Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Viacom Says User Infringed His Own Copyright

Posted by kdawson on from the catch-44 dept.

Chris Knight writes "I ran for school board where I live this past fall and created some TV commercials including this one with a 'Star Wars' theme. A few months ago VH1 grabbed the commercial from YouTube and featured it in a segment of its show 'Web Junk 2.0.' Neither VH1 or its parent company Viacom told me they were doing this or asked my permission to use it, but I didn't mind it if they did. I thought that Aries Spears's commentary about it was pretty hilarious, so I posted a clip of VH1's segment on YouTube so that I could put it on my blog. I just got an e-mail from YouTube saying that the video has been pulled because Viacom is claiming that I'm violating its copyright. Viacom used my video without permission on their commercial television show, and now says that I am infringing on their copyright for showing the clip of the work that Viacom made in violation of my own copyright!"

1 of 404 comments (clear)

  1. YouTube could have given Viacom permission by GauteL · · Score: 1, Redundant

    No, IANAL, but from the YouTube Terms of service (point 6C):

    "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."

    Basically when uploading you give youtube a transferrable license to display and distribute your work. Viacom's segment showing this work, however, did not come with any license to distribute. So if YouTube gave Viacom permission to use the content, Viacom had the right to do so, but the original author had no right to use the Viacom segment, except maybe as 'fair use' citation.

    But Youtubes terms also include:
    "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."

    This seems a bit ambiguous to me, but could mean that any user of YouTube are allowed to redistribute the content.