Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: How To Fight Copyright Violations With DMCA?
szyzyg writes "I've created some popular science videos showing how asteroid discoveries have happened over the last few decades. However I've run into a problem with a religious organization which borrowed my video and redubbed it to promote their religious message. Ultimately I filed a DMCA takedown request via YouTube's site, it's as easy as filling in a form and the video was removed. But this organization has since submitted a counterclaim claiming 'under penalty of perjury' that they do in fact have the rights to this work, and YouTube has reinstated the video. It looks like the only way I can pursue this further is to spend the money to take the organization to court and get an injunction, but even if I did so I'd have to pay court costs up front and since they're based in another country I'd have a difficult time actually collecting any money from the other party. It feels like this other group is simply gambling that I won't spend the time and resources to take further legal action, the DMCA is supposed to provide equal protection but the more lawyer you have the more 'equal' you are. So does anyone have any suggestions for how I should proceed here?"
Doesn't mean shit outside the USA. Thank God.
If they're in another country, it's hard to get them to pay anything in a civil case, DMCA or otherwise. I don't know what to tell you other than "talk to a lawyer".
Release another video that shows asteroids smashing into the cultist's church and an undead dinosaur army emerging from the crater to devour their children.
1. Read and understand the law before you try to apply it.
2. Decide if you really want to pull the trigger.
3. Hire a lawyer.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
> borrowed my video and redubbed it to promote their religious message. ...
>
> submitted a counterclaim claiming 'under penalty of perjury' that they do
> in fact have the rights to this work
A religious organization lie? You're kidding me!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
You could get an injunction against google ordering them to take down the video. Talk to a lawyer to see what kind of fees you would be looking at.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
so is defectivebydesign, all they seem to do is beg me for money and clicks
Either you're telling the truth, or they're telling the truth. I don't want to judge that, Youtube doesn't want to judge that, a judge should be the judge of that. And until a judge has looked at it, what reason is there to take down the video again?
I missed the financial impact in your post. Are you just offended they re-used your works, or is it impacting your sales?
Now that we have THAT out of the way, you could probably sue them both! Name Youtube and the church in your lawsuit, go for an injunction against Youtube and ask for ONE BILLION DOLLARS worth of damages from the church! It works for the music industry! The church probably won't even show up to defend itself, so take a default judgement against them and when they don't pay, use it to get warrants for the arrest of their leadership (for contempt of court or whatever) if they ever come to the USA! Just about everyone who's anyone has to come here eventually!
It'll probably cost you several large briefcases full of cash in lawyers fees which you will probably never recoup, but if you want to make your new hobby making those guys' lives miserable, that's the way to go!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The video used my name, and picture and implies that my research supports their creationist message.
a problem with a religious organization which borrowed my video and redubbed it to promote their religious message
Re-redub their version to make the group's religious message blasphemous to Islamists.
That should eventually take care of your problem, but there may be a wee bit of collateral damage to the rest of the world along the way, like World War III.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Right youtube are happy to take the video down again if I spend money filing a court case against the infringing party. Which is what would happen if a single person submitted a counter claim against a major corporation's takedown.
That's part of the problem sir, they've put my picture on their video and are implying that I'm endorsing their message.
Apparently the religious group is outside the US, which adds another level of difficulty.
But anyway, in general, if you live in the US, and protecting your copyright is really important to you, you should file copyright forms with the US Copyright Office. Although current law says that you enjoy copyright protection regardless of whether you file, it doesn't give you *equal* protection if you don't file. If you file, you can sue for both actual damages and statutory damages. If you didn't file, then you can only sue for actual damages, which are presumably zero in your case. When statutory damages are in play, a lawyer will often be willing to take such a case on a contingent fee basis.
The DMCA sucks, but it doesn't follow that enforcing copyright automatically sucks, or even that enforcing it using the DMCA automatically sucks. Laws are like beer and shotguns; they can be used for both good and bad purposes. I'm willing to contemplate living in a society without copyright, but in such a society the GPL and BSD software licenses, for example, would be unenforceable. Likewise, I'm willing to contemplate living in a society without private property -- but if I tried to implement such a society unilaterally, I'd run into all kinds of problems.
Find free books.
But this organization has since submitted a counterclaim claiming 'under penalty of perjury' that they do in fact have the rights to this work, and YouTube has reinstated the video. It looks like the only way I can pursue this further is to spend the money to take the organization to court and get an injunction
Perjury is a federal offense and by doing it under the DMCA they're violating US law.
Whoever (...) (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
Perhaps filing a police complaint or giving the FBI a call would help? Unlike lawyers they're free, so it wouldn't cost you any more than your time.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
drone on
rewriting history since 2109
His PUBLICLY AVAILABLE registration information for his website, http://harunyahya.com, is as follows:
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Publication, Global ms7uh6j58c5@networksolutionsprivateregistration.com
Global Publication
ATTN HARUNYAHYA.COM
care of Network Solutions
PO Box 459
Drums, PA 18222
US
570-708-8780
Record expires on 23-Jan-2022.
Record created on 23-Jan-2000.
