Slashdot Mirror
Viacom Claims Copyright On Irrlicht Video
stinkytoe writes in with the news that Nikolaus Gebhardt, developer of the cross-platform game engine library Irrlicht, recently had one of his video tutorials taken off of YouTube. A thread on Irrlicht's forum contains a copy of the takedown notice. From Gebhardt's blog: "Viacom, the corporation behind MTV, DreamWorks and Paramount is now claiming they own the copyright on a video of an Irrlicht tutorial. Which is completely ridiculous, of course: The whole thing has been written by me and the Irrlicht team, even textures and skins and logos have been created by me, and an Irrlicht Engine user... simply filmed and published it on YouTube.com. Here is a screenshot of the tutorial, it's really just a 2D GUI rendered using the 3D engine, nothing special at all."
They must have gotten carried away. Quick guys, copyright your wedding videos and personal amateur porn before they do!
you have to break a few eggs
they don't care if there is a little collateral damage in this war against 'piracy'
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
If you elect to send us a counter notice, to be effective it must be a written communication provided to our designated agent...
So this means that the media companies can falsely claim copyright to *any* material and the publisher is provided an email by youtube. However, in order to counter, you (the publisher) have to send a snailmail to them and wait how long before something is done about it? Are you even guarenteed a response?
This is complete and utter bullshit. As we have seen in other articles this only provides the media companies with the means to takedown *anything* posted on youtube or any other similar site for that matter for any reason whatsoever. Talk about Freedom of Speech and anti-trust* issues.
* -- If I don't like something that is said about my product online... I can simply have it taken down with the DMCA.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
So, aside from filing a lawsuit to recover the DMCA's "oops" damages, can they also file charges of theft for Viacom attempting to steal the property part of their intellectual property?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
"All your base are belong to us!" Sincerly - Viacom
The original generic sig.
Apparently Viacom owns the rights to a few people eating dinner as well.
Can't he sue them? Surely they are appropriating something that is clearly not theirs?
I give you, courtesy Wikipedia, the List of Assets owned by Viacom.
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 17.1).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 17.1).Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 17.1).Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 17.1).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 17.1).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 22.6).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 22.6).Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 22.6).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 22.6).Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 22.6).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 22.6).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 22.6).
"List of assets owned by Viacom." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 25 Jan 2007, 23:34 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 6 Feb 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of _assets_owned_by_Viacom&oldid=103256937>.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Isn't Viacom the company that just told YouTube to remove something like 100,000 video clips of its stuff? They probably just ran some searches and came up with yours by mistake, although it'd be nice to know why.
IANAL, but I believe that they can simply file a DMCA Counter Notice and make Viacom put up or shut up--hopefully that would be enough to make them realize that they've misidentified the clip as being something of theirs.
There happens to be a 1972 album by Klaus Schulze that is also called Irrlicht which was originally released in 1972 and then re-released in 2006. Perhaps Viacom owns the rights to this album and their search bot mistakenly flagged the video as a copyrighted work.
1.6 billions.
1) It's copyright infringement: sue.
2) It's restraint of trade: sue.
3) It's defamation of character: sue.
4) It's slander of title: sue.
Sue, and do not accept a settlement. Make sure to use loaded words like "piracy" and "theft" in every press release. Have fun!
Liberty you never use is liberty you lose.
I wonder if by firing off a C&D letter you're committing perjury if you're found to be wrong?
Good evening Mr. Pot, my name is Kettle and I'll be your server. Try the irony, it's delicious.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Irrlich needs to send an email to YouTube, stating that this is a mistake. This should take them all of ten minutes to do. While in general we don't consider this kind of thing a good situation - just because there's a viable remedy doesn't mean that we're comfortable allowing people to go nuts - before the slashdot crowd goes TOO far off the deep end, please remember that Viacom isn't trying to usurp Irrlich's property and isn't trying to persecute them. Would this not happen in a country with rational copyright laws? Probably not. Is this the worst result of the DMCA so far? Dear god, get a grip, people. The DMCA is a huge problem. This isn't even a blip on the radar of problems the DMCA has caused, and it's got an easy fix.
