Slashdot Mirror
Blender Foundation Video Taken Down On YouTube For Copyright Violation
An anonymous reader writes "As if the automated take downs on Youtube weren't already bad enough, today fans of the popular open source 3D software Blender were greeted by a copyright take down notice for their third open movie, Sintel, despite it being released under a Creative Commons license: 'This video contains content from Sony Pictures Movies & Shows, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.' It is believed that the takedown was a result of Sony Electronics adding Sintel to their official 4k demo pool."
https://cloud.blender.org/goos... For only 224 USD you can be in the movies credits. Others have to work their ass off to get into a movies credits, so if your name is not too offending to anybody this is a done deal ;-)
Of course there are also cheaper deals.
Nuff said.
There needs to be a law against this. Sony should have to pay restitution to Blender.
IANAL, but shouldn't this qualify as perjury? Sony needs to certify in their automated DMCA request that they, in fact, own the rights to the content in question, under the penalty of perjury. Someone really needs to take the big studios to court for this sort of abuse, otherwise it won't stop.
YouTube was great until Google acquired them. Every "enhancement" and change they make drags it down further.
Of course, without Google, YouTube might not still be around otoh. But the point of YouTube was to decentralize video sharing and take it out of the hands of corporate media giants. Instead, the giants are increasing their stranglehold on YouTube and making it unfeasible for any old Joe to get a tiny kickback for content they upload, as well as crowding out all other competing content.
Meanwhile, Google mandates that people use YouTube with their real name and make it exceedingly difficult to manage multiple accounts.
Fuck em.
Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
Blender should file a Counter Claim against Sony. As well as try and get a strike against Sony for this. There is a term for this, False Flag abuse.
free publicity.
Blender should file a Counter Claim against Sony. As well as try and get a strike against Sony for this. There is a term for this, False Flag abuse.
Sigh. Please don't use expressions that you don't understand. False Flag: designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
In some countries, it would be obtaining a service (the takedown) based upon a false and fraudulent pretense. That's a criminal offence, and an injured party can call upon the Crown to prosecute it as such. Consult a lawyer in the jurisdiction in question, get a quote and take them with you to the fraud squad, to ensure the process happens correctly. It's arguably hard to do correctly in the U.S, as suggested by the low number of convictions reported...
davecb@spamcop.net
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
"... falsely claiming you own someone else's copyright"
I personally think the situation is -much- simpler.
Google just needs to not return anything with "Sony" in it, as a search result.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
Every "enhancement" and change they make drags it down further.
I call bullshit on this one. Since Youtube was taken over by Google, server speed has increased immensely, they've moved to HD, they've removed time limits on videos, they've allowed live streaming of shows, they've given away hundreds of millions of dollars through the partnership program they introduced (including many shows that are simply vlogs)... Et cetera.
However, the linking of Google Plus to Youtube does indeed suck.
YouTube was great until Google acquired them. Every "enhancement" and change they make drags it down further.
I don't agree with your opinion, but really this has little to do with the issue at hand.
It's the DMCA takedown laws that allow this.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
They could have added a rootkit.
I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
and have Sony state under oath why they think the video is theirs. Seems Sony is excertising ownership right over the video, seems to me that's IP theft by Sony. After all according to the gove and media IP theft is the biggest danger to American way of life since the nuclear communist threat.
I would happily donate $$$ to this court case.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
When the DMCA was being debated it was assured that there were very strong penalties for incorrect takedown notices. Then the goalposts shifted so that "it didn't really mean it" became enough of a defence to escape those penalties. People who warned that this was going to happen were told to remove their tinfoil hats.
That's not the only problem I have with how the DMCA turned out but it's a start. Takedown notice spamming is like putting a speeding ticket on every parked car you see.
There needs to be financial penalties for false takedown notices. Right now there is no cost in automated sending of takedown notices.
Google trying to push everyone onto G+ was my reason to throw YouTube in the crapper... and the only reason why I even looked for other services, which turned out to be the best move I ever made concerning my online viewing habits.
