3 ms·

I learned the hard way that youtube is not useful for sharing family videos with a limited audience (ie: immediate family. 10 people, tops.). I uploaded my ch

I learned the hard way that youtube is not useful for sharing family videos with a limited audience (ie: immediate family. 10 people, tops.). I uploaded my children's dance recital video, as an unlisted video, and earned myself a copyright strike because of the background music.

Someone1234 8y ago
Copyright strikes are automatic, and you can dispute ones like that as fair usage.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  Since when is recording and publicly publishing a performance that includes copyrighted music licensed for public performance as part of a live event but specifically and explicitly not for rerecording and distribution (as would normally be the case for the type of recital described, assuming the dance studio was on the ball with licensing) fair use?
  - MagicPropmaker 8y ago
    You are absolutely right, of course. The person who thinks this is "fair use" is a worse than a thief. The thief knows he's doing something wrong (has a moral compass). This guy just rationalizes his theft.
  - jasonjayr 8y ago
    Just to take this a little step further 1) Purpose: to illustrate the efforts of my young children in a non-professional context, not to showcase the audio portion of the recording. 2) Nature: audio + video, with explicit permission to record from the show executive/directors (it was a rehearsal, professionals recorded the actual show) and focus on the visual and physical nature of the unique performance 3) amount: abridged songs, amateurishly cut and remixed 4) effect on potential market: There is no way this is a substitute for any of the original copyrighted audio, and I communicate this intent to youtube by requesting it remain unlisted. It probably does pass the four factor fair use test, but fighting with the youtube contentid machine is futile, and their system doesn't care about fair use.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    It absolutely is fair use. Let's consider: - the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; Which is non-commercial. - the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Which is to none. There's also a question of if a video containing a bad transfer of a piece of music along with children dancing is "transformative." See Lenz v. Universal Music Corp, where Universal Music got destroyed all the way up to SCOTUS for ignoring Fair Usage when taking down a video of a dancing baby. Your whole argument seems to be based on some fictional contractual agreement between the dance studio and the music's owners. That isn't relevant to the discussion at all, a parent recorded and distributed, not the dance studio themselves for commercial purposes.

Someone1234 8y ago

dragonwriter 8y ago
Since when is recording and publicly publishing a performance that includes copyrighted music licensed for public performance as part of a live event but specifically and explicitly not for rerecording and distribution (as would normally be the case for the type of recital described, assuming the dance studio was on the ball with licensing) fair use?
- MagicPropmaker 8y ago
  You are absolutely right, of course. The person who thinks this is "fair use" is a worse than a thief. The thief knows he's doing something wrong (has a moral compass). This guy just rationalizes his theft.
- jasonjayr 8y ago
  Just to take this a little step further 1) Purpose: to illustrate the efforts of my young children in a non-professional context, not to showcase the audio portion of the recording. 2) Nature: audio + video, with explicit permission to record from the show executive/directors (it was a rehearsal, professionals recorded the actual show) and focus on the visual and physical nature of the unique performance 3) amount: abridged songs, amateurishly cut and remixed 4) effect on potential market: There is no way this is a substitute for any of the original copyrighted audio, and I communicate this intent to youtube by requesting it remain unlisted. It probably does pass the four factor fair use test, but fighting with the youtube contentid machine is futile, and their system doesn't care about fair use.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  It absolutely is fair use. Let's consider: - the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; Which is non-commercial. - the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Which is to none. There's also a question of if a video containing a bad transfer of a piece of music along with children dancing is "transformative." See Lenz v. Universal Music Corp, where Universal Music got destroyed all the way up to SCOTUS for ignoring Fair Usage when taking down a video of a dancing baby. Your whole argument seems to be based on some fictional contractual agreement between the dance studio and the music's owners. That isn't relevant to the discussion at all, a parent recorded and distributed, not the dance studio themselves for commercial purposes.