Bulk whois optout: N
Database last updated on 23-Sep-2012 14:42:05 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.P03.DYNECT.NET
NS2.P03.DYNECT.NET
NS3.P03.DYNECT.NET
NS4.P03.DYNECT.NET
Both the address and phone number are fake (they apparently are the address and phone of Network Solutions itself. However you CAN sue Network soultions in small claims since they are now attached to his company. Sue them in small claims for damages and ask alternatively that they hand over all the information that they have on the person. Attempt to take over his website via court order in small claims (it's an asset).
There is also a Wikipedia page about the guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar
Also: Some states allow injunctive relief (court order for youtube to take down the site) in small claims court and some do not. If your state does then file and ask that the site be taken down in addition to other damages.
----- In Your Cubicle No One Can Hear You Scream...
You're complaining that you'll have to file a lawsuit to defend your copyright. Boo hoo.
You should be HAPPY that you have the ability to simply file a lawsuit. If they hosted their video on their own servers, in another country (rather than YouTube), you'd have no practical recourse.
In this case, you file a case in a court that's close to home, the accused doesn't show-up at all, you win by default, and YouTube does what you want. And if by chance they DO show-up, then you've got more of a fight on your hands, but you'll be able to get legal fees and impose fines on the individuals located in the US.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
My suggestion would be getting in touch with the EFF...
The video used my name, and picture and implies that my research supports their creationist message.
Then you likely have a defamation or publicity claim to add to your copyright infringement claim. Make sure to bring these up at the initial consultation with your lawyer.
The DMCA is designed to force content distributors like YouTube to take action to get on the record statements. They did that. At this point they now have your statement made under "good faith clause" and the church's statement made under penalty of perjury.
Assuming your version of events is correct you have a situation where the religious organization is engaging in perjury. The problem is civil perjury is rarely prosecuted. Generally the system responds to perjury via. large awards. So in your case if you sued you would be likely to get a large reward that you wouldn't be able to collect on.
However, YouTube is potentially involved in contributory infringement if you notify them. Provide them a complete set of documentation proving your claims and then they are on the hook. What happens from there is up to them. Suing YouTube is not going to be cheap but then again they are unlikely to care enough for you to have to fight them.
Of course, if you were a corporation such as a distributor, music label or movie studio, you could instantly delete the offending content, no questions asked. Seriously, I'm not kidding. In the land of YouTube, alleged copyright holders such as performing rights organizations can take other people's content down with no proof of ownership. If the claimant is a powerful corporation, they can do whatever they want. The person against whom the claim was made can dispute the claim, but the corporation can immediately dismiss the claim. That's right. YouTube does not arbitrate. It's assumed that the corporations always hold the moral high ground, and individuals are nothing but scumbag pirates out to destroy the economy.
It's always been this way. Law is expensive. Lawyer costs, court costs, transport, time off work. Even when the case is open-and-shut, it'll cost a small fortune to fight. This isn't new: It goes back as far as law does. Call it the cynic's golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
You came here hoping someone would offer you the legal magic bullet - some way that lets you bypass all the expensive bits in between where you are now and where you legally should be. But there isn't one. This isn't even a politically important case, so you can't expect any activist group to come to your aid with money and experts. Basically, you're screwed. You really only have two options:
1. Accept it. Let them have your video.
2. Get MAD. Spend your savings and go through some legal hell. You'll win, easily, but all you will win is petty revenge. The victory will hurt more than just giving up. With a bit of luck you might be able to get them to cover some of the legal costs, but don't count on that even covering all the expenses.
You nailed it. Legal questions in Ask Slashdot are requests for the community's help in performing steps 1 (understand the basics of the law) and 2 (understand the costs and benefits of suing) in order to become better prepared for step 3 (initial consultation with lawyer).
That guy may be grossly misinterpreting your data, but it almost seems like a fair use of the video, as absurd as the usage and interpretation is. Would you want to be limited as to usage of video clips in this way? And what would this say for free speech, which is supposed to protect this sort of speech, even though we find it ridiculous.
The video used my name, and picture and implies that my research supports their creationist message.
And on one image they even left in "© Scott Manley" visible.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Filing only costs $350, and you can save yourself some money and file it per se. They're not very likely to bother you after that.
They have not responded to may e-mails, I have had contact with one person, but he was not directly resonsible for the content.
It's not yahoo it's google.
It would still have to be before it was published.
While performances and demos are not considered publishing unless you're offering to sell (or something like that... might be in the FAQ or circular 40a), it's arguable that posting on YouTube is an act of publishing.
But because you didn't register it, you probably can't get punitive damages.
Not sure why the religious org would lie and claim ownership. After all, I think fair use applies (whether or not you agree with the use):
1) Satire.
2) Did you create the video (looks to be an animated rendering), or is it mashed up? If it's your original content, then there's some protection there, but you can't copyright facts. The same organization could take the source data, and assuming they used the same software you used, would the end product be materially different?
That said, IANAL, but I do believe there are limits on how much of the original content one uses. I can create a satirical derivative of your work all day long, but I don't think I can use the entire thing, only a portion.
