Poster One
Not only is this not allowed on YouTube, it's against the law. It's
copyright infringement, and the band (or anyone representing them,
such as the record label) has the legal right to demand that YouTube
remove the video. If YouTube have to take down lots of videos from the same account, they will suspend the account.
There is a warning about this clearly displayed on the upload page,
and it is also mentioned in several places in the Help Center and in
the Community Guidelines and Terms of Use.
copyright infringement, and the band (or anyone representing them,
such as the record label) has the legal right to demand that YouTube
remove the video. If YouTube have to take down lots of videos from the same account, they will suspend the account.
There is a warning about this clearly displayed on the upload page,
and it is also mentioned in several places in the Help Center and in
the Community Guidelines and Terms of Use.
Poster Two
Whhoaa, for the first time ever I'm gonna disagree with you on this
one rew. You're being too harsh. I totally agree that this seems
"stupid" and "understandable" at the same time! First of all, this
kind of thing is in the *general realm* of things allowed under Fair
Use (I've read some, not guessing). One could argue 1) promotion of
band, 2) nondefamatory nature, 3) creative use of material.
Secondly, even if the owner is being (IMHO!) kinda anal and won't
allow a fan to spend creative time interpreting their art and
marketing and promoting their work, *and* they're in a position where
a court might agree, I think calling this "not allowed on youtube" is
way too harsh. A HUGE chunk of the vids here are fan tributes,
interpretations, covers, lessons, etc etc, including my whole page and
a fan trailer I just spent a week on, not to mention three full time
month of my life [CRYYYY] covering... cov-- I can't even say it. [If
Holywood records sues me for spending 200 hours fingerstyling a lame
pop song they got somethin' else comin' from me] =P =).
Anyway if that's all "not allowed" around here the staff is in
hibernation! I find 1/3 of the *official* music videos are posted by
fans. You can't say "not allowed", then allow 95% of the offenders,
and criticize the other 5%.
I think the problem here (aside from an anal holder) is that cutting a
song to shots of the band doesn't constitute *enough* of a "creative"
interpretation to be seen as something original. But the issue is
extent. Why the heck should only the obsessive fans (like me) with
infinite time on their hands be allowed to tribute and interpret the
music they love??
Metallica took justifiable action (imho) against the worst Napster
violators suing them for examples, BUT, while I agree with their
feelings, they ended up looking anal and disrespectful to their fans
for being the 0.1% of bands to actually sue their fans for basically
copying tapes for their friends losing the band trillions of dollars.
LASTLY, imho (once again) it is _really_ tactless and professionally
rude (and nonstandard) not to approach the user first unless they are
in total violation and obviously can't be asked nicely to stop.
Companies have too much power. Someone's whole personal site will be
bulldozed for posting a buncha pictures because if your site doesn't
make millions, it's inconsequential.
You're now down to a 4.97 star poster and in my book Rew. I'm gonna
petition for your removal.
one rew. You're being too harsh. I totally agree that this seems
"stupid" and "understandable" at the same time! First of all, this
kind of thing is in the *general realm* of things allowed under Fair
Use (I've read some, not guessing). One could argue 1) promotion of
band, 2) nondefamatory nature, 3) creative use of material.
Secondly, even if the owner is being (IMHO!) kinda anal and won't
allow a fan to spend creative time interpreting their art and
marketing and promoting their work, *and* they're in a position where
a court might agree, I think calling this "not allowed on youtube" is
way too harsh. A HUGE chunk of the vids here are fan tributes,
interpretations, covers, lessons, etc etc, including my whole page and
a fan trailer I just spent a week on, not to mention three full time
month of my life [CRYYYY] covering... cov-- I can't even say it. [If
Holywood records sues me for spending 200 hours fingerstyling a lame
pop song they got somethin' else comin' from me] =P =).
Anyway if that's all "not allowed" around here the staff is in
hibernation! I find 1/3 of the *official* music videos are posted by
fans. You can't say "not allowed", then allow 95% of the offenders,
and criticize the other 5%.
I think the problem here (aside from an anal holder) is that cutting a
song to shots of the band doesn't constitute *enough* of a "creative"
interpretation to be seen as something original. But the issue is
extent. Why the heck should only the obsessive fans (like me) with
infinite time on their hands be allowed to tribute and interpret the
music they love??
Metallica took justifiable action (imho) against the worst Napster
violators suing them for examples, BUT, while I agree with their
feelings, they ended up looking anal and disrespectful to their fans
for being the 0.1% of bands to actually sue their fans for basically
copying tapes for their friends losing the band trillions of dollars.
LASTLY, imho (once again) it is _really_ tactless and professionally
rude (and nonstandard) not to approach the user first unless they are
in total violation and obviously can't be asked nicely to stop.