So, in a twisted kind of way, I think I have to thank Google for trying to push G+ onto their YouTube users. Without, we probably would never have bothered to learn that there's other, and better, ways to get your daily dose of videos.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
server speed has increased immensely
I never noticed a problem before Google. Even if it were, video is cacheable and buffer-able and I'd prefer to wait if it's the condition for unencumbered content
they've moved to HD
I think this would have happened regardless. Possibly it would have been YouTube's revenue model... to upload or consume HD, you have to pay in some way.
they've removed time limits on videos
I think this would have been similar to the HD situation and would have happened regardless.
they've allowed live streaming of shows
Meh. I don't care much about live streaming. Regardless, the average Joe isn't doing this, it's mostly people with deeper pockets.
they've given away hundreds of millions of dollars through the partnership program they introduced (including many shows that are simply vlogs)
Revenue sharing is only right. You shouldn't credit Google for making money off the content and then sharing some of that revenue with the people that upload it. Because if they didn't, there would be torches and pitchforks headed toward Mountain View. What does suck, though, is their implementation. Upload original content that happens to have some copyrighted song in the background and you don't get a penny. Sorry, but that's just wrong, wrong, wrong.
Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
Have you used YouTube lately? It used to be jammed with 1 hit wonders, spam and viral crap. Now YouTube is rewarding and encouraging people to basicly start their own TV show. Of those that are doing so the percentage of intelligent and usefull shows is WAY higher than you find on any TV network, none of it would have happened without Google to back it up.
The proper term is "Slander of Title". Basically, Sony claimed the Protected Work was theirs wherein they're merely licensing it for their 4K demo content. Under CC Attribution 3.0, they can't claim anything as their own work, they have to attribute the content to the original rights holders, and can't place any additional restrictions on the further publication of the content (i.e. You can't tell someone to do a takedown on the content, either as a DMCA or as a reciprocal agreement as Sony has with Google on YouTube. Violates the restrictions clause and attempts to claim sole rights over the content- you can't claim sole rights over your derivative work per license which would be the only way you could legitimately do a takedown.)
This means they are no longer licensed to the content in question.
Each and every copy they distributed or intend to distribute of the protected work in question, Sintel, is now a willful copyright infringement on Sony's part. Seems to me that the Blender project needs to retain counsel and sue for the Statutory Damages for this...which amounts to $150,000, per each copy done without licensing.
Not exactly.
Because of multiple lawsuits and threats of lawsuits from the recording industry, Google has struck this deal with major stakeholders whereby they can basically bypass what limited due process exists in the DMCA and takedown videos on a whim.
You have no recourse under this system because the DMCA isn't being invoked by these media companies where there is an ability to file a DMCA counter-notice and sue for damages for false copyright assertions.
There are, but conveniently enough you have to file your own suit against them rather than the government enforcing it.
Google fights authority for lots of things. In this case, they happily worked on non-trivial content-tracking and content-scanning code and subsequently handed over the keys to the YouTube kingdom to the MAFIAA.
Why? Because Big Content is now also distributed on YouTube. Google gets a piece of that action. That wouldn't have happened if Google hadn't agreed to clamp down on even the most borderline and questionable copyright claims possible.
Here's an example: my company wrote, directed, filmed, and edited a music video for a lesser known artist who is a friend. We did it pro bono because he is a friend. We posted the video to YouTube and he started using it successfully to promote himself and get more appearances. He's not making any money, but he is increasing his exposure and the hope is someday it will help him get somewhere. In the meantime, the video is garnering views on YouTube and we had it set to monetize. Our aim was to offset our investment even in the most minor way possible. The medium sized publishing company that he used to distribute his track turns out is owned by a bigger publishing company. That bigger company claimed they owned the copyright on the video. Google happily revoked our right to monetize it and gave us the option to take it down or let the bigger company monetize it. There's no one you can actually talk to at Google to dispute these things and it's all automated and played according to rules designed solely to favor the big content companies that revenue share with Google for hosting their commercial YouTube channels.
Since the publishing company didn't enter into any contract with us to produce a video, we don't stand a chance to get any money. We can take down the video and thus hurt our friend, or we can demand he pay us, which also hurts him, or we can leave it there and the publishing company, which didn't spend a SINGLE DIME to either write, record or produce the track (they just distribute it, and their reward is a cut of the sales), and which didn't spend a SINGLE DIME to write, record, or produce the video... just gets to sit back and monetize the video. It's peanuts to them. Shit, it's peanuts to us and wouldn't undo the time and money we put into the video. BUT IT'S THE FUCKING PRINCIPLE!
All thanks to Google buying YouTube and then not only not fighting the fight it should have fought, but actually working intentionally to hand it all over to the bad guys.
Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
Sorry, to clarify: our friend has even spoken with the publishing company. They say they have no control over it. Google just automatically flags content that includes songs that are in the database as being owned by different publishers. Short of paying to get lawyers involved, and everyone loses except the lawyers if that happens, there is no way to alter this automated madness!
Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
It's the DMCA takedown laws that allow this.
