Slashdot Mirror
CNN and CBC Sued For Pirating YouTube Video
vivaoporto sends word that in a rare case of an individual taking on large corporations for copyright infrigement, a New York man has sued news networks CNN and CBC after they took a video of his from YouTube and broadcast it on the air without licensing it. His video shows a winter storm in Buffalo generating huge amounts of lake effect snow. The man, Alfonzo Cutaia, decided to enable monetization on his video, selecting the "Standard YouTube License," "a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of [the video]. All other rights are reserved to the copyright owner and standard copyright laws and exceptions apply." Cutaia says the CBC used his video with their logo on it. The CBC confirmed this, and said they received a 10-day license from CNN, who had no legal right to do so. His lawsuit now accuses them both of "intentional and willful" copyright infringement.
The "Canadian Brainwashing Corporation" and the "Confabulated News Network" need to be held accountable for their actions.
Mainstream media is evil.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
Copyright is good now? Ok. Got it.
royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute
This says they can use it, reproduce it, sublicense it, distribute it without paying royalties. Seems like this guy doesn't have a leg to stand on. Why is this on Slashdot?
CNN and CBC would do well to settle. Fighting this would be admitting that they don't truly believe that copyright deserves protection, and could be used against them in future lawsuits in which they are plaintiff.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Anyone who reads the article will just add more hits to the video, and give him more money since it is embedded there
Wolf Blitzer gonna fuck you up, dude.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
File a complaint with Google and have them take their entire site of the index.
On the contrary. I think you should send money to MagickalMyst for misrepresenting his/her first post as your own!
"I work as an intellectual property attorney"!
I'm surprised to read this. CNN used one of my YouTube videos once, after they reached out to me to obtain permission. Bummer.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
They're all fucking parasites. You can barely call anything news these days, it's all just click bait tabloid shit. He deserves a steak. But that's it. He can have another 10 if he uses it to slap kim kardashian in the gunt but that's a waste of good meat. We are all but manifestations of randomness, segments of chaos. Copyright is bullshit.
They left out the most important preceding section of the license paragraph:
you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide...
The CBC assumed that CNN owned it. If they got it from CNN and not YouTube, then you can't blame CBC. And before some zealot nutter starts to yelp, I will explain. If you buy a car from someone, you assume that they own it. The standard thing to do is to make sure it has the words "Free of all debts and liens" on it, and they sign it. My sister bought a car from someone and it was signed and with those words. The original owner tried to get her to pay, but she produced the bill. The sheriff tried to send a bailiff and repo truck, but she showed them the bill and said "If you take my car I will have you charged with theft". And they knew enough to back off right away. They were stuck squeezing money out of the guy who sold it to her. So the CBC paid money to CNN. CNN didn't own it, so it all falls on them.
an individual taking on large corporations for copyright infrigement happens all the time. The corporation sends an army of their internal legal staff to stand around in a courthouse arguing semantics and dragging their feet until the plaintiff simply runs out of cash and has to go back to his proletariat wageslave job.
what is rare is an individual receiving any settlement, acceptance of wrongdoing, judgement, or even a trial outside of arbitration in these circumstances. You see, unless you're a corporation then the meat of copyright law is largely designed as punitive retribution against your blithe transgressions against a cartel media system. its not actually designed to or even intended to be taken to its logical conclusion by joe sixpack.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Why is anyone in Canada paying for a video of snow?
for networks to broadcast their copyrighted stuff and still sue children about it.
But when citizens broadcast something, copyright doesn't exist and because it's in the public domain.
Corporations puts something in the public domain: kids gets arrested and copyright apply.
Citizens do the same copyright goes out the window and it's public access.
If a burglar steals something and then sells it to you, that doesn't give you legal right of ownership.
Likewise, CNN may have offered CBC a license, but since CNN had no legal right to do so, CBC in effect received nothing legal from CNN and so CBC can be sued for use of the video without a license.
While CNN get off on a "fair use" technicality
I'm sure his great, great grandchildren will look forward to their $100 payout.
CNN and CBC would do well to settle. Fighting this would be admitting that they don't truly believe that copyright deserves protection, and could be used against them in future lawsuits in which they are plaintiff.
CNN and CBC likely will settle just to get rid of it, even if paying a lot. They know they'll lose, unless they have a licensing agreement with google, for example.
The big boys regularly use content others produce without disclosing who they bought it from. A random low-level independent or semi-independent media guy will get a call about his footage after a relevant disaster and then his material will magically appear on the news network as if they had done the work themselves, and the low-level guy will usually give it away really cheap because it's a boost for his resume.
News is a really cutthroat business, despite all the ethics training.
As the article quotes, the Standard Youtube license grants any Youtube user (including CNN) license to use, reproduce, sub-license and transfer any video posted on Youtube, whether for commercial purposes or not. Our plucky individual gave CNN and CBC the rights to use and reuse the video when he uploaded it.
Now if CNN or CBC tried to issue a DMCA take-down on a video they had downloaded from YouTube, I'd definitely sue their asses.
We are the 198 proof..
Copyright is good now? Ok. Got it.
Let us go way back into the mists of time. Copyright granted pretty much one thing, and one thing only. Copyright guaranteed that IF - that really big, huge IF - anyone should make a profit off of any given work, then the AUTHOR should share in that profit.
That is only reasonable.
Where copyright has gone so very wrong is, the moment privileged, entitled individuals assumed that they were intitled to some kind of profit for every work they produced.
So, yeah, if a corporate entity is making money off of something of yours, you should get a share of the profit.
If no one profits, then you get a share of that no profit.