Seriously. Sounds petty and too "american cliché" but - they are asserting, under penalty of perjury, that they own the copyright to the items they are flagging with a DMCA takedown notice.
... well, if the glove don't fit you must kick the nuts of the misfit.
It's been said time and time and time again on slashdot whenever wrongfull DMCA takedown notices are sent.
I'm sure you can find a lawyer that'll be willing to nail their collective ass to the wall and sue for defamation and whatever else you care to throw in for good measure and monetary value.
Same goes for the people having their saturday night dinner video flagged. Just cause it SOUNDS a little bit perhaps maybe kinda like Saturday Night Live (the comedy show) or even a fucking album recording, if it's not related in any way
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Amazon has the re-release under Inside Out U.S., which lists him as their artist here.
Most of us do not have a rectal-capital fountain, and so we can not afford to sue if this happens to us. Here's an even better idea, get rid of the DMCA and go back to the tried and true "innocent until proven guilty." The DMCA has always been a tool to help the largest players in the entertainment industry control their market.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I'm not a lawyer, but I think that's the right terminology for when a bigger company tries to muscle out a smaller company with no legal basis. At the very least, fire off a letter to their legal council. Go to a Legal Aid office, and I'm sure someone will help you out. At the very least, it will cost them thousands of dollars just to respond. Clearly you are in the right, and their actions are not even remotly defensable. Also, lawsuits generate alot of publicity...and the media loves a good david vs goliath story. That's the only way to make companies accountable now a days. Bad Press and Lawsuits. I wish it wasn't so...but it is.
I can attest to very similar situations as a service provider. We've dealt with member corporations of the RIAA sending us blanket takedown notices containing links to porn, and I don't think they do porn. Not yet anyways.
So apparently Viacom, DreamWorks and Paramount are sending legal spam, without verifying what they are actually sending out, and Google is taking them without verification on their part either. I guess DMCA procedures aren't good enough - censor now, ask questions later.
VIVA1023.com | Political Fashion.
Let's face it. This is a theft of intellectual property. It already happened.
I know that irrlicht is not a GPL software, but is is a Free Software and FSF should act now, instead talking over and over about many different things.
Why not use the law they have to fight the "evil company" and show the world that this battle can be won?
The uploaded version would clearly be a derivitave work, but I'm guessing that putting it into another tangible form would mean it's automatically copyrighted right then even if it wasn't originally.
This is actually a fairly interesting question, and IMO an important one. I'm not sure I share your conclusion that the uploaded version is a new work, though. Although it certainly could be, if you changed it (say, retouched, or even just cropped it), a straight scan+upload probably wouldn't be original enough.
It's an interesting question, because I recently scanned hundreds of old family photos and slides. Many of them, provided Congress stops extending copyright indefinitely, will be out of the original photographer's copyright relatively soon (as in, probably within my lifetime -- copyright, like geology, has its own relative time-scales). However, if the act of scanning the photo automatically makes a new work, then it's under copyright for another 120+ years, beginning 2006. Not really a concern to me, since I'd be the copyright holder, but of concern to a hypothetical other party who might want to use them.
I suspect that simply scanning a photo, in its entirety, and uploading it, does not represent enough of a creative act to warrant a renewal of copyright as a derivative work. Essentially, all that is happening, is that the older work is being "format shifted." However, if you were to do any type of alteration to the original photo that wasn't totally automatic, even something like color correction, I could see an argument for protection on the grounds that it was a creative act.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/03/011925 3
This really calls into question the validity of Viacom's claim that YouTube was hosting 100,000 infringing videos belonging to them. I wonder what the real number is. I wonder when the backlash hits YouTube over these "false positives" if they will start to require a little more diligence on the side of the claimants who request for videos to be removed. Shouldn't there penalties for making false claims of ownership over the copyrighted materials of others? YouTube's success was built on the shoulders of the little guy, not these giant media conglomerates. Will they do the right thing and help protect their legitimate users?
