Slashdot Mirror
DMCA Takedown Notice Leveled Against Ohio Congressional Race Ad
Ponca City, We Love You writes "EFF reports that after Ohio Congressman John Kasich put out a commercial featuring a man dressed as a steelworker discussing Governor Ted Strickland's record, Strickland's campaign folks apparently realized that the 'steelworker' was really a paid actor, and put together their own video, mixing in clips of some of the actor's other work to make fun of Kasich. Now the DMCA has been used to send a takedown demand to YouTube that it remove Stricrkland's video for at least 10 days because it uses short clips from the actor's movies." The video has since been restored, some of the reasons for which are listed below.
"First, the political video's use is transformative because it provides evidence that the supposed steelworker was actually a paid actor and as the Supreme Court explains, transformative works 'lie at the heart of the fair use doctrine's guarantee of breathing space within the confines of copyright.' Second, the political ad only uses a few seconds of the original film, so a fair use is particularly justifiable when it uses the minimum necessary to make its point. 'What's troubling, yet again, is that this form of political speech has been removed from YouTube in the heat of an election battle,' writes Mike Masnick on Techdirt. 'Even if the takedown was not political, it's clearly a case of copyright law being used to stifle political speech.'"
Really only need one reason: First Amendment of the US Constitution.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"...Arginate should take a closer look at Section 512(f) of the DMCA — which provide penalties for misrepresenting that an online video is infringing — before sending any more notices."
Yeah, yeah, right. But has anyone ever heard of ANYONE actually paying any kind of penalty for misrepresenting a video (or anything else) to get a DMCA takedown? Has anyone ever suffered any real consequences for this, even though it amounts to perjury?
Please, I want someone to tell me there have been consequences, and that people have been fined or jailed for it. But I suspect that the has never been a single such case where there any real consequences.
I know we care, but the legal system doesn't and only an idiot could fail to notice. PLEASE, PLEASE tell me I'm wrong.
Umm... so are we going to see someone getting hit with some sort of countersuit, since they've clearly misused the DMCA takedown process? Or is this one of those things where you can spew out accusations willy-nilly without your victim having any sort of recourse besides getting their video reinstated?
If I show a short clip from a film just to prove that someone is an actor, how could this possibly NOT be fair use?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
And the Strickland campaign might want to point out this ruling in Lenz v. Universal Music where the judge said that copyright holders must consider whether the use of the material constitutes fair use under copyright law before filing their takedown request.
Can we get an "R" and "D" next to each candidates name? That way I'll know if I should be up in arms at this vile abuse of the DMCA or giddy with excitement that it was wielded this way. ;-)
Yet another attempt to use the DMCA as a way to censor, which will end up back firing due to the Streisand effect.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
It's about time this crap hit's a Congressman!
It would be nice to have it in the summary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R48YAEcKZeU
Portion of DCMA taken from http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
Penalties are provided for knowing material misrepresentations in either a
notice or a counter notice. Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that
material is infringing, or that it was removed or blocked through mistake or misidentification,
is liable for any resulting damages (including costs and attorneys’ fees) incurred
by the alleged infringer, the copyright owner or its licensee, or the service provider.
In other words yes there is a potential for penalty, but proving damages in a political case is going to be very hard.
One quick phone call and your web site is back up again. I bet if it was joe sixpack it'd still be down.
No sig today...
Republicans can't run on facts, so they flail against Democrats using censorship. What a shameful way for Republicans to use their power gained by insisting they've got the monopoly on values and freedom.
--
make install -not war
Can we get an "R" and "D" next to each candidates name?
It doesn't matter. The DMCA was a bipartisan measure that passed both houses of the Congress through a voice vote. Because MPAA studios share corporate parents with the mainstream news media, both Republicans and Democrats exploit this conflict of interest to stay in office.
As an Ohioan, I know Ted Strickland-D is the Governor of this state and John Kasich-R is running against him for Governor.
The game.
So apparently a user called "KC Allen" claims on the Vimeo page for the parody-of-the-ad that
The Ohio filmmaking community is outraged by a web ad published to YouTube, sponsored by the Ohio Democratic Party. The ad is an attack in response to a recent commercial from the Kasich camp, in which a local actor portrayed a man out of work. The ODP ad features clips from films in which the actor has appeared, in violation of copyright.
Setting aside the incredible hubris associated with speaking for the entire filmmaking community in a state (heck, at least he could have tried to claim something about speaking for a particular group of filmmakers in Ohio, were he the spokesman or president of the body), I am quite appalled at the shoot-from-the-hip nature of his alleged copyright infringement claim.
