AydinPie 19 August 8, 2014 Share August 8, 2014 I make PMV's and am tired of Hasbro suggesting the play of their videos during mine, and linking their videos/record companies songs next to the description on my videos. To my knowledge as long as I'm not profiting off the videos through monetization or any other format (Patreon should be fine but I don't even do that), then I should be protected by "fair use", specifically: Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. I should technically be able to monetize videos with copyrighted songs and video under protection of the production of satirical content, stating that the satire lies within the juxtaposition between the song and said clips. But if I'm not monetizing in anyway then am I safe to dispute copyright claims? If not then why am I not allowed to dispute the claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna 831 465 August 9, 2014 Share August 9, 2014 I know in copyright law that is Hasbro property. They are allowed to link there videos from your youtube video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanks 10,811 August 9, 2014 Share August 9, 2014 Because "fair use" law is selectively enforced and dosen't have as much teeth as it should. Big corporations have a much easier time claiming fair use than you or I do because they have the lawyers and resources to back up those claims and we don't. So you could challenge them on fair use but even if you manage to win it could bankrupt you while the company just ends up spending what for them would be a drop in the bucket. Copyright law needs to be changed which is why I made this thread. http://mlpforums.com/topic/49035-what-do-you-think-about-copyrighttrademark-laws/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mae Borowski 356 August 9, 2014 Share August 9, 2014 Because "fair use" law is selectively enforced and dosen't have as much teeth as it should. Big corporations have a much easier time claiming fair use than you or I do because they have the lawyers and resources to back up those claims and we don't. So you could challenge them on fair use but even if you manage to win it could bankrupt you while the company just ends up spending what for them would be a drop in the bucket. Copyright law needs to be changed which is why I made this thread. http://mlpforums.com/topic/49035-what-do-you-think-about-copyrighttrademark-laws/ fair use isnt necessarily enforced, if you own something its YOURS, Fair Use is usually described as such: Fair use is a limitation and exceptionto the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AydinPie 19 August 9, 2014 Author Share August 9, 2014 I agree with your premise but I think the copyright law is fine, but needs its own enforcement out of courts, and neither google nor were youtube capable/willing to step in and defend smaller content producers. I think copyright law works because it properly protects those with intellectual and creative properties while leaving an open space for independent content to create things based off another's content as long as credit is given and they can't make money off it. While I may personally disagree with the last point I understand it and accept it as legitimate I know that Hasbro's legal team could take down any of my videos even if I do except the claim and let them do what they will, but I was wondering if from a legally impartial stand point I would be in the right to dispute a copyright claim if it was fair use Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanks 10,811 August 9, 2014 Share August 9, 2014 fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Yes, but limited use is very different than no use whatsoever. A lot of these companies will go after people even when they have a strong fair use claim yet will hypocritically claim "fair use" when it is convenient to them. Your average person more often than not gets intimidated and can't fight back, what is the point of calling it fair use when a company can come in and claim that it is not even when it clearly is? Fair use should mean precisely as you have described however more often than not companies will only respect this when it directly benefits them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handmade 46 August 9, 2014 Share August 9, 2014 The reason why disputing copyright claims relating to music/television programs is a unstable debate is because 'fair use' has specific requirements. Fair Use requires the content to be used in either Commentary/Criticism, Parody, as well as Educational Purposes. PMV/AMV's do not fall into any of those, seeing how it is simply using copyrighted audio with copyrighted video content. Regardless of the non-profitization of said videos, it does not fall into fair use, thus cannot be legally backed up for distribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon 4,554 August 9, 2014 Share August 9, 2014 Fair use is a very complicated and difficult thing to interpret and enforce. It's not as easy as plugging something into a formula to find out if it's fair use or not... a court looks at several factors such as whether or not it was used for an educational purpose, whether or not the person made money off of the product, etc. Then after they look at these factors they weight them all and decide whether on hand it is something which should fall into fair use. Different courts can decide the same issue differently because it's a weighing mechanism. People think a lot of stuff falls into fair use, but in reality, it's an exceedingly rarely used exception. Furthermore, fair use isn't necessarily something that gives you rights to use the video, it's a defense. A company like Youtube can allow or deny any video they want for any reason. Because fair use is so difficult to interpret, they have no obligation to allow you to keep a video on their site because it falls into fair use. Instead, they can simply delete any video which is not clearly the poster's IP. Doing this keeps Youtube free from any liability should it turn out that you don't have a fair use exception. All this boils down to two things... one is that your video in all likelihood is not fair use. It's not nearly as common of a thing as you think... without it being used for a purpose such as an educational use, it's probably not going to qualify, and certainly it won't qualify if you monetize it and