The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
Talk to a lawyer. It may cost a bit of money to do this, unless you can find a lawyer that will do it pro-bono; but you need to know what your options are and what you are getting into. A simple lawyer's letter to YouTube may be enough, or you may need to go to court to enforce your rights. At least get competent advice; not the random collections of /. drivel and musings.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
As I pointed out in my other post, using some of your video around scientific facts could be construed as satire. However, using your image and name isn't cool, if they haven't identified it as satire. Even if they did, I think this isn't a copyright issue, but a libel issue. The video isn't the issue, but your personal character and reputation. Moreover, I believe libel claims have less gray area than copyright, and even if the video isn't a for profit venture, you can get money out of a libel claim.
The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
If only you had had a similar fear of posting and having your posts unlawfully copied this would be a better world.
Are you being purposefully ignorant considering that IN the video the guy admits that Scott created the video?
Before you do anything at all consider this web page:
http://mukto-mona.net/debunk/harun_yahya/index.htm
which states that Adnan Oktar (aka Harun Yahya) and his followers have a history of using both extortion and violence against anyone who interferes in their criminal enterprises. With that said perhaps your best bet would be to pursue another DCMA process with YouTube along with proof that you own the media as another commenter suggested.
----- In Your Cubicle No One Can Hear You Scream...
Oh man, only $350? I'd pay that filing fee!
If no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.
I read the OP as using "yahoo" to indicate the copyright violator, not the company.
- W. Blaine Dowler
http://www.bureau42.com
If I were you, I'd do a LOT of research before even thinking about suing a religious organization. Especially if I had a family, wife and kids.
then use a different approach...flag it for spam / mass advertising....with all those hyperlinks there...it can be viewed as attempting to do some form of SEO manipulation
Coincidentally, I'm watching Deep Impact now on Netflix.
Lots of asteroids, check
Black president, check
All the elements of the making.... this is fiction, right?
When somebody asks you for legal advice on Slashdot, you're supposed to give it. In case you hadn't noticed, simply having an account on Slashdot qualifies you as a legal expert, especially on IP issues. No legal training? No problem!
I'm going to assume that if they've put your name and face on the video, they can't genuinely argue that the video has nothing to do with you.
If you haven't already, plaster your website with messages about their group, how you don't endorse them, and how they're lieing thieving gits. Tell them that you'll be happy to remove the messages if they stop infringing your copyright. It probably won't work, but at least you can give their reputationa good kicking. Speaking of which- you failed to mention the infringer by name in your submission. The YouTube submission is in the name of Harun Yahya, real name Adnan Oktar, a Turkish Islamic fundamentalist, creationist, conspiracy theorist and holocaust denier (so says Wikipedia).
Looking at his Wikipedia page, it looks like this man is no stranger to court cases, but it's still worth going the legal route. I think you're British, right? In that case, go to your local Citizen's Advice Bureaux and ask them to hook you up with a good specialist lawyer in your area. Ask for a free consultation and see what they think. If they advise you not to bother, it might be worth just leaving it and moving on with your life.
Those kind of "Slashdotters" are usually a lot more coherent than "Slashdotters haters Slashdotters" like you. ;)
That said, most slashdotters are not against copyright per se, but against the abuse of copyright by corporations, the use of public money to defend their rights while the common citizen have to bankrupt himself to have any chance of having justice made, and the erosion of fair use promoted by those same big corporations.
Your limited capacity of understanding these concepts is what brings you to perceive their opinions as something paradoxical.
That is a typical example that shows that DCMA is only useful for big corporations. If you had dared to use a few chords of a copyrighted song and RIAA decided to remove your videos it would be done very quickly, rest assured.
You misunderstand what the DMCA takedown request actually does.
This portion of the DMCA allows the victim to file a claim with a third-party hosting provider (youtube in this case) stating that someone (the unnamed religious organization) has infringed on your video which is protected by copyright.
Acting on the request, youtube can take down the video and allow the unnamed religious organization to respond, identify themselves and claim that they do not infringe the victim's copyright. Youtube can then put the video back up.
Having identified the infringer, the victim can then sue the unnamed religious organization for damages.
By following the DMCA takedown request law, youtube has no liability for copyright infringement.
The DMCA takedown request does not create or eliminate liability by the infringer. It merely serves to identify the infringer so that the victim can sue in court.
If the infringer doesn't identify themselves, then youtube must keep the video offline, or if youtube puts the video back up, youtube now runs the risk of liability for copyright infringement.
The irony here is we're giving lots and lots of view hits to the stolen video.
Copyright infringers can't absolve themselves of guilt or legal liability simply by including the original copyright statement or acknowledging the copyright owner -- it's still against the law to use someone else's intellectual property without their expressed (by way of license) permission.
Just try posting a popular movie from Sony or Warner to YouTube and see how you get on when you try to claim "but I left the copyright statement in".
Confession may be good for the soul but it doesn't eliminate the crime.