KC Allen continues:
One film, from Arginate Studios was produced in 2010 as part of an international film contest based in Washington DC, the 48 Hour Film Project, while the other was produced by Whiskey Tent films. No permission to use the clips was asked for or granted by the filmmakers or other responsible, legally permitted parties.
I hope when he says "responsible" he mean "people responsible for granting rights," not "people who act responsibly." I mean, the latter case is kind of a judgment call, no? :-)
And I fully appreciate his (likely) factual claim that no permission was asked for or granted. Of course (as others have pointed out), the authors of the parody work might have a strong fair-use defense.
The filmmakers of the state of Ohio demand an immediate public apology for this lack of respect and egregious violation of their hard work and professionalism.
Here we go again, speaking for a group of people without any evidence that you have the authority or position.
What, do you want me to claim that the Computer Programmers of the Whole Internet demand an immediate public apology from the filmmakers of the State (capitalizing the proper noun) of Ohio?
Then you have the witty comeback from "Modern Esquire":
You're right because no independent film maker has ever splice in footage from other films, tv shows, music, etc. It's called Fair Use. Which is part of the copyright law. There's absolutely no legal basis for your complaints. None.
Well, I wouldn't say "none," because I'm not a copyright lawyer, but yes, it does look like there's a pretty strong defense here.
Then, someone named "Sam" apparently knows the actors and decides to chime in:
You are seriously going to argue that actors don't have the right to not appear in political attack ads based of their completely unrelated narrative work?
I'm not talking about Chip here... if it was only Chip and actually used to illustrate his acting career... you know by including his work with larger companies like 'safe auto' and appearance on 'Lost' instead of editing a string of insults... which according to you add to the debate... I'm talking about Rick and the girls who are clearly recognizable. They have nothing to do with this and now their faces are stuck on an attack ad which nearly the entire central ohio film community finds offensive.
I've got to give Sam credit for at least saying "nearly the entire central ohio film community" as compared to KC Allen's bit of hyperbole. I'm also quite sympathetic to what Sam sees as a potential defamation against "Chip" and "Rick" and the women who feature in the clips. I can be a bit disconcerting to see your video chopped-up and used in a different fashion than it was originally intended. But on the flip side, I believe all of the clips used are from commercial productions, and there's got to be very little expectation of privacy or prevention of people doing things protected under Fair Use with these commercial clips.
coding is life
Some hate speech is also political speech, yet the best and brightest journalists remove it in a flash.
Hence, since when did banning political speech become a problem?
A fake person selling fake policy to the down home American everyman.
Better than an authentic Nobama downing every American home? Your choice I guess.
Parent is correct also please allow us to mod editors down for not catching blatant factual flaws.
...or does it seem like not much of a scandal that an actor would be in a commercial. Doesn't this happen all the time? I hope the guy on JG Wentworth commercials really isn't the CEO of the company.
Clearly it's fair use if the clips are short enough. They should dispute the notice.
The effect of jail varies greatly with income.
Rich: Jail is yucky. It's boring, the food tastes like crap, and you can't play polo. When you get out, you can go back to your normal routine. (you have no job, the butler has kept the house nice, etc.)
Middle: Jail is a personal disaster of unimaginable horror. You lose your job. You are unable to even respond to your creditors, never mind pay them. You thus lose your car and your home. This likely means you lose a spouse and/or your children; the state will find adoptive parents for your children if your spouse doesn't just take them while moving in with his/her new lover. You will never gain the same sort of employment ever again, because you now have a criminal record. Your finances will never recover.
Poor: Jail kind of sucks sometimes. You might get a bad roommate, it's hard to keep facebook updated, and you have to do unspeakable things to get any drugs. On the upside you don't need to worry about finding food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and heat. All your needs are taken care of, and nothing much is expected of you. You almost certainly didn't have an intact family to begin with, so no loss there. If you are friendly you can even get special treatment, play games, lift weights, and so on. All in all, it's not such a bad deal.
sounds exactly like Thailand where the lese majeste law is (ab)used to silence political opponents and people critical of govt and/or military.
Does anyone think that Strickland hasn't run a commercial with an actor claiming to be a bus driver, cop, waitress etc.
Fact is that at least 90% of the people doing commercials like this will come off badly on TV. If they didn't they'd be ... well ... actors.
You guys should go for 'FreeSpeech (TM): The Best Speech Money Can Buy'
If that video can claim "Fair Use" then so can this one...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12VzCJjh2C8
I see some irony here:
actors with drug habits and actors with Scientology habits
As far as I know, the particular guy involved (Chip Redden according to TFA) is neither, but I'm saying this in general. :)
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.