Companies have too much power. Someone's whole personal site will be
bulldozed for posting a buncha pictures because if your site doesn't
make millions, it's inconsequential.
You're now down to a 4.97 star poster and in my book Rew. I'm gonna
petition for your removal.
Poster One
> Whhoaa, for the first time ever I'm gonna disagree with you on this
> one rew. You're being too harsh. I totally agree that this seems
> "stupid" and "understandable" at the same time! First of all, this
> kind of thing is in the *general realm* of things allowed under Fair
> Use (I've read some, not guessing). One could argue 1) promotion of
> band, 2) nondefamatory nature, 3) creative use of material.
I'm not being harsh; it's the law.
What you need to understand about "Fair use" -- since you've read some
-- is that "fair use" is not a right, it is a defence. And that's the
long and the short of it; if DisturbedGoddess's friend wants to
challenge the takedown, she's free to submit a counter claim; if it
goes to court, that's when she can claim "fair use" -- not before. It
is, in fact, up to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis
whether the defence has any merit -- not YouTube.
Also, you have to understand that "fair use" only applies in US law.
Neither you or I have any idea under which country's laws the
complaint was made -- and no, US law is not the only law which applies
to YouTube, which is why there are two separate ways of submitting a
copyright notification.
> Secondly, even if the owner is being (IMHO!) kinda anal and won't
> allow a fan to spend creative time interpreting their art and
> marketing and promoting their work, *and* they're in a position where
> a court might agree, I think calling this "not allowed on youtube" is
> way too harsh. A HUGE chunk of the vids here are fan tributes,
> interpretations, covers, lessons, etc etc, including my whole page and
> a fan trailer I just spent a week on, not to mention three full time
> month of my life [CRYYYY] covering... cov-- I can't even say it. [If
> Holywood records sues me for spending 200 hours fingerstyling a lame
> pop song they got somethin' else comin' from me] =P =).
It is not allowed on YouTube; that's a fact. A lot of people do get
away with it for a while, but it's still not allowed. This is stated
very clearly in several places, and it is also a matter of
international law.
> Anyway if that's all "not allowed" around here the staff is in
> hibernation! I find 1/3 of the *official* music videos are posted by
> fans. You can't say "not allowed", then allow 95% of the offenders,
> and criticize the other 5%.
The DMCA doesn't work like that. YouTube acts when the copyright owner
complains; it may be that other people have permission from the
copyright owner, in which case it would be allowed, and YouTube would
be wrong to take it down. But if the copyright owner complains,
YouTube always takes the video down.
> Metallica took justifiable action (imho) against the worst Napster
> violators suing them for examples, BUT, while I agree with their
> feelings, they ended up looking anal and disrespectful to their fans
> for being the 0.1% of bands to actually sue their fans for basically
> copying tapes for their friends losing the band trillions of dollars.
Well, that's Metallica's problem. If Metallica order YouTube to remove
a video for copyright infringement, YouTube must either take the video
down or be sued. It really is that simple.
> LASTLY, imho (once again) it is _really_ tactless and professionally
> rude (and nonstandard) not to approach the user first unless they are
> in total violation and obviously can't be asked nicely to stop.
> Companies have too much power. Someone's whole personal site will be
> bulldozed for posting a buncha pictures because if your site doesn't
> make millions, it's inconsequential.
Maybe it is tactless; but the Digital Millennium Copyright Act doesn't
leave YouTube much wiggle room here. In most cases, YouTube operates a
"three strikes" policy, but may suspend an account quicker than that
if the violations are especially serious. Together with the very clear
warnings posted on the upload page itself (and in other places), I
think that's very reasonable.
> You're now down to a 4.97 star poster and in my book Rew. I'm gonna
> petition for your removal.
Fine by me. However, this forum is -- as it states in the Charter --
not the place to discuss copyright violations and stuff. All I can do
is state what the law and YouTube's various terms and guidelines
state, which is what I did. Beyond that, there's nothing to say.
I will agree with you that current copyright law really does badly
need reworking, and lots of companies really do have to grow up and be
reasonable about this. But right now, the fact is that if you post a
video containing other people's copyrighted content without
permission, you are breaking the law, unless you can persuade a judge
that it was "fair use" (or "fair dealing" in some other jurisdictions,
which is far more restrictive than "fair use").
> one rew. You're being too harsh. I totally agree that this seems
> "stupid" and "understandable" at the same time! First of all, this
> kind of thing is in the *general realm* of things allowed under Fair
> Use (I've read some, not guessing). One could argue 1) promotion of
> band, 2) nondefamatory nature, 3) creative use of material.
I'm not being harsh; it's the law.