Boo hoo. It's Youtube. Get over it. If you make enough of a noise, you invite the Streisand effect. Don't go blaring about it. Just fuck them over. Like copy THEIR stuff into a new video and make fun of them. When they go "wah wah wah" and have it taken down, pull the same thing - declare that it isn't. The law isn't set up to help YOU, it's set up to help major corporations extract wealth from the working class. Claiming DMCA with idiots like that is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. You're not going to win, unless you are very fast and very good at throwing knives. Since you've piddled away a lot of time on this already, fast isn't going to help, so you need to nuke the fuckers. Don't advertise it, just destroy them. And then: get over yourself. Anything on the web is fair game. That's the new rule: it's a game of TEGWAR.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
DMCA (the part you are talking about) is there to make it possible for websites to be run without being sued all the time, to help copyright owners to act fast against copyright infringement, and to allow innocently accused parties to publish non-infringing material.
What happened to you goes past what DMCA is there for. The website can refuse to remove the materials - in that case they risk becoming part of any court case. The infringer can insist on continuing to infringe. In that case things go to court. Now _if_ you are correct and they are infringing, they have just added substantially to their wrongdoing by making claims that they own the material.
There are severe penalties for acting against the DMCA rules. If you accuse someone of infringing when you are not the copyright holder, and likewise if they claim not to be infringing when they are. Probably worse than the copyright infringement.
ask a lawyer first but:
Send them an invoice for the use of your video. (for a reasonable amount)
if they don't pay try small claims court for non payment of the bill.
IANAL, so take this with the usual sodium supplement.
I notice that your video contains no copyright notice of any kind, As I understand it, this doesn't actually give away your ownership, but it does make it a lot of difference enforcementwise.You might want to do a little reading so you can better protect your work in the future.
It's also worth remembering that Youtube is very much about repurposing other people's content.. You can fight this with legal boilerplate and takedown notices, but really you're going against the spirit of the place.
Congratulations, you've illustrated perfectly one of the major problems with the DMCA. Written by corporations for corporations, the law implicitly equates a rights owner with a person or institution that has substantial resources to pursue and litigate violations. Nowhere in the law is there relief for the individual creator or small business whose works are appropriated by another party that has money and lawyers.
Cases like this have got to be a dime a dozen. As much as registering your work with the Library of Congress helps, it won't until you get to the expensive part where lawyers are involved.
I'd like to see YouTube provide the option of registering your work with THEM. If you're the first person to upload specific material to them, that should count as a tie-breaker in such cases as these. They look at the original asteroid video, they look at the subsequently uploaded video (which will also have slightly poorer video quality after being re-encoded), and then the latter video gets denied if they try what they're trying here.
A watermark embedded by YouTube on encoding would also help make it difficult for people to pull material from their site, and repost it as their own.
All you are willing to say about them is problem with a religious organization ???? If you are so cowardly that you are not even willing to name those who you claim have wronged you, then you deserve the treatment that you get.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I'll say to you the same as I say to big media. - The one sure fire way to not have your shit taken by others is not to make it public.. Now put you big stick away..
Post this to http://reddit.com/r/atheism and rally the troops. It's a huge, highly-motivated community that delights in challenging these sorts of offenses.
The enemy of my enemy is quite possibly also my enemy. I've made a lot of enemies.
It's a cruel world for Jonathan Swift fans.
It doesn't matter if they are in another country or not. YouTube is based in the US, so all you need is a default judgment from a US judge, mail the judgment to YouTube, and watch the video get taken down permanently.
If you are also wanting to be awarded damages, then that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. You *might* get an award, but good luck ever collecting it.
It sounds to me like you're not interested in damages, just getting rid of the offending videos would be enough. So, do it. It will cost a little bit, but that's the price of enforcing Copyright.
Welcome to the Wonderful World of Intellectual Property Law!
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
Get a story off to www.groklaw.net and ask for publicity and advice there.
Looking at space, radio, science and computing from a 'down-under' amateur enthusiast perspective.
Copyright infringers can't absolve themselves of guilt or legal liability simply by including the original copyright statement or acknowledging the copyright owner
My point was how blatant they were being .. not even trying to hide the infringement.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
register www.churchswhateverareabunchofthievingbastards.com. Put up your side of the story. When they complain tell them that you're willing to swear under oath that they, are in fact, a bunch of thieving bastards and so you have the right to keep the site up.
Bark less. Wag more.
Oh there are people who think like this. I am one of them, by the way. But I am coherent. I think always like this, including in the case stated here. There is nothing wrong in believing information should be free. It is a valid opinion even if you disagree with it. There is nothing wrong in opinions like these to be modded up, especially when they are presented with good arguments, which is often the case.
On the other hand, like I said, this is not the opinion of most Slashdotters, but what I stated in my previous post certainly is.
Oh, and don't hire Salman Rushdie's lawyer.
So you're saying I shouldn't submit my question about what to do now that I've killed my landlady, ate her kidneys, posed as her daughter and emptied her bank account, and now need a solution to the smell emanating from the floorboards where I buried her dismembered remains?
Phew, glad you told me. I'll phone a lawyer and a fumigator instead.
