3 ms·
His only recurse might be to sue both Youtube and Universal seeking a declaratory judgement the work doesn't infringe copyright under the fair use doctrine, inj
by vpeters25 14y ago
His only recurse might be to sue both Youtube and Universal seeking a declaratory judgement the work doesn't infringe copyright under the fair use doctrine, injunction to have it reinstated and another injunction forbidding both Youtube and Universal from ever removing it again subject to a massive fine/day.
A good lawyer could even get slander of title up there against Universal for claiming copyright on a video which they clearly don't own, in which case he could get a nice paycheck out of the lawsuit. They could also stick some RICO act in there.
The question is whether suing would be worth the trouble, maybe the EFF would be open to pursue such case to set case law and make an example of them to the rest of the copyright mafia.
- comex 14y agoExcept that YouTube is under no obligation to host his video and is free to remove it for any or no reason, so it couldn't be forced to reinstate the video.
- vpeters25 14y agoYeah, but it is removing it because Universal is claiming it owns the copyright of it, that's slander of title afaik.
- roel_v 14y ago"under the fair use doctrine," You either didn't read the article or missed the point completely, 'fair use' has no relationship whatsoever to this case. Youtube is free to host the video or not, at their discretion, regardless of copyright law. "A good lawyer could even get slander of title up there against Universal for claiming copyright on a video which they clearly don't own, in which case he could get a nice paycheck out of the lawsuit. They could also stick some RICO act in there." Please don't make uninformed legal claims of things you obviously know nothing about.