do not have one of those more acceptable purposes. The second is that even if you are a fair use video, you'll probably never know unless Hasbro sues you, which they won't. This is because no website has any obligation to keep up potentially copyrighted materials, and in fact does have certain obligations to take it down if they are notified that the property is copyrighted. It sucks, but that's the current status of the law in the U.S. so there's not a lot you can do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mae Borowski 356 August 9, 2014 Share August 9, 2014 The reason why disputing copyright claims relating to music/television programs is a unstable debate is because 'fair use' has specific requirements. Fair Use requires the content to be used in either Commentary/Criticism, Parody, as well as Educational Purposes. PMV/AMV's do not fall into any of those, seeing how it is simply using copyrighted audio with copyrighted video content. Regardless of the non-profitization of said videos, it does not fall into fair use, thus cannot be legally backed up for distribution. Basically same as what i was trying to say but more in depth, I applaud you sir/madam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlpfan185 1,763 August 9, 2014 Share August 9, 2014 (edited) Something was here. Something was here. Something was here. Something was here. Edited October 10, 2018 by NONAME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheeryFox 23,811 August 9, 2014 Share August 9, 2014 Are we discussing YouTube? Let me get all my lolz out first. OK, that's better. YouTube has been really going down a hill over the past two years or so. Google/YouTube became a corporate boiling pot that just oozes out a bunch of crap, because of stupid, stupid decision-making. But wait, Twitch is feeling it now. Way to go, Google - I'm so proud, (clap-clap). Just like the previous was stated, there's not much you can do. But there's no harm complaining, nope. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanks 10,811 August 9, 2014 Share August 9, 2014 Fair use is a very complicated and difficult thing to interpret and enforce. And that is precisely the problem, if laws are so needlessly complicated and convoluted than who does that benefit? Not the average person that is for sure but it does benefit large corporations that can afford as many lawyers as they need to help them through it which spits in the face of equal protection under the law if you ask me. Companies can also buy out politicians in order to alter said laws in their favor which they have done in past and are trying to do again now. There is indeed not much we can do under the current system but why we should we keep the current system? What value is there in a system where those with the gold make the rules and can change them seemingly on a whim? I know more about this subject than your average person does but even I didn't understand the difference between copyright and patent until Feld0 explained it and I am not ashamed to say that I didn't know this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonBrony 1,467 August 9, 2014 Share August 9, 2014 (edited) I make PMV's and am tired of Hasbro suggesting the play of their videos during mine, and linking their videos/record companies songs next to the description on my videos. To my knowledge as long as I'm not profiting off the videos through monetization or any other format (Patreon should be fine but I don't even do that), then I should be protected by "fair use", specifically: Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. I should technically be able to monetize videos with copyrighted songs and video under protection of the production of satirical content, stating that the satire lies within the juxtaposition between the song and said clips. But if I'm not monetizing in anyway then am I safe to dispute copyright claims? If not then why am I not allowed to dispute the claim? Dude that aint Hasbro C&D's that's Youtube's stupid ID content thing. Youtube made an AI that would automatically take away monetization off peoples videos if it catches any copyright issues. Buuuut it can be complete bullshit at times. Don't be mad at Hasbro be mad at Youtube. Edited August 9, 2014 by AnonBrony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AydinPie 19 August 9, 2014 Author Share August 9, 2014 Dude that aint Hasbro C&D's that's Youtube's stupid ID content thing. Youtube made an AI that would automatically take away monetization off peoples videos if it catches any copyright issues. Buuuut it can be complete bullshit at times. Don't be mad at Hasbro be mad at Youtube. Yes but once I say "nope its fair use" youtube steps out of the ring and in comes Hasbro, as it becomes there responsibility to deal with potentially copyrighted information, and I'm not angry with anyone and certainly not Hasbro. If anyone then I'm upset with there legal team as (if you watched Jan and Shady at Galacon they went over this) they often don't even talk to Hasbro about what they take down, they take it down at there own discretion, but with the sheer amount of pony content releases so often I can understand why its hard to give every video the time it deserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonBrony 1,467 August 9, 2014 Share August 9, 2014 Yes but once I say "nope its fair use" youtube steps out of the ring and in comes Hasbro, as it becomes there responsibility to deal with potentially copyrighted information, and I'm not angry with anyone and certainly not Hasbro. If anyone then I'm upset with there legal team as (if you watched Jan and Shady at Galacon they went over this) they often don't even talk to Hasbro about what they take down, they take it down at there own discretion, but with the sheer amount of pony content releases so often I can understand why its hard to give every video the time it deserves. Has Hasbro's legal team even responded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AydinPie 19 August 9, 2014 Author Share August 9, 2014 Has Hasbro's legal team even responded? I've always just accepted the copyright claim, but I know people who had there videos taken down for not accepting the claim, so if that counts as a response then yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Join the herd!Sign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now