Re: The sounds of Silence (My 1st YouTube video)
- Hi, Hanaa, Vance and All
Actually, there is little to worry about for videos on YouTube. They have a video identification software that matches new videos with the ones deposited by content owners who have chosen to partner with YouTube.
So when there is a match, the identification software sends an alert to the uploader and to the presumed content owner. The alert to the uploader says:
"Dear [uploader's YT nick],
Your video, [video title], may have content that is owned orï»¿ licensed by [presumed content owner].
No action is required on your part; however, if you are interested in learning how this affects your video, please visit the Content ID Matches section of your account for more information."
In the Content ID Matches section, you can click on the View Copyright Info button: the new page repeats the content of the alert, and gives a link to a new page on the words "I want to learn more about the dispute process."
This new page first lists invalid reasons to dispute a claim, and then valid reasons:
" * The content was misidentified.
Your original content was misidentified; for example, your family picnic was mistakenly identified as a scene from The Godfather. Mistakes of this type are very rare but possible.
* You have the right to use the content online.
You have written permission from the content owner to use the material on YouTube.
* Fair Use / Fair Dealing
If you believe your use meets the legal requirements for exemption from copyright under appropriate law, you can dispute the claim. If you are unsure, you should seek legal counsel before submitting a dispute."
That's where I stopped when I got the automatic alert from the matching software for "VÃ©zelay, Church and Hill (with easily-made captions)" <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbNI9dBtDRw> for "content that is owned orï»¿ licensed by unesco", even though the info page about disputing a claim also has a link to a form for actually disputing the claim.
I stopped here because a) the video was still available; b) UNESCO is in France and I in Switzerland, and there is no "fair use" or "fair dealing" in the copyright laws of either country, but copyright limitations for accessibility and educational use.
Instead, I copied the alert in the comments of the video, summarized the info about good reasons for disputing a claim, and added:
"This captioned version fits 2 copyright limitations, regarding a) conferring access to people with disabilities: deafness here; b) education as captions enable access to people with no or little command of English.
However, if UNESCO doesï»¿ not agree that the mentioned limitations apply and has this video deleted by YT, it would not matter - provided they start captioning their World Heritage videos in the same way."
A few days later, UNESCO chose to claim the video but to let it stand. That was nice of them (q). Other content owners - especially big music producers - may not be as open-minded.
(1) Well, I *would* have prefered that they delete my video and start caption the ones in their World Heritage YouTube playlist in the same way, as I explained in the "Post Scriptum" of <http://etcjournal.com/2010/06/16/captioning_unescos_world_heritage_videos>, but that's another story.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "hanaakhamis" <hanaakhs@...> wrote:
> Dear Vance and all...
> I've been concerned about matter this for months: whether or not I've violated any copyrights. From what you've said, does my video remix fall under fair use? Should I rest assured?
> --- In email@example.com, "vance_stevens" <vstevens@> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I know a little about this topic because my son made a video of one of our dive trips and put a Celine Dion sound track on it. The video did not appear online and on investigation we found that a copyright notice had been filed on Glenn's use of the sound track. This happened almost immediately after he posted the video at YouTube
> > http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=83756&hl=en-US.
> > So it appears that where the users intent is non-profit, where the purpose in using the work is to further social or cultural good (or critique), where only a portion of the work (no more than is necessary) is taken, and where the copyright owner's market is not compromised, this constitutes fair use. On that last point, some copyright holders surely realize that their market is often enhanced when their works are further embedded in popular culture and zeitgeist.
> > Vance