I don't think that's accurate. The DMCA creates a 'safe haven' for content sites like Youtube, it essentially says, "if you takedown when someone tells you that their content is on your website, then you can't be sued." Prior to the DMCA, sites could be sued for any comment posted on their website, and have a good chance of losing (I don't know any case of this happening before the 1998, if someone else knows, that would be interesting).
The case here is that the studios have made an agreement with Google: they don't have to file a DMCA takedown request at all. They tell Google they don't like it, and they have two options: take all ad profits from the content, or have it taken down. "Take all ad profits from the content" is definitely not part of the DMCA, that's something extra Google came up with (I presume, maybe it was a studio idea).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"You wouldn't steal a handbag...
"You wouldn't steal a car...
"You wouldn't download a movie...
"But it's okay to claim someone else's IP as your own... if you're Sony!
It looks like this is just a Youtube thing, that no legal action was taken at all. It was an agreement between two private companies (Sony and Google), to take down content that Sony doesn't like. That isn't illegal, because Google owns the site.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
In fact, the opposite was the case. You were not liable for copyrighted content posted by others. The DMCA didn't change that, but created a much stronger safe harbor which you lose by not obeying the DMCAs takedown provision, thus providing a strong incentive to follow those takedown provisions. A sneaky end-run around the First Amendment; you don't HAVE to obey the whims of those who send takedown letters, but in practice the incentive is overwhelming.
This isn't a problem with Google this is a problem with you, your friend and his publisher. They added the video to the list of media they owned, did they do that because your friend told them they could? Did they do it without his knowlege? What does his contract with the publisher say, they very well may own the copyright to that video now. As far as Google is concerned one person owns that video and the publishing company is a more convincing argument than 'the guys who filmed and editied it for free.' Can the guy who did the mixing for the latest pop album claim that he owns the songs because he made it? Media production is not about what is right or wrong its about following the letter of the law through its nightmarish fractal itterations.
The proper term is "Slander of Title". The rights for Sintel do not belong to Sony, period. They're re-using it under a Creative Commons license, but they're NOT the rights holder and they basically claimed they were with this little stunt. I'd think that the damages might fund several shorts or at least one or two feature length Blender movies.
And now Sony cannot legally use the Sintel short. They broke the Creative Commons license by claiming ownership, which severs the license. Any and all use of the Sintel short by Sony from now on is unlicensed, i.e. pirate copying.
And no, there is no provision in the CC license for sayihng "oops" to get the license reactivated. They are in breach, and need to get a new license from the copyright holders before they can continue using it.
Forget financial - let's set copyright penalties.
False takedown claim, claimant's copyright that was reportedly infringed immediately turned over to public domain, and can NEVER be returned to claimants.
This would apply even if the claimant is just a front company hired to look for violations, they would need to be bonded and insured for billions in losses.
Which is broken by design, since they don't need to file suit to get the content removed to begin with, which, at the very least, they should. Instead, they get to fire off takedown notices, which websites have to comply with if they want safe harbor, with impunity, or at least until someone challenges them in court, but even then, it's unlikely they'll actually get in real trouble due to the way the DMCA was written.
Also, if you file suit against them, it would be the government that would decide the result and enforce it; that's what courts are.
[End Of Line]
And who's going to stop them? Its one thing to say its illegal.. its quite another to enforce that claim, even if you're technically true. That's the whole problem with the current copyright system (and much of the legal system in general) -- money makes the laws and money enforces the laws. Justice gets to sit in a corner and sulk with the rest of us.
There are better alternatives, like Archive.org--especially for Libre/Opensource projects. I would not bother with Youtube, which is riddled with ads anyway. Archive.org has a mandate to serve the public, Youtube has a mandate to line the pockets of the rich. I'll take Archive.org. The Blender team should have known better.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
It is believed that the takedown was a result of Sony Electronics adding Sintel to their official 4k demo pool.
This sounds like Sony is the infringer.
Indeed, the best way to get around the slashdot effect is to hit refresh repeatedly, that will get it working.
...
this, from the moment the video was took down, every download of Sintel from any Sony Pictures server is an instance of copyright infringement carrying a fine of up to $250,000.
I would love to see Sony Pictures lawyers claiming it was just an accident after all the aggresive prosecutions of "accidental" music sharers.
HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
Well, first of all many major copyright holders have special deals with YouTube where they don't actually send DMCA requests. In that case it's just a private agreement between Sony and YouTube on content monitoring, at best you have a slander suit but no basis for a perjury. Secondly, they may have a legal claim to copyright on the whole clip reel as a collection - basically the selection and composition of clips - and that's enough to get them out of the perjury part. In generic terms, "Under penatlity of perjury, we are the copyright holders of movie X. We believe that the posted scene Y is in violation of our copyright on X." Even if that last part is wrong because it's freely licensed or in the public domain or for some other reason not eligible for copyright it's not under perjury. It sucks, but any competent lawyer will manage to wiggle Sony out of any trouble.
The youtube page in fact says: "This video contains content from Sony Pictures Movies & Shows, who has blocked it on copyright grounds."
Assuming they're as careful with their language as I am, that says the Sony, not Youtube, initiated the takedown.
The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
Huh? How would that work in this case, exactly? Sony makes a false claim, and Sintel gets put in the public domain??
I've had similar experiences. Three times I've invoked the wrath of the youtube content ID system.
The first I'll let them have: The video was clear infringement, albeit of a video that the copyright holder at the time refused to publish. A certain very early Disney cartoon that cast their beloved Micky in a rather bad light. I used it to demonstrate some video restoration techniques.
The second was clear fair use. I used about thirty seconds of footage from a twenty-minute cartoon, with dubbed-over music, in order to poke fun at certain visual elements. No matter. Interestingly, this wasn't automated: The copyright holder for the cartoon actually had someone send a takedown notice. I'm guessing I offended an executive.
The third one was inexcusable: Content-ID picked up the infringement of audio, but for music that was so ancient (Any older and it'd be on wax cylinder!) as to be public domain even in the US. I looked into it - a collecter's society had claimed the rights to it, even though the composer was dead more than seventy years ago. I attempted to appeal this one, but there just isn't an appeal option. There's nothing you can use. I tried three times to contact an actual human at youtube to explain the situation, but never even got a reply. If it's a DMCA takedown (As in case two) you can file a counterclaim, but this was Content-ID: Its word is final and beyond contest.
That doesn't make any sense. I can tell you I don't like you based on copyright grounds, but it doesn't mean it will have anything to do with legality. The DMCA has a fairly specific list of steps that need to be followed for it to be considered a takedown notice.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I honestly thought of doing something along those lines. But we're talking pennies barely worth small claims court here (going by what Google normally pays out for YT revenue sharing). And at the end of the day, such a suit might even end up dismissed with a simple "well, you should have read the fine print and not posted the video" or some such, because it's true, my company doesn't own the audio content, my friend does and he has a contract with the publishing company so I assume they would argue they are protecting his rights by adding his music to the database. Best case scenario we'd get some fraction of the revenue sharing, the publishing company gets another fraction and my friend gets nothing because it's not enough to undo the by operational costs.
Alas, I have too many other things to worry about and no good lawyer friends. Its not worth it so I just live with that chip on my shoulder but move on.
Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
This. The Content-ID thing. A travesty.
At the very least there should be an accountable human behind any DMCA takedown request (which even then would be terribly flawed for all the other arguments pointed out by others).
Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
Read the GP Again... "claimant's copyright that was reportedly infringed immediately turned over to public domain". The claimant must, even with the fucked up copyright laws we still have, specify what copyright they own is being violated. So even in a false claim, Asshat Corp asserts you've violated their copyright on A, in your work B, they lose copyright on A. Your work, B, is unaffected. This particular case is very different from your normal take down request though, since Asshat Corp has taken your work, B, and included it in their line up (possibly legally if your work was creative commons without a non-commercial clause). Now an automatic system, which is fact totally one sided, has determined your B is the same as their B, and because it always assumes Asshat Corp own everything and everyone else is thief (because that reflects reality ) your B gets taken down. The problem here is the automation. The system should, when a potential infringing case is identified, check the licence of Asshat Corp's claimed infringing content. In this case it would have been CC, so no need to take down. If Asshat corp had CHANGED the license, and the original was CC-SA, then the blender guys would have a very good reason to file suit.
I feel your pain, but I'm not sure the people complaining in this thread understand the sheer size of YouTube. It's literally the entire worlds video repository. There are over 100 hours of video uploaded every minute. Over 100 hours! Even if YouTube employed an entire army of specialised copyright lawyers trained in the international nuances of fair use, there's no possible way the enormous number of disputes could ever be mediated in a fair way.
When you upload to YouTube, you get a lot of stuff for free, but you don't have to use them. You could host the video yourself and then the disputes would come to you directly instead of being auto-resolved by a machine. If you aren't willing to pay the costs of doing that, then you need to accept the consequences of YouTube's razor-thin profit margins and vast economies of scale.
