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.

6 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. And in the YouTube description, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    "I work as an intellectual property attorney"!

  2. oh its not rare at all... by nimbius · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  3. Re:Surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, I'm not making that up. And no, I'm not giving you identifying info. I like to shoot time lapses and one of them was relevant to an article on their site. Sorry if that's hard to believe.

    It was pretty easy to find:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

  4. Re:CBC assumed CNN owned it by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yo Zippy, CBC infringed regardless. More to the point it said 10 days license from CNN and used it for more than 10 days. So even *if* they thought they could use it lawfully they exceeded the terms.

  5. Re:So.... by kasparov · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...the display of all religious artifacts on public land...

    Wow - maybe we should remove all those Christian artifacts (specifically, crosses) from Arlington National Cemetery to satisfy your lust for de-Christianizing all government property, eh? ;)

    Have you been there? The monuments aren't crosses. They're just tombstones. The individual buried can have different logos be they crosses, stars of david, or symbols denoting atheism.

    --
    There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
  6. Re:Good luck with that... by The-Forge · · Score: 5, Informative

    The license only grants though permissions when they "access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service"

    I don't think there were playing it live from a YouTube page or through an authorized YouTube API application, so they were in violation of the license.