+0 Meh
I would love to see some group scrutinize every single thing media companies release. I am sure that somebody in something like Viacom screws up, even with all of the lawyers they have. I would love to see Apple have to take some video off the iTunes store because one of these companies "pirated" (at least by these companies' definition) some content. Maybe such an effort exists, or such a thing has happened, but I would just love to see it. Someone has to screw these bastards the same way they screw everyone else.
Most people will be upset by my post subject, but it's a question that needs to be asked. What are the actual damages here? Viacom's not claiming ownership - they fucked up. If their fuck up causes damages, there is legal recourse for this. If this is the case, then the victim should seek those legal recourses. Or STFU.
Getting a few thousand Slashdotters all hot and bothered may feel good, but it's a purely masterbatory exercise. If the victims are that pissed off, they can sue. And don't give me that shit about "oh, how can poor tiny little us possibly prevail against the mighty Viacom?!??" IANAL, but it looks like it's a pretty open-and-shut case. The victi,s could do all of the legal work and filing themselves, and with a little extra work can probably find some lawyer to make it all nice and pretty pro bono. Unless the damages are significant, I'd be halfway surprised if Viacom even sends anyone to defend it. If the judge finds in the victim's favor they might try filing a complaint against the attorney that filed the DMCA takedown notice with the relevant bar association - Viacom's lawyers may have committed perjury. If the victims can find a prosecutor that thinks it's in their political interest to beat on Mighty Corporate Viacom vs. The Little Guy, then it's a nice high-publicity case for them.
Other than that, the rest of us feel badly for the victims and wish them the best (fuck Viacom and all that), but let's be real - it's not like we're going to stop watching South Park or anything.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Seriously -- I'm less mad at Viacom's obvious "legal takedown notifier" bot than I am at Google's obvious "legal takedown notifier obeyer" bot. Makes you think about just how much DMCA garbage that Google is bombarded with these days. Maybe this is one step closer to having all of our court cases decided upon by artificial intelligence!
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
Well, I'm hoping that some of this "scatter shot" technique being used by the media companies in their so called war on piracy starts backfiring.
Where's Dick Cheney when you need him?
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I bet you could find enough copyright holders who've had their IP removed from youtube due to Viacomm's shotgun approach to takedown notices that you could get a class action lawsuit going. It doesn't matter that the members of the class don't get that much as long as it sets Viacomm back by, oh, lets say... 3 BILLION DOLLARS! That should be enough to insure that they'll be more careful next time they try any shenanigans.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Per Groklaw - Slander of Title would apply to this, if you can show some sort of malice. If there were a pattern of the types of videos they 'erroneously' had taken down, it would go a long way towards establishing malice. However, if there is just a bunch of random crap thrown into the legitimate claims, then it's unlikely that you would be able to persue a Slander of Title claim very far.
They have obviously failed to check on the actual status of the Copyrights for the video, which would set them up for a negligence suit. Since it's a tutorial on using a companies software, you might sneak it in under 'Tortuous Interferance' - ie. their actions are causing harm to the company's business and are not related to competition by VIACOM itself. [irony]MS couldn't claim interfierance by Apple just because Apple sells an OS. If Apple were to blackmail/bribe software houses into not developing for MS, then there would be a legitimate suit.[/irony]
Of course if you want to be boring, you could go with
Depending on how many of the videos they asked to have taken down were not infringing on their copyrights, then this might be a prime target for a CAS against Viacom. That would rattle their chain - and might give the other big distributors a pause before they sent out mass takedown notices as well.
Negligence and damages are more likely avenues to succeed.
The fix is simple. Create a perl bot to parse through youtube and generate a letter claiming that every video on youtube is a violation of your copyright. Poof, youtube ceases to exist in a cloud of DMCA lawsuits.
Dekker Dreyer
YouTube and Google are not supposed to demand proof. The DMCA is very specific: The party who believes their copyright has been infringed must send a signed statement stating that the copyright is theirs, under penalty of perjury. Once that has happened, the ISP must take down the content if they don't want to risk being held liable for having the content.
So if Viacom sent the DMCA request, then the beef of the actual copyright owner is with Viacom, not with the ISP.
paintball
Welcome to the 21st century, where thanks to the DMCA anything you made can be removed by a simple email from the right lawyer or big-sounding corporation, and you then have to prove that yours actually is yours, before its put online again... maybe.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
There was a video clip I found a few days ago that was made by a bunch of kids and when I went back to show it to someone else there was a Viacom warning.