Just apply copious amounts of bleach and ammonia, that's guaranteed to take care of the real problem.
Disclaimer: anyone who thinks this is serious advice should do some research first.
> the more lawyer you have the more 'equal' you are
Welcome to reality.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
And why are you modded 0 and and not 5 insightful? The OP have a claim, the religious group have a counter-claim. You need to take it to a curt. Why artists always insists on some kind of special rights? If my neighbour steals my car I need to call the police and prove that it is indeed my car. If the neighbour somehow states that it's his car, I need to sue him first. So why artists are taking it for graded that some kind of magic fairy should come, swing her magic wand and resolve all copyright claims?
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
I didn't realize YouTube was an overseas company with no formal relations with the USA.
Learn to love Alaska
I understand how it works exactly. It makes easier for right holders with money to directly prosecute people without as much money that happen to incur in the obvious crime of fair use. It is more often than not abused to take out basically anything one wishes on the fear of the media service to be prosecuted by not complying.
Youtube, being backed by a huge corporation and all is certainly more resistant to DCMA bullying, but any small guy will bow to a RIAA or MPAA request, regardless of any real right they might or might not have over the work.
Are you affiliated with a university? Their legal department might be willing to lend a hand if you teach there, or least give some advice on how to proceed.
Information may want to be free. But they aren't spreading information. They are spreading lies. Lies deserve to be punished. Truth should be free. The original version (the true one) is free. The twisted lie version should not be free.
Learn to love Alaska
:-)
This post smells like a Hollywood sponsored campaign to plant seeds of good will towards the next attempt to have some treaty to enforce US copyright laws globe-wide. You even picked the targets that you think the slashdot crowd would be sympathetic towards: good guy=independent science film maker; bad guy=religious group. Personalize the issue, because that's how people forget their principles.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
;-)
Hi there.
Per one of my gripes a day ago, thank you for being actively involved in your Ask thread!
My next question for you, and the /. crew at large, is ... why not ask one of the IAAL types here if they can do this Pro Bono? I'm a little fuzzy on what jurisdiction is legal to file in vs where you are, etc, but aren't we all saying the initial file is the easy part? Can't one of the IAAL gang here drill that off in like an hour?
Slashdot Lawyers: Won't You Think Of The Little Guy?? : )
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
:-D
This really sucks, but from looking at this individual's Wikipedia entry he has successfully taken on far, far larger entities and caused enough trouble that it would seem as if he is some sort of well-funded masterful troll in his own way.
I think (unless you really want to go the predictably expensive legal route) the best course of action would be to find a way to start some sort of grass-roots effort to deface his entries and comment on all of these posts so that YouTube and WIkipedia are continuously overwhelmed with negative posts explaining the ploy, especially if you can find people who do it in in native tongue.
Then you can become a thorn on his side enough that at that time in my opinion he will just move on and pick other low-hanging fruits, driven by whatever motivates him and his organization of minions.
And if your work does not contain copyright notices, this incident should be a strong incentive to do it from here on out!
What difference does that make? There are cases when it's okay to upload material containing copyrighted works for which you are not the copyright holder. Again, a judge can determine whether the material is appropriately licensed / ineligible for copyright protection / covered by fair use. That's not Youtube's job.
Time to use community pressure to obtain the desired result.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
I should warn you that at least a good part of those people, especially in a place like this, do not think exactly like your oversimplified model of them thinks they do. More often than not the incoherence appears more due to a flaw in the method of analysis than in the subject being analyzed.
Put up another video saying that no one should join that religion, what ever it is, since its leadership is all liers.
The Ministry of Truth will decide which is true and which is a lie. The Ministry of Love will punish the liars.
There's such a thing as fair use of your work in another work. While it sounds like these folks went well beyond fair use, it doesn't sound like you care enough to spend lawyer money argue the finer points.
Have you tried talking to Youtube again? He said that he has permission to use your video. Well, say something like "The video is mine. I created it. He does not have my permission.". That shouldn't require a lawyer.
Once I get my asteroid mining operation going, I will be happy to aim one in their direction. Just give me GPS coordinates to make sure I get the right target, and right size rock.
(Targeting asteroids for the highest bidder is an often overlooked revenue source).
Before you do anything at all consider this web page:
http://mukto-mona.net/debunk/harun_yahya/index.htm
which states that Adnan Oktar (aka Harun Yahya) and his followers have a history of using both extortion and violence against anyone who interferes in their criminal enterprises. With that said perhaps your best bet would be to pursue another DCMA process with YouTube along with proof that you own the media as another commenter suggested.
So this is a chapter of Scientology?
Be seeing you...
Copyright laws are different in different parts of the world. Whether Youtube is an American company or not has nothing to do with whether the video in question is legally considered to be violating any copyright in another country
Even under American copyright laws, there's exemptions made for "educational" use, and they could be arguing that their film is educational in nature. Tinfoil hat alarmist dreck though it may be, it could still meet the legal definition for an educational exemption from copyright.
Get a declaratory judgment. Once a Court rules it is yours, then Google will listen. How much would Google spend to fight when it has no dog in the fight.