Let me work on this - 0 plus x minux 0 multiplied by zero - yeah, it's pretty damned close to zero.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
If you put something on Youtube or any other internet video service at least from a simple perspective you lose you any control over it. While CBC putting their logo on it sounds a little out of bounds this is like posting an accounting of an event on a public bulletin board with nothing but your name written (or worse, just a nickname) at the bottom and then suing a newspaper because they use it in one of their articles about that event. If he had put his own logo, some copyright notice or something else on the video to denote that he expected to be compensated for its use he might have a leg to stand on, but it sounds like this was just a simple posting with no obvious intent to maintain ownership.
As much as I might dislike big companies screwing over the little guy in this particular case it was fair use. It is particularly the case with any news-reporting scenario that you can use content without permission or compensation. Probably any other scenario where a commercial entity used the clip in a larger work compensation would have to be paid, but not here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
$150,000 fine per individual they broadcast the video too.
Besides, Google+ is not a subsidiary of Google, neither is Youtube.
Incorrect. Youtube LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google Inc. Large companies routinely are composed of a large number of smaller entities and Google is no exception. Youtube is ALSO a product but it is a corporation too.
They are just products offered by Google. They don't need to sublicense it to move it form one service or another.
Also incorrect. Just because both corporate entities are owned by the same company does not mean they automatically share the same rights or licensing to property.
The headline in a couple of months: Video file owner and lawyer gets a nice payoff to drop charges against big corporations.
Nothing changes.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Here's the entire thing:
For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in video Content you submit to the Service terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your videos from the Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of your videos that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in user comments you submit are perpetual and irrevocable.
Emphasis added, and that's the part he's going to lose out on. Any user of the service has a right to reproduce and distribute the content, as provided in the very same section that provides the rights under which he's trying to sue. He has no legal standing.
removing the cbc form google does very little millions already now it...we watched hockey on it for years freely....now that pay as you go rogers has it hockey will now decline very fast in canada
Youtube LLC is a wholy owned subsidiary of Alphabet. Read the news much?
Alphabet doesn't exist yet and even when it does Youtube LLC will still be a wholly owned subsidiary of Google Inc which in turn will be a subsidiary of Alphabet.
And yes I read the news. I also comprehend it.
it says so in the video description:
"A time-lapse view of Lake Erie during the lake-effect snow storm of November 18, 2014. This was taken from my office window in the Guaranty Building where I work as an intellectual property attorney at Hodgson Russ"
I think it's like the Wookie defense, only with some actual merit.
Dammit, for the n'th time, it's Chewbacca defense!
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
"Cutaia says the CBC"
"the" CBC? Not just "CBC? WTF?
Americans...
This could be the first of many similar cases considering the media worldwide assume that if a video is available on Youtube they are free to reproduce them in their TV news and shows.
This is not quite right. The media doesn't assume the video is free, what they assume is that the rights owner will never find out about the infringement. They know exactly what the law is, they just assume they won't get caught. This kind of thing is nothing new, or even unique to digital works, it's been going on for a long, long time. Just ask any veteran storm chaser. The use of storm video by news organizations without authorization, attribution or payment is something that's predates the internet by decades, as do the lawsuits that follow.
Of course, the existence of cellphone cameras and sites like Youtube has almost almost completely destroyed the market for storm footage, but that's a whole different discussion. It's actually good to see that someone can still make money from weather video provided the footage is special enough and/or goes viral. I hope this guy takes those cheap bastards for all he can get.
OK I'm not *entirely* sure what they actually are.. a Liberal trumpet, a hidden Canadian government department, an ad supported wannabe PBS clone, perhaps a political broadcasting division, maybe even a corrupt version of Beeb1 that makes the occasional good show, but there'sa some pretty vile "politically correct" trash coming out of it. Frankly, I don't want to pay for another episode of teenagers having gay sex in their free time at high school... . . . jeez..
First 1977, and then in 2002, then a repeat not long after in 2014. SEVEN feet of snow is insane! (So that's 25 years, then 12 years, meaning the next one should be due in 2020)...
KÖPA LÄGENHET I TURKIET Vill du ha en köpa en lägenhet, penthouse eller villa i Alanya, som är en av de vackraste städerna vid Medelhavet där du kan ha slappna av och vila i lugn och ro. Vi på Nordic Trust Homes är ett etablerat företag med över att 45 års erfarenhet av konstruktion och som fastighetskonsulter finns vi här för att hjälpa våra kunder samt ge bättre service. Vi på Nordic Trust Homes ser till att hitta dem bästa fastigheterna i Turkiet samt bygger lägenheter i Alanya för dig. Vi finns i Alanya och säljer även i Antalya, Side, Belek, Bodrum och Istanbul och vi ser till att hjälpa dig genom hela processen för att köpa fastighet i Turkiet. Vi finns för er och ger all service (notarie, TAPU, registrering av el, vatten registrering, få ett skattenummer, teckna försäkring mot jordbävning, välja möbler, vitvaror och inredning) att köpa fastighet i Turkiet tills du dricker ditt kaffe ifred i ditt hem. När du köper en lägenhet i Alanya så gör du samtidigt även en mycket bra investering. Du kan hyra ut din lägenhet i Alanya när som helst under året och få vinst. När du köper en lägenhet i Alanya blir du ägare en del av himlen, här finns allt du behöver för en optimal semester. Med naturliga skönheter, sociala aktiviteter, historiska platser, fantastiska stränder, parker, trädgårdar, ekologiska grönsaker och frukter så kommer detta att vara en ny plats där ditt nya liv börjar. När du köper en lägenhet i Alanya är vi alltid redo att arrangera din flygtransfer, rengöring av hemmet, hantering och underhåll. Vårt motto är ärlighet, moral och säkerhet. http://www.nordictrusthomes.se...