And who's going to stop them?
Since Blender is a Dutch organization it would be EU. If Sony ignores the copyright they will end up with an Antigua-situation where EU will essentially claim to WTO that since Sony doesn't follow copyright regulation they are exempt from it and all Sony IP is free for copying within EU.
Since Youtube was taken over by Google, server speed has increased immensely, they've moved to HD, they've removed time limits on videos, they've allowed live streaming of shows, they've given away hundreds of millions of dollars through the partnership program they introduced (including many shows that are simply vlogs)... Et cetera.
I have a rather more cynical view of that. Better latency, HD, longer videos and live streaming are basically all just effects of one good thing, better servers. That's probably the only good thing that Google has given to Youtube.
I don't count the partnership program as good. Basically it radically influences channel content for the worse. Either it introduces money, which ruins everything*, or it introduces legal protection from U.S. entities which makes for some pretty bland content**.
* I'm a viewer of some channels that thrive on the partnership program (Drive Network and TotalBiscuit for example) and they all do worse and worse the more money is involved. Instead of being fueled by passion they are fueled by ratings and money. Which is what utterly killed Hollywood and Television for me and got me into Youtube in the first place. Examples from the Drive Network: the three-minute car reviews, which are blatantly not at home on that channel, and the product placement (like Pirelli) / advertisement videos that pop up every once in a while. Examples from TB: where to even begin. Makes videos based solely on the highest ratings, to the point where it comes close to ruining his personal life. Adjusts video content and kills off series based on how much revenue they bring in and not based on what he enjoys playing/shooting, which blatantly shows in his commentary.
** Partnership channels are pretty strictly regulated in regards to what they can show in their videos. They are trying to dodge takedown requests like this one and copyright strikes which may stop their cash intake. So... anything remotely inflammatory or controversial that could be in any way interpreted as slander, copyright infringement, etc... just won't appear on a channel like this any more.
Also: the GP was right about the ridiculous "updates". They're almost all terrible. The layout changes, the default setting changes, the player changes... Just the facts that buffering still doesn't work, quality settings were broken for months, subscriptions break all the time, are all great examples of the incompetency of the devs or the misguided priorities over there. Youtube is constantly becoming more corporate, better at generating revenue, and worse for the users. And users hate it more all the time and only use it because hardly anyone could ever afford to make a better Youtube clone.
The greatest thing Youtube has introduced lately is HTML5 compatibility and I have complete confidence Youtube could've and would've implemented that without Google's "help".
And from http://www.sintel.org/download
http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html - "Linux's Hit Men - ... So far, none of the Free Software Foundation’s targets have decided it is bad for the world and gone to court. This despite the fact that the foundation has $750,000 in the bank and one lawyer who works for free, part time, when he’s not teaching classes at Columbia University. "
That eleven year old article is written from the POV that the FSF is the bad guy for enforcing the GPL and that somehow forcing companies to comply goes against the very idea of free open source software. Forbes has concluded it is bad to attempt to enforce copyrights and license agreements when it would force a large corporation to actually do what the license requires because it would open them up to competition. It complete ignores the option to not use GPL code; except for a passing note about some poor company that estimated it lost $10 million because it they licensed code and then scrapped the project and went to a BSD license when they didn't like the terms of the original license.
It's really simple. If you don't want to share don't use GPL software. Use a BSD style license or develop proprietary code if you are worried about cloners. If your code is so integral to your product that releasing it would allow cloners to capture much of the market you probably shouldn't use the GPL or rethink your product. Apple probably chose the BSD license, in part, because it allowed them to develop an OS that had a stable core without having to open up their OS to cloners. They can share what they feel is appropriate and maintain MacOS unique to Apple. No one is stopping other companies from doing this; and Forbes' claim the FSF is demanding companies "burn down [their] house, or at the very least share it with cloners" is pure FUD. CISCO seemed to survive OK by complying with the GPL after FSF' lawsuit.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
The summary is quite clear.
Blender produced the video, Sintel, and publish it to Youtube under the creative commons license.
Sony reuses the video as part of their 4k marketing material.
Sony provides youtube with a "reference" copy of their marketing material, and tells youtube to find copies of the material and to exercise Sony's rights over it.
Youtube finds the original Sintel video and matches it to a "reference" copyrighted work (Sony's marketing material).
Youtube arranges for forced commercial licensing of the Blender video with proceeds going to Sony.
It seems to have been noticed and fixed.
Link to video on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
The truth shall set you free!