#1  
Old 09-04-2009, 12:22 PM
Nino Nino is offline
Banned
Nino Giannotti
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,174
Nino will become famous soon enough
Default Watermark your work

Modern problems, station runs exclusive competitor's video after it was posted on Youtube
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-04-2009, 01:04 PM
Max Girth's Avatar
Max Girth Max Girth is offline
Member
Nate Weaver
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 321
Max Girth is on a distinguished road
Default

The modern problem here as I see it is that stations are so competitive that somebody convinced themselves that this was alright and they could defend it.

That's some bad lawyering there, Lou.
__________________

Director


DP
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-04-2009, 06:06 PM
MtnShooter's Avatar
MtnShooter MtnShooter is offline
Guest
Charles Newcomb
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 568
MtnShooter is on a distinguished road
Default

"Trust everyone; but brand your cattle." Cowboy poet.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-04-2009, 10:21 PM
rb21089 rb21089 is offline
Member
Ryan Bernat
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 45
rb21089 is on a distinguished road
Default

Watermarking will probably annoy some viewers, but at this point, it's probably the only way to protect your work online.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-04-2009, 11:04 PM
phxtvwatcher's Avatar
phxtvwatcher phxtvwatcher is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 149
phxtvwatcher
Default

I don't know but it sounds like it wasn't the station who posted it on Youtube. If someone else records the station and puts it on youtube, they're not going to watermark it.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-05-2009, 07:45 AM
Dan R.'s Avatar
Dan R. Dan R. is offline
Member
Dan Robinson
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 173
Dan R.
Default

It's amazing to me how uneducated TV stations are in general about the basics of IP law. In this case, both stations - the offending station has no clue the liability they incurred and the jilted station has no idea what they could have done about it legally. I guess in this case the ignorance of the law with both parties just canceled each other out.

I know of photographers who have successfully brought copyright infringement suits against stations (some in high markets) and won easily. Fair use is a bogus defense here, regardless of where the footage was lifted from.
__________________
Dan Robinson - St. Louis
stormhighway.com
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-05-2009, 07:58 AM
Tv Shooter's Avatar
Tv Shooter Tv Shooter is offline
PRO user
Richard Campbell
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,055
Tv Shooter is on a distinguished road
Default

Actually-when you post on Youtube, you give Google the right to use your video as they see fit. If WFTV is the one that posted the video, then they gave YouTube the use and license for the video. By crediting YouTube, they can rightfully air the video, since YouTube has the right to allow others to use it.

The article does not make it clear as to whom posted the video....but I suspect WFTV did. In that case WFTV grants the right to use the video.


From YouTube's Terms of Service:

For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-05-2009, 08:32 AM
Lensmith's Avatar
Lensmith Lensmith is offline
Member
John DuMontelle
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 4,607
Lensmith is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tv Shooter View Post
From YouTube's Terms of Service:

For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service.
I too saw it came from youtube and knew they had given up some rights.

I also know the history behind this issue in that market and the ND who is now complaining the loudest...has done the very same thing himself in the past.

Pot/kettle/black
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-05-2009, 08:39 AM
AlexLucas's Avatar
AlexLucas AlexLucas is offline
Member
Alex Lucas
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 825
AlexLucas is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lensmith View Post
I too saw it came from youtube and knew they had given up some rights.

I also know the history behind this issue in that market and the ND who is now complaining the loudest...has done the very same thing himself in the past.

Pot/kettle/black

So this is a behavior that is going on in that market.
Double Ouch.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-07-2009, 01:14 AM
Larry R. Erickson Larry R. Erickson is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 124
Larry R. Erickson
Default

A little clarifying point from my understanding of legal-eze. The YouTube terms of service as stated above do not in fact give YouTube or Google the right to use video submissions as they see fit, at any rate it does not allow them to give video to a competing news entity for their own broadcast on the air.

Please note that the language that you all believe is giving up the copyrights to your work is actually the right for YouTube to show and distribute the video on their website, and for promotion of the website, and for users to view your work and use the embed player that will link or play those videos on their web pages, like My Space, etc. This language is to prevent "Joe the Plumber" from creating a page, posting, get famous and then come back to YouTube and say - Hey, you should pay me some money to have my famous face on your website and bring in 200,000 people per week to you, after all you didnt have any agreement from me for you to use my work and image.......

