4 ms·

I really dislike DMCA takedowns, but am I the only one who thinks 26 seconds is actually quite a long time--especially for a product of this caliber? That repre

by warent 7y ago

I really dislike DMCA takedowns, but am I the only one who thinks 26 seconds is actually quite a long time--especially for a product of this caliber? That represents basically a full teaser trailer.

pavel_lishin 7y ago
What ratio of length-to-caliber is appropriate?
- krustyburger 7y ago
  It’s all about how you use it.
monadic2 7y ago
It's clearly fair use.
legitster 7y ago
It was a 40 minute video. 26 seconds is barely anything. Not that it should matter for the purposes of fair use. > especially for a product of this caliber Do more valuable IPs get more legal rights? Or is the implication that this property transcends normal importance?
- JakeTheAndroid 7y ago
  I read this as larger entities have quicker response times for DMCAing their own IP. Not that larger entities have more rights, although I would expect in practice they do as they have more money for lawyers to get the law interpreted in their favor.
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  To use copyright material as fair-use you [edit: usually] need to transform the work or add value in some way. A reaction video where you show the full trailer and just say "wow" would not be protected. 40 minutes of discussion is almost certainly enough. There's a balance though, and the more "valuable" or "hot" the IP is the higher the bar is probably going to be set. You also have to use as little of the underlying work as possible. If this was a 30s trailer and he used 26s of it, that's a lot, but again 40m of discussion on top of that probably warrants it.
  - smacktoward 7y ago
    > To use copyright material as fair-use you need to transform the work or add value in some way. This is not true. Transformative use is just one of four factors a court would look at to determine whether a use is fair or not (see https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/). A use doesn't have to have all four factors apply to it in order to be fair. Transformative uses are more likely to be judged as fair than non-transformative ones, but there can be cases where non-transformative uses are fair. (And even putting that aside, using a portion of a copyrighted work in order to create a new, unique work commenting on it could be considered transformative of the original.)
    - henryfjordan 7y ago
      Yes, thank you for clarifying. I have heard of takedowns / copyright claims on videos because of some song playing in the background while they film in a public space (think the radio playing in a store while someone films themselves shopping), so that might be one case you could argue fair-use without transformation of the underlying work. I wouldn't ever want to be in that position though.
      - Keverw 7y ago
        There's a guy with a YouTube channel called "YouTuber Law" [0] but he quit uploading about 7 months ago. Some guy from Miami, he seemed pretty cool for a lawyer too since I figured most wouldn't even want to touch YouTube or show their face on YouTube so seemed like a very likable relatable guy, and seemed to be using tech for advantaged to build up his brand. Looks like he's still updating his playlists though even though inactive, was a bit worried something might have had happened to him. I forget the specific video, but I know one of them he mentioned something about incidental use. So a short amount of music picked up in the background could be ok, but you on propose playing music yourself or adding it in via editing could be looked at different... So a TV in the background at a noisy bar would be viewed differently than a TV on in your own living room that you can contorl while you ramble on about a topic. I guess that's mostly though for people who do vlogging about their life though. But it's a balancing and judgement call, probably depends on how loud the music is too... Think say vloggers who cover theme parks for example, probably music and a lot of other ambient noises but the music isn't the main focus. So maybe you want to say something to your vlog but maybe it's better to wait to your at another spot if possible. [0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgUkWtBuxh-2jK0aBWoSXw/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgUkWtBuxh-2jK0aBWoSXw/vid...
TaylorAlexander 7y ago
It should be noted, this was two 13 second clips of the publicly available trailer. So the content isn’t even paywalled normally. What is the point of copyright if it’s being used to prevent discussion of a freely available work?
Barrin92 7y ago
> That represents basically a full teaser trailer. The footage he took was literally taken from the publicly available trailer. Reactions to trailers are quite common on youtube and generally don't appear to be taken down. I question what the value of this for CBS is anyway because I doubt the few hundred bucks they theoretically lose from the youtube ad-revenue for the trailer aren't more than compensated by the attention that Angry Joe draws to the show. Not to mention that anyone who watches 40 minutes of star trek analysis has likely clicked on the trailer a while ago.
- hombre_fatal 7y ago
  He was also in the foreground talking about it while it played.
jandrese 7y ago
26 seconds of a 50 minute show? 0.87% of the show is too much for fair use? I suspect you will in fact be one of the very few who thinks that is too much.
- outworlder 7y ago
  Not of a 50 minute show, it was footage from the trailer itself.
  - jandrese 7y ago
    So it's footage spread out across the entire season then? More like 0.07% of the show? If that can't qualify for fair use then it seems the entire concept of fair use is moot.
    - mlyle 7y ago
      Fair use has basically nothing to do with whether Google decides to keep distributing your video. (And, the portion of the work used is only one part of a multi-pronged test of fair use...)
  - squarefoot 7y ago
    Even if it had been the whole trailer looped 100 times it is utter stupid to take it down. The purpose of a trailer is advertising plain and simple: the more it is seen around the more audience it attracts to the real show. CBS shot their own foot on this one.
    - mlyle 7y ago
      If it's a review, and you'd rather people see different reviews of your show, and you can get youtube to remove it based on using a few seconds of your footage, though...
oh_sigh 7y ago
It was literally 26 seconds from the teaser trailer in 2 13 second chunks.

by warent 7y ago

I really dislike DMCA takedowns, but am I the only one who thinks 26 seconds is actually quite a long time--especially for a product of this caliber? That represents basically a full teaser trailer.

pavel_lishin 7y ago

What ratio of length-to-caliber is appropriate?

krustyburger 7y ago
It’s all about how you use it.

monadic2 7y ago

It's clearly fair use.

legitster 7y ago

It was a 40 minute video. 26 seconds is barely anything. Not that it should matter for the purposes of fair use. > especially for a product of this caliber Do more valuable IPs get more legal rights? Or is the implication that this property transcends normal importance?