"Put up or shut up." doesn't stop Viacom from doing it next week to 100 different people.
A class actions of "Show a Jury why you weren't negligent in filing these 100 requests.", tells Viacom and all the others to use a scalpel not a shotgun to do this or we will hurt you.
I said no text
time to "DMCA" that motherfscking Sumner Redstone (Murray Rothstein). hopefully some erases his 85 year old ass..
It's smashing in Viacom's itself face :
/script/ be allowed to sue someone ?
It's ridiculous.
Anyone remember the take-down notice for a 144k file called doom3.zip dating back from 1988 ?
The DMCA Auto-sue-bot strikes again !
A question :
A complain filed an a un-attended manner, without any human intervention, could it be considered valid in a court ?
As far as I know, only humans (themselves), corporations (with an employed lawyer) and the government (idem) may sue. No provision is made for robots or computers. And in this case, there's is a very good proof that Viacom's suits, no human were ever involved.
Where I live, even in case of animal abuses, a vet has to sue in behalf of the abused animal. Living animals. Now how could a
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
It really depends on what level of accuracy was involved. If there were 40 videos out of 100,000 that were incorrectly identified, and the correct videos are a transposed digit away/a number off/etc then it's forgiveable. If 30% of the videos are incorrectly identified then it's an example of gross negligence & needs to be smacked down hard enough that they feel the sting every time they try this.
As for damages, that is going to depend on the exact video involved. If this were video 5 of a 6 part video collection that I was basing sales on, it might hurt me badly - giving my company an unprofessional appearance at the least.
I've seen many of these takedown notices forwarded by ISPs and companies like YouTube, and this one like many of them, lack information about what is alleged to have been infringed.
Viacom's notice to YouTube, by law, was required to identify not only the allegedly infringing work, but also the work that it believes is being infringed. I'm very curious to know just what Viacom told YouTube, and whether it was plausible or (more likely to my mind) obviously wrong.
I think the bigger problem here is that the legal system has become so complicated and expensive that the average Joe cannot fight back at this ridiculous bullying. What we need is a complete overhaul of the justice system and all those idiotic laws and new processes need to be established.
that i work for viacom and i use irrlicht.
The problem with what you say is that it effectivly destroys the "value" of YouTube. If I where a stockholder, I'd run. Basically this makes YouTube just another corporate shill, and this means its days are numbered a lot shorter than last week.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
"Our copyrighted video contains the bit string 0001011010100110b, so all videos containing that same bit string have to be taken down."
Or something to that extent.
I hereby claim copyright for the bit strings "1b" and "0b". They appeared in my diploma thesis.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
So non-commercial speech doesn't get protection?
Free speech is free speech, it doesn't matter if it's commercial, political, or as in this case, educational. The silencing of any legal free speech because of a simple, obviously erroneous letter should be offensive to anyone who treasures the values the US is founded on.
And then you wait 10 days before it goes back online, per DMCA requirements. Viacom gets to use a sloppy program and silence legal speech almost immediately with no opportunity for the owner to object. To get it put back, the owner has to wait 10 days to give Viacom a chance to object. Hardly fair. (And, of course, other Google properties have a "physical mail only" policy, which further delays one's ability to have legal speech restored.)
The DMCA safe harbor provisions are a good idea, but the current implementation is flawed. There is no practical penalty for maliciously misusing the DMCA to temporarily silence legal speech during key windows of time, and there is no practical penalty for being really sloppy and blocking legal speech. Free speech is so critical that people who abuse the DMCA intentionally, or by being deeply negligant deserve punishment. It turns my stomach to know that some people care so little for this vital freedom.