Fight Spammers!
I don't know, but this seems like something you need help with. And how likes to fuck with religious groups? Anonymous. How to get a hold of anonymous? 4chan, /b/, ask for help. Explain what is going on, and how you feel helpless to do anything about it.
Peeps will get info, dox, and maybe even start some trouble.
Because chances are, asking here isn't going to get shit done.
Be seeing you...
If they were doing so to comment on or satire the original work, yes. If they are just doing it because they are too lazy/incompetent to generate their own graphic, then no.
In this case, the original work is presented as the original work (numbers quoted, attribution given), and repeated multiple times.
Learn to love Alaska
Go outside Slashdot and take it to the "real media". Point out the current interest in "maximal copyright enforcement" and show how you, the content producer, have been abused. But be prepared to SHOW PROOF the video is indeed yours. However, be aware that people in that area of the world already feel taken advantage of by the USA, and feel that this kind of thing is justified, especially after the media hoopla over the “Innocence of Muslims”.
I had a satirical video on YouTube which was targeted by ContentID. After I contested (because it is satire), some of the copyright holders removed their claims, but one reinstated them (one based in Germany, where I believe there is no "fair use").
At that point it was I who had no further recourse, not them. I was under the impression that YouTube's policies were basically biased towards presumed copyright holders. What makes this situation different? Have you already confirmed / reinstated your claims using their system?
.: Semper Absurda
You are assuming all videos are "information." I disagree.
Learn to love Alaska
First I'd like to say that I watched your video and really liked it. Thank you for putting together such an interesting visualization of the progress science has made in detecting asteroids. I just fired up Boinc and attached orbit@home earlier today after nearly finishing up Pale Blue Dot, so I found it particularly interesting.
In my experience, there's only really one way to deal with the religious: just walk away. It looks like YouTube's like/dislike system is functioning, and when I watched the Islamist video, there were 484 dislikes compared to 22 likes, and your comment about giving no permission is the top comment with 267 likes.
It seems like the religious have a peculiar view of science: they take anything that seems to agree with their views completely out of context and trumpet it as science confirming some strange verse in their holy book. Then, when science challenges notions such as the earth being many factors of 10 older than their 6,000 year guess or that humans might not be special little snowflakes to some sky wizard, the religious go ballistic on science. The religious can't seem to decide whether to accept observations about the reality around us or to reject reality entirely.
As others have pointed out, if you really want to pursue legal action further, you're going to have to put up some money and hire a lawyer. If fruther action really is necessary, though, I think I like the idea of mocking the Islamist video. Trying to fight people who choose religion over reality tends to only have the effect of proving to potential followers that "scientists" really are these big bad bogeymen sent by Satan. Fighting against them legitimizes them. Mocking them, though, I think is the appropriate response and conveys the message that their delusion is too stupid to even engage, but not too incoherent to feel sorry for.
Thanks
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
The problem is any self-respecting lawyer would not dare give legal advice on a forum, because of liabilities/etc.. Lawyers need to be careful that what they say, especially if it's not in full possession of the facts, is not taken as legal advice, because they can be held liable if it turns out to be bad advice. And no, I am not a lawyer, but I have studied some law.
Your best bet, in a situation like this is to do a little research. First off, make sure that they actually are violating your copyright... from what I've seen, there's a small amount of the original work that gets used repeatedly. My understanding of the US "fair use" allows for re-use of a small clip in a derivative or other work, as long as it is not a large part of the original film, and is not substantially the same as the original. There are also considerations for the potential impact on market value of the original, and for the commerciality of the derivative work... is it being used for educational purposes, for example?
These are questions I can't answer, because I don't know enough about US copyright law, but I suspect that they're arguing that their film is allowed because it's educational in nature, because it is substantively different from the original, and because they're only using a small part of the video without including the sound.
If you still feel you have a case, then make an appointment with a lawyer and ask them whether it's worth pursuing it. If you don't like their answer, ask another lawyer.
Even under American copyright laws, there's exemptions made for "educational" use,
No, there isn't. Educational use is an affirmative defense via fair use, but not an "exemption".
And US laws to apply to US corporations in the USA.
Learn to love Alaska
The DMCA is like the Skull of Mondain. You can do a lot of destruction with it, and you can even only destroy bad guys with it if you like. But it's an evil law and you're evil for using it.
If they (or he, Adnan Oktar) submitted the proper counter-claim, then they/he submitted to the appropriate jurisdiction per ...
3. The statement: "I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant."
Sue in that jurisdiction. Send the service process by certified mail to the address provided to YouTube, which should have provided it to you. If the service of process is returned DO NOT OPEN IT so that a judge can open it and see what was really sent and refused. At this point if the defendant did not answer or appear, file a motion to ask the judge for an injunction against the defendant, which can then be served on YouTube to take the video down in their role as agent of defendant.
Actually getting money for losses might be hard. You'd probably have to go to Turkey for that. But within the USA you can get YouTube to take it down, and possibly even get a judgment for damages since it could be argued that the harm took place in the USA. Collecting on the judgment is the hard part if they have no assets in the USA.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I don't use youtube often enough to know about this, but can you ask youtube to look at the places in the video where the nutcase admits you produced the original?