JakeTheAndroid 7y ago
I read this as larger entities have quicker response times for DMCAing their own IP. Not that larger entities have more rights, although I would expect in practice they do as they have more money for lawyers to get the law interpreted in their favor.
henryfjordan 7y ago
To use copyright material as fair-use you [edit: usually] need to transform the work or add value in some way. A reaction video where you show the full trailer and just say "wow" would not be protected. 40 minutes of discussion is almost certainly enough. There's a balance though, and the more "valuable" or "hot" the IP is the higher the bar is probably going to be set. You also have to use as little of the underlying work as possible. If this was a 30s trailer and he used 26s of it, that's a lot, but again 40m of discussion on top of that probably warrants it.
- smacktoward 7y ago
  > To use copyright material as fair-use you need to transform the work or add value in some way. This is not true. Transformative use is just one of four factors a court would look at to determine whether a use is fair or not (see https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/). A use doesn't have to have all four factors apply to it in order to be fair. Transformative uses are more likely to be judged as fair than non-transformative ones, but there can be cases where non-transformative uses are fair. (And even putting that aside, using a portion of a copyrighted work in order to create a new, unique work commenting on it could be considered transformative of the original.)
  - henryfjordan 7y ago
    Yes, thank you for clarifying. I have heard of takedowns / copyright claims on videos because of some song playing in the background while they film in a public space (think the radio playing in a store while someone films themselves shopping), so that might be one case you could argue fair-use without transformation of the underlying work. I wouldn't ever want to be in that position though.
    - Keverw 7y ago
      There's a guy with a YouTube channel called "YouTuber Law" [0] but he quit uploading about 7 months ago. Some guy from Miami, he seemed pretty cool for a lawyer too since I figured most wouldn't even want to touch YouTube or show their face on YouTube so seemed like a very likable relatable guy, and seemed to be using tech for advantaged to build up his brand. Looks like he's still updating his playlists though even though inactive, was a bit worried something might have had happened to him. I forget the specific video, but I know one of them he mentioned something about incidental use. So a short amount of music picked up in the background could be ok, but you on propose playing music yourself or adding it in via editing could be looked at different... So a TV in the background at a noisy bar would be viewed differently than a TV on in your own living room that you can contorl while you ramble on about a topic. I guess that's mostly though for people who do vlogging about their life though. But it's a balancing and judgement call, probably depends on how loud the music is too... Think say vloggers who cover theme parks for example, probably music and a lot of other ambient noises but the music isn't the main focus. So maybe you want to say something to your vlog but maybe it's better to wait to your at another spot if possible. [0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgUkWtBuxh-2jK0aBWoSXw/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgUkWtBuxh-2jK0aBWoSXw/vid...

TaylorAlexander 7y ago

It should be noted, this was two 13 second clips of the publicly available trailer. So the content isn’t even paywalled normally. What is the point of copyright if it’s being used to prevent discussion of a freely available work?

Barrin92 7y ago

> That represents basically a full teaser trailer. The footage he took was literally taken from the publicly available trailer. Reactions to trailers are quite common on youtube and generally don't appear to be taken down. I question what the value of this for CBS is anyway because I doubt the few hundred bucks they theoretically lose from the youtube ad-revenue for the trailer aren't more than compensated by the attention that Angry Joe draws to the show. Not to mention that anyone who watches 40 minutes of star trek analysis has likely clicked on the trailer a while ago.

hombre_fatal 7y ago
He was also in the foreground talking about it while it played.

jandrese 7y ago

26 seconds of a 50 minute show? 0.87% of the show is too much for fair use? I suspect you will in fact be one of the very few who thinks that is too much.

outworlder 7y ago
Not of a 50 minute show, it was footage from the trailer itself.
- jandrese 7y ago
  So it's footage spread out across the entire season then? More like 0.07% of the show? If that can't qualify for fair use then it seems the entire concept of fair use is moot.
  - mlyle 7y ago
    Fair use has basically nothing to do with whether Google decides to keep distributing your video. (And, the portion of the work used is only one part of a multi-pronged test of fair use...)
- squarefoot 7y ago
  Even if it had been the whole trailer looped 100 times it is utter stupid to take it down. The purpose of a trailer is advertising plain and simple: the more it is seen around the more audience it attracts to the real show. CBS shot their own foot on this one.
  - mlyle 7y ago
    If it's a review, and you'd rather people see different reviews of your show, and you can get youtube to remove it based on using a few seconds of your footage, though...

oh_sigh 7y ago

It was literally 26 seconds from the teaser trailer in 2 13 second chunks.