of a fair use video. If there was precedent for being liable for frivolous takedown claims, that might serve as a deterrent to additional frivolous takedowns.

pixelbath 10y ago

This is not a copyright issue, which is the problem here. YouTube allows "copyright holders" to file a DMCA claim which usually results in an immediate takedown and strike against the video uploader's account. It's a bit draconian, but you can thank US legislation for that beauty.

Mithaldu 10y ago

I wouldn't be surprised if the texture of the model in the mod is a photo published by samsung in some way, meaning they would have a copyright on the texture, and publishing a video made with the mod made with the texture would indeed be a legit copyright violation. Keep in mind that in general all gameplay videos are copyright violations because they display copies of textures belonging to video game studios, just usually the studios don't do anything about it since it's actually free advertisement.

robterrell 10y ago
That's not how copyright works. The forms of intellectual property protection that apply to the Note 7 simply don't apply to a texture in a video game that is video-captured. Even setting aside the broad protections given to parodies (in the US at least.) Whoever made the texture in the mod owns the copyright to that texture. Even assuming it's made from a photo of an actual Note 7, the copyright is still that artist's, not Samsung's. Think about the implications -- can Samsung assert copyright over any real-world photograph of any person holding a Note 7? Of course not. Samsung probably has some design patents on the Note 7, but that means you can't manufacture phones with the same design. It doesn't mean you can't distribute images of that design.
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  > Whoever made the texture in the mod owns the copyright to that texture. Yes, and i'm saying it is possible they didn't make the texture, but downloaded a jpg from Samsung's website and used that directly, in which case Samsung would have a solid and legit case. The entire rest of your post assumes i had said something else, so i hope you don't mind i skip it.
  - ghurtado 10y ago
    > The entire rest of your post assumes i had said something else, so i hope you don't mind i skip it. It's a shame that you don't have time to read the rest of the comment, because it explains why your view of how copyright works is incorrect. Your videogame footage example makes this very clear.

takeda 10y ago

YouTube goes beyond copyright, and totally ignoring fair use, there's also no neutral third party that you could ask to review. I had a situation recently by uploading a dashcam video recently, it had song played from a radio and it got flagged. I appealed from it that it is fair use (no monetary gain, it doesn't affect their sales (very bad quality, not whole song), it's not center part of the video (in fact I would prefer if it wasn't there). The studio owning the song responded that blocking it is still valid and youtube informed me that I can appeal again, but if I lose again I can lose my account, which at that point I gave up. I doubt that studio has any consequences for labeling things incorrectly.

beedogs 10y ago

It's not a copyright issue. What Samsung is doing (filing phony DMCA takedown complaints) is completely illegal.