Restraint of trade is probably the wrong charge, but Viacom's actions are so reprehensible that they deserve punishment. The only realistic way to punish Viacom is through a lawsuit.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
I'm not sure whether the DMCA has been used like this, but I see no reason why Viacom couldn't receive take-down notices for items which might infringe the copyright of others. For instance any mention of Irrlicht could indicate a violation. A list of unique words and phrases from their site/s, generated by a computer could be used as the basis for notices. Of course the issuer of the notice would need an item which had enough naming similarity. Do Viacom host their own sites? You would need to organise this so that the people issuing the notice would not be perjuring themselves. Can you think of a mechanism that might work?
I think I'll post this anonymously.
Q.
The obvious reply to this which the Slashbots here have missed is this:
Lay down with dogs and you'll wake up with fleas.
It's utterly insane that Viacom should have to send 100,000 takedown complains to a website whos entirely business model is largely based on copyright violations. So forgive them for not spending a ton of money to make sure they don't inconvenience some of the users of the service that is ripping them off.
At the end of the day the reality is this: If you don't want your content taken down as collateral damage in a mass takedown, don't submit it to YouTube.
IANAL
But this is what I would do:
Repost the video and send Viacom a Cease and Desist letter asking that they stop telling people that your copyrighted works are there's. Then, when they do it again, they cannot claim ignorance or that it was an oversight or whatever. Put up the video on a web site with an advertisement that pays you per page view, and claim that by lying to Google, they are causing you a loss of income.
So, essentially, they are lying about you, in writing, and it is negatively affecting you. Then you would probably have a better legal case. In addition, thanks to the RIAA and others like them, there is a great deal of negative coverage for people who engage in copyright infringement. So, now that it has been slashdotted, it could also damage your reputation...
Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM
They took off a music video I uploaded, that wasn't owned by Viacom. I assume they took it off because it had the "VH1 Classic all request" logo at the bottom right. I check my playlist and about half the videos are gone, none of them to do with Viacom.
That ticks me off.
Can you put the company in prison? Or just the guy who signed the statement?
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
It's a site that's compiling all stories of people who are being unjustly hit by the Viacom Youtube blitzkrieg. Makes me wonder, could this DMCA provision be used as a kind of denial of service attack? What if a site or ISP started receiving a ton of random DMCA takedown notices? What if they were from fake or spoofed names and addresses so as not to be traced? This stuff is just insane.
Viacom, a company with VERY deep pockets, has just violated your copyright. You can bet that if you took a video of theirs and claimed it as your own, some nasty lawyers would come knocking. They just did the same to you. Go find yourself a lawyer who is used to filing nuisance cases, and make some money off their mistake!
The only way this mistake will be unlikely to happen in the future is if the mistake costs them a lot *now*.
db-
It's the German term for 'Sprite'.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
If Viacom wrongly identifies itself as the copyright holder and then exercises rights that are otherwise those of the actual copyright holder, that is a form of copyright infringement. Sue them. Small claims court will do. If they don't show, you can get a default judgment, have your rights affirmed by the court so YouTube can put it back, and forward a bill to Viacom's legal department. No big deal, cost you a few hours and $50 I would guess...
;-)
Robert Shapiro () - 06 02 07 - 23:39
as I just posted on the forum... niko has given his permission to use the material via Irrlicht's liberal license, so veegun has full rights to make derived works and distribute them. So (correct me if I'm wrong) he's the only person who can do any suing.
I'd quite happily donate the $50 just to see how it turns out though
gaz - 07 02 07 - 00:41
Issuing a DMCA takedown notice requires acceptance of liability if the notice should incorrectly identify the ownership of the target material.
Check with the EFF; they may be able to provide pro bono legal advice to counter Viacom and actually do them some damage.
Here's an even better idea, get rid of the DMCA
I'm not sure that's such a good idea, because in that case, sites like YouTube might not exist at all, and, in fact, all sites that permit open signup and posting would be at grave risk.
I think this part of the DMCA may be working out alright. What courts need to do now is punish companies like Viacom when they try to abuse the DMCA.
That is how the DMCA works. The point is that it holds the carrier (in this case, Youtube) harmless as long as they comply. Generally, the carrier of the alleged copyrighted works will comply and give the "owner" an opportunity to fight it. The point is, you can fight it, and should within the law.