What you need to understand about "Fair use" -- since you've read some
-- is that "fair use" is not a right, it is a defence. And that's the
long and the short of it; if DisturbedGoddess's friend wants to
challenge the takedown, she's free to submit a counter claim; if it
goes to court, that's when she can claim "fair use" -- not before. It
is, in fact, up to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis
whether the defence has any merit -- not YouTube.
Also, you have to understand that "fair use" only applies in US law.
Neither you or I have any idea under which country's laws the
complaint was made -- and no, US law is not the only law which applies
to YouTube, which is why there are two separate ways of submitting a
copyright notification.
> Secondly, even if the owner is being (IMHO!) kinda anal and won't
> allow a fan to spend creative time interpreting their art and
> marketing and promoting their work, *and* they're in a position where
> a court might agree, I think calling this "not allowed on youtube" is
> way too harsh. A HUGE chunk of the vids here are fan tributes,
> interpretations, covers, lessons, etc etc, including my whole page and
> a fan trailer I just spent a week on, not to mention three full time
> month of my life [CRYYYY] covering... cov-- I can't even say it. [If
> Holywood records sues me for spending 200 hours fingerstyling a lame
> pop song they got somethin' else comin' from me] =P =).
It is not allowed on YouTube; that's a fact. A lot of people do get
away with it for a while, but it's still not allowed. This is stated
very clearly in several places, and it is also a matter of
international law.
> Anyway if that's all "not allowed" around here the staff is in
> hibernation! I find 1/3 of the *official* music videos are posted by
> fans. You can't say "not allowed", then allow 95% of the offenders,
> and criticize the other 5%.
The DMCA doesn't work like that. YouTube acts when the copyright owner
complains; it may be that other people have permission from the
copyright owner, in which case it would be allowed, and YouTube would
be wrong to take it down. But if the copyright owner complains,
YouTube always takes the video down.
> Metallica took justifiable action (imho) against the worst Napster
> violators suing them for examples, BUT, while I agree with their
> feelings, they ended up looking anal and disrespectful to their fans
> for being the 0.1% of bands to actually sue their fans for basically
> copying tapes for their friends losing the band trillions of dollars.
Well, that's Metallica's problem. If Metallica order YouTube to remove
a video for copyright infringement, YouTube must either take the video
down or be sued. It really is that simple.
> LASTLY, imho (once again) it is _really_ tactless and professionally
> rude (and nonstandard) not to approach the user first unless they are
> in total violation and obviously can't be asked nicely to stop.
> Companies have too much power. Someone's whole personal site will be
> bulldozed for posting a buncha pictures because if your site doesn't
> make millions, it's inconsequential.
Maybe it is tactless; but the Digital Millennium Copyright Act doesn't
leave YouTube much wiggle room here. In most cases, YouTube operates a
"three strikes" policy, but may suspend an account quicker than that
if the violations are especially serious. Together with the very clear
warnings posted on the upload page itself (and in other places), I
think that's very reasonable.
> You're now down to a 4.97 star poster and in my book Rew. I'm gonna
> petition for your removal.
Fine by me. However, this forum is -- as it states in the Charter --
not the place to discuss copyright violations and stuff. All I can do
is state what the law and YouTube's various terms and guidelines
state, which is what I did. Beyond that, there's nothing to say.
I will agree with you that current copyright law really does badly
need reworking, and lots of companies really do have to grow up and be
reasonable about this. But right now, the fact is that if you post a
video containing other people's copyrighted content without
permission, you are breaking the law, unless you can persuade a judge
that it was "fair use" (or "fair dealing" in some other jurisdictions,
which is far more restrictive than "fair use").
I had no such warnings on my account. No copy right warnings at all
till the actual date I was suspended. No email was sent to me. All I was doing was just changing my email add and did the confirm email and when I did this it said I was suspended.
If us fans are not allowed to post tributes, covers of songs with our
voice or an instrument. What else is there to upload? I mean we certainly are not going to post home vids. Well some of us aren't. Not all of us can sing so we can't put up our own material. And in a way I think its kind of lame. But I do understand the copyright laws. So I would in a way understand but in another i still think its
stupid if you ask me.
Besides Warner Bother (the company who Disturbed is signed with) didnt file a copy right infringement claim on my videos. If they did youtube would have sent me an email about it. And as I said I got no such email. So it couldnt have been any one from WB or any one who worked for/with the band. And doubt it was the band them selfs. Cause as I said they would have sent me an email. So this hole thing about it being my tributes is bull shit. Thats not what got me suspended. It was the fact that the fucking confirm email service is fucked up. THATS what got me suspended for no fucking reason. More will prob be coming on this subject. Just until I fucking find out what the fucking hell happened here.