Sorry I dont get how you think if you upload a video to them under this language that automatically you are loosing your copyright and they or anyone can take your video and use it, especially OUTSIDE YouTube, and broadcast or reproduce it in some other way. It just does not say that. I cant imagine that it would be legal and stay that way for very long even if it did.

On that note and this topic of the tv station taking it from the other. Take a look at this language from YouTube.

4. General Use of the Website - Permissions and Restrictions

A. You agree not to distribute in any medium any part of the Website, including but not limited to User Submissions (defined below), without YouTube's prior written authorization.

C. You agree not to access User Submissions (defined below) or YouTube Content through any technology or means other than the video playback pages of the Website itself, the YouTube Embeddable Player, or other explicitly authorized means YouTube may designate.

and this seems very clear....

You may access User Submissions for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the YouTube Website. You shall not copy or download any User Submission unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the YouTube Website for that User Submission.

also....

You agree to not engage in the use, copying, or distribution of any of the Content other than expressly permitted herein, including any use, copying, or distribution of User Submissions of third parties obtained through the Website for any commercial purposes.

So....

I dont think that the violating TV station has a leg to stand on...

...and your right that TV people seem to not have any clue about anything other than "if theres pictures in the air we can snatch and use it"...... photographers? they dont pay bills like the rest of us, do they!!

Always amazed at how different in use rights and payment Television is from Publishing. Why do you suppose that is?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-07-2009, 09:15 AM
Lensmith's Avatar
Lensmith Lensmith is offline
Member
John DuMontelle
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 4,607
Lensmith is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry R. Erickson View Post
A little clarifying point from my understanding of legal-eze. The YouTube terms of service as stated above do not in fact give YouTube or Google the right to use video submissions as they see fit, at any rate it does not allow them to give video to a competing news entity for their own broadcast on the air.
Youtube does NOT actively do anything to give the video to others to use for broadcast. They are not "giving it" to anyone. BUT because the video is on their site, television stations around the country take that video for their own purposes figuring all they have to do is run a youtube credit when it is used during a news story.

This happens every day at both network and local television stations with no legal repercussions.

Youtube video has become similar to what many music download sites used to be. A place for people to shop for video and then use it without paying anyone or worrying about legal rights to that video.

Youtube is quite clear...if you post video on their site you, as the poster, lose exclusive rights to that video. Some networks and television stations will, after some of their video has been posted without their consent, contact youtube to have it removed. But by then it is usually too late.

Not to mention many times the person who posts the video to youtube never had the rights to it in the first place. But that's exactly the reason youtube has all that legalize in their statement helping them wash their hands of any legal responsibility as to how it is used by others.

Protecting copyright has always been left up to the person who owns the rights to the material. No one else is going to do it for them. And with so much video being posted every hour on the internet, the shear volume of material makes the job of policing copyright, then enforcing it, next to impossible.

Such is the life of video and video rights in todays' world. I am not saying it is right. I am simply pointing out the obvious... it is a very common practice to use youtube video and not worry about rights when it is to be used in a television news story.

There may be a rare story or two that I'm not familiar with of someone getting money from someone else who used their video illegally after it was posted on youtube. But that is the exception and not the rule in the real world at present.

Until the ability to police and enforce copyright laws are followed through on, I don't expect to see anyone stopping youtube video from being used in a television news story. Even if it is under the weak excuse of "fair use".
__________________

Last edited by Lensmith; 09-07-2009 at 02:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-07-2009, 11:13 AM
Dan R.'s Avatar
Dan R. Dan R. is offline
Member
Dan Robinson
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 173
Dan R.
Default

For the person who decides to pursue a case like this, it's a legal slam dunk. The only reason it isn't pursued more often is that most infringees doesn't know how strong of a case they have. The YouTube legalese only gives the user the right to redistribute the video in connection with the YouTube website itself (via viewing on the site or with YouTube's embedding tools) - anything outside of that isn't valid.

The attorney that handles my IP has successfully settled other similar cases with TV stations. Some may surprise you if you heard which ones. 'Fair use' may be a good smoke and mirrors tactic to try to intimidate the infringee who doesn't know his rights, but once a good attorney is involved, it will not stand up either then nor in court.
__________________
Dan Robinson - St. Louis
stormhighway.com
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 1996-2009 b-roll.net

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:06 AM.