Meanwhile, if I understand the safe harbor provision correctly, here's how you mitigate damages:
- Viacom has sent a takedown notice, under oath, that your material is under their copyright and used without permission.
- ISP has taken it down (one of two ways they're in the clear).
- You send a notice to the ISP, also under oath, that you actually have adequate rights to post it (in this case as the owner of the full copyright) and please put it back up now.
- The ISP puts it back up and sends a notice to Viacom that they believe the takedown notice was in error (the OTHER way they're in the clear).
If your ISP puts it back up your damage has been greatly reduced compared to taking on Viacom directly (and/or through the courts) and waiting for that to work out. (When assessing damages courts expect you to try any damage-mitigating recourse first, rather than letting things go in order to run up a big bill for your opposition, and won't award the additional damage you took after your failure to take the quick path.)
If your ISP DOESN'T put it back up then THEY may be on the hook to YOU, from then on, because they failed to perform on their own duty when they didn't have to keep your stuff down to stay in the safe harbor.
Given that you're their customer and Viacom is an interloper, they'll probably want to keep you happy and tell Viacom to take a hike. Give them a legal leg to stand on and they'll likely be more than happy to pogo-dance with you.
After you're back up you may have less to sue Viacom for. But the remainder will probably be more than worth it - if only to cause Viacom more damage than they caused you. Meanwhile your stuff is back up, your ISP is out of the loop and doing the job they were paid for, and it's all between you and Viacom.
IANAL so I could be wrong. But if you really own the copyright on a work wrongly taken down by a media-company's takedown spam I don't see any downside to telling your ISP, under oath, that it should go back up.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
... Just checked. The terms are somewhat hazy but it appears you are more correct than me. Allthough I'd actually now translate it with "Fen Fire". I'd say all three terms overlap somehow.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
This suggests they think they own any video labelled with any one word matching any one word in their artist name and work list, irrespective of content or any other words present which might provide a clue to a human.
Clearly they are (a) incompetent, (b) fools, and (c) arseholes. So, normal for a record company then.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Not sure if I'm entirely understanding your point.
In the example I was talking about above, I was scanning a bunch of old slides, which we can assume the copyright holders have authorized me to scan (hence, why they gave me boxes of slides and asked me to scan them onto the internet-thingamajiggy). So it's not as thought it was an unauthorized derivative work, if in fact it was a derivative work.
My question is basically, would there be two copyrights: e.g., (c) 1939, Grandma (for the original photo), and (c) 2006, me (for the new scan), or just the former.
I think, based on the court case that another respondent cites above, that it would be just the former case; the scan, if it's purely a refixing of the original work in a new medium, without much in the way of creative "work," only the original copyright would apply. So it would be (c) 1939, not 2006 -- a big difference in terms of when the digital copy would hit the public domain (the 2006 one wouldn't end up there, unless I ceded it earlier, until 70 years after my death, while the 1939 one may already be there, or may be there soon -- the law is a bit byzantine on post-1923/pre-1978 works).
So I don't think that the authorization to make the derivative work was really at issue here, or I was assuming for the purposes of argument that I had such authorization, given to me by implication in the request to scan the photos.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
If you don't want your content taken down as collateral damage in a mass takedown, don't submit it to YouTube.
This is as stupid as people who say:
Women, if you don't want to be raped then don't leave the house alone after dark.
I for one welcome our blind new megamedia overlords.
(Sorry.)
no text, yep, I can't spell worth crap - we should all know that by now :)
I went so long without seeing a reference...
Reply that the information given does not seem to meet the proof (rather than just assertion) that Viacom et al are the copyright owners of all the claimed works.
That is also part of the DMCA, is it not? You must respond to the takedown appropriately.
Well, ask for proof rather than assertion. Since the perjury bit has never been enacted on, you cannot rely on that being enough to feel assured the claimant is stating truth.
This is another case of Viacom/Youtube removing a video of a guy that interviewed celebrities like schwarzennegger, Stallone, Kim bassinger, Jim Carrey, Britney ans such. Of course the material was of his property. http://lacamisetadelmundial.com/blog/me-cago-en-yo u-tube/
Still in Google Video...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-691961289 4750845747&hl=es