Be aware, of course, of the Streisand effect. In this case, your attempts to shut his video down may give him fuel for his claims that he is being persecuted, adding slightly to his base of believers.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Ask on www.Groklaw.net
> Why go after Youtube?
I can find full length copyrighted movies and songs on Youtube with incredible ease. I can easily, through an add-on or the audio/video out, capture or record them.
The point is, who cares? Yes, it's offensive, but the author doesn't seem mad because someone used his work (for example, if a portion were used in a factual science documentary), it's because his work was used in a manner that he finds offensive. He seems to be appealing to emotion and not principle.
That doesn't mean they don't have the rights to that video. They could have licensed it for all we know.
1. Create video that is insulting to muslims and islam. 2. Put this dudes name in the credits and his business address etc. 3. Profit? Crowdsourcing take down. You're welcome.
Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
You don't have to WIN a court case to have it removed. In fact you don't even have to actually file. Under DMCA, you only have to show Youtube that you INTEND to file in court and at that point they have to remove it until the other party proves that they won in court. So fill out the form as though you were going to file the case and send a copy to youtube. That should get the video removed again. Actually paying the filing fee is optional, so long as youtibe thinks you INTEND to file. I have used this technique with a fraudulent car dealership - they blew me off until I delivered a copy of the legal complaint form, at which point they got real cooperative real fast. I never actually filed the suit, just filled out the paperwork.
The courts are already overtaxed and its not like court fees cover the all the externalities involved. Youtube may in fact be a great first line of arbitration and THEN it can go to a court. It would save the taxpayers a lot of money.
I'm suspicious. You really think these whack jobs deserve the publicity? They're already prominently featured on slashdot, ffs...
So? This the proper and intended use. You're spouting off in the wrong story. You're doing the cause no justice.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Fair enough.
Meanwhile the rest of us are downvoting it, flagging it for fraud, and commenting the truth of the matter.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
I'm saying, wy not have an IAAL guy here contact the Asker, do a half hour interview, get the info he needs, and do an hour's worth of filing?
No need for it to be posted. Just why burn 200 slashdot comments when an hour and half might kick it along?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The poster has made a very interesting video, which was "borrowed" by an organization that he doesn't like. This organization gave proper attribution and their video is not strictly identical to the poster's. This case is probably not that trivial, it may border on the "fair use" side of things.
The best response would probably have been to continue working with youtube and not publicize the organization's message, but it is too late now.
See part D.
File charges wherever they state. If they don't defend, then presumably you get a default judgement in your favour.,.
So, the basis for denying GPL code made by others in proprietary-closedsource-only software is based on emotion, not principle? Or there doesn't exist any "principles" outside of the scope of Free(beer) vs. Libre(freedom) vs. Paid-and-proprietary?
The copyright holder has every right to allow or disallow any use of his/her work as he/she sees fit, and they are under no obligation to justify their decisions or the basis of said decisions. Of course, after a license has been granted, it binds the copyright holder but excluding certain uses on whatever basis while allowing other uses certainly falls within the rights of copyright holders. The audience can either take it or leave it as it is.
Now, we might argue whether or not the guy should have anticipated stuff like this and expressly deny all religious marketing with his work, but given the infringing parties response so far it might not have done any difference.
Remember, Youtube doesn't have any special legal status. Any rules that you apply to Youtube apply to everyone. If you run a blog, someone sends you a DMCA takedown notice for a comment posted on your blog, and the commenter sends a counternotice, what do you want to have to do? Leave the comment deleted? That's so wide open to abuse it's not even funny. Make a random guess whether the comment should be restored? Ditto. Pay a lawyer to look at the comment and determine whether it's likely within the bounds of the law? Why should you spend hundreds of dollars on a matter that has so very little to do with you? What other options are there but to restore the comment and leave the matter for someone else to handle?
I watched the video and I did not leave with the impression that your research supports their message. They just credited you with the video. I think you're grasping at straws here. Other than the video possibly blocking the small amount of money you make on youtube, the video is fair use.
Contrary to what others have said, Defamation requires that you have financial injury that resulted from them making false statements about you, as a non-celebrity. I did not see false statements about you and even if they did, you'd have to prove they injured you financially, such as losing your job or something like that.
Ask them whether they know the meaning of the commandment concerning stealing. It's quite final. "Thou shalt not steal". It doesn't read "Thou shalt not steal, unless it serves your purposes".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is his facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/harunyahyaworks
Might be a good idea to let him know what you think of him
It's not like someone making a perfect copy of your car, this is like someone making a horrible, bastardised, substandard version of your car, which other people then think is your car and think, by association, that you are a jerk.
If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done?
Plus a solid list of posts calling it a fraud and thief. Not to mention lots of misspellings of common swear words. Kind of embarrassing when you can't spell the 7 Dirty Words.
I am Homer of Borg, resistance is - Ooo Donuts!
I hate religion as much as the next person with a brain, but isn't it a bit hypocritical for everyone on slashdot to suddenly be all in favour of the DMCA just because the copyright breaker is a religious group?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Your limited capacity of understanding these concepts is what brings you to perceive their opinions as something paradoxical.
It's only paradoxical if they're idiots about it. Like people who create fandom works and say in one breath "Don't worry about asking for permission to use it, it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission" and in the next breath "I'd be fine with someone using my works as a basis for their works as long as they asked me for permission first." It's paradoxical when they think that copyright law SHOULDN'T protect people whose works are successful, regardless of whether the successful creator is actually abusing the copyright system, but that copyright law SHOULD protect struggling artists. There are plenty of creative commons struggling artists who put their un-money where their mouths are. For example, the creator of Sita Sings the Blues (http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/) ran into so many issues trying to license songs that were not even available in modern media, and after she finished her feature length film, she made the whole thing CC.
Full disclosure, I'm a lawyer, have been studying IP issues since law school, but am more on the academic side than the actual practicing side. I get that people are concerned about equal access to justice. But there are also advocacy groups like Public Knowledge that I'd like to think represent finding the balance that you seem to be referring to between curbing abuses of copyright and supporting small creators.
Which country does this other person reside in? That's an important point. Many other countries who take copyright violation seriously (Western Europe, Australia, etc...) might be willing to cooperate more with DMCA-like requests, so that when an American violates similar policies there, they will be taken seriously.
Step 1) restore the content
Step 2)Contact both parties and see if they will agree to binding arbitration (or change the terms of service to force this)
Step 3) Ask both parties to submit evidence
Step 4) Make a determination. If someone doesn't like it then they can take the other party to court.
I have run into this circumstance in the past with Linden Labs and SecondLife. Content I created was being copied and sold by others as their own original work without my permission. I followed the same procedure as you did: Notified Linden Lab. They took down the content. Then the other party did exactly what happened to you: they filed a counter claim. At that point Linden Labs told me that they could do nothing more without a court order. They, like YouTube, are not in the business of - nor do they have the resources to - investigate this stuff. They did everything legally required of them. So it all boils down to how much is it worth to you and what do you want to spend?
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
So if the RIAA/MPAA sued to protect their content then there would be a massive tirade on Slashdot about the evilness of DCMA and those trying to protect their content. However the moment some "average Joe" finds someone is using his content without his permission suddenly it's Slashdot to the rescue to try and offer advice on how to protect his interests.
You can't have it both ways guys and gals.
So either DCMA is evil and must be abolished, meaning that anybody posting content is at the mercy of unscrupulous users that would simply take the content and use it however they see fit,
OR
DCMA is a necessary component of digital distribution in which those people that choose to offer their content under its protection are entitled to fight for their IP distribution rights when its in violation.
You can't pick and choose to defend or deny the existence of DCMA based on the amount of money the content holder makes off it. Just because some movie company wants to protect their billion dollar blockbuster is no less valid a claim to protect their IP as some guy that doesn't hope to earn a penny off their content. DCMA is offered to ANYBODY that wants to distribute content that requires licensing for use or viewing.
So, the majority of posters here offering advice to this guy to protect his interest are pure hypocrites because if this was a story about the RIAA or MPAA suing some grandmother for distributing millions of songs and movies then the very same people would be in outrage.
So, my advice. Get over it, accept the fact that the moment you post something digitally online people are going to abuse it. If you are suffering financial or personal damages because of its use, then sue like every other claimant under DCMA protection.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
OK, I rescind any earlier comments I've made on here (not sure if I made any actually) now that I've had a chance to come home from work and watch the videos.
He gave you full credit. He didn't use a huge portion of your video. He didn't really even mischaracterize your research (at least initially he does in fact say these are astroids _discovered_ between 1980 and 2010, which seems accurate). So what's your complaint here -- that someone you don't like read and used your research? It seems like the video clips he's using are small enough to be fair use, and he _does give you full attribution for those clips_. I highly doubt anybody is going to watch this and decide you must support everything said in that video -- pretty sure they'll realize this is some crackpot. The legion of Slashdotters who have since commented and downvoted the video will probably help there as well -- which I suspect may have been your real reason for posting this here, which I can't really complain about. Nothing wrong with calling out a lunatic, but he doesn't seem to have done anything illegal and certainly not morally wrong (well, except spewing his FUD)
Read Technogirl's reply above. It's usually not worth duking it out directly with criminals and ne'er-do-wells who are not above breaking the law (or any of your limbs) to get their way. Get your facts together and try to re-present them to Youtube, find other ways to publicize this, take the registered claimant of their web-site to court (small claims if you want to handle it yourself, regular court with higher limits if you can affortd an attorney) and win a default judgment since they are out of the country and will not appear. In order for this to work, you must "serve" them proper notice of your suit. You'll need help for this small claims court; you might be better off hiring an attorney to help you with that. Once you win a default judgment, pass along the appropriate court-case docket and ruling information to Goo-You-tube and ask them to please please now help you and realize that those copycats are the infringer and that you are the rightful holder of the copy-